Hepatic events associated with atomoxetine treatment for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.

OBJECTIVE: This study describes and assesses potential hepatobiliary events related to atomoxetine therapy, as reported in clinical trials and as spontaneous adverse event reports post-launch in 2002. METHODS: Case reports that contained potential hepatobiliary events were identified by a computerized search of the Eli Lilly and Company atomoxetine spontaneous adverse events and clinical trials databases. All cases were reviewed by at least two company physicians, one with expertise in hepatology, to determine the relevance of the information in respect of potential liver toxicity. RESULTS: Of 7961 paediatric and adult patients treated with atomoxetine in clinical trials, 41 were identified as having hepatobiliary events requiring additional analysis. Most of these events were mild increases in ALT and AST levels. None of these cases met Hy's rule criteria or progressed to liver failure. During the 4 years after market launch, 351 spontaneous reports of adverse events were related to the liver, of which 69 had other explanations unrelated to atomoxetine. Of the remaining 282 cases, 133 contained possible confounding factors (and were deemed to be possibly related), 146 presented too little information to assess, and three suggested atomoxetine as a probable cause of liver injuries. One of the three had a positive rechallenge. All three patients recovered after discontinuation of the drug. CONCLUSIONS: Since the launch of atomoxetine therapy, three spontaneously reported cases of reversible drug-induced liver injury were deemed probably related to it. Atomoxetine should be discontinued in patients with jaundice or laboratory evidence of liver injury and should not be restarted.

An evaluation of the cardiovascular safety profile of duloxetine: findings from 42 placebo-controlled studies.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In recent years, new classes of medication, such as the serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), have been developed for use in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). For many years, treatment options were largely limited to the use of monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). However, there have been published reports of orthostatic hypotension, arrhythmias and corrected QT (QTc) interval changes in patients treated with TCAs. As new medications become available, it is important to understand how their cardiovascular safety profile compares with that of more established agents to aid clinicians and patients in choosing the best treatment options. This study was designed to evaluate the cardiovascular safety profile of the SNRI duloxetine through evaluation of cardiovascular-related parameters and adverse events (AEs). METHODS: The cardiovascular safety of duloxetine was assessed using all placebo-controlled duloxetine clinical trial data as of December 2005. This consisted of data from 42 placebo-controlled clinical trials of 8504 patients who were treated with duloxetine. Additional information from a high-dose clinical pharmacology study and postmarketing safety surveillance are also presented. Of the placebo-controlled trials included in this analysis, clinical indications under investigation included MDD (15 studies), diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (3 studies), fibromyalgia (2 studies), generalised anxiety disorder (3 studies) and lower urinary tract disorders (19 studies, all related to incontinence). Cardiovascular safety was evaluated based on vital signs, ECGs and the incidence of treatment-emergent AEs potentially related to cardiovascular safety. These safety parameters were analysed across all indications. To identify both serious and non-serious cardiovascular-related AEs, as well as AEs reported as the reason for discontinuation, a comprehensive list of terms derived from the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (version 8.0) was generated and used to search the duloxetine databases for cardiovascular-related events. RESULTS: Calculation of change from baseline to maximum in ECG parameters showed significant differences between treatment groups for all parameters, with decreases from baseline in RR, QRS and QT intervals for patients receiving duloxetine and increases from baseline for patients treated with placebo. These shifts were related to small heart rate changes, but the mean differences were not considered clinically relevant. Categorical analyses of shifts from normal to abnormal (or abnormal to normal) for heart rate and QT corrected for heart rate using Fridericia's formula (QTcF) values showed that most patients did not shift from their baseline category. Patients with MDD who were treated for up to 1 year with duloxetine had blood pressure changes early in treatment that then stabilised. Even in patients with elevated blood pressure at baseline in these clinical trials, no increased risk of sustained blood pressure elevation with duloxetine treatment was found. CONCLUSION: Overall, the findings presented here support our conclusions that use of duloxetine does not appear to be associated with significant cardiovascular risks in patients with conditions for which the drug has been approved or studied.

Duloxetine for the treatment of fibromyalgia in women: pooled results from two randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: To assess the efficacy (in particular, in pain, functional impairment, and quality of life) and safety and tolerability (incidence of adverse events, discontinuation rates, changes in laboratory findings, and vital signs) of duloxetine in female patients with fibromyalgia. METHODS: Data were pooled from two placebo-controlled clinical trials of similar design (randomized, 12-week, and double-blind), comparing duloxetine 60 mg a day (q.d.) or 60 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) (n = 326) with placebo (n = 212), in women who met the American College of Rheumatology criteria for primary fibromyalgia. RESULTS: Compared with the patients receiving placebo, duloxetine-treated female patients demonstrated a significantly greater improvement in the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) average pain severity score and in the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) total score, beginning at week 1 and continuing through week 12 (p < 0.001). Duloxetine was superior to placebo on all efficacy measures, including mean tender point threshold, Clinical Global Impression of Severity, Patient Global Impression of Improvement, and average interference from pain scores. The duloxetine-treated group was superior to placebo on all quality of life and functional measures, including each domain of the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36). A direct treatment effect of duloxetine on pain reduction was demonstrated and shown to be independent of secondary improvement in mood (based on BPI average pain score). Significantly more duloxetine-treated patients reported treatment-emergent adverse events (296 [90.8%] duloxetine-treated and 165 [77.8%] placebo-treated, p < 0.001). Rates of serious adverse events were similar between duloxetine-treated and placebo-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: The pooled results of these studies demonstrate that duloxetine is a safe and efficacious treatment for both the pain and functional impairment associated with fibromyalgia in female patients, while significantly improving quality of life.

Duloxetine in the long-term management of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain: An open-label, 52-week extension of a randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Duloxetine hydrochloride, a selective serotonin (5-HT) and norepinephrine (NE) reuptake inhibitor, is relatively balanced in its affinity for both 5-HT and NE reuptake inhibition and is the first US Food and Drug Administration-approved prescription drug for the management of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether management of DPNP with duloxetine interferes with the treatment of diabetes. It also examined the tolerability of long-term exposure to duloxetine with regard to the progression of diabetic complications, and assessed the impact of DPNP management with duloxetine versus routine care. METHODS: This was a 52-week, multicenter, re-randomized, open-label extension of a parallel, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, acute (12-week) study. Patients who completed the duloxetine or placebo acute treatment period were randomly reassigned in a 2:1 ratio to treatment with duloxetine 60 mg BID or routine care for an additional 52 weeks. The study included male and female outpatients aged ≥18 years with a diagnosis of DPNP caused by type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Over the course of the 52-week study, visits were scheduled on the following weeks (of the extension phase of the study): 1 (via phone only), 2, 4, 8, 12, 20, 28, 40, and 52. Tolerability was assessed by review and analyses of discontinuation rates, adverse events (AEs), laboratory data, vital signs, electrocardiographic results, concomitant medications, and diabetic complications. Treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) were defined as AEs that appeared during therapy (were not present at baseline) or were exacerbated during treatment. Data on AEs and concomitant medications were collected at every visit. Data on blood pressure, heart rate, and significant hypoglycemic events were collected at every visit starting from week 2. Fasting clinical chemistry and electrolyte group laboratory assessments were done at every visit, starting from week 4. Electrocardiographic data was collected at weeks 4 and 52, and glycosylated hemoglobin and lipid profile data were collected at weeks 20 and 52. Hematology and urinalysis laboratory assessments and diabetic complication assessments were done at week 52. All safety data was assessed in cases of early discontinuation. Treatment differences on quality of life (QOL) were compared using the Short Form-36 Health Status Survey (SF-36) and the EQ-5D instrument of the European Health-Related Quality of Life Measures. This was assessed at the last visit or at early discontinuation. RESULTS: The open-label extension-phase study included 337 patients (duloxetine, n = 222; routine care, n = 115). For the duloxetine group, mean age was 60.2 years, 61.3% were male, and 78.4% were white. For the routine-care group, mean age was 58.9 years, 60.0% were male, and 74.8% were white. Mean weight was 95.3 kg for both groups. None of the TEAEs occurred significantly more often in the duloxetine-treated group than in the routine-care-treated group. No TEAEs were reported by >10% of patients in the duloxetine group. The TEAEs reported by >10% of patients in the routine-care group included dizziness (11.3%), somnolence (13.0%), headache (10.4%), and vomiting (10.4%). No significant differences were found between treatment groups in the occurrence of serious AEs or in the number of patients discontinuing because of AEs. Duloxetine was significantly better than routine care on the bodily pain subscale of the SF-36 (mean change: 1.5 vs -4.1; P= 0.021) and on the EQ-5D (mean change: -0.00 vs -0.09; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Over 52 weeks of follow-up, treatment of these diabetic patients with duloxetine for peripheral neuropathic pain was associated with outcomes similar to, or significantly better than, that of routine care on most measures of tolerability, diabetic complications, and QOL.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of duloxetine in the treatment of women with fibromyalgia with or without major depressive disorder.

This was a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of duloxetine, a selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, in 354 female patients with primary fibromyalgia, with or without current major depressive disorder. Patients (90% Caucasian; mean age, 49.6 years; 26% with current major depressive disorder) received duloxetine 60 mg once daily (QD) (N=118), duloxetine 60 mg twice daily (BID) (N=116), or placebo (N=120). The primary outcome was the Brief Pain Inventory average pain severity score. Response to treatment was defined as >or=30% reduction in this score. Compared with placebo, both duloxetine-treated groups improved significantly more (P<0.001) on the Brief Pain Inventory average pain severity score. A significantly higher percentage of duloxetine-treated patients had a decrease of >or=30% in this score (duloxetine 60 mg QD (55%; P<0.001); duloxetine 60 mg BID (54%; P=0.002); placebo (33%)). The treatment effect of duloxetine on pain reduction was independent of the effect on mood and the presence of major depressive disorder. Compared with patients on placebo, patients treated with duloxetine 60 mg QD or duloxetine 60 mg BID had significantly greater improvement in remaining Brief Pain Inventory pain severity and interference scores, Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire, Clinical Global Impression of Severity, Patient Global Impression of Improvement, and several quality-of-life measures. Both doses of duloxetine were safely administered and well tolerated. In conclusion, both duloxetine 60 mg QD and duloxetine 60 mg BID were effective and safe in the treatment of fibromyalgia in female patients with or without major depressive disorder.

Detecting treatment emergent adverse events in clinical trials : a comparison of spontaneously reported and solicited collection methods.

BACKGROUND: The collection of adverse event data is an important component of clinical trials, but it is not clear whether solicited or unsolicited collection methods are better at distinguishing drug effects from the effects of placebo. The objective of this analysis is to compare the reporting rates and the ability to detect drug-placebo differences with spontaneous versus solicited adverse event collection methods. METHODS: Adverse events were collected by spontaneous (unsolicited) reporting and by structured questionnaires in three randomised, double-blind clinical trials. For both spontaneous and solicited adverse event collection methods, a drug/placebo (D/P) reporting ratio was computed by dividing the reporting rate for the experimental drug by the reporting rate for placebo for each adverse event. An index (Sp-So index) was calculated by dividing the spontaneous D/P ratio by the solicited D/P ratio. A number >1.0 indicates that the spontaneous adverse event collection method is more effective in distinguishing the drug from placebo and a number <1.0 suggests that the solicited adverse event collection method is more effective in distinguishing the drug from placebo. RESULTS: Reporting rates were greater when events were solicited than when the spontaneous reporting approach was used. The Sp-So index was >1.0 for 22 of the 29 (75.9%) events examined, suggesting that spontaneous collection of adverse events is more effective in distinguishing drug effect from placebo than the solicited approach. However, more statistically significant differences between drug and placebo were detected by the solicited method (nine events) than the spontaneous method (five events). This is due, in part, to the fact that differences in the percentages of adverse events between drug and placebo (rather than ratios of event rates) were more often greater when the solicited approach was used. CONCLUSIONS: As expected, adverse events collected by solicitation leads to higher reporting rates. However, it is not clear that solicitation of events leads to greater ability to detect drug-placebo differences. By using a ratio to assess drug-placebo differences, spontaneous reporting provided larger drug-placebo differences more often than solicitation.

Atomoxetine in adults with ADHD: two randomized, placebo-controlled studies.

BACKGROUND: [corrected] Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been less studied in adults than in children, and the treatment studies reported to date have been small, single-center trials. To assess the efficacy of atomoxetine, a new and highly selective inhibitor of the norepinephrine transporter, we conducted two large, multicenter treatment trials. METHODS: Two identical studies using randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled designs and a 10-week treatment period were conducted in adults with DSM-IV-defined ADHD as assessed by clinical history and confirmed by a structured interview (study I, n = 280; study II, n = 256). The primary outcome measure was a comparison of atomoxetine and placebo using repeated measures mixed model analysis of postbaseline values of the Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale. RESULTS: In each study, atomoxetine was statistically superior to placebo in reducing both inattentive and hyperactive and impulsive symptoms as assessed by primary and secondary measures. Discontinuations for adverse events among atomoxetine patients were under 10% in both studies. CONCLUSION: Atomoxetine appears to be an efficacious treatment for adult ADHD. Its lack of abuse potential may be an advantage for many patients.

Once-daily atomoxetine treatment for children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a randomized, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: The authors assessed the efficacy of once-daily atomoxetine administration in the treatment of children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHOD: In a double-blind study, children and adolescents with ADHD (N=171, age range=6-16 years) were randomly assigned to receive 6 weeks of treatment with either atomoxetine (administered once daily) or placebo. RESULTS: Outcomes among atomoxetine-treated patients were superior to those of the placebo treatment group as assessed by investigator, parent, and teacher ratings. The treatment effect size (0.71) was similar to those observed in previous atomoxetine studies that used twice-daily dosing. Parent diary ratings suggested that drug-specific effects were sustained late in the day. Discontinuations due to adverse events were low (less than 3%) for both treatment groups, and no serious safety concerns were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily administration of atomoxetine is an effective treatment for children and adolescents with ADHD.

Cardiovascular effects of atomoxetine in children, adolescents, and adults.

BACKGROUND: Atomoxetine is a highly specific presynaptic inhibitor of the noradrenaline (norepinephrine) transporter that was recently approved in the US for the treatment of patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Adverse effects on the cardiovascular system, including abnormalities in heart rate, blood pressure, or cardiac rhythm have been associated with several noradrenergic medications. OBJECTIVE: To further elucidate the magnitude and impact of blood pressure and pulse elevations in patients taking atomoxetine. STUDY DESIGN: Short-term cardiovascular safety in children, adolescents, and adults with ADHD was assessed in five randomised, double-blind trials (duration up to 10 weeks) with atomoxetine (n = 612) or placebo (n = 474). Long-term cardiovascular safety in children and adolescents (n = 169) was assessed in patients who entered an open-label extension or a blinded continuation following short-term treatment. METHODS: Adverse events, blood pressure, sitting pulse, and electrocardiograms (ECGs) were collected throughout the trials. QT intervals were corrected for heart rate by a data-specific correction factor (QTcD; derived from baseline ECGs) as well as standard methods. RESULTS: Atomoxetine treatment was associated with small but statistically significant increases in mean systolic blood pressure in adults and diastolic blood pressure in children and adolescents. Mean pulse rate increased for all atomoxetine treatment groups. The increases in blood pressure and pulse tended to occur early in therapy, stabilised, and returned toward baseline upon drug discontinuation. There was no significant difference between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups in change in QTcD interval for all study populations. Palpitations in the adult patient population were the only significant cardiovascular adverse event (p = 0.037) occurring more frequently in the atomoxetine treatment group (3.7%) than in the placebo group (0.8%). Discontinuations due to cardiovascular-related events were very uncommon in the adult group, and did not occur in the child/adolescent group. CONCLUSION: While atomoxetine has noradrenergic activity, increases in pulse and blood pressure were small and of little, if any, clinical significance. Atomoxetine was not associated with QT interval prolongation. Cardiovascular effects of atomoxetine were minimal, and atomoxetine was well tolerated in short- and long-term studies.

Atomoxetine and methylphenidate treatment in children with ADHD: a prospective, randomized, open-label trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the comparability of atomoxetine, a new therapy for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and methylphenidate. (Atomoxetine was originally called tomoxetine. The name was recently changed in order to avoid any potential confusion with tamoxifen that might lead to errors in dispensing drug.) METHOD: Children with ADHD were randomized to open-label atomoxetine or methylphenidate for 10 weeks. Response was assessed with the ADHD-IV Rating Scale. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-eight patients were randomized (atomoxetine n = 184, methylphenidate n = 44). Both drugs were associated with marked improvement in inattentive and hyperactive-impulsive symptom clusters as assessed by parents and investigators. No statistically significant differences between treatment groups were observed on the primary outcome measure (investigator-rated ADHD-IV Rating Scale total score: atomoxetine baseline: 39.4 [8.5], endpoint: 20.0 [13.9]; methylphenidate baseline: 37.6 [9.7], endpoint: 19.8 (16.6); p = .66). Safety and tolerability were also similar between the 2 drugs. Discontinuations due to adverse events were 10/184 (5.4%) for atomoxetine and 5/44 (11.4%) for methylphenidate; p = .175. CONCLUSION: These data provide preliminary evidence that atomoxetine is associated with therapeutic effects comparable to those of methylphenidate.

Diagnoses of gastrointestinal cancers after gastrointestinal bleeding in patients receiving clopidogrel or warfarin.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The association between gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and subsequent detection of GI cancer in patients using antiplatelet/anticoagulant medications is unclear. We investigated the association between the occurrence of GI bleeding and the detection of GI cancer and assessed whether this association differs in patients treated with clopidogrel or warfarin compared to non-treated patients. METHODS: A claims analysis was conducted using the Truven Health MarketScan(®) Research databases. Patients were grouped into the treatment cohort if they received a prescription for clopidogrel or warfarin or into the non-treatment cohort if they did not receive these medications. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for GI cancer diagnosed after GI bleeding. RESULTS: Overall, in the treatment cohort, patients who experienced a GI bleed were 6 times (HR: 5.64, 95% CI, 5.12, 6.21) more likely to be diagnosed with GI cancer compared with those without bleeding. In the non-treatment cohort patients were 13 times (HR: 13.34, 95% CI, 12.21, 14.58) more likely to be diagnosed with GI cancer after GI bleeding. The HRs of GI cancer were higher within 6 months of the first GI bleed and decreased remarkably thereafter. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that an episode of GI bleeding increased the rates of detection of GI cancers.

Efficacy of Duloxetine in Patients with Chronic Pain Conditions.

The primary objective of this study is to review the efficacy of duloxetine in treating chronic pain using the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) recommendations for clinical significance across chronic pain states. These include pain intensity, patient ratings of overall improvement, physical functioning, and mental functioning. This review comprised the side-by-side analyses of 12 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of duloxetine in patients with chronic pain (diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, chronic pain due to osteoarthritis, and chronic low back pain). Patients received duloxetine (60 to 120 mg/day) or placebo. Average pain reduction was assessed over 3 months as the primary efficacy outcome. Other measures used were physical function and Patient Global Impression of Improvement. In 10 of the 12 studies, statistically significant greater pain reduction was observed for duloxetine- compared with placebo-treated patients. The response rates based on average pain reduction, improvement of physical function, and global impression were comparable across all 4 chronic pain states. Compared with patients on placebo, significantly more patients treated with duloxetine reported a moderately important pain reduction (≥30% reduction) in 9 of the 12 studies, a minimally important improvement in physical function in 8 of the 12 studies, and a moderately important to substantial improvement in Patient Global Impression of Improvement rating in 11 of the 12 studies. The analyses reported here show that duloxetine is efficacious in treating chronic pain as demonstrated by significant improvement in pain intensity, physical functioning, and patient ratings of overall improvement.

The placebo response in pain and depression: in search of a common pathway.

The placebo effect has been extensively studied in many disease states, some of the most notable being pain and depression. Utilizing a Medline search, studies were identified that reported on areas of the brain shown to be involved in either placebo analgesia or mood response. This paper presents a distillation of this research, in an effort to identify a common "placebo pathway" between mood and pain. Placebo-related responses to both analgesia and relief from depression were reported to be associated with an increase in activity in the frontal cortex and a decrease in activity in the thalamus.

Duloxetine treatment and glycemic controls in patients with diagnoses other than diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Mood disorders are often associated with poor glycemic control, and antidepressant treatments for mood and pain disorders can alter plasma glucose levels in patients with diabetes. A previous meta-analysis from three studies showed that duloxetine modestly increased fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and HbA(1c) levels in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). This meta-analysis examined whether there were any short- and long-term effects of duloxetine (20-120 mg/day) on glycemic control in patients with diagnoses other than DPNP. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Short-term data (9-27 weeks): seven studies of duloxetine in general anxiety disorder, fibromyalgia, and chronic lower back pain (CLBP). Long-term data: 41-week, uncontrolled extension of the short-term CLBP study and 52-week study in patients with recurrence of major depressive disorder. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Baseline-to-endpoint changes in FPG and HbA(1c) levels. RESULTS: In short-term studies, patients were randomly assigned to placebo (n = 1098) or duloxetine (n = 1563). Mean baseline-to-endpoint changes in FPG and HbA(1c) did not significantly differ in duloxetine-treated patients compared with placebo-treated patients. In the 41-week study (n = 181), duloxetine-treated patients experienced a small but significant within-group baseline-to-endpoint increase in HbA(1c) (mean change = 0.1%; p < 0.001). This result was in contrast to absence of effect on mean baseline-to-endpoint within-group changes in FPG (p = 0.326) in that study, and to absence of between-treatment changes in FPG (p = 0.744) and HbA(1c) (p = 0.180) in the 52-week placebo-controlled study. CONCLUSION: Duloxetine treatment did not significantly alter FPG and HbA(1c) levels compared with placebo treatment in the short-term studies. A small but statistically significant within-group increase in HbA(1c) was found in the 41-week study, but not in between-treatment group differences in the 52-week study. Neither of the long-term studies showed significant changes in the FPG levels. The small, non-reproducible HbA(1c) increase in one study of patients without DPNP may have resulted from patients with unrecognized diabetes in these trials.

Safety and tolerability of duloxetine treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain between patients with and without cardiovascular conditions.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic patients are predisposed to cardiovascular (CV) disease and other chronic medical conditions. We compared the safety of duloxetine in patients with (CV-positive) and without (CV-negative) historical/comorbid cardiovascular conditions at study entry. METHODS: Data were pooled from three double-blind studies in which patients (age > or =18 years) with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) were randomized to 12 weeks of duloxetine (DLX) 60 mg qd (n=344), 60 mg bid (n=341), or placebo (PBO, n=339). Safety assessments included discontinuation rates, spontaneously reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), changes in vital signs, and changes in lab analytes. RESULTS: Mean age of CV-positive patients (n=762) vs. CV-negative patients (n=262) was 61.1 vs. 56.1 years. The most common historical or comorbid CV conditions were hypertension, coronary artery disease, and myocardial infarction. Discontinuation due to adverse events was higher for DLX than for PBO in both CV-positive and CV-negative patients (13.5% DLX, 6.0% PBO, and 14.3% DLX, 3.4% PBO, respectively). Rates of CV-related TEAEs in CV-positive (8.4% DLX; 9.9% PBO) and CV-negative (8.6% DLX; 5.7% PBO) patients were similar (P>.1). Mean changes in blood pressure for each DLX dose vs. PBO between CV-positive and CV-negative patients were not statistically significant (P>.1), nor were sustained hypertension rates between CV-positive (2.4% DLX; 2.8% PBO) and CV-negative (2.9% DLX; 4.7% PBO) patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, the safety of duloxetine in patients with DPNP was not found to be significantly different between patients with and without historical or comorbid CV conditions.

Safety and efficacy of duloxetine in the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain in older patients.

OBJECTIVE: We present a post-hoc analysis of the safety and efficacy of duloxetine, a selective serotonin/norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, for treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) in older patients. METHODS: Data from three double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in adult patients with DPNP were pooled and stratified by age (<65, >or=65 years). Patients were randomized to duloxetine (DLX) 60 mg once-daily, 60 mg twice-daily, or placebo for 12 weeks, followed by a 52-week extension phase (re-randomization to routine care or DLX 120 mg/day). Intent-to-treat analyses were used for safety and efficacy assessment. RESULTS: In the acute phase, overall TEAE rates did not differ significantly by age. A greater percentage of older patients discontinued due to TEAEs (P<0.001), regardless of treatment group. Duloxetine improved weekly mean 24-hour average pain scores versus placebo in both age groups (P<0.01). In the extension phase, a significant therapy-by-age interaction (P<0.05) was observed in overall TEAE rate; with routine care, 86.6% of older patients had >or=1 TEAE versus 74.6% of younger patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although TEAEs more frequently lead to discontinuation in older patients, duloxetine was well tolerated and efficacious for treatment of DPNP regardless of age. These data suggest duloxetine may be beneficial for treatment of DPNP in patients>or=65.

Hepatic effects of duloxetine-II: spontaneous reports and epidemiology of hepatic events.

OBJECTIVE: Review spontaneous reports and epidemiology of hepatic events associated with duloxetine. METHODS: Spontaneous reports of adverse events potentially associated with hepatic injury were identified. Classification schemes were Clinical Significance and Etiologic Category relative to likelihood of being related to duloxetine. RESULTS: Duloxetine has been taken by an estimated 5,083,000 patients, representing approximately 1,551,000 person-years (PY) of worldwide exposure. In the Etiologic categorization of the 406 cases containing event terms potentially related to the liver that have been reported to the manufacturer, 26 were deemed Probable and 127 Possible. Because of scantly-reported information, 182 cases were considered Indeterminate. For Severe Hepatic Injury, the observed spontaneous reporting rate was 0.7/100,000 persons exposed. Of the 406 cases, 225 experienced enzyme elevations to values <500 U/L, most with concentrations well below this level. The calculated cumulative spontaneous reporting rate of all duloxetine hepatic-related events combined was 0.00799%, in the context of other drug-induced hepatic injury rates reported in the literature of 0.7 to 40.6 per 100,000 PY of observation. CONCLUSIONS: There were few cases of true hepatic injury possibly or probably related to duloxetine. The calculated cumulative reporting rate is consistent with very rarely reported per the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences.

Hepatic effects of duloxetine-III: analysis of hepatic events using external data sources.

OBJECTIVE: Present results from two hepatic safety studies conducted within 20 months after duloxetine launch. METHODS: Signal detection based on spontaneous reports to the FDA adverse event reporting system (AERS) and on a comparison of duloxetine and venlafaxine in the i3 Drug Safety Aperio claims database, using measures of disproportionality and incidence rate ratio, respectively. RESULTS: In AERS all antidepressants had some degree of association with hepatic injury, in that at least one hepatic event was disproportionately represented for each drug. Signals were detected for duloxetine cases analyzed against full and antidepressant-only backgrounds. These signals corresponded to labeled events or events investigated during ongoing surveillance. Using a duloxetine fatal-case series, disproportional representation of clinically serious events was detected relative to both backgrounds, but the signals were refuted upon independent expert panel case review. The Aperio study showed no difference in hepatic injury between duloxetine and venlafaxine initiators after proper control for baseline risks, suggesting differential prescribing of duloxetine, perhaps preferentially as second-line therapy in some initiators. CONCLUSIONS: No new signals were identified in Aperio. New signals detected through AERS were refuted upon independently conducted case-level investigation. Hepatic signals arising from spontaneously reported data must be clarified through subsequent systematic investigation.

The relationship between antidepressant and analgesic responses: findings from six placebo-controlled trials assessing the efficacy of duloxetine in patients with major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Debate continues regarding whether onset of analgesia is faster than antidepressant effect in antidepressants with both properties. Duloxetine hydrochloride (from here on referred to as duloxetine) is effective in both major depressive disorder and diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain. This post-hoc analysis of six placebo-controlled duloxetine trials in patients with major depressive disorder was designed to compare onset of antidepressant activity to pain relief. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Duloxetine was administered at 40-120 mg/day versus placebo for up to 9 weeks in outpatient clinic settings. The primary depression measure was the HAMD(17) and pain severity was measured using visual analog scale (VAS) measuring overall pain, headache, back and shoulder pain, and pain while awake. The time course of improvement was profiled using repeated measures modeling and Kaplan-Meier product limit estimation. RESULTS: In all but one case, significant reductions in HAMD(17) and VAS scores were seen within 2 weeks of treatment. Median time to VAS response was consistently shorter across all VAS measures than that to HAMD(17) response in both placebo- and duloxetine-treated patients with at least modest levels of pain at study entry. Regression analyses consistently demonstrated little association between analgesic and antidepressant responses. Limitations of these findings include that the studies used in these analyses did not require the patients to enroll with any specific level of pain. Moreover, the type of pain exhibiting at presentation was not routinely identified; therefore, the impact of different pain types on these findings is unknown. CONCLUSIONS: Duloxetine's analgesic effect is independent of the drug's antidepressant effect. Additionally, faster onset of the analgesic effect appears to be a population-specific phenomenon that is unmodified in the presence of active agents.