Search

We identified relapse/maintenance-of-response (MOR) predictors following discontinuation of long-term atomoxetine treatment in pediatric and adult patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and assessed correlations between ADHD symptoms and quality of life (QoL). Post hoc analyses of data from two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 withdrawal studies in patients with ADHD meeting predefined response criteria before randomization. Study 1: patients (N = 163; 6-15 years) received atomoxetine (1.2-1.8 mg/kg/day) for 1 year, followed by randomization to atomoxetine (n = 81) or placebo (n = 82) for 6 months. Study 2: patients (N = 524; 18-50 years) received atomoxetine (80-100 mg/day) for ~6 months, followed by randomization to atomoxetine (n = 266) or placebo (n = 258) for ~6 months. Placebo patients were used for the analyses. Relapse: ≥50% worsening of prerandomization improvement in ADHD symptoms and ≥2 level severity increase on the Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) scale at 2 consecutive visits; MOR: retaining ≥75% of prerandomization symptom improvement and CGI-S ≤ 2 at all visits (study 1); retaining ≥70% of prerandomization symptom improvement and CGI-S ≤ 3 at all visits (study 2). In adults, statistically significantly (P ≤ .05) increased likelihood of relapse was associated with prerandomization presence of Conners' Adult Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Rating Scale-Investigator-Rated:Screening Version (CAARS-Inv:SV) items "difficulty awaiting turn" and "careless mistakes." In pediatric patients, less MOR was associated with prerandomization presence of ADHD Rating Scale-IV-Parent Version Investigator-Rated item "does not listen"; in adults, less MOR was associated with prerandomization presence of CAARS-Inv:SV items "loses things" and "difficulty awaiting turn." Changes in patients' QoL after withdrawal from atomoxetine moderately correlated with changes in ADHD symptoms in pediatric patients and mildly in adults.

OBJECTIVES To evaluate the 52-week safety/tolerability of oral olanzapine for adolescents with schizophrenia or bipolar mania and compare effectiveness of a standard versus intense behavioral weight intervention in mitigating risk of weight gain. METHODS Patients 13-17 years old with schizophrenia (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale for Children [BPRS-C] total score >30; item score ≥3 for hallucinations, delusions, or peculiar fantasies) or bipolar I disorder (manic or mixed episode; Young Mania Rating Scale [YMRS] total score ≥15) received open-label olanzapine (2.5-20 mg/day) and were randomized to standard (n = 102; a single weight counseling session) or intense (n = 101; weight counseling at each study visit) weight intervention. The primary outcome measure was mean change in body mass index (BMI) from baseline to 52 weeks using mixed-model repeated measures. Symptomatology was also assessed. RESULTS No statistically significant differences between groups were observed in mean baseline-to-52-week change in BMI (standard: +3.6 kg/m2; intense: +2.8 kg/m2; p = 0.150) or weight (standard: +12.1 kg; intense: +9.6 kg; p = 0.148). Percentage of patients at endpoint who had gained ≥15% of their baseline weight was 40% for the standard group and 31% for the intense group (p = 0.187). Safety/tolerability results were generally consistent with those of previous olanzapine studies in adolescents, with the most notable exception being the finding of a mean decrease in prolactin. On symptomatology measures, patients with schizophrenia had a mean baseline-to-52-week change in BPRS-C of -32.5 (standard deviation [SD] = 10.8), and patients with bipolar disorder had a mean change in YMRS of -16.7 (SD = 8.9), with clinically and statistically significant improvement starting at 3-4 days for each. CONCLUSIONS Long-term weight gain was high in both groups, with no statistically significant differences between the standard or intense behavioral weight interventions in BMI or weight. Safety, tolerability, and effectiveness findings were generally consistent with the known profile of olanzapine in adolescents.

The adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) quality-of-life (AAQoL) scale was previously validated in adult patients in the USA; here, the AAQoL is validated in adult European patients. Data from a 12-week open-label acute treatment period with atomoxetine (80–100 mg/day) in adults with ADHD were used. Patients (≥18 to ≤50 years old) had a score ≥2 on ≥6 items on the inattentive or hyperactive core subscales of Conners’ Adult ADHD Rating Scale-Investigator Rated: Screening Version (CAARS-Inv:SV); a CAARS-Inv:SV 18-item total ADHD symptom score ≥20; and Conners’ Adult ADHD Rating Scale-Observer: Screening Version 6-item inattentive or hyperactive core subscale scores ≥2. Data were stratified based on patients’ geographic region (Europe vs USA). Scale validation psychometric properties results were very similar between European (n = 1,217; 57.7 % male; mean age 33.0 years) and US (n = 602; 62.1 % male; mean age 33.5 years) patients, including factor loading, internal consistency, convergent and discriminant validity, and responsiveness. Exploratory factor analysis confirmed four AAQoL subscales. Internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach’s alpha > 0.70 for all subscales). The AAQoL total score showed moderate convergent validity with CAARS-Inv:SV 18-item total ADHD symptom and clinical global impression-ADHD-severity (CGI-ADHD-S) scores; and strong convergent validity with Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function—Adult Version: Self-Report Global-Executive-Composite Index scores. Mean AAQoL total scores were significantly different among patients grouped by CGI-ADHD-S scores, suggesting good discriminant validity. The AAQoL total and subscale scores presented good responsiveness from baseline to 12 weeks. The AAQoL scale shows comparable validity in European and US adults with ADHD. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12402-014-0160-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) presents major challenges for both patients and clinicians. There is no universally accepted definition of TRD, but results from the US National Institute of Mental Health's (NIMH) STAR*D (Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression) programme indicate that after the failure of two treatment trials, the chances of remission decrease significantly. Several pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments for TRD may be considered when optimized (adequate dose and duration) therapy has not produced a successful outcome and a patient is classified as resistant to treatment. Nonpharmacological strategies include psychotherapy (often in conjunction with pharmacotherapy), electroconvulsive therapy and vagus nerve stimulation. The US FDA recently approved vagus nerve stimulation as adjunctive therapy (after four prior treatment failures); however, its benefits are seen only after prolonged (up to 1 year) use. Other nonpharmacological options, such as repetitive transcranial stimulation, deep brain stimulation or psychosurgery, remain experimental and are not widely available. Pharmacological treatments of TRD can be grouped in two main categories: 'switching' or 'combining'. In the first, treatment is switched within and between classes of compounds. The benefits of switching include avoidance of polypharmacy, a narrower range of treatment-emergent adverse events and lower costs. An inherent disadvantage of any switching strategy is that partial treatment responses resulting from the initial treatment might be lost by its discontinuation in favour of another medication trial. Monotherapy switches have also been shown to have limited effectiveness in achieving remission. The advantage of combination strategies is the potential to build upon achieved improvements; they are generally recommended if partial response was achieved with the current treatment trial. Various non-antidepressant augmenting agents, such as lithium and thyroid hormones, are well studied, although not commonly used. There is also evidence of efficacy and increasing use of atypical antipsychotics in combination with antidepressants, for example, olanzapine in combination with fluoxetine (OFC) or augmentation with aripiprazole. The disadvantages of a combination strategy include multiple medications, a broader range of treatment-emergent adverse events and higher costs. Several experimental pharmaceutical treatment alternatives for TRD are also being explored in combination with antidepressants or as monotherapy. These less studied alternative compounds include pindolol, inositol, CNS stimulants, hormones, herbal supplements, omega-3 fatty acids, S-adenosyl-L-methionine, folic acid, lamotrigine, modafinil, riluzole and topiramate. In summary, despite an increasing variety of choices for the treatment of TRD, this condition remains universally undefined and represents an area of unmet medical need. There are few known approved pharmacological agents for TRD (aripiprazole and OFC) and overall outcomes remain poor. This might be an indication that depression itself is a heterogeneous condition with a great diversity of pathologies, highlighting the need for careful evaluation of individuals with depressive symptoms who are unresponsive to treatment. Clearly, more research is needed to provide clinicians with better guidance in making those treatment decisions--especially in light of accumulating evidence that the longer patients are unsuccessfully treated, the worse their long-term prognosis tends to be.

Since its first FDA approval in 2004, duloxetine has been taken by more than 5 million patients. A small fraction of patients treated with duloxetine develop elevations in liver enzymes, which generally resolve spontaneously without any change in treatment. Very rare cases (estimated 1-2 per 100,000 exposures) of idiosyncratic hepatic toxicity have been reported in patients taking duloxetine, particularly in those with substantial alcohol use and/or preexisting liver disease. In the context of more than 23,000 patients exposed during clinical trials, and more than 1.5 million patient years of exposure subsequent to product launch, the hepatic risk after exposure to duloxetine appears to be within the range identified for other therapeutic agents. Therefore, it does not warrant hepatic enzyme monitoring. As with any medication, physicians should follow prescribing guidelines and educate patients on the risks and benefits of duloxetine.

Different degrees of a toxic response between and within the various lobes of the liver have been observed in rodents following treatment with acetaminophen. This study was designed to compare 2 sampling methods of the rat liver for gene-expression analysis. Ten male Fischer 344/N rats, 12–14 weeks of age, were treated with vehicle (0.5% aqueous ethyl cellulose) or acetaminophen (APAP, 1500 mg/kg) and sacrificed 24 hours following dose administration. Two representative sections were collected from the left liver lobe, stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E), and evaluated independently by 2 pathologists. The central core of the left lobe was cubed and frozen. Five random cubes were conserved, while the remaining left lobe core was pulverized. From each of the 10 animals, 2 random cubes and 2 samples from the homogeneous, pulverized samples were prepared for microarray analysis. Histopathologic evaluation revealed a variable response of centrilobular necrosis within the left lobe. Multiple methods used to analyze the microarray data indicated that sampling technique was not a major contributor to the variability observed in the gene expression data; however, only the powdered samples clustered for all animals, even those with disparate histopathologic results. Additionally, a powdered sample provided the advantages of a homogenous sample pool and the ability to use sample aliquots for other analyses to include proteomics, metabonomics, and other molecular techniques.

Single-nucleotide and diplotype associations with 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD(17)) total score changes were examined, based on catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) rs165599 status in duloxetine-treated, self-identified white patients with major depressive disorder. COMT rs165737 and a diplotype containing COMT rs165599 and COMT rs165737 were associated with HAMD(17) total score changes.

In self-identified white patients with major depressive disorder (N=126) treated with open-label duloxetine (60-120 mg/d), a significant association of (P=0.020) of a composite risk score (based on SLC6A2 rs5569 [G1287A] AA, HTR1A rs6295 [C(-1019)G] GG, and COMT rs174697 AA/AG) with 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total score change from baseline to 12 weeks was observed.

We summarize efficacy and safety findings from 4 double-blind, placebo-controlled, 12-week studies and 1 open-label, uncontrolled, 34-week maintenance-of-effect (MOE) study that examine duloxetine 40 and 60 mg once daily (QD) in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). In all placebo-controlled studies, duloxetine showed significantly (P≤.01) greater reduction in pain severity (weekly mean of 24-hour average pain severity ratings, primary outcome measure) compared with placebo. In all placebo-controlled studies, duloxetine showed significantly (P≤.05) greater improvement on brief pain inventory-Interference ratings. Patient global impression of improvement ratings were superior to placebo (P≤.01) for duloxetine patients in all placebo-controlled studies. Response rates (based on 30% pain reduction) ranged from 57% to 68% for duloxetine and from 35% to 47% for placebo and were statistically significantly different (P≤.01) between treatment groups in 3 out of 4 studies. The open-label study showed maintenance of analgesic effect of duloxetine in DPNP. In the duloxetine groups, 4.3% to 14.9% of patients discontinued because of adverse events (placebo groups: 2.6% to 7.4%). Most commonly reported treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea, somnolence, and headache. Duloxetine 40 and 60 mg QD was efficacious and well tolerated in the management of DPNP.

An unanswered, but clinically important question is whether there are early indicators that a patient might respond to duloxetine treatment for fibromyalgia pain. To address this question, pooled data from 4 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in duloxetine-treated patients (N = 797) with primary fibromyalgia as defined by the American College for Rheumatology were analyzed. Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis was used to determine what level of early pain improvement as measured by the 24-hour average pain severity question on the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) best predicted later response. The predictor variables tested were 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30% decrease in BPI 24-hour average pain from baseline to Week 1 and Week 2. The results of the CART analysis showed that for patients with ≥15% improvement in pain at Week 1 and ≥30% improvement at Week 2, the probability of response at 3 months was 75%. For patients with15% improvement at both Week 1 and Week 2, the probability of not responding at 3 months was 86%. Quantifiable early improvement in pain during the first 2 weeks of treatment with duloxetine was highly predictive of response or nonresponse after 3 months of treatment.This article presents early indicators that can highly predict later pain response or nonresponse in fibromyalgia patients treated with duloxetine. The results may aid clinicians to predict the likelihood of response at 3 months within the first 2 weeks of treatment.

Background Recent studies have identified associations of polymorphisms in several target genes with antidepressant treatment response of serotonin reuptake inhibitors and a tricyclic antidepressant. We sought to replicate these associations in a study of a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor. Methods In 250 outpatients with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder, response to treatment with once-daily duloxetine (60 mg/day) over 6 weeks was examined for associations with polymorphisms in eight candidate genes previously associated with antidepressant response using mixed-effect model repeated-measures analysis. Treatment response was quantified on the basis of changes from baseline using 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total scores. Results Polymorphisms in PDE1A, PDE1C, PDE6A, PDE11A, ABCB1, GRIK4, SLC6A4 , and OPRM1 genes showed no statistically significant associations (uncorrected, two-tailed p > .05) with duloxetine treatment response. Conclusions Previously, described associations between polymorphisms in candidate genes and antidepressant treatment response were not replicated in this study. This result may suggest that previous associations are specific to serotonin reuptake inhibitors.

Walter Deberdt1, Ilya Lipkovich2, Alexandra N Heinloth3, Lin Liu2, Sara Kollack-Walker2, Sara E Edwards2, Vicki Poole Hoffmann2, Thomas A Hardy21Eli Lilly Benelux, Eli Lilly and Company, Brussels, Belgium; 2Lilly Research Laboratories, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA; 3i3Statprobe, Ingenix, Cary, NC, USAAbstract: We examined the potential risks and benefits of switching from olanzapine to quetiapine in mentally stable, obese, or overweight patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Patients receiving olanzapine were randomized to continuing olanzapine treatment (N = 68; 7.5–20 mg/day) or switching to quetiapine (N = 65; 300–800 mg/day). Time to relapse was the primary study objective; secondary objectives included changes in weight, metabolic parameters, and psychiatric symptoms, and discontinuation rates. No significant difference in time to relapse was observed (p = 0.293), but significantly more patients remained on treatment in the olanzapine group compared with the quetiapine group (70.6% vs 43.1%; p = 0.002). Olanzapine-treated patients had significantly lower rates of study discontinuation for lack of efficacy and psychiatric adverse events (AEs) compared to quetiapine (2.94% vs 15.38%, p = 0.015). Significantly more patients in the olanzapine group experienced an increase in BMI ≥1 kg/m2. Olanzapine-treated patients experienced significantly greater increases in weight from Weeks 2 through 13. Switching patients with stable disease from olanzapine to quetiapine did not significantly shorten time to relapse, but produced more frequent study discontinuations due to lack of efficacy or psychiatric AEs with moderate but variable improvement in weight and no significant between-group differences in mean changes in metabolic laboratory parameters.Keywords: antipsychotic switching, discontinuation, relapse, BMI, weight

This study tested the hypothesis that gene expression profiling can reveal indicators of subtle injury to the liver induced by a low dose of a substance that does not cause overt toxicity as defined by conventional criteria of toxicology (e.g., abnormal clinical chemistry and histopathology). For the purpose of this study we defined this low dose as subtoxic, i.e., a dose that elicits effects which are below the detection of conventional toxicological parameters. Acetaminophen (APAP) was selected as a model hepatotoxicant because (1) considerable information exists concerning the mechanism of APAP hepatotoxicity that can occur following high doses, (2) intoxication with APAP is the leading cause of emergency room visits involving acute liver failure within the United States, and (3) conventional clinical markers have poor predictive value. Rats treated with a single dose of 0, 50, 150, or 1500 mg/kg APAP were examined at 6, 24, or 48 h after exposure for conventional toxicological parameters and for gene expression alterations. Patterns of gene expression were found which indicated cellular energy loss as a consequence of APAP toxicity. Elements of these patterns were apparent even after exposure to subtoxic doses. With increasing dose, the magnitude of changes increased and additional members of the same biological pathways were differentially expressed. The energy loss suggested by gene expression changes was confirmed at the 1500 mg/kg dose exposure by measuring ATP levels. Only by ultrastructural examination could any indication of toxicity be identified after exposure to a subtoxic dose of APAP and that was occasional mitochondrial damage. In conclusion, this study provides evidence that supports the hypothesis that gene expression profiling may be a sensitive means of identifying indicators of potential adverse effects in the absence of the occurrence of overt toxicity.

In patients from two clinical trials, we investigated the associations of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in candidate genes with prolactin level changes during treatment with olanzapine/fluoxetine combination. In both cohorts, three dopamine receptor D2 (DRD2) SNPs were associated with prolactin changes. DRD2 may influence susceptibility to hyperprolactinemia associated with antipsychotic treatment.

We tested the hypothesis that single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the catechol- O-methyltransferase (COMT) gene are associated with baseline pain levels in patients with major de- pressive disorder (MDD). Pain levels were quantified using a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Data from 159 female and 93 male self-reported white patients with MDD were analyzed. The associations between a haplotype previously associated with pain sensitivity created using COMT SNPs rs6269, rs4633, rs4818, and rs4680, and the proportion of female patients with ''Pain While Awake'' and ''Overall Pain'' at baseline were statistically significant (P < .05). In male patients, no statistically sig- nificant associations between COMT haplotypes and baseline pain scores were seen. The rs165599 SNP, which has previously been associated with response of depressive symptoms to treatment in patients with MDD, did not impact baseline pain in either gender. In conclusion, baseline pain levels appear to be associated with the COMT pain sensitivity haplotype in female patients with MDD. Perspective: This article presents associations of the COMT pain sensitivity haplotype and baseline pain levels in female patients with MDD. This finding could potentially help clinicians who seek to assess how genetic polymorphisms may contribute to a patient's pain experience.

Background This study focuses on exploring the relationship between changes in appetite or eating behaviors and subsequent weight change for adult patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder treated with olanzapine and adjunctive potential weight mitigating pharmacotherapy. The aim is not to compare different weight mitigating agents, but to evaluate patients' characteristics and changes in their eating behaviors during treatment. Identification of patient subgroups with different degrees of susceptibility to the effect of weight mitigating agents during olanzapine treatment may aid clinicians in treatment decisions. Methods Data were obtained from 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 16-week clinical trials. Included were 158 patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder and a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 25 kg/m2 who had received olanzapine treatment in combination with nizatidine (n = 68), sibutramine (n = 42), or amantadine (n = 48). Individual patients were analyzed for categorical weight loss ≥ 2 kg and weight gain ≥ 1 kg. Variables that were evaluated as potential predictors of weight outcomes included baseline patient characteristics, factors of the Eating Inventory, individual items of the Eating Behavior Assessment, and the Visual Analog Scale. Results Predictors/correlates of weight loss ≥ 2 kg included: high baseline BMI, low baseline interest in food, and a decrease from baseline to endpoint in appetite, hunger, or cravings for carbohydrates. Reduced cognitive restraint, increase in hunger, and increased overeating were associated with a higher probability of weight gain ≥ 1 kg. Conclusion The association between weight gain and lack of cognitive restraint in the presence of increased appetite suggests potential benefit of psychoeducational counseling in conjunction with adjunctive pharmacotherapeutic agents in limiting weight gain during antipsychotic drug therapy. Trial Registration This analysis was not a clinical trial and did not involve any medical intervention.

Histopathology, clinical chemistry, hematology and gene expression data were collected from the rat liver and blood after treatment with eight known hepatotoxins., This report details the standardized experimental design and the different data streams that were collected (histopathology, clinical chemistry, hematology and gene expression from the target tissue (liver) and a bio-available tissue (blood)) after treatment with eight known hepatotoxicants (at multiple time points and doses with multiple biological replicates). The results of the study demonstrate the classification of histopathological differences, likely reflecting differences in mechanisms of cell-specific toxicity, using either liver tissue or blood transcriptomic data.