Sexual functioning in patients with major depressive disorder in randomized placebo-controlled studies of extended release quetiapine fumarate.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated sexual functioning from 6 acute, randomized, placebo-controlled studies (6-10 weeks) of once-daily extended release quetiapine fumarate (quetiapine XR) 50, 150, or 300 mg/day as monotherapy (Studies 1-4) or adjunct therapy (Studies 6-7) in major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: We present a pre-planned, non-inferiority analysis of quetiapine XR monotherapy versus placebo using Changes in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) total score change (Studies 1-4). Post hoc analyses evaluated CSFQ total and domain scores for fixed-dose monotherapy (Studies 1-2), modified fixed-dose (Studies 3-4), and adjunct therapy studies (Studies 6-7). CSFQ data for active comparators (duloxetine [Study 2], escitalopram [Study 4]) are reported. RESULTS: Quetiapine XR monotherapy was non-inferior to placebo for sexual functioning (least squares mean [LSM] difference in CSFQ score change versus placebo, 0.16 [95% confidence interval: -0.59, 0.92]); LSM change in CSFQ score: 1.90, quetiapine XR (all doses) and 1.73, placebo. LSM differences versus placebo (95% confidence interval): 0.18 (-1.40, 1.75), duloxetine (Study 2); 0.16 (-1.77, 2.10), escitalopram (Study 4). LSM differences with adjunct quetiapine XR 150 mg/day (0.52; p = 0.338) or 300 mg/day (0.22; p = 0.679) were comparable with placebo plus antidepressants. Post hoc all-patient and gender-specific analyses were comparable for CSFQ total scores versus placebo with quetiapine XR 50, 150, or 300 mg/day, duloxetine, and escitalopram. Discussion Lack of negative effects on sexual functioning in patients with MDD may improve treatment acceptability. CONCLUSION: Quetiapine XR (monotherapy or adjunct therapy) had an impact on sexual function that was comparable with placebo.

Development and content validity of a patient reported outcomes measure to assess symptoms of major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: Although many symptoms of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) are assessed through patient-report, there are currently no patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments that incorporate documented evidence of patient input in PRO instrument development. A review of existing PROs used in MDD suggested the need to conduct qualitative research with patients with MDD to better understand their experience of MDD and develop an evaluative instrument with content validity. The aim of this study was to develop a disease-specific questionnaire to assess symptoms important and relevant to adult MDD patients. METHODS: The questionnaire development involved qualitative interviews for concept elicitation, instrument development, and cognitive interviews to support content validity. For concept elicitation, ten MDD severity-specific focus group interviews with thirty-eight patients having clinician-confirmed diagnoses of MDD were conducted in January 2009. A semi-structured discussion guide was used to elicit patients' spontaneous descriptions of MDD symptoms. Verbatim transcripts of focus groups were coded and analyzed to develop a conceptual framework to describe MDD. A PRO instrument was developed by operationalizing concepts elicited in the conceptual framework. Cognitive interviews were carried out in patients (n = 20) to refine and test the content validity of the instrument in terms of item relevance and comprehension, instructions, recall period, and response categories. RESULTS: Concept elicitation focus groups identified thirty-five unique concepts falling into several domains: i) emotional, ii) cognitive, iii) motivation, iv) work, v) sleep, vi) appetite, vii) social, viii) activities of daily living, ix) tired/fatigue, x) body pain, and xi) suicidality. Concept saturation, the point at which no new relevant information emerges in later interviews, was achieved for each of the concepts. Based on the qualitative findings, the PRO instrument developed had 15 daily and 20 weekly items. The cognitive interviews confirmed that the instructions, item content, and response scales were understood by the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Rigorous qualitative research resulted in the development of a PRO measure for MDD with supported content validity. The MDD PRO can assist in understanding and assessing MDD symptoms from patients' perspectives as well as evaluating treatment benefit of new targeted therapies.

Effectiveness of psychotropic medications in the maintenance phase of bipolar disorder: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to examine the efficacy of maintenance treatments for bipolar disorder. Placebo-controlled or active comparator bipolar maintenance clinical trials of ≥6 months' duration with at least 15 patients/treatment group were identified using Medline, EMBASE, clinicaltrials.gov, and Cochrane databases (1993 to July 2010). The main outcome measure was relative risk for relapse for patients in remission. Twenty trials (5,364 patients) were identified. Overall, lithium and quetiapine were the most studied agents (eight and five trials, respectively). The majority of studies included patients who had previously responded to treatment for an acute episode. All interventions, with the exception of perphenazine+mood stabilizer, showed a relative risk for manic/mixed or depressive relapse below 1.0, although there was variation in the statistical significance of the findings vs. placebo. No monotherapy was associated with a significantly reduced risk for both manic/mixed and depressed relapse. Of the combination treatments, only quetiapine+lithium/divalproex, was associated with a significantly reduced risk vs. comparator (placebo+lithium/valproate) for relapse at both the manic/mixed and depressed poles of bipolar illness. Limitations for the analysis include differences in study durations and definitions of relapse. In conclusion, available maintenance therapies show considerable variation in efficacy. The efficacy of lithium and divalproex has been confirmed, but newer therapies, such as a number of atypical antipsychotics were also shown to be effective in bipolar disorder. Efficacy of all maintenance interventions needs to be balanced against the safety and tolerability profiles of individual agents.

Understanding the relationships between health outcomes in generalized anxiety disorder clinical trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Wilson-Cleary health outcomes model is a hypothesized pathway linking traditional clinical variables to health-related quality of life (HRQL). This study tested the application of the Wilson-Cleary model to a patient population with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) using longitudinal clinical trial data. METHODS: These secondary analyses pooled data from three similar 8-week, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized, multicenter trials of quetiapine XR therapy in GAD. Relevant health assessments for the model concepts included the Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness, Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety, the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire-Short Form. A lagged path model tested whether the hypothesized relationships at baseline and week 8 between the concepts of the adapted Wilson-Cleary model were consistent with the observed data. RESULTS: The resulting model fit the data (RMSEA = 0.077; CFI = 0.98; NFI = 0.96) and explained 56% of the variance in overall quality of life assessment at baseline and 69% of the variance in this assessment at week 8. Moderate to strong relationships between the adjacent hypothesized concepts support the specified model. CONCLUSION: This adapted Wilson-Cleary model for health outcomes validated in GAD should improve the understanding and usefulness of health status measurements in this condition and increase the applications of this model to other clinical trial data.

Treatment options for bipolar depression: a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials.

This meta-analysis examined the effectiveness of treatments of bipolar depression. Trials were identified using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, and Cochrane databases (1993 to July 2008). The outcome measures included mean change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) or Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) total scores, and rates of response and remission. Overall, 19 publications were included. Medications included quetiapine, lamotrigine, paroxetine, lithium, olanzapine, aripiprazole, phenelzine, and divalproex. The most trials were identified for quetiapine (5) and lamotrigine (6). Not all medications were associated with symptomatic improvement (significant reduction in MADRS/HAM-D total scores vs placebo), with lamotrigine, paroxetine, aripiprazole, and lithium not being different from placebo. Highest reductions in MADRS scores versus placebo were reported for the olanzapine-fluoxetine combination (1 trial: -6.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], -9.59 to -3.61; P = 0.000) and quetiapine monotherapy (5 trials: for 300 mg/d, -4.8; 95% CI, -6.18 to -3.49; P = 0.000; for 600 mg/d, -4.8; 95% CI, -6.22 to -3.28; P = 0.000), with quetiapine monotherapy also showing the highest reduction in HAM-D scores (4 trials: -4.0; 95% CI, -5.0 to -2.9; P = 0.000). All medications except paroxetine, lithium, aripiprazole, and phenelzine significantly improved the ratio of probabilities of response (overall rate, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.22-1.40) and remission (1.32; 95% CI, 1.20-1.45) versus placebo. Variability in efficacy exists between treatments of bipolar depression. Quetiapine and the olanzapine-fluoxetine combination showed the greatest symptomatic improvement. Efficacy considerations will need to be balanced against safety and tolerability of the individual agents.

A systematic review of the evidence of the burden of bipolar disorder in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Bipolar disorder is recognized as a major mental health issue, and its economic impact has been examined in the United States. However, there exists a general scarcity of published studies and lack of standardized data on the burden of the illness across European countries. In this systematic literature review, we highlight the epidemiological, clinical, and economic outcomes of bipolar disorder in Europe. METHODS: A systematic review of publications from the last 10 years relating to the burden of bipolar disorder was conducted, including studies on epidemiology, patient-related issues, and costs. RESULTS: Data from the UK, Germany, and Italy indicated a prevalence of bipolar disorder of ~1%, and a misdiagnosis rate of 70% from Spain. In one study, up to 75% of patients had at least one DSM-IV comorbidity, commonly anxiety disorders and substance/alcohol abuse. Attempted suicide rates varied between 21%-54%. In the UK, the estimated rate of premature mortality of patients with bipolar I disorder was 18%. The chronicity of bipolar disorder exerted a profound and debilitating effect on the patient. In Germany, 70% of patients were underemployed, and 72% received disability payments. In Italy, 63%-67% of patients were unemployed. In the UK, the annual costs of unemployment and suicide were pound1510 million and pound179 million, respectively, at 1999/2000 prices. The estimated UK national cost of bipolar disorder was pound4.59 billion, with hospitalization during acute episodes representing the largest component. CONCLUSION: Bipolar disorder is a major and underestimated health problem in Europe. A number of issues impact on the economic burden of the disease, such as comorbidities, suicide, early death, unemployment or underemployment. Direct costs of bipolar disorder are mainly associated with hospitalization during acute episodes. Indirect costs are a major contributor to the overall economic burden but are not always recognized in research studies.

Assessing the Reliability and Validity of the Sheehan Irritability Scale in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Irritability is a significant component in the clinical manifestation of major depressive disorder (MDD). The Sheehan Irritability Scale (SIS) was developed to assess irritability-related symptoms in patients with psychiatric disorders. Data from a phase 2 clinical trial (June 2008-July 2009) was utilized to evaluate the psychometric properties of the SIS. The trial population included patients diagnosed with MDD, according to DSM-IV and confirmed via the MINI diagnostic scale, who had inadequate response to citalopram. METHOD: The secondary analyses included 586 patients from the United States and India. Data from the SIS, depression severity measures (17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HDRS-17], Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS], Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report [QIDS-SR]), and other measures (Sheehan Disability Scale [SDS], Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale [CGI-S]) were used in the psychometric evaluation. All statistical tests used a significance level of .05 unless otherwise noted. RESULTS: Internal consistency (0.92-0.99) and test-retest reliability (0.83 to 0.98) were excellent. Concurrent validity was demonstrated through strong correlations between the SIS total score and HDRS-17, QIDS-SR, SDS, CGI-S, and MADRS scores. SIS total scores were significantly different by clinical severity level (P < .001). Minimally important difference estimates suggest that a 7- to 8-point change in the SIS total score may be clinically meaningful. CONCLUSIONS: The SIS has excellent reliability, acceptable validity, and good responsiveness, making the SIS appropriate for use in clinical research and practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00692445.

Content validity of the Sheehan Irritability Scale in patients with major depressive disorder.

The Sheehan Irritability Scale (SIS) measures the frequency, severity, and impairment associated with irritability in psychiatric patients. The content validity of the SIS in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) has not been evaluated. A cross-sectional, qualitative research study was conducted to assess the content validity of the SIS among patients with MDD. One-on-one interviews were conducted, starting with open-ended questions to evaluate the consistency of the SIS content with patient experiences of irritability. Participants then completed the SIS and cognitive interviews around the comprehension of the SIS content (instructions, items, response options). Participants included 24 patients diagnosed with MDD who had an inadequate response to an antidepressant treatment. The sample was: 50.4 mean years, 66.7% female, and 91.7% white racial background. All concepts on the SIS were spontaneously mentioned by at least one participant, and when probed about the symptoms, the majority of participants (66.7-100%) reported the concepts being part of their experience. The majority of participants (70.8-100%) understood the SIS instructions, items, and response scales. This study provides evidence of content validity of the SIS in patients diagnosed with MDD, supporting the use as a measure of irritability in patients with depression.

Assessment of compliance with antipsychotic treatment and resource utilization in a Medicaid population.

BACKGROUND: Partial compliance with mental health medications has been associated with an increased risk of clinical worsening, relapse, and repeat hospitalization. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of partial compliance of patients (diagnosed as having schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) with prescribed oral atypical and conventional antipsychotic agents and the corresponding impact on resource utilization. METHODS: Patients receiving antipsychotic agents ina large Southeastern Medicaid program were grouped according to their level of compliance. Compliance was measured by the continuous, multiple interval medications available methodology. Patients were deemed partially compliant if compliance was <80%, compliant if compliance was 80% to 125%, and overly compliant if compliance was >125%. Medical costs were modeled as a function of compliance while controlling for background covariates. Logistic regression was used to model the probability of specific resource utilization. RESULTS: A total of 7864 patients were included in this analysis. After controlling for background covariates, partially compliant patients were 49.0% (95% CI, 29.2%-71.7%) more likely than compliant patients to have an inpatient hospitalization and incurred 54.5% (P < 0.001) higher inpatient charges. Partially compliant patients were also 64% (P < 0.01) more likely than compliant patients to switch or augment therapy. CONCLUSION: Partial compliance was associated with an increased risk of hospitalization and switching or augmentation of therapy when compared with being compliant.

Cost effectiveness of long-acting risperidone injection versus alternative antipsychotic agents in patients with schizophrenia in the USA.

The availability of long-acting risperidone injection may increase adherence and lead to improved clinical and economic outcomes for individuals with schizophrenia. The objective of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of long-acting risperidone, oral risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, ziprasidone, aripiprazole, and haloperidol depot in patients with schizophrenia over 1 year from a healthcare system perspective. Published medical literature, unpublished data from clinical trials and a consumer health database, and a clinical expert panel were utilized to populate a decision analytical model comparing the seven treatment alternatives. The model captured rates of patient compliance, the rates, frequency and duration of relapse, incidence of adverse events, and healthcare resource utilization and associated costs. Primary outcomes were expressed in terms of percentage of patients relapsing per year, number of relapse days per year (number and duration of relapses per patient per year), and total direct 2003 medical cost per patient per year. On the basis of model projections, the proportions of patients experiencing a relapse requiring hospitalization in 1 year were 66% for haloperidol depot, 41% for oral risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole, and 26% for long-acting risperidone, whereas the proportions of patients with an exacerbation not requiring hospitalization were 60% for haloperidol depot, 37% for oral risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole, and 24% for long-acting risperidone. The mean number of days of relapse requiring hospitalization per patient per year were 28 for haloperidol depot, 18 for oral risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole, and 11 for long-acting risperidone, whereas the mean number of days of exacerbation not requiring hospitalization were eight for haloperidol depot, five for oral risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole, and three for long-acting risperidone. This would translate into direct medical cost savings with long-acting risperidone compared with oral risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, ziprasidone, aripiprazole, and haloperidol depot of US dollars 161, 1425, 508, 259, 1068, and 8224, respectively. These findings were supported by sensitivity analyses. The utilization of long-acting risperidone is predicted to result in better clinical outcomes and lower total healthcare costs than its comparators, oral risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, ziprasidone, aripiprazole, and haloperidol depot. Long-acting risperidone may therefore be a cost saving therapeutic option for patients with schizophrenia.

Impact of once-daily extended-release quetiapine fumarate on hospitalization length in patients with acute bipolar mania.

AIMS: Evaluate the impact of quetiapine extended release (XR) versus quetiapine immediate release (IR) on hospitalization length in acute bipolar mania using Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Hospital Drug Database. PATIENTS & METHODS: Generalized linear model analyses were used, adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: Using data from 3088 discharges, quetiapine XR reduced hospitalization length by 6.7% versus quetiapine IR (p = 0.11; no statistically significant differences between groups), corresponding to 0.6 fewer days in hospital. Excluding the outlier, quetiapine XR significantly reduced hospitalization length by 9.6% versus quetiapine IR (p = 0.02), corresponding to 0.9 days. CONCLUSION: Inpatient use of quetiapine XR in acute bipolar mania may be associated with reduced hospitalization length (7-10%), possibly owing to the faster titration schedule versus quetiapine IR.

Partial compliance and risk of rehospitalization among California Medicaid patients with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between compliance with an antipsychotic medication regimen and risk of hospitalization in a cohort of California Medicaid patients with schizophrenia. METHODS: Compliance behavior was estimated by using a retrospective review of California Medicaid pharmacy refill and medical claims for 4,325 outpatients for whom antipsychotics were prescribed for treatment of schizophrenia from 1999 to 2001. Compliance behavior was estimated by using four different definitions: gaps in medication therapy, medication consistency and persistence, and a medication possession ratio. Patients were followed for one year and had an average of 19.1 dispensing events. Logistic regression models using each compliance estimate were used to determine the odds of hospitalization. RESULTS: Risk of hospitalization was significantly correlated with compliance. With all definitions, lower compliance was associated with a greater risk of hospitalization over and above any other risk factors for hospitalization. For example, the presence of any gap in medication coverage was associated with increased risk of hospitalization, including gaps as small as one to ten days (odds ratio [OR]=1.98). A gap of 11 to 30 days was associated with an OR of 2.81, and a gap of more than 30 days was associated with an OR of 3.96. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed a direct correlation between estimated partial compliance and hospitalization risk among patients with schizophrenia across a continuum of compliance behavior.

Economic and humanistic burden of illness in generalized anxiety disorder: an analysis of patient survey data in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Whilst studies suggest that generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) represents a considerable health care burden in Europe, there is a paucity of published evidence. This study investigated the burden of illness associated with GAD across five European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK). METHODS: Information from the 2008 European National Health and Wellness Survey database was analyzed. Bivariate, multivariate, and cost analyses were used to compare patients with GAD and propensity-matched controls. RESULTS: Compared with non-GAD controls, patients with GAD had more comorbidities and were more likely to smoke but less likely to be employed, use alcohol, or take exercise. They also had significantly worse health-related quality of life, and significantly greater work impairment and resource use, which increased as GAD severity increased. Within-country analyses demonstrated results similar to those for the five European countries overall, with the largest differences in resource use between patients with GAD and non-GAD controls documented in France and Germany. The average mean differences in direct costs were relatively small between the GAD groups and controls; however, indirect costs differed substantially. Costs were particularly high in Germany, mainly due to higher salaries leading to higher costs associated with absence from work. The limitation of this study was that the data were from a self-reported Internet survey, making them subject to reporting bias and possibly sample bias. CONCLUSION: Across all five European countries, GAD had a significant impact on work impairment, resource use, and economic costs, representing a considerable individual and financial burden that increased with severity of disease. These data may help us to understand better the burden and costs associated with GAD.

Efficacy of once-daily extended release quetiapine fumarate in patients with different levels of severity of generalized anxiety disorder.

This study is a pooled, post-hoc analysis evaluating once-daily extended release quetiapine fumarate (quetiapine XR) monotherapy in patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). Three previously reported positive, 8-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies evaluated quetiapine XR therapy (50, 150, 300 mg/day) in patients with GAD [Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) total score ≥ 20]. Patients were stratified by baseline severity: HAM-A total score ≥ 22, ≥ 24, < 26, ≥ 26, ≥ 28. We report HAM-A total score change, response (≥ 50% reduction in HAM-A total score), and remission (HAM-A total score ≤ 7 and ≤ 9). Quetiapine XR significantly improved HAM-A total scores compared with placebo at Weeks 1 and 8 in the HAM-A ≥ 22, ≥ 24, and ≥ 26 cohorts (all doses), at Week 1 (all doses) and Week 8 (quetiapine XR 150 mg/day) in the < 26 cohort, and at Week 1 (all doses) and Week 8 (quetiapine XR 50 and 150 mg/day) in the HAM-A ≥ 28 group (P<0.05). Week 8 effect sizes for 50, 150, and 300 mg/day were as follows: 0.29, 0.47, 0.17 (HAM-A ≥ 22); 0.35, 0.55, 0.22 (HAM-A ≥ 24); 0.18, 0.32, 0.10 (HAM-A < 26); 0.41, 0.59, 0.24 (HAM-A ≥ 26); 0.60, 0.64, 0.22 (HAM-A ≥ 28), respectively. Acute quetiapine XR monotherapy significantly improves anxiety compared with placebo in patients with moderate or severe GAD, with symptom improvements seen as early as Week 1.

Impact of extended-release quetiapine fumarate on hospitalization length and cost in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder patients: a retrospective, hospital-based, US-cohort analysis.

AIM: The aim was to evaluate the impact of quetiapine extended release (XR) on hospitalization length and cost in schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, versus quetiapine immediate release (IR), using Premier Perspective™ inpatient hospital database data. METHODS: Inpatient discharges classified within diagnosis-related group 430 (psychoses), prescribed quetiapine XR or IR, were identified. Patients had International Classification of Disease-9 diagnosis of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. The impact of the XR formulation on hospitalization length and costs was assessed using generalized linear model analyses. RESULTS: A total of 30,429 discharges between 1 January 2008 and 30 June 2009 were analyzed. Patients who received quetiapine XR had significantly reduced hospitalization length (10.73% estimated reduction; p = 0.001) and cost (9.52% estimated reduction; p < 0.001), versus IR. This corresponds to a 1.0-day reduction in hospitalization (10.73% of 9.2 days) and US$532 reduction in hospitalization cost (9.52% of US$5588) per patient, based on least squares mean estimations. Evaluation of patient subpopulations suggested the reduction in length of hospitalization for quetiapine XR versus IR was driven mainly by patients with bipolar disorder, whereas cost reduction was driven mainly by patients with schizophrenia. CONCLUSION: Inpatient use of quetiapine XR in schizophrenia or bipolar disorder is associated with reduced hospitalization length and cost, possibly due to the faster titration schedule versus quetiapine IR.

Effects of once-daily extended release quetiapine fumarate (quetiapine XR) on quality of life and sleep in elderly patients with major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is frequently associated with reduced quality of life (QoL) and sleep disturbance. We investigated the effects of once-daily extended release quetiapine fumarate (quetiapine XR) monotherapy on QoL and sleep in elderly patients with MDD. METHODS: Prospectively planned analysis of patient-reported data from an 11-week (9-week randomized; 2-week post-treatment), double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase III study. Elderly patients (≥66 years; DSM-IV MDD; Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAM-D] total score ≥22, HAM-D Item 1 score ≥2) were randomized to quetiapine XR (flexible dosing 50-300 mg/day) or placebo. PRIMARY OUTCOME: MADRS total score change from randomization at Week 9. Patient-reported outcomes: Quality of Life, Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire Short Form (Q-LES-Q-SF) % of maximum total score (Items 1-14), Q-LES-Q-SF Item 15 ('satisfaction with medication'), Q-LES-Q-SF Item 16 ('overall life satisfaction'), and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) global score. RESULTS: In total, 338 patients were randomized (166 quetiapine XR; 172 placebo). At Week 9, quetiapine XR significantly reduced MADRS total score (-16.33; difference: -7.54; 95% CI: -9.23, -5.85; p<0.001) versus placebo (-8.79). Quetiapine XR significantly improved Q-LES-Q-SF % of maximum total score (16.86; difference: 7.69; 95% CI: 4.99, 10.39; p<0.001) versus placebo (9.17), with numerical improvement in Q-LES-Q-SF Item 15 and improvement in Item 16. Improvement in PSQI global score was observed with quetiapine XR (-6.42; difference: -3.52; 95% CI: -4.26, -2.79; p<0.001) versus placebo (-2.89). LIMITATIONS: Lack of active-comparator arm, flexible-dose design, acute treatment period. CONCLUSIONS: Quetiapine XR monotherapy improved QoL and sleep in elderly patients with MDD.

Effects of extended-release quetiapine fumarate on long-term functioning and sleep quality in patients with Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD): data from a randomized-withdrawal, placebo-controlled maintenance study.

BACKGROUND: This analysis evaluated effects of quetiapine XR maintenance treatment on functioning and sleep in patients with GAD. METHODS: Analysis of patient-reported data from a randomized-withdrawal, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of quetiapine XR monotherapy in GAD. Following open-label run-in (4-8 weeks) and a 12-18-week stabilization phase (quetiapine XR 50, 150, or 300 mg/day), eligible patients were randomized to continue on quetiapine XR or receive placebo for up to 52 weeks. Primary variable was time to an anxiety event. Secondary variables included the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). RESULTS: In total, 432 patients were randomized (quetiapine XR, N=216; placebo, N=216). The risk of an anxiety event was significantly reduced for quetiapine XR vs. placebo (HR 0.19; 95% CI 0.12, 0.31; p<0.001). Quetiapine XR was more effective than placebo at maintaining SDS total scores (LSM change: -0.19 vs. 1.01; p=0.017) and non-work-related SDS domain score 'family life/home responsibilities' (-0.13 vs. 0.32; p=0.011), but not 'social life' (0.05 vs. 0.34; p=0.114). Quetiapine XR was more effective than placebo at maintaining the work-related SDS domain score 'days lost' (-0.05 vs. 0.11; p=0.027), but not 'work/school' (-0.10 vs. 0.29; p=0.051) or 'days underproductive' (0.06 vs. 0.13; p=0.619). PSQI global scores were reduced from randomization with quetiapine XR vs. placebo (0.39 vs. 1.60; p<0.001). LIMITATIONS: Lack of active-comparator arm, exclusion of patients with comorbid depression. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with GAD, long-term treatment with quetiapine XR (50-300 mg/day) monotherapy was effective at maintaining improvements in functioning and sleep quality.

Treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization and costs in patients with bipolar disorder, newly treated with extended release or immediate release quetiapine fumarate using US healthcare administrative claims data.

BACKGROUND: Differences in treatment patterns, health care resource use, and costs are expected among patients newly treated with quetiapine extended release (XR) or quetiapine immediate release (IR). OBJECTIVE: To compare treatment patterns, health care resource use, and costs in patients with bipolar disorder newly treated with quetiapine XR or quetiapine IR. METHODS: This was an observational, retrospective cohort study that used HealthCore Integrated Research Database-identified patients (age range, 18-64 years) with an International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision diagnosis of bipolar disorder and ≥1 pharmacy claim for quetiapine XR or quetiapine IR between October 2, 2008, and July 31, 2010. Outcomes were as follows: patient characteristics at the index date (first claim for quetiapine XR or quetiapine IR); 12-month preindex clinical characteristics, health care resource use, and costs; and 12-month postindex treatment patterns, health care resource use, and costs, assessed using generalized linear models (adjusted for index date and preindex patient demographic characteristics, clinical characteristics, health care resource use, and costs). RESULTS: In total, 3049 patients with bipolar disorder were analyzed (651 in the quetiapine XR group and 2398 in the quetiapine IR group). Of patients initiating treatment with quetiapine XR, 8.8% had no change in or discontinuation of their index therapy compared with 5.7% of patients treated with quetiapine IR (adjusted odds ratio, 1.44; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-2.00; P = 0.0317). The average daily dose (adjusted mean) of quetiapine XR was higher than quetiapine IR (225 vs 175 mg/d, P < 0.0001). An average daily dose of 300 to 800 mg was reached sooner (15.6 vs 30.8 days, P = 0.0049) and in more patients (44.2% vs 27.2%, P < 0.0001) who were taking quetiapine XR compared with patients taking quetiapine IR. No differences in total health care costs were found between the cohorts; however, patients taking quetiapine XR were less likely to be hospitalized for mental health-related reasons (12.1% vs 18.3%, P = 0.0022) and incurred lower mental health-related costs (US $6686 vs US $7577, P = 0.0063) compared with patients taking quetiapine IR. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment patterns and dosing differ in patients with bipolar disorder treated with quetiapine XR compared with those treated with quetiapine IR. Mental health-related hospitalizations and costs may be reduced in the 12 months after patients initiating treatment with quetiapine XR compared with initiating treatment with quetiapine IR.

Quetiapine XR monotherapy in major depressive disorder: a pooled analysis to assess the influence of baseline severity on efficacy.

The efficacy of quetiapine XR was investigated in patients with major depressive disorder and differing levels of baseline severity. Pooled data from four placebo-controlled monotherapy studies of quetiapine XR (50-300 mg/day) were analyzed. Post-hoc analyses were carried out to assess change from baseline in the Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score at endpoint (week 6 or 8) to week 1, and response (≥50% reduction in MADRS total score) and remission (MADRS total score≤10) rates at endpoint for all patients and six baseline severity cohorts (MADRS total score ≥24, ≥26, ≥28, ≥30, ≥32, and ≥34). In total, 1752 patients (all patients) were evaluated (MADRS score at baseline: ≥24, n=1601; ≥26, n=1467; ≥28, n=1269; ≥30, n=1038; ≥32, n=745; and ≥34, n=500). At endpoint, quetiapine XR reduced MADRS total score in all patients (P<0.001) and each severity cohort (≥24, ≥26, ≥28, ≥30, and ≥32, P<0.001; ≥34, P<0.01) versus placebo. Quetiapine XR also improved MADRS total score at week 1, response rates for each severity cohort, and remission rates in five out of six severity cohorts, versus placebo. Quetiapine XR monotherapy showed antidepressant effects in patients with major depressive disorder across different levels of baseline severity.

Effects of once-daily extended release quetiapine fumarate on patient-reported outcomes in patients with generalized anxiety disorder.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the effects of once-daily extended-release quetiapine fumarate (quetiapine XR) on patient-reported outcomes in generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). METHODS: This is a report of a pooled analysis from three acute 8-week, randomized, placebocontrolled, fixed-dose (50, 150, 300 mg/day) studies and a 52-week maintenance flexible dose (50-300 mg/day) study of quetiapine XR monotherapy in patients with GAD. Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire Short Form (Q-LES-Q-SF) percent maximum total scores (items 1-14), item 15 ("satisfaction with medication"), item 16 ("overall life satisfaction"), and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) global scores are reported. Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) total scores were also assessed (maintenance study only). RESULTS: The acute studies showed significant improvements at week 8 in Q-LES-Q-SF percent maximum total score with quetiapine XR 150 mg/day (P < 0.001) and item 16 with quetiapine XR 50 (P < 0.05) and 150 mg/day (P < 0.001) versus placebo; PSQI global scores significantly improved with quetiapine XR 50, 150, and 300 mg/day versus placebo (P < 0.001). The maintenance study showed significant benefits versus placebo with quetiapine XR 50-300 mg/day in Q-LES-Q-SF percent total score, item 15 and item 16 scores, PSQI global score, and SDS total score. CONCLUSION: Quetiapine XR 150 mg/day (acute studies) and 50-300 mg/day (maintenance study) improved quality of life, overall functioning, and sleep quality in patients with GAD.