Trial of Solanezumab in Preclinical Alzheimer's Disease.

BACKGROUND: Trials of monoclonal antibodies that target various forms of amyloid at different stages of Alzheimer's disease have had mixed results. METHODS: We tested solanezumab, which targets monomeric amyloid, in a phase 3 trial involving persons with preclinical Alzheimer's disease. Persons 65 to 85 years of age with a global Clinical Dementia Rating score of 0 (range, 0 to 3, with 0 indicating no cognitive impairment and 3 severe dementia), a score on the Mini-Mental State Examination of 25 or more (range, 0 to 30, with lower scores indicating poorer cognition), and elevated brain amyloid levels on 18F-florbetapir positron-emission tomography (PET) were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive solanezumab at a dose of up to 1600 mg intravenously every 4 weeks or placebo. The primary end point was the change in the Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite (PACC) score (calculated as the sum of four z scores, with higher scores indicating better cognitive performance) over a period of 240 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 1169 persons underwent randomization: 578 were assigned to the solanezumab group and 591 to the placebo group. The mean age of the participants was 72 years, approximately 60% were women, and 75% had a family history of dementia. At 240 weeks, the mean change in PACC score was -1.43 in the solanezumab group and -1.13 in the placebo group (difference, -0.30; 95% confidence interval, -0.82 to 0.22; P = 0.26). Amyloid levels on brain PET increased by a mean of 11.6 centiloids in the solanezumab group and 19.3 centiloids in the placebo group. Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) with edema occurred in less than 1% of the participants in each group. ARIA with microhemorrhage or hemosiderosis occurred in 29.2% of the participants in the solanezumab group and 32.8% of those in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Solanezumab, which targets monomeric amyloid in persons with elevated brain amyloid levels, did not slow cognitive decline as compared with placebo over a period of 240 weeks in persons with preclinical Alzheimer's disease. (Funded by the National Institute on Aging and others; A4 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02008357.).

Reduced fire severity offers near-term buffer to climate-driven declines in conifer resilience across the western United States.

Increasing fire severity and warmer, drier postfire conditions are making forests in the western United States (West) vulnerable to ecological transformation. Yet, the relative importance of and interactions between these drivers of forest change remain unresolved, particularly over upcoming decades. Here, we assess how the interactive impacts of changing climate and wildfire activity influenced conifer regeneration after 334 wildfires, using a dataset of postfire conifer regeneration from 10,230 field plots. Our findings highlight declining regeneration capacity across the West over the past four decades for the eight dominant conifer species studied. Postfire regeneration is sensitive to high-severity fire, which limits seed availability, and postfire climate, which influences seedling establishment. In the near-term, projected differences in recruitment probability between low- and high-severity fire scenarios were larger than projected climate change impacts for most species, suggesting that reductions in fire severity, and resultant impacts on seed availability, could partially offset expected climate-driven declines in postfire regeneration. Across 40 to 42% of the study area, we project postfire conifer regeneration to be likely following low-severity but not high-severity fire under future climate scenarios (2031 to 2050). However, increasingly warm, dry climate conditions are projected to eventually outweigh the influence of fire severity and seed availability. The percent of the study area considered unlikely to experience conifer regeneration, regardless of fire severity, increased from 5% in 1981 to 2000 to 26 to 31% by mid-century, highlighting a limited time window over which management actions that reduce fire severity may effectively support postfire conifer regeneration.

Applying climate change refugia to forest management and old-growth restoration.

Recent studies highlight the potential of climate change refugia (CCR) to support the persistence of biodiversity in regions that may otherwise become unsuitable with climate change. However, a key challenge in using CCR for climate resilient management lies in how CCR may intersect with existing forest management strategies, and subsequently influence how landscapes buffer species from negative impacts of warming climate. We address this challenge in temperate coastal forests of the Pacific Northwestern United States, where declines in the extent of late-successional forests have prompted efforts to restore old-growth forest structure. One common approach for doing so involves selectively thinning forest stands to enhance structural complexity. However, dense canopy is a key forest feature moderating understory microclimate and potentially buffering organisms from climate change impacts, raising the possibility that approaches for managing forests for old-growth structure may reduce the extent and number of CCR. We used remotely sensed vegetation indices to identify CCR in an experimental forest with control and thinned (restoration) treatments, and explored the influence of biophysical variables on buffering capacity. We found that remotely sensed vegetation indices commonly used to identify CCR were associated with understory temperature and plant community composition, and thus captured aspects of landscape buffering that might instill climate resilience and be of interest to management. We then examined the interaction between current restoration strategies and CCR, and found that selective thinning for promoting old-growth structure had only very minor, if any, effects on climatic buffering. In all, our study demonstrates that forest management approaches aimed at restoring old-growth structure through targeted thinning do not greatly decrease buffering capacity, despite a known link between dense canopy and CCR. More broadly, this study illustrates the value of using remote sensing approaches to identify CCR, facilitating the integration of climate change adaptation with other forest management approaches.

Trial of Solanezumab for Mild Dementia Due to Alzheimer's Disease.

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease is characterized by amyloid-beta (Aß) plaques and neurofibrillary tangles. The humanized monoclonal antibody solanezumab was designed to increase the clearance from the brain of soluble Aß, peptides that may lead to toxic effects in the synapses and precede the deposition of fibrillary amyloid. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial involving patients with mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease, defined as a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of 20 to 26 (on a scale from 0 to 30, with higher scores indicating better cognition) and with amyloid deposition shown by means of florbetapir positron-emission tomography or Aß1-42 measurements in cerebrospinal fluid. Patients were randomly assigned to receive solanezumab at a dose of 400 mg or placebo intravenously every 4 weeks for 76 weeks. The primary outcome was the change from baseline to week 80 in the score on the 14-item cognitive subscale of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-cog14; scores range from 0 to 90, with higher scores indicating greater cognitive impairment). RESULTS: A total of 2129 patients were enrolled, of whom 1057 were assigned to receive solanezumab and 1072 to receive placebo. The mean change from baseline in the ADAS-cog14 score was 6.65 in the solanezumab group and 7.44 in the placebo group, with no significant between-group difference at week 80 (difference, -0.80; 95% confidence interval, -1.73 to 0.14; P=0.10). As a result of the failure to reach significance with regard to the primary outcome in the prespecified hierarchical analysis, the secondary outcomes were considered to be descriptive and are reported without significance testing. The change from baseline in the MMSE score was -3.17 in the solanezumab group and -3.66 in the placebo group. Adverse cerebral edema or effusion lesions that were observed on magnetic resonance imaging after randomization occurred in 1 patient in the solanezumab group and in 2 in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Solanezumab at a dose of 400 mg administered every 4 weeks in patients with mild Alzheimer's disease did not significantly affect cognitive decline. (Funded by Eli Lilly; EXPEDITION3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01900665 .).

Phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study of lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine.

Lasmiditan, a serotonin 5-HT1F receptor agonist, was effective for acute treatment of patients with migraine in a phase 3 double-blind randomized controlled study. The current study was designed to replicate these findings in a generalizable population of patients with migraine, including those with a cardiovascular medical history. This prospective, double-blind, phase 3 multicentre study randomly assigned patients with migraine with and without aura (1:1:1:1 ratio) to oral lasmiditan 200 mg, 100 mg, 50 mg, or placebo. Patients were instructed to dose at home within 4 h of onset of migraine attack of at least moderate intensity and not improving. The primary objective was to assess the proportion of patients' headache pain-free and most bothersome symptom-free at 2 h post-dose for each dose of lasmiditan versus placebo (NCT02605174). Patients (n = 3005) were assigned and treated (n = 2583, safety population): 1938 lasmiditan (200 mg n = 528, 100 mg n = 532, and 50 mg n = 556 included in primary analysis) and 645 placebo (540 included in primary analysis). Most patients (79.2%) had ≥1 cardiovascular risk factor at baseline, in addition to migraine. Lasmiditan was associated with significantly more pain freedom at 2 h (lasmiditan 200 mg: 38.8%, odds ratio 2.3, 95% confidence interval 1.8-3.1, P < 0.001; 100 mg: 31.4%, odds ratio 1.7, 1.3-2.2, P < 0.001; 50 mg: 28.6%, odds ratio 1.5, 1.1-1.9, P = 0.003 versus placebo 21.3%) and freedom from most bothersome symptom at 2 h (lasmiditan 200 mg: 48.7%, odds ratio 1.9, 95% confidence interval 1.4-2.4, P < 0.001; 100 mg: 44.2%, odds ratio 1.6, 1.2-2.0, P < 0.001; 50 mg: 40.8%, odds ratio 1.4, 1.1-1.8, P = 0.009 versus placebo 33.5%). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 253 of 649 (39.0%), 229 of 635 (36.1%), and 166 of 654 (25.4%) of patients on lasmiditan 200, 100, and 50 mg, respectively, versus 75 of 645 (11.6%) on placebo. Most adverse events were CNS-related and included dizziness, somnolence and paraesthesia. Lasmiditan was effective at 2 h post-dose for acute treatment of migraine at all oral doses tested. Efficacy and safety were consistent with the previous phase 3 study.

Interim results of a prospective, randomized, open-label, Phase 3 study of the long-term safety and efficacy of lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine (the GLADIATOR study).

OBJECTIVES: To address the need for long-term lasmiditan data, the GLADIATOR study evaluated the safety (primary) and efficacy (secondary) of lasmiditan for the intermittent, acute treatment of migraine attacks for up to 1 year. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, open-label, Phase 3 study, patients who had completed either of two single-attack studies were offered the opportunity to be randomized 1:1 to lasmiditan 100 mg or 200 mg. Patients were asked to use lasmiditan as the first treatment for each new migraine attack of at least moderate severity. Assessments occurred at baseline and at prespecified time increments up to 48 hours after each dose of study drug using an electronic diary, and safety was assessed throughout the study. Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) was assessed at each visit. RESULTS: As of the cut-off date for this interim analysis (6 March 2018), 1978 patients had received ≥ 1 lasmiditan dose and treated 19,058 migraine attacks. Overall, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were similar to those in the single-attack studies and included dizziness (18.6%), somnolence (8.5%), and paresthesia (6.8%). The frequency of TEAEs generally decreased with subsequent attacks. No treatment-related serious adverse events and no cardiovascular TEAEs potentially due to vasoconstriction were observed. For both lasmiditan doses, efficacy measures were generally consistent over study quarters and treated attacks. Overall, across all treated attacks at 2 hours post-dose, pain freedom was observed in 26.9% of the attacks treated with lasmiditan 100 mg and 32.4% of the attacks treated with lasmiditan 200 mg. MIDAS total scores decreased over time. CONCLUSIONS: The interim results of this long-term study showed intermittent lasmiditan (100 mg and 200 mg) to be generally well tolerated and efficacious for the acute treatment of migraine over a 1-year period. Trial registration number: NCT02565186; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02565186.

Effect of a rescue or recurrence dose of lasmiditan on efficacy and safety in the acute treatment of migraine: findings from the phase 3 trials (SAMURAI and SPARTAN).

BACKGROUND: We studied the efficacy and safety of a second dose of lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine. METHODS: SAMURAI and SPARTAN were double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 studies in which individuals with migraine were randomized to oral lasmiditan 50 mg (SPARTAN only), 100 mg, 200 mg, or placebo. Study drug was to be taken within 4 h (h) of onset of a migraine attack (moderate or severe pain). A second dose of study drug was provided for rescue (patient not pain-free at 2 h and took a second dose 2-24 h post-first dose) or recurrence (patient pain-free at 2 h, but experienced recurrence of mild, moderate, or severe migraine pain and took a second dose 2-24 h after first dose). Randomization to second dose occurred at baseline; patients originally assigned lasmiditan were randomized to the same lasmiditan dose or placebo (2:1 ratio), and those originally assigned placebo received placebo. Data from SAMURAI and SPARTAN were pooled for efficacy and safety assessment of a second dose of lasmiditan. RESULTS: The proportion of patients taking a second dose was lower with lasmiditan versus placebo, and decreased with increasing lasmiditan dose; the majority who took a second dose did so for rescue. In patients taking lasmiditan as first dose, outcomes (pain free, most bothersome symptom [MBS] free) at 2 h after a second dose for rescue were similar whether the second dose was lasmiditan or placebo (p > 0.05 in all cases). In patients taking lasmiditan for first dose, outcomes at 2 h after a second dose for recurrence were as follows: lasmiditan pooled versus placebo - pain free, 50% vs 32% (p > 0.05); MBS free, 71% vs 41% (p = 0.02); pain relief, 77% vs 52% (p = 0.03). In patients whose first dose was lasmiditan, the incidence of treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) reported after the second dose was similar whether second dose was lasmiditan or placebo. CONCLUSIONS: A second dose of lasmiditan showed some evidence of efficacy when taken for headache recurrence. There was no clear benefit of a second dose of lasmiditan for rescue treatment. The incidences of TEAEs were similar whether the second dose was lasmiditan or placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION: SAMURAI ( NCT02439320 ) [April 2015]. SPARTAN ( NCT02605174 ) [May 2016].

Integrating mechanistic and empirical model projections to assess climate impacts on tree species distributions in northwestern North America.

Empirical and mechanistic models have both been used to assess the potential impacts of climate change on species distributions, and each modeling approach has its strengths and weaknesses. Here, we demonstrate an approach to projecting climate-driven changes in species distributions that draws on both empirical and mechanistic models. We combined projections from a dynamic global vegetation model (DGVM) that simulates the distributions of biomes based on basic plant functional types with projections from empirical climatic niche models for six tree species in northwestern North America. These integrated model outputs incorporate important biological processes, such as competition, physiological responses of plants to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and fire, as well as what are likely to be species-specific climatic constraints. We compared the integrated projections to projections from the empirical climatic niche models alone. Overall, our integrated model outputs projected a greater climate-driven loss of potentially suitable environmental space than did the empirical climatic niche model outputs alone for the majority of modeled species. Our results also show that refining species distributions with DGVM outputs had large effects on the geographic locations of suitable habitat. We demonstrate one approach to integrating the outputs of mechanistic and empirical niche models to produce bioclimatic projections. But perhaps more importantly, our study reveals the potential for empirical climatic niche models to over-predict suitable environmental space under future climatic conditions.

Statistical properties of continuous composite scales and implications for drug development.

Little research has been conducted on the statistical properties of composite measures comprising linear combinations of continuous component scales. We assessed the quantitative relationship between the composites and their individual components regarding their abilities to detect treatment effects. In particular, we developed the mathematical derivation of the treatment effect size of a continuous composite in relation to the treatment effect sizes of its components and proved multiple properties of the composite. We demonstrated that the treatment effect size of a composite is greater than the minimum treatment effect size of its components and that above certain thresholds of correlations of components and ratios of component effect sizes, the composite may outperform its components. Examples from Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical studies of solanezumab and donepezil using the composite Integrated AD Rating Scale (iADRS) and its components, the AD Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) and AD Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living inventory, instrumental items (ADCS-iADL) were consistent with the theoretical statistical properties. The understanding of the quantitative relationships between continuous composites and their components will be useful in clinical trial design and the development of new scales and composites across therapeutic areas.

Florbetapir F18 PET Amyloid Neuroimaging and Characteristics in Patients With Mild and Moderate Alzheimer Dementia.

BACKGROUND: Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer disease (AD) is challenging, with a 70.9%-87.3% sensitivity and 44.3%-70.8% specificity, compared with autopsy diagnosis. Florbetapir F18 positron emission tomography (FBP-PET) estimates beta-amyloid plaque density antemortem. METHODS: Of 2052 patients (≥55 years old) clinically diagnosed with mild or moderate AD dementia from 2 solanezumab clinical trials, 390 opted to participate in a FBP-PET study addendum. We analyzed baseline prerandomization characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 22.4% had negative FBP-PET scans, whereas 72.5% of mild and 86.9% of moderate AD patients had positive results. No baseline clinical variable reliably differentiated negative from positive FBP-PET scan groups. CONCLUSIONS: These data confirm the challenges of correctly diagnosing AD without using biomarkers. FBP-PET can aid AD dementia differential diagnosis by detecting amyloid pathology antemortem, even when the diagnosis of AD is made by expert clinicians.

Phase 3 solanezumab trials: Secondary outcomes in mild Alzheimer's disease patients.

INTRODUCTION: EXPEDITION and EXPEDITION2 were identically designed placebo-controlled phase 3 studies assessing effects of solanezumab, an antiamyloid monoclonal antibody binding soluble amyloid-ß peptide, on cognitive and functional decline over 80 weeks in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD). Primary findings for both studies have been published. METHODS: Secondary analyses of efficacy, biomarker, and safety endpoints in the pooled (EXPEDTION + EXPEDITION2) mild AD population were performed. RESULTS: In the mild AD population, less cognitive and functional decline was observed with solanezumab (n = 659) versus placebo (n = 663), measured by Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale Cognitive subscale, Mini-Mental State Examination, and Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living functional scale Instrumental ADLs. Baseline-to-endpoint changes did not differ between treatment groups for Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living functional scale, basic items of the ADCS-ADL, and Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes. Plasma/cerebrospinal fluid biomarker findings indicated target engagement by solanezumab. Solanezumab demonstrated acceptable safety. Efficacy findings for the moderate AD population are also provided. DISCUSSION: These findings describe solanezumab effects on efficacy/safety measures in a mild AD population. Another phase 3 study, EXPEDITION3, will investigate solanezumab's effects in a mild AD population.

Florbetapir positron emission tomography and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the relationship between florbetapir-F18 positron emission tomography (FBP PET) and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers. METHODS: Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative-Grand Opportunity and Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative 2 (GO/2) healthy control (HC), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia subjects with clinical measures and CSF collected ±90 days of FBP PET data were analyzed using correlation and logistic regression. RESULTS: In HC and MCI subjects, FBP PET anterior and posterior cingulate and composite standard uptake value ratios correlated with CSF amyloid beta (Aß1-42) and tau/Aß1-42 ratios. Using logistic regression, Aß1-42, total tau (t-tau), phosphorylated tau181P (p-tau), and FBP PET composite each differentiated HC versus AD. Aß1-42 and t-tau distinguished MCI versus AD, without additional contribution by FBP PET. Total tau and p-tau added discriminative power to FBP PET when classifying HC versus AD. CONCLUSION: Based on cross-sectional diagnostic groups, both amyloid and tau measures distinguish healthy from demented subjects. Longitudinal analyses are needed.

Association between clinical measures and florbetapir F18 PET neuroimaging in mild or moderate Alzheimer's disease dementia.

Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is challenging, with 20% or more of patients misdiagnosed, even by expert clinicians. The authors conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis comparing baseline neuropsychiatric and other clinical characteristics in 199 expert-diagnosed mild and moderate AD dementia patients participating in industry-sponsored clinical trials of an investigational therapy, where 18% lacked florbetapir positron emission tomography (PET) evidence of AD neuropathology. Significant differences were found only for cognition and ApoE ε4 status, but the large degree of score overlap would preclude using these measures to predict AD misdiagnosis. This study highlights the value of amyloid PET when evaluating patients with seemingly typical AD.

A pooled analysis of injection site-related adverse events in patients with schizophrenia treated with olanzapine long-acting injection.

BACKGROUND: Depot antipsychotic injections are an important tool for the management of patients with schizophrenia who have difficulty with adherence to oral medication. However, pain and discomfort at the injection site can be a potential impediment to the use of these long-acting formulations. We report here the results of a pooled analysis of injection site-related adverse events (AEs) collected during treatment with the olanzapine long-acting injection (olanzapine LAI). METHODS: Unsolicited injection site-related AEs were pooled from 7 olanzapine LAI clinical trials conducted in patients between March 2001 and December 2010. All patients had a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) or Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and were between the ages of 18 and 75. Doses ranged from 45 to 405 mg olanzapine LAI, and injection intervals were 2, 3, or 4 weeks. Events were evaluated for severity, timing, possible risk factors, and outcome. A criterion of p < .05 for statistical significance was used for all tests. RESULTS: A total of 1752 patients received at least 1 olanzapine LAI injection. Of these, 92 patients (5.3%) reported at least 1 injection site-related AE, with "pain" being the most common type (2.9%). Most events were mild (81.4%) and the median duration was 3 days. Four patients (0.2%) discontinued due to injection site-related AEs. Dose volume and body mass index did not appear to affect the probability of injection site-related AEs. However, patients who experienced a post-injection delirium/sedation syndrome event (n = 37) were more likely to have or have had an injection site-related AE at some time during the study. Incidence of injection site-related AEs appeared to decrease over time. In 94.2% of the injection site-related AEs, no specific treatment or concomitant medication was reported; in 9 cases, patients received pharmacologic treatment for reaction, mass, abscess, rash, or pain. CONCLUSIONS: Injection site-related AEs with olanzapine LAI were generally mild. The incidence and nature of these injection site-related AEs were generally similar to those occurring during treatment with other injectable antipsychotics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID; URL: NCT00094640, NCT00088478, NCT00088491, NCT00088465, and NCT00320489.

Safety and efficacy of olanzapine in the long-term treatment of Japanese patients with bipolar I disorder, depression: an integrated analysis.

AIM: Safety and efficacy of long-term olanzapine treatment in Japanese patients with bipolar depression were assessed. METHODS: An integrated analysis of data from two studies was performed in olanzapine-treated patients (n = 165) with bipolar depression. Study 1 was a 6-week, double-blind, global study. Patients were randomly assigned to olanzapine or placebo followed by 18 weeks of open-label treatment. Study 2 was an open-label extension of Study 1 involving only Japanese patients. Patients assigned to Pre-olanzapine and Pre-placebo in Study 1 were treated for 24 weeks (total olanzapine exposure 42 or 48 weeks) and newly recruited patients (New-olanzapine) were treated for 48 weeks. Safety outcomes included treatment-emergent adverse events and changes in metabolic parameters. Efficacy outcome was assessed with Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score. RESULTS: Forty-three percent of patients completed the 42- or 48-week olanzapine treatment period. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event was weight increased (47.9%). Significant increases were seen in weight (3.5 kg), and in fasting glucose (3.5 mg/dL), fasting total cholesterol (8.1 mg/dL), and fasting triglycerides (35.1 mg/dL). Remission rates (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score ≤12 at any time) were 79.8% for the Pre-olanzapine group, 90.2% for the Pre-placebo group, and 85.0% for the New-olanzapine group. No patents developed mania during treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term use of olanzapine in a Japanese population with bipolar depression is associated with increases in weight and fasting metabolic measures, and also with improved depressive symptoms with avoidance of mania. Clinicians must carefully consider the benefits and risks of long-term therapy with olanzapine.

Efficacy and safety of olanzapine for treatment of patients with bipolar depression: Japanese subpopulation analysis of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of olanzapine monotherapy are evaluated in Japanese patients from a large, global study of bipolar depression. METHODS: This is an analysis of Japanese patients from a 6-week, global (Japan, China, Korea, Taiwan, and the United States), randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase 3 study of patients with a depressive episode of bipolar I disorder. The primary outcome was baseline-to-endpoint change in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. Secondary outcome measures included the Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar Version Severity of Illness Scale (CGI-BP), the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17) total score, the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score, and rates of response (≥50% baseline-to-endpoint reduction in MADRS total score), recovery, and remission. RESULTS: Of the 156 Japanese patients, 104 had been allocated to olanzapine and 52 to placebo. All results are baseline-to-endpoint change. Compared to placebo, patients in the olanzapine group experienced greater improvement in the primary outcome measure, MADRS total score (-14.9 vs. -10.7; p = .01). They also had greater reductions in the following secondary measures: CGI- BP Depression (-1.41 vs. -0.89; p = .008), CGI-BP Bipolar (-1.31 vs. -0.83; p = .01), HAMD-17 (-11.7 vs. -7.9; p < .01), and YMRS (-0.32 vs. 0.34; p = .03). Differences in rates of response, recovery, and remission were not statistically significant. A greater proportion of olanzapine-treated patients reported treatment- emergent adverse events (87.5% vs. 59.6%; p < .001). Patients treated with olanzapine had greater increases in weight (p < .001) and fasting total cholesterol (p = .008); fasting triglycerides (p = .02), and fasting low-density lipoprotein (p = .01). There was a greater reduction in fasting high-density lipoprotein in olanzapine-treated patients (p = .01). Compared with placebo-group patients, more olanzapine-group patients shifted from borderline to high cholesterol (25.0% vs. 0.0%; p = .007) and had clinically significant weight gain (≥7% body weight) (20.2% vs. 1.9%; p = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Results of this analysis support the efficacy and tolerability of olanzapine for the treatment of bipolar depression in Japanese patients. Results in this population were consistent with those seen in the more ethnically diverse parent study. In making treatment decisions for individual patients, clinicians should carefully consider the risks and benefits of olanzapine treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicatrials.gov ID NCT00510146 Olanzapine Treatment of Patients with Bipolar I Disorder.

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of olanzapine in patients with bipolar I depression.

BACKGROUND: Atypical antipsychotics are widely used in bipolar mania. However, the efficacy of atypical antipsychotics in bipolar depression has not been comprehensively explored. AIMS: To evaluate olanzapine monotherapy in patients with bipolar depression. METHOD: Patients with bipolar depression received olanzapine (5-20 mg/day, n = 343) or placebo (n = 171) for 6 weeks. The primary outcome was change from baseline to end-point in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. Secondary outcomes included: Clinical Global Impression - Bipolar Version (CGI-BP) scale, 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-17) and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) scores, and the rate of response (≥50% reduction in MADRS at end-point), recovery (MADRS ≤12 for ≥4 weeks plus treatment completion) and remission (MADRS ≤8). The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00510146). RESULTS: Olanzapine demonstrated: significantly greater (P<0.04) improvements on MADRS (least-squares mean change -13.82 v. -11.67), HRSD-17 and YMRS total scores and all CGI-BP subscale scores v. placebo; significantly (P≤0.05) more response and remission, but not recovery; significantly (P<0.01) greater mean increases in weight, fasting cholesterol and triglycerides; and significantly more (P<0.001) patients gained ≥7% body weight. CONCLUSIONS: Olanzapine monotherapy appears to be efficacious in bipolar depression. Additional long-term studies are warranted to confirm these results. Safety findings were consistent with the known safety profile of olanzapine.

Health-related quality of life as measured by the child health questionnaire in adolescents with bipolar disorder treated with olanzapine.

AIM: To examine health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in adolescents with bipolar disorder before and after double-blind treatment with olanzapine or placebo. METHODS: Parents or legal guardians of 160 adolescents with a manic or mixed episode associated with bipolar I disorder were asked to rate their child's health using the Child Health Questionnaire-Parental Form 50 at baseline, before receiving medication, and then again at the end of participation in a 3-week double-blind placebo-controlled study of olanzapine. RESULTS: Adolescents in both treatment groups began and ended the study with significantly lower scores than normalized values of healthy peers on several HRQoL subscales (lower ratings indicate more impaired functioning), especially those assessing psychosocial factors. However, participants receiving olanzapine exhibited greater improvement than those in the placebo group across multiple HRQoL subscales, including the Behavior, Family activities, and Mental health subscales. Reduction in manic symptoms was associated with improvement in HRQoL values. CONCLUSIONS: As expected, manic adolescents with bipolar disorder exhibit abnormalities in psychosocial, rather than physical factors associated with HRQoL. Treatment with olanzapine had a greater effect on multiple domains of psychosocial functioning compared with placebo, suggesting that in addition to improving manic symptoms, pharmacologic interventions may lessen some of psychosocial deficits experienced by adolescents with bipolar disorder. However, following 3 weeks of treatment, adolescents with bipolar disorder continued to exhibit deficits in several aspects of psychosocial functioning, indicating that additional pharmacologic and psychosocial interventions may be necessary to further improve functional outcome.

Integrated Alzheimer's Disease Rating Scale: Clinically meaningful change estimates.

Introduction: The Integrated Alzheimer's Disease Rating Scale (iADRS) has been used to detect differences in disease progression in early Alzheimer's disease (AD). The objectives of this study were to enhance understanding of iADRS point changes within the context of clinical trials, and to establish a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) on the iADRS. Methods: Data from AMARANTH and EXPEDITION3 were analyzed using various approaches, including anchor-based, distribution-based, regression analyses, and cumulative distribution function (CDF) plots. Three potential anchors were examined, including the Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes, Mini-Mental State Examination, and Functional Activities Questionnaire. Triangulation of all results was used to determine the MCID for participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to AD and AD with mild dementia. Results: All three anchors met criteria for "sufficiently associated" (|r| = 0.4-0.7). Cumulatively, results from anchor-based and distribution-based results converged to suggest an iADRS MCID of 5 points for MCI due to AD and 9 points for AD with mild dementia. Regression analyses and CDF plots supported these values. Discussion: These findings suggest the iADRS can be used in clinical trials to detect a clinically meaningful outcome of AD progression.