Lasmiditan for the acute treatment of migraine: Subgroup analyses by prior response to triptans.

BACKGROUND: Lasmiditan demonstrated superiority to placebo in the acute treatment of migraine in adults with moderate/severe migraine disability in two similarly designed Phase 3 trials, SAMURAI and SPARTAN. Post-hoc integrated analyses evaluated the efficacy of lasmiditan in patients who reported a good or insufficient response to triptans and in those who were triptan naïve. METHODS: Subgroups of patients reporting an overall response of "good" or "poor/none" to the most recent use of a triptan at baseline (defined as good or insufficient responders, respectively) and a triptan-naïve subpopulation were derived from combined study participants randomized to receive lasmiditan 50 mg (SPARTAN only), 100 mg or 200 mg, or placebo, as the first dose. Outcomes including headache pain-freedom, most bothersome symptom-freedom, and headache pain relief 2 hours post-first dose of lasmiditan were compared with placebo. Treatment-by-subgroup analyses additionally investigated whether therapeutic benefit varied according to prior triptan response (good or insufficient). RESULTS: Regardless of triptan response, lasmiditan showed higher efficacy than placebo (most comparisons were statistically significant). Treatment-by-subgroup analyses found that the benefit over placebo of lasmiditan did not vary significantly between patients with a good response and those with an insufficient response to triptans. Lasmiditan also showed higher efficacy than placebo in triptan-naïve patients. CONCLUSIONS: Lasmiditan demonstrated comparable efficacy in patients who reported a good or insufficient response to prior triptan use. Lasmiditan also showed efficacy in those who were triptan naïve. Lasmiditan may be a useful therapeutic option for patients with migraine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: SAMURAI (NCT02439320); SPARTAN (NCT02605174).

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.

Sustained responses to lasmiditan: Results from post-hoc analyses of two Phase 3 randomized clinical trials for acute treatment of migraine.

BACKGROUND: Sustained pain freedom is an important attribute of acute migraine therapies for patients and physicians. Here we report efficacy of the centrally penetrant, highly selective, 5-HT1F agonist lasmiditan on sustained pain freedom and other outcomes at 24 and 48 hours post-dose. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Data from the similarly designed, Phase 3, double-blind studies SAMURAI (NCT02439320) and SPARTAN (NCT02605174) were pooled to more precisely estimate efficacy effects in these post-hoc analyses. In both studies, inclusion criteria were 3-8 migraine attacks per month and Migraine Disability Assessment Score of ≥ 11 (at least moderate disability). Patients were randomized equally to lasmiditan 200 mg, 100 mg, 50 mg (50 mg only in SPARTAN), or to placebo. The study drug was to be taken within 4 hours of onset of pain for non-improving headache of at least moderate severity. Sustained pain freedom was defined as being pain free at 2 hours and at the given time point (24 or 48 hours) post-dose without use of additional study drug or migraine medications. Sustained responses were assessed similarly for most bothersome symptom-free, total migraine-free, and disability-free outcomes. For comparisons with previously published data on other acute medications, an additional endpoint of modified sustained pain freedom at 24 hours was defined as being pain free at 2 hours and no moderate-to-severe headache at 24 hours post-dose without use of additional study drug or migraine medications. RESULTS: Significantly higher proportions of patients treated with lasmiditan versus placebo achieved headache pain freedom at 2 hours post-dose: 200 mg: 35.6%; 100 mg: 29.9%; 50 mg: 28.6%; placebo: 18.3% (all p < 0.001). Sustained pain freedom was significantly higher in patients treated with lasmiditan versus placebo at 24 hours: 200 mg: 21.2%; 100 mg: 16.9%; 50 mg: 17.4%; placebo: 10.3% (all p < 0.01); and at 48 hours: 200 mg: 18.4%; 100 mg: 15.2%; 50 mg: 14.9%; placebo: 9.6% (all p < 0.05). Similar sustained benefits of lasmiditan versus placebo at 24 and 48 hours were noted for most bothersome symptom-free, total migraine-free and disability-free responses. Modified sustained pain freedom at 24 hours was also observed in significantly higher proportions of lasmiditan-treated patients versus placebo: 200 mg: 27.0%; 100 mg: 21.7%; 50 mg: 21.7%; placebo: 12.9% (all p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Sustained responses at 24 and 48 hours were noted in significantly more patients treated with lasmiditan versus placebo for several efficacy outcomes including pain freedom, most bothersome symptom-free, total migraine-free and disability-free responses. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER NUMBERS: SAMURAI: NCT02439320; SPARTAN: NCT02605174.

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].

Characterization of Dizziness After Lasmiditan Usage: Findings From the SAMURAI and SPARTAN Acute Migraine Treatment Randomized Trials.

TRIAL DESIGN: SAMURAI and SPARTAN were double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 studies conducted in the United States, as well as the United Kingdom and Germany (SPARTAN only). Individuals with migraine were randomized to receive oral lasmiditan 50 mg (SPARTAN only), 100 mg, 200 mg, or placebo within 4 hours of onset of a migraine attack. The aim of this analysis was to characterize dizziness reported with lasmiditan treatment. METHODS: Data from SAMURAI and SPARTAN were pooled for the current post hoc analyses. Onset time and duration of dizziness were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Subgroup analyses based on presence/absence of dizziness were performed for the endpoints of interference with daily activity, patient global impression of change (PGIC), pain at 2 hours, and most bothersome symptom (MBS) at 2 hours based on adverse events occurring within 2 hours of taking study drug. RESULTS: Dizziness incidence was as follows: Placebo (N = 1262), 2.9% (0.1% severe); lasmiditan 50 mg (N = 654), 8.6% (0.3% severe); lasmiditan 100 mg (N = 1265), 14.9% (0.7% severe); and lasmiditan 200 mg (N = 1258), 16.8% (1.4% severe). Among participants who received lasmiditan as their first dose, risk factors for dizziness were higher lasmiditan dosage, being non-Hispanic/Latino, mild or moderate severity of migraine attack, and lower body mass index. The median time to onset of dizziness was generally 30-40 minutes, and the median duration was 1.5-2 hours. The presence of dizziness did not appear to have a negative influence on lasmiditan's effect on daily activity, PGIC, freedom from pain, or MBS. Overall, 21 participants experienced vertigo: Lasmiditan 50 mg, n = 2 (0.3%); 100 mg, n = 11 (0.9%); 200 mg, n = 7 (0.6%); and placebo, n = 1 (<0.1%). CONCLUSION: The incidence of dizziness with lasmiditan increased with dose. Dizziness was generally mild or moderate in severity and of quick onset and short duration. The presence of dizziness did not influence drug efficacy.

Effect of diabetes on caregiver burden in an observational study of individuals with Alzheimer's disease.

BACKGROUND: The burden on caregivers of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) is associated with the patient's functional status and may also be influenced by chronic comorbid medical conditions, such as diabetes. This post-hoc exploratory analysis assessed whether comorbid diabetes in patients with AD affects caregiver burden, and whether caregivers with diabetes experience greater burden than caregivers without diabetes. Caregiver and patient healthcare resource use (HCRU) were also assessed. METHODS: Baseline data from the GERAS observational study of patients with AD and their caregivers (both n = 1495) in France, Germany and the UK were analyzed. Caregiver burden was assessed using the Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI). Caregiver time on activities of daily living (ADL: basic ADL; instrumental ADL, iADL) and supervision (hours/month), and caregiver and patient HCRU (outpatient visits, emergency room visits, nights hospitalized) were assessed using the Resource Utilization in Dementia instrument for the month before the baseline visit. Regression analyses were adjusted for relevant covariates. Time on supervision and basic ADL was analyzed using zero-inflated negative binomial regression. RESULTS: Caregivers of patients with diabetes (n = 188) were younger and more likely to be female (both p < 0.05), compared with caregivers of patients without diabetes (n = 1307). Analyses showed caregivers of patients with diabetes spent significantly more time on iADL (+16 %; p = 0.03; increases were also observed for basic ADL and total caregiver time but did not reach statistical significance) and had a trend towards increased ZBI score. Patients with diabetes had a 63 % increase in the odds of requiring supervision versus those without diabetes (p = 0.01). Caregiver and patient HCRU did not differ according to patient diabetes. Caregivers with diabetes (n = 127) did not differ from those without diabetes (n = 1367) regarding burden/time, but caregivers with diabetes had a 91 % increase in the odds of having outpatient visits (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This cross-sectional analysis found caregiver time on iADL and supervision was higher for caregivers of patients with AD and diabetes versus without diabetes, while HCRU was unaffected by patient diabetes. Longitudinal analyses assessing change in caregiver burden over time by patient diabetes status may help clarify the cumulative impact of diabetes and AD dementia on caregiver burden.

Acute and long-term treatment of late-life major depressive disorder: duloxetine versus placebo.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of duloxetine with placebo on depression in elderly patients with major depressive disorder. DESIGN: Multicenter, 24-week (12-week short-term and 12-week continuation), randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. SETTING: United States, France, Mexico, Puerto Rico. PARTICIPANTS: Age 65 years or more with major depressive disorder diagnosis (one or more previous episode); Mini-Mental State Examination score ≥20; Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score ≥20. INTERVENTION: Duloxetine 60 or 120 mg/day or placebo; placebo rescue possible. MEASUREMENTS: Primary-Maier subscale of the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17) at week 12. Secondary-Geriatric Depression Scale, HAMD-17 total score, cognitive measures, Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), Numeric Rating Scales (NRS) for pain, Clinical Global Impression-Severity scale, Patient Global Impression of Improvement in acute phase and acute plus continuation phase of treatment. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, duloxetine did not show significantly greater improvement from baseline on Maier subscale at 12 weeks, but did show significantly greater improvement at weeks 4, 8, 16, and 20. Similar patterns for Geriatric Depression Scale and Clinical Global Impression-Severity scale emerged, with significance also seen at week 24. There was a significant treatment effect for all BPI items and 4 of 6 NRS pain measures in the acute phase, most BPI items and half of the NRS measures in the continuation phase. More duloxetine-treated patients completed the study (63% versus 55%). A significantly higher percentage of duloxetine-treated patients versus placebo discontinued due to adverse event (15.3% versus 5.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Although the antidepressant efficacy of duloxetine was not confirmed by the primary outcome, several secondary measures at multiple time points suggested efficacy. Duloxetine had significant and meaningful beneficial effects on pain.

Further evidence for the reliability and validity of the Massachusetts General Hospital Cognitive and Physical Functioning Questionnaire (CPFQ).

BACKGROUND: The Massachusetts General Hospital Cognitive and Physical Functioning Questionnaire (CPFQ) was developed to assess clinically relevant cognitive and physical symptoms associated with depression that are not adequately assessed by traditional measures. Although the CPFQ has been shown previously to be a reliable and valid measure, the purpose of the present study was to provide additional evidence using larger samples from 4 independent clinical trials that were designed to test the efficacy and safety of different antidepressants. METHODS: The psychometric analyses were based on data from 4 independent clinical trials that were designed to test the safety and efficacy of different antidepressants. Reliability of the items and of the overall questionnaire was evaluated with principal components analysis, whereas validity was assessed by associations of the questionnaire scores with convergent and divergent external criteria. RESULTS: Overall, the results have replicated previous findings that the CPFQ has good internal reliability. Validation also is strengthened by the demonstration of predictive differences among known groups as well as a sensitivity to change with antidepressant treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Results support the use of the CPFQ as a valuable instrument for the detection of clinically relevant symptoms that are not captured by typical measures of depression used for the assessment of treatment outcomes.

The relationship between change in apathy and changes in cognition and functional outcomes in currently non-depressed SSRI-treated patients with major depressive disorder.

AIMS: Apathy in the context of treated major depressive disorder (MDD) is a frequently observed phenomenon in clinical practice. This study aimed to assess the validity of the Rothschild Scale for Antidepressant Tachyphylaxis® (RSAT) and the Massachusetts General Hospital Cognitive and Physical Functioning Questionnaire (CPFQ) for measuring apathy, and to assess the relationship between apathy and possible contributing factors, in patients with MDD and residual apathy in the absence of depressed mood. METHODS: The underlying structure and validity of the RSAT and CPFQ were assessed via factor analysis and correlation with the Apathy Evaluation Scale-Clinician rated version (AES-C) in 483 patients who had previously responded to treatment with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. The relationship between apathy and contributing variables was investigated via structural equation modeling. Correlation and regression analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) and the RSAT, CPFQ, and AES-C. RESULTS: The RSAT and CPFQ were validated with the AES-C with respect to energy and motivation. The latent variable "Energy and Interest", based on the energy, motivation, and interest items (RSAT and CPFQ), was a major contributing factor to apathy. Improvements in function (SDS) were significantly correlated with, and predicted by, improvements in apathy and cognitive and physical functioning (assessed by the RSAT, CPFQ, and AES-C). CONCLUSIONS: These analyses provide further information on apathy and its assessment in the context of treated MDD. A better understanding of apathy will aid further investigation of this phenomenon and, ultimately, determination of the most appropriate approach for its clinical management.

Clinical and functional outcomes in patients with major depressive disorder and painful physical symptoms switched to treatment with duloxetine.

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis of a multicenter, single-arm, open-label trial (the Attributes of Response in Depressed Patients Switched to Treatment with Duloxetine [ARDENT] study) assessed the relationship between functional improvement in the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) and clinical outcomes of mood, pain, and anxiety over 8 weeks after switching treatment to duloxetine in patients with major depressive disorder. METHODS: Analyses included all 195 patients who completed the study. Pearson's correlation and multivariate regression analyses were used to evaluate the relationship between change from baseline in SDS total score and 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD(17)) Maier score (mood), Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form average pain score (pain), and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale total score (anxiety) at week 8. RESULTS: At week 8, change in SDS total score was positively correlated with change in mood (r = 0.49), anxiety (r = 0.44), and pain (r = 0.40). Multivariate linear regression coefficients for mood and pain were estimated at 1.21 (standard error [SE] = 0.184) and 1.16 (SE = 0.180), respectively (both p < 0.0001) compared with 0.02 (SE = 0.097; p = 0.82) for anxiety. Overall, 43% of patients achieved both HAMD(17) and SDS total remission. CONCLUSIONS: Functional improvement at 8 weeks was positively correlated with mood, pain, and anxiety in patients with major depressive disorder switched to duloxetine. Change in mood and pain exerted a relatively stronger joint effect on functioning than did anxiety in this patient population. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Weight Gain Risk Factor assessment checklist: overview and recommendation for use.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with mental illness are at risk for weight gain. Evidence-based risk assessment checklists have the potential to identify patients at risk early in treatment and improve patient outcomes. METHODS: The 16-item Weight Gain Risk Factor (WGRF-16) checklist has been developed as a simple brief assessment of key weight gain risk factors during antipsychotic treatment. It consists of factors that were collected on the basis of published research on predictors to be assessed at initiation of, and early in treatment with antipsychotics. RESULTS: The factors in the WGRF-16 checklist included age, sex, body mass index, race, appetite, energy intake, a diagnosis of undifferentiated schizophrenia, early clinical response, comorbiditites, social activity, patient insight, housing conditions, weight satisfaction, eating habits, and physical activity level. The WGRF-16 is designed to be repeated 2-3 weeks after initiation of treatment to help to predict an individual's risk of clinically significant weight gain (>7%) during long-term treatment. Further research is required to assess the predictive validity of the checklist. CONCLUSIONS: The WGRF-16 checklist is not intended to replace other required monitoring of patients with severe mental disorders but is a facilitator of weight monitoring in conjunction with clinical guidelines.

The integral inventory for depression, a new, self-rated clinimetric instrument for the emotional and painful dimensions in major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the reliability and validity of the Integral Inventory for Depression (IID) scale using post hoc analyses of data from a multi-country study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00561509) of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: Patients (N = 1629) completed the IID (comprising two separate dimensions for emotional and physically painful symptoms; maximum score of 65) and a reference scale (16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology Self-Report) at baseline and at follow-up (8 and 24 weeks). Physicians rated MDD symptoms using the Clinical Global Impressions of Severity scale at each visit. Inter-item correlation, internal consistency, external validity, factor structure, and exploratory analysis of an optimal severity cut-off point were assessed. RESULTS: The IID displayed two distinct dimensions (i.e. painful and emotional) with little item redundancy and good internal consistency (Cronbach's α > 0.83 at each visit). The IID displayed good external validity (Pearson's correlations coefficients >0.60 at each visit) and statistically significant agreement (McNemar's test; P < 0.001 at follow-up) with the reference scale. Results suggest that a cut-off score of ≤24 had adequate precision (>80%) to identify patients with and without moderate MDD. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that the IID may be a reliable and valid tool for assessing emotional and painful symptoms of MDD.

Treatment-emergent sexual dysfunction with SSRIs and duloxetine: effectiveness and functional outcomes over a 6-month observational period.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate frequencies of treatment-emergent sexual dysfunction (TESD) in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) treated with duloxetine or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) monotherapy for up to 6 months in a prospective, observational study. METHODS: Sexually active MDD patients without sexual dysfunction at entry were enrolled from twelve countries (N = 1,647). TESD was assessed over the study period using the Arizona sexual experience (ASEX) scale. A priori-specified secondary 6-month clinical endpoints were also examined. RESULTS: The frequency of TESD at 6 months with duloxetine was comparable to that with SSRI monotherapy (23.4 and 28.7%, respectively; P = 0.087). Improvements in Clinical Global Impressions of Severity (CGI-S), 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology Self-Report (QIDS-SR(16)), Integral Inventory for Depression (IID) total scores, remission and sustained remission rates were statistically significantly greater with duloxetine than SSRI monotherapy at 6 months (P < 0.001 for each), but TESD attenuated improvements in quality of life measures. Four factors were consistently significantly (P ≤ 0.05) associated with TESD at week 8 and 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Six-month TESD rates were comparable between duloxetine and SSRIs, with greater MDD effectiveness in favour of duloxetine. Improved recognition and management of TESD may improve quality of life for MDD patients in usual clinical practice.

Duloxetine for the treatment of recurrent major depressive disorder in elderly patients: treatment outcomes in patients with comorbid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation and treatment of major depression (MDD) in elderly patients is frequently complicated by the presence of comorbid medical conditions, which can reduce the effect of depression treatment, leading to lower rates of depressive-symptom improvement and higher rates of relapse. OBJECTIVE: The authors investigated results of antidepressant concurrent with arthritis pain treatment in elderly patients. METHOD: Patients age 65 and over with recurrent MDD were stratified by arthritis status and randomized to duloxetine (a dual reuptake-inhibitor of serotonin and norepinephrine) or placebo treatment for 8 weeks (duloxetine, N=117; placebo, N=55). RESULTS: Duloxetine significantly reduced MDD symptom severity in elderly patients with and without arthritis, and produced significant reduction in several pain measures in those patients with comorbid arthritis. DISCUSSION: The magnitude and time-course of depressive symptom improvement did not differ significantly between patients with and without arthritis. Some studies have suggested that the severity of pain in arthritis patients may be linked to depression severity.

Early improvement during duloxetine treatment of generalized anxiety disorder predicts response and remission at endpoint.

Because many patients do not respond to pharmacotherapy for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), it would be beneficial to know if early response is predictive of final outcome so that timely clinical decisions can be made about augmentation or alternative treatments. This topic has not been examined with the now recommended first-line treatments (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors) for GAD. Combined data from three 9 to 10week acute treatment, multi-center, randomized, placebo-controlled studies of duloxetine for GAD were used to explore early improvement on the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA) in relation to endpoint HAMA response (> or = 50% improvement from baseline), HAMA remission (< or = 7), Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) response (< or = 2), and functional remission as measured by the Sheehan Disability Scale Global Functional Improvement (< or = 5). For duloxetine-treated patients (n=668), the relationships between the proportion of patients who achieved each category of early (week 2 and week 4) HAMA improvement (> or = 20%, > or = 40%, > or = 60%, and > or = 80%) and achievement of endpoint HAMA response, HAMA remission, CGI response, and SDS remission status were all statistically significant (all P's < or = 0.003). One hundred percent of the duloxetine-treated patients who showed substantial HAMA improvement (>80%) at week 2, and 93% at week 4, were HAMA responders at endpoint. At week 2, 79% of the duloxetine-treated patients who achieved a HAMA improvement of 40-59% were HAMA responders at endpoint. About half of duloxetine-treated patient showing 40-59% early HAMA improvement were remitters on the SDS at endpoint. These data suggest a connection between early improvement and endpoint response and remission status that can be used to guide clinical decision-making.

A randomized, double-blind comparison of duloxetine and venlafaxine in the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials assessing antidepressant therapies typically include separate assessments of efficacy (benefit) and adverse events (risk). Global benefit-risk (GBR) assessment allows the simultaneous evaluation of both efficacy and adverse events. The objective was to compare the serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) duloxetine and venlafaxine using GBR assessment. METHODS: Data were combined from two similarly designed, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel group studies in which patients with major depressive disorder were randomized to either duloxetine 60 mg/day or venlafaxine extended release (XR) 150 mg/day (75 mg/day for the first 2 weeks) for a 6-week fixed dosing period followed by an additional 6 weeks of treatment in which the dose could be increased up to 120 mg/day for duloxetine and 225 mg/day for venlafaxine. Patients completing the study (or receiving study drug for 2 weeks or more) were eligible to enter a taper period where the dose of study drug was gradually reduced over 1-2 weeks prior to drug discontinuation. The primary outcome measure (defined a priori) was the GBR comparison of duloxetine 60 mg/day and venlafaxine XR 150 mg/day after 6 weeks of treatment. In the GBR analysis, benefit was defined as remission at endpoint [17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD17) 7]. Risk was defined by four categories: patients having either no adverse events (AEs), AEs with no severity rating greater than moderate, AEs with at least one severity rating of severe, or having discontinued with a reason of self-reported adverse event (regardless of any AE severity). Additional efficacy measures included HAMD17 total score and subscales, HAMA, CGI-S, and PGI-I. Safety and tolerability were assessed via analysis of reasons for discontinuation, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), discontinuation-emergent adverse events, and changes in vital signs, weight, and laboratory analytes. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between duloxetine 60 mg/day and venlafaxine 150 mg/day as measured by GBR assessment at the end of 6 weeks (-1.418 vs. -1.079, P = 0.217) or 12 weeks (-0.349 vs. -0.121, P = 0.440), nor were there significant differences between treatment groups on the majority of efficacy measures. Significantly more venlafaxine-treated patients (74.5%) completed 12 weeks of treatment compared with duloxetine-treated patients (64.8%, P =.006). Nausea was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) for both drugs, and was significantly higher with duloxetine 60 mg/day compared to venlafaxine 150 mg/day during the first 6 weeks of treatment (43.6% vs. 35.0%, P0.05). During the taper period, significantly more venlafaxine-treated patients reported discontinuation-emergent adverse events (DEAEs) than duloxetine-treated patients. From a safety perspective, significantly more venlafaxine-treated patients (n = 4) than duloxetine-treated patients (n=0, P =.047) experienced sustained elevations of systolic blood pressure during the fixed dosing period. Otherwise, there were few significant differences in safety measures found between treatment groups during 6 and 12 weeks of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Duloxetine 60 mg/day and venlafaxine XR 150 mg/day have similar benefit-risk profiles on the basis of a comparison utilizing GBR assessment. The implications of the more subtle differences between these drugs, as well as for interpreting the GBR assessment, are discussed.

Efficacy and tolerability of duloxetine in elderly patients with generalized anxiety disorder: a pooled analysis of four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of duloxetine in elderly patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). METHODS: Acute-phase data from a subset of patients (>or=65 years) with GAD were pooled from four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of duloxetine (3 flexible, 1 fixed dosing). Patients were treated with duloxetine 60-120 mg once daily or placebo for 9-10 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the mean baseline-to-endpoint change in Hamilton anxiety scale (HAMA) total score. Secondary measures included the HAMA psychic and somatic anxiety subscales and the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS). RESULTS: Of 1491 patients randomly assigned to treatment, 4.9% (duloxetine, n = 45; placebo, n = 28) were >or= 65 years old. Compared with placebo-treated patients, duloxetine-treated patients experienced significantly greater improvements on the HAMA-total (p = 0.029), the HAMA-psychic anxiety factor (p = 0.034), HADS-anxiety (p = 0.049) and -depression scales (p = 0.026), but not the HAMA somatic anxiety factor (p = 0.074). Nausea was reported significantly more often in duloxetine-treated patients (30.0% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.023); duloxetine-treated patients experienced greater weight loss (p = 0.018). More duloxetine-treated patients discontinued treatment due to an adverse event (22.2% vs. 0%; p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Duloxetine was effective in an elderly patient subset with GAD, although there was a high rate of discontinuations due to adverse events.

Representativeness of European clinical trial populations in mild Alzheimer's disease dementia: a comparison of 18-month outcomes with real-world data from the GERAS observational study.

BACKGROUND: Comparison of disease progression between placebo-group patients from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world patients can aid in assessing the generalisability of RCT outcomes. This analysis compared outcomes between community-dwelling patients with mild Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia from two RCTs (pooled European (EU) data from EXPEDITION and EXPEDITION 2) and similar patients from the EU GERAS observational study. METHODS: Data from placebo-group patients with mild AD dementia from the RCTs (EU countries only) were compared with data from GERAS patients with mild AD dementia. Between-group differences for changes over 18 months were analysed for cognition, functioning, neuropsychiatric symptoms, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and caregiver time using propensity score-adjusted models. A sensitivity analysis compared EU/North American (EU/NA) EXPEDITION patients with GERAS patients. RESULTS: EU EXPEDITION patients (n = 168) were younger than GERAS patients (n = 566) (mean (standard deviation, SD) age 71.9 (7.4) versus 77.3 (6.9) years; p < 0.001) and were more likely to use AD treatment (95% versus 84%; p < 0.001). Cognitive performance was similar at baseline in both populations, although GERAS patients showed greater functional impairment (p = 0.005) and lower HRQoL (p < 0.05). At 18 months, no statistically significant differences between EXPEDITION (n = 133) and GERAS (n = 417) patients were observed for changes in cognitive, functional, neuropsychiatric and HRQoL outcomes. Least squares mean (95% confidence interval) change in caregiver time (hours/month) spent on instrumental activities of daily living (iADL; 29.22 (19.16, 39.27) versus 3.20 (-11.89, 18.28), p = 0.001) and supervision (66.59 (47.49, 85.69) versus 3.04 (-25.39, 31.48), p < 0.001) showed greater increases in GERAS than EXPEDITION. In the sensitivity analysis, changes in neuropsychiatric and HRQoL scores and caregiver time spent on basic ADL were also significantly greater in GERAS than in EU/NA EXPEDITION patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with mild AD dementia participating in the EU EXPEDITION RCTs and the GERAS observational study showed a similar decline in cognitive, functional and neuropsychiatric symptoms over 18 months, whereas changes in caregiver time measures were significantly greater in GERAS. Results indicate the importance of using similar regions when comparing real-world and RCT data. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00905372 EXPEDITION. Registered 18 May 2009. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00904683 EXPEDITION 2. Registered 18 May 2009.

Central pharmacodynamic activity of solanezumab in mild Alzheimer's disease dementia.

INTRODUCTION: Solanezumab treatment was previously shown to significantly increase total (bound + unbound) cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) levels of amyloid ß (Aß)1-40 and Aß1-42 in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease dementia yet did not produce meaningful cognitive effects. This analysis assessed solanezumab's central nervous system target engagement by evaluating changes in CSF total and free Aß isoforms and their relationship with solanezumab exposure. METHODS: CSF Aß isoform concentrations were measured in patients with mild Alzheimer's disease dementia from a pooled EXPEDITION + EXPEDITION2 population and from EXPEDITION3. CSF solanezumab concentrations were determined from EXPEDITION3. RESULTS: Solanezumab produced statistically significant increases in CSF total Aß isoforms versus placebo, which correlated with CSF solanezumab concentration. Inconsistent effects on free Aß isoforms were observed. Solanezumab penetration into the central nervous system was low. DISCUSSION: Solanezumab administration engaged the central molecular target, and molar ratio analyses demonstrated that higher exposures may further increase CSF total Aß concentrations.

Efficacy of duloxetine on cognition, depression, and pain in elderly patients with major depressive disorder: an 8-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the effects of duloxetine, 60 mg/day, versus placebo on cognition, depression, and pain in elderly patients with recurrent major depressive disorder. METHOD: Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to duloxetine, 60 mg/day (N=207), or placebo (N=104) for 8 weeks in a double-blind study. The primary outcome measure was a prespecified composite cognitive score composed of four individual tests. Secondary measures included the Geriatric Depression Scale, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the Visual Analogue Scale assessing pain, and standard safety and tolerability assessments. RESULTS: Patients had a median age of 72 years (range=65-90). Duloxetine demonstrated significantly greater improvement in the composite cognitive score versus placebo (least-squares mean change from baseline to endpoint: 1.95 versus 0.76), driven by improved verbal learning and memory. Duloxetine treatment showed significantly greater baseline-to-endpoint reductions in both Hamilton depression scale (-6.49 versus -3.72) and Geriatric Depression Scale (-4.07 versus -1.34) total scores compared with placebo. Hamilton depression scale response (37.3% versus 18.6%) and remission (27.4% versus 14.7%) rates at endpoint were significantly higher for duloxetine than for placebo. Duloxetine significantly improved Visual Analogue Scale scores for back pain and time in pain while awake versus placebo. Significantly fewer patients receiving duloxetine withdrew from the study because of lack of efficacy (2.9% versus 9.6%); the incidences of discontinuation due to adverse events were similar for duloxetine and placebo (9.7% versus 8.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Duloxetine improved cognition, depression, and some pain measures and was safe and well tolerated in elderly patients with recurrent major depressive disorder.