Clinical Evaluation of the Daily Assessment of Symptoms‐Anxiety (DAS‐A): A New Instrument to Assess the Onset of Symptomatic Improvement in Generalized Anxiety Disorder

Introduction: Rapid onset of symptomatic improvement is a desirable characteristic of new generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) treatments. A validated rating scale is needed to assess GAD symptoms during the first days of treatment. Aims: To provide clinical data to support the validation of the Daily Assessment of Symptoms‐Anxiety (DAS‐A), a new instrument to assess onset of symptomatic improvement in GAD. Methods: We assessed the ability of the DAS‐A to detect onset of symptomatic improvement during the first week of therapy in 169 GAD patients randomized to paroxetine 20 mg/day, lorazepam 4.5 mg/day, or placebo for 4 weeks. Results: On the primary outcome measure, average change from baseline over the first 6 days of DAS‐A assessments, lorazepam (?14.5 ± 1.8 [LS mean, SE]; P= 0.006 vs. placebo) showed a significant improvement versus placebo (?7.85 ± 1.7), whereas paroxetine (?8.3 ± 1.7; P= 0.83 vs. placebo) did not. Lorazepam produced a significant treatment effect on the DAS‐A at 24 h (P= 0.0004), whereas paroxetine did not (P= 0.5666). Both active drugs produced statistically significant improvement versus placebo on the DAS‐A total change score (last‐observation carried forward method; LOCF, endpoint). On the DAS‐A total change score (observed cases analysis), lorazepam produced statistically significant improvement versus placebo at weeks 1, 2, and 4 (P < 0.05; no week 3 visit), whereas paroxetine, separated from placebo at weeks 2 and 4 (P < 0.05). Both active drugs produced results on the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM‐A) at weeks 1 through 4 that were similar to those found on the DAS‐A. Conclusions: These data indicate that the DAS‐A can detect symptomatic improvement in GAD patients treated with lorazepam during the first week of treatment, and, in a secondary analysis, as early as 24 h.     

Escitalopram in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder: double-blind, placebo controlled, flexible-dose study

Escitalopram has been shown in clinical trials to improve anxiety symptoms associated with depression, panic disorder, and social anxiety disorder. This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). Outpatients (18 years or older) who met DSM-IV criteria for GAD, with baseline Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAMA) scores > or = 18, were randomly assigned to double blind treatment with escitalopram (10 mg/day for the first 4 weeks and then flexibly dosed from 10-20 mg/day) or placebo for 8 weeks, following a 1-week, single-blind, placebo lead-in period. The primary efficacy variable was the mean change from baseline in total HAMA score at Week 8. The escitalopram group (N = 158) showed a statistically significant, and clinically relevant, greater improvement at endpoint compared with placebo (N = 157) in all prospectively defined efficacy parameters. Significant improvement in HAMA total score and HAMA psychic anxiety subscale score for the escitalopram-treated group vs. the placebo-treated group was observed beginning at Week 1 and at each study visit thereafter. Mean changes from baseline to Week 8 on the HAMA total score using a last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) approach were -11.3 for escitalopram and -7.4 for placebo (P<.001). Response rates at Week 8 were 68% for escitalopram and 41% for placebo (P<.01) for completers, and 58% for escitalopram and 38% for placebo LOCF values (P<.01). Treatment with escitalopram was well tolerated, with low rates of reported adverse events and an incidence of discontinuation due to adverse events not statistically different from placebo (8.9% vs. 5.1%; P=.27). Escitalopram 10-20 mg/day is effective, safe, and well tolerated in the treatment of patients with GAD.     

Efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram in anxiety disorders: a review

INTRODUCTION: Anxiety disorders are highly prevalent and disabling disorders, for which selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants are an effective treatment. Escitalopram is the most selective SSRI available. Beyond its well-established efficacy in depression with or without anxiety, preclinical studies have demonstrated that escitalopram has a broad spectrum of anxiolytic activity. AIM OF THE REVIEW: This review focuses on the therapeutic use and the tolerability issues of escitalopram in the treatment of adult patients with panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), social anxiety disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), on the basis of numerous recent short-term and long-term controlled studies in these disorders. In a 10-week randomised, double-blind trial in patients with panic disorder, escitalopram (flexible doses 5-10 mg/d) was significantly more effective than placebo in reducing the panic attack frequency, with a faster onset of action than citalopram. Fifty percent of escitalopram recipients and 38% of placebo recipients experienced no panic attacks, with a similar incidence of the most common adverse events for both groups. LITERATURE FINDINGS IN PD: In an open-label study in elderly (>65 years) patients with panic disorder, improvement in panic attack frequency and secondary efficacy variables occurred more rapidly in escitalopram than citalopram recipients. LITERATURE FINDINGS IN GAD: In four double-blind, comparative, eight- to 12-week studies in patients with GAD, escitalopram was more effective than placebo and at least as effective as paroxetine in reducing the mean Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety total score. Escitalopram 10-20 mg/d demonstrated continued efficacy in a 24-week extension study of short double-blind trials and in a placebo-controlled, double-blind, 24/76-week relapse-prevention study. In this trial, escitalopram recipients showed a significantly longer time to relapse and reduced risk of relapse than placebo recipients, and the risk of relapse was 4.04 times higher in the placebo group than in the escitalopram group. Escitalopram was well tolerated and only 7% patients withdrew, due to adverse events in the escitalopram group, versus 8% in the placebo group. LITERATURE FINDINGS IN SOCIAL PHOBIA: In two randomised, double-blind, 12- and 24-week studies in patients with social anxiety disorder (social phobia), escitalopram 10-20 mg/d was generally more effective than placebo and at least as effective as paroxetine in reducing the mean Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale total scores. In a 24-week double-blind, placebo-controlled relapse-prevention study, escitalopram recipients had a longer time to relapse and reduced risk of relapse compared with placebo recipients, and significantly fewer escitalopram than placebo recipients relapsed (22% versus 50%). In these studies, the treatment effects of escitalopram were independent of gender, symptom severity and chronicity, and comorbid depressive symptoms, and the drug was tolerated well. LITERATURE FINDINGS IN OCD: Finally, in patients with OCD, escitalopram 20mg/d for 12 weeks was more effective than placebo, and at least as effective as paroxetine 40 mg/day, with respect to a mean reduction from baseline in the Yale-Brown Obsessive Scale total score. In a 24-week, randomised, placebo-controlled relapse-prevention study, the proportion of patients who relapsed in the escitalopram group (23%) was 2.74 times lower than in the placebo group (52%). In both groups, the majority of adverse events reported were mild to moderate. CONCLUSION: On the whole, numerous clinical data indicate that escitalopram, 10-20 mg/d, is an effective and well-tolerated first-line treatment option for the management of panic disorder, GAD, social anxiety and OCD. Beyond short-term demonstrations of efficacy in these disorders, several controlled relapse-prevention studies showed the necessity and utility of maintaining the treatment six months or more after the remission has been obtained.     

Fixed-dose trial of the single isomer SSRI escitalopram in depressed outpatients

BACKGROUND: Escitalopram is the single isomer responsible for the serotonin reuptake inhibition produced by the racemic antidepressant citalopram. The present randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, fixed-dose multicenter trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram in the treatment of major depressive disorder. METHOD: Outpatients with an ongoing DSM-IV major depressive episode (N = 491) were randomly assigned to placebo, escitalopram, 10 mg/day, escitalopram, 20 mg/day, or citalopram, 40 mg/day, and entered an 8-week double-blind treatment period following a 1-week single-blind placebo lead-in. Clinical response was evaluated by the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), the 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scales, the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A), and patient-rated quality-of-life scales. RESULTS: Escitalopram, at both doses, produced significant improvement at study endpoint relative to placebo on all measures of depression; significant separation of escitalopram from placebo was observed within I week of double-blind treatment. Citalopram treatment also significantly improved depressive symptomatology compared with placebo; however, escitalopram, 10 mg/day, was at least as effective as citalopram, 40 mg/day, at endpoint. Anxiety symptoms and quality of life were also significantly improved by escitalopram compared with placebo. The incidence of discontinuations due to adverse events for the escitalopram 10 mg/day group was not different from the placebo group (4.2% vs. 2.5%; p = .50), and not different for the escitalopram 20 mg/day group and the citalopram 40 mg/day group (10.4% vs. 8.8%; p = .83). CONCLUSION: Escitalopram, a single isomer SSRI, is well-tolerated and has demonstrated antidepressant efficacy at a dose of 10 mg/day.     

Anxiety impairs depression remission in partial responders during extended treatment in late‐life

Objectives: More than half of older adults with major depressive disorder require extended treatment because of incomplete response during acute treatment. This study characterizes the effect of anxiety on remission during extended treatment for partial responders. Methods: Following 6 weeks of escitalopram 10 mg/day+depression care management (DCM), 124 partial responders (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) scores of 11–14) were randomly assigned to receive extended treatment with escitalopram 20 mg/day+DCM with or without interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) for 16 weekly sessions. Remission was defined as three consecutive weekly scores ≤7 on the HRSD. We assessed concurrent symptoms of anxiety using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety at pretreatment and after 6 weeks. We conducted Cox regression analysis of time to remission and logistic modeling of rates of remission. We also explored whether anxiety severity altered any impact of IPT. Results: Pretreatment anxiety was not associated with time to or rates of remission during 16 weeks of extended treatment. In contrast, more severe psychological symptoms of anxiety after 6 weeks of treatment was associated with both longer time to and lower rates of remission. However, there was no evidence that IPT showed any differential effects as a function of anxiety. Conclusions: In partial responders to 6 weeks of lower‐dose escitalopram and DCM, planning for extended treatment should account for psychological symptoms of anxiety. Depression and Anxiety, 2010. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Escitalopram in the treatment of major depressive disorder in primary‐care settings: an open‐label trial

Background: The present trial was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of escitalopram prescribed to patients seeking treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in a Canadian primary‐care setting. Methods: Investigators (mainly primary‐care physicians) enrolled patients with MDD from their daily practice. Patients were treated with escitalopram (flexible dose 10–20 mg/day) for up to 24 weeks. Efficacy assessments included the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), the Clinical Global Impression‐Improvement and ‐Severity scales (CGI‐I, CGI‐S), the Patient Global Evaluation (PGE), and the Medical Outcome Study 36‐item Short Form (SF‐36). Results: Out of the 647 patients enrolled, 461 (71%) completed 24 weeks of treatment. The most common reason for discontinuation was adverse events (10%). The mean MADRS score decreased from 30.7 at baseline to 10.9 at the end of 24 weeks (last observation carried forward, LOCF). Remission (MADRS≤12) was achieved by 65.5% of patients (LOCF). Symptom improvements were confirmed by global ratings of improvement made by physicians (CGI‐I) as well as patients PGE. There was improvement on all dimensions of the SF‐36, suggesting an overall improvement in quality of life. Conclusions: Escitalopram was well tolerated, safe, and efficacious. Escitalopram can be used with confidence to treat patients with MDD in Canadian primary‐care settings. Depression and Anxiety, 2008. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Randomized,single‐blind,trial of sertraline and buspirone for treatment of elderly patients with generalized anxiety disorder

Aim: Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) in elderly people is common, but few systematic studies regarding the best treatments have been performed. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sertraline and buspirone in the treatment of elderly patients with GAD. Methods: Based on selection criteria, 46 patients were recruited who met DSM‐IV criteria for GAD. Patients were randomly assigned to sertraline (50–100 mg/day) or buspirone (10–15 mg/day) for 8 weeks in a single‐blind trial. The primary outcome measure used in the present study was the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HRSA). Results: Both sertraline and buspirone had significant anxiolytic efficacy. A steady decrease in the total HRSA scores for both groups was observed throughout the study period. After 2 and 4 weeks, buspirone was found to be significantly superior to sertraline (P < 0.001), but at the end of study period this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.16). The mean HRSA score after 8 weeks significantly decreased in subjects treated with sertraline (P < 0.001), and buspirone (P < 0.001). No clinically adverse events or changes in laboratory test results were observed during the study period. Conclusion: Both sertraline and buspirone appear to be efficacious and well tolerated in the treatment of GAD in elderly patients. Further studies with larger sample size, evaluating the effect of medical illness, cognitive impairment, depression, and combined therapy with support and psychotherapy are needed.     

Pregabalin in the treatment of post‐traumatic peripheral neuropathic pain: a randomized double‐blind trial

Background: Pregabalin is effective in the treatment of peripheral and central neuropathic pain. This study evaluated pregabalin in the treatment of post‐traumatic peripheral neuropathic pain (including post‐surgical). Methods: Patients with a pain score ≥4 (0–10 scale) were randomized and treated with either flexible‐dose pregabalin 150–600 mg/day (n = 127) or placebo (n = 127) in an 8‐week double‐blind treatment period preceded by a 2‐week placebo run‐in. Results: Pregabalin was associated with a significantly greater improvement in the mean end‐point pain score vs. placebo; mean treatment difference was ?0.62 (95% CI ?1.09 to ?0.15) (P = 0.01). The average pregabalin dose at end‐point was ～326 mg/day. Pregabalin was also associated with significant improvements from baseline in pain‐related sleep interference, and the Medical Outcomes Study sleep scale sleep problems index and sleep disturbance subscale (all P < 0.001). In the all‐patient group (ITT), pregabalin was associated with a statistically significant improvement in the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale anxiety subscale (P < 0.05). In total, 29% of patients had moderate/severe baseline anxiety; treatment with pregabalin in this subset did not significantly improve anxiety. More patients reported global improvement at end‐point with pregabalin than with placebo (68% vs. 43%; overall P < 0.01). Adverse events led to discontinuation of 20% of patients from pregabalin and 7% from placebo. Mild or moderate dizziness and somnolence were the most common adverse events in the pregabalin group. Conclusion: Flexible‐dose pregabalin 150–600 mg/day was effective in relieving neuropathic pain, improving disturbed sleep, improving overall patient status, and was generally well tolerated in patients with post‐traumatic peripheral neuropathic pain.     

A Multicenter,Placebo‐Controlled,Double‐Blind,Randomized Study of Efficacy and Safety of Ocinaplon (DOV 273,547) in Generalized Anxiety Disorder

Preclinical studies demonstrated that ocinaplon, a positive allosteric modulator of GABA_A receptors, possesses anxiolytic‐like actions at doses devoid of the side effects typically associated with benzodiazepines. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of ocinaplon in a multicenter, double‐blind proof‐of‐concept trial of male and female outpatients who met DSM‐IV criteria for GAD with no coexisting depression, and had a baseline score of ≥20 on the Hamilton Scale for Anxiety (HAM‐A). Patients with <20% reduction in HAM‐A to placebo in a single‐blind 7‐day run‐in period were randomly assigned to treatment with ocinaplon 90 mg t.i.d. (n = 31) or placebo for 28 days (n = 29). Ocinaplon was more effective than placebo in reducing HAM‐A scores (P= 0.009). Patients assigned to ocinaplon exhibited a mean improvement of 14.2 points (SE = 2.6) on the total score of the HAM‐A scale at the conclusion of the trial, while patients assigned to placebo obtained a mean improvement of 6.3 points (SE = 2.0). A significant (P= 0.023) difference in improvement between ocinaplon and placebo was observed beginning at and continuing from 1‐week after the initiation of dosing. The proportion of patients with treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAE) was not statistically significant between ocinaplon and placebo. One serious adverse event (SAE) occurred in the ocinaplon group that was considered possibly related to study medication (icterus following transaminase elevations). The patient had preexisting medical conditions that may have contributed to this SAE. A full recovery was observed with no residual effects. The overall safety profile revealed no patterns of TEAEs, including those effects typically associated with other anxiolytic and/or benzodiazepine compounds, such as sedation. Ocinaplon appears to be a well‐tolerated and effective treatment for GAD. It produces a rapid onset of anxiolytic action absent the side effects (e.g., dizziness, sedation) typically reported following anxiolytic doses of benzodiazepines.     

Efficacy and safety of pregabalin in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder: a 6-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison of pregabalin and venlafaxine

OBJECTIVE: Pregabalin has demonstrated robust, rapid efficacy in reducing symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) in 4 placebo-controlled clinical trials. The current study compared the efficacy and safety of pregabalin and venlafaxine in patients diagnosed with moderate to severe GAD. METHOD: The study was conducted from December 21, 1999, to July 31, 2001. Outpatients (N = 421) in primary care or psychiatry settings meeting DSM-IV criteria for GAD were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with pregabalin 400 or 600 mg/day, venlafaxine 75 mg/day, or placebo. The primary analysis was change in Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A) total score from baseline to last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) endpoint. Secondary analyses included the change in HAM-A psychic (emotional) and somatic (physical) factor scores, significant improvement at week 1, and week 1 improvement sustained at every visit through endpoint. RESULTS: Pregabalin at both dosages (400 mg/day, p = .008; 600 mg/day, p = .03) and venlafaxine (p = .03) produced significantly-greater improvement in HAM-A total score at LOCF endpoint than did placebo. Only the pregabalin 400-mg/day treatment group experienced significant improvement in all a priori primary and secondary efficacy measures. Pregabalin in both dosage treatment groups (400 mg/day, p < .01; 600 mg/day, p < .001) significantly improved HAM-A total score at week 1, with significant improvement through LOCF endpoint. Statistically significant improvement began at week 2 for venlafaxine. Discontinuation rates due to associated adverse events were greatest in the venlafaxine treatment group: venlafaxine, 20.4%; pregabalin 400 mg/day, 6.2%; pregabalin 600 mg/day, 13.6%; placebo, 9.9%. CONCLUSION: Pregabalin was safe, well tolerated, and rapidly efficacious across the physical-somatic as well as the emotional symptoms of GAD in the majority of patients studied in primary care and psychiatric settings.     

A double-blind comparison of escitalopram and paroxetine in the long-term treatment of generalized anxiety disorder.

BACKGROUND: This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram, a newer SSRI, with paroxetine in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). METHODS: Patients with DSM-IV-defined GAD were randomized to receive 24 weeks of double-blind flexible-dose treatment with either escitalopram (10-20 mg/day) or paroxetine (20-50 mg/day), followed by a 2-week, double-blind, down-titration period. Mean change from baseline to endpoint (LOCF) in Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA) scores was the primary efficacy variable. RESULTS: Mean baseline HAMA scores for the escitalopram (N = 60) and paroxetine (N = 61) groups were 23.7 and 23.4, respectively. After 24 weeks of treatment, mean changes in HAMA scores were -15.3 and -13.3 for escitalopram and paroxetine, respectively (p = 0.13). Significantly fewer patients withdrew from escitalopram than paroxetine treatment due to adverse events (6.6% vs. 22.6%; p = 0.02). The frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events was higher with paroxetine vs. escitalopram: overall (88.7% vs. 77.0%), insomnia (25.8% vs. 14.8%), constipation (14.5% vs. 1.6%), ejaculation disorder (30.0% vs. 14.8%), anorgasmia (26.2% vs. 5.9%), and decreased libido (22.6% vs. 4.9%). Conversely, diarrhea and upper respiratory tract infection were reported more with escitalopram than paroxetine (21.3% vs. 8.1%, and 14.8% vs. 4.8%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: These results support the use of escitalopram as a first-line treatment for GAD.     

Efficacy and safety of brexpiprazole for the treatment of acute schizophrenia in Japan: A 6‐week,randomized, double‐blind,placebo‐controlled study

Aim

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of brexpiprazole compared to placebo in Japanese patients with acute schizophrenia (SCZ).

Methods

We conducted a 6‐week, multicenter, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, phase 2/3 study in Japan. Patients with acute SCZ were randomized (1:1:1:1) to receive brexpiprazole 1 mg, 2 mg, 4 mg, or placebo once a day. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline to week 6 in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total scores.

Results

In the 459 patients that were randomized, brexpiprazole 2 mg showed a significant improvement versus placebo (treatment difference: ?7.32, P = 0.0124), although brexpiprazole 4 mg showed numerical improvements (treatment difference: ?3.86, P = 0.1959), and brexpiprazole 1 mg showed only minimal change (treatment difference: ?0.63, P = 0.8330). Treatment‐emergent adverse events with an incidence of ≥5% and ≥2 times the rate of placebo in the brexpiprazole groups were vomiting, elevated blood prolactin, diarrhea, nausea, and dental caries. Most treatment‐emergent adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. There were no clinically significant changes in electrocardiogram parameters, bodyweight, laboratory values, or vital signs in the brexpiprazole groups.

Conclusion

Brexpiprazole was efficacious and well tolerated in Japanese adult patients with acute SCZ.

     

Safety and efficacy of perampanel in advanced Parkinson's disease: A randomized,placebo‐controlled study

Perampanel, a novel, noncompetitive, selective AMPA‐receptor antagonist demonstrated evidence of efficacy in reducing motor symptoms in animal models of Parkinson's disease (PD). We assessed the safety and efficacy of perampanel for treatment of “wearing off” motor fluctuations in patients with PD. Patients (N = 263) were randomly assigned to once‐daily add‐on 0.5, 1, or 2 mg of perampanel or placebo. The primary objective was to determine whether there was a dose‐response relationship for efficacy among the 3 perampanel doses and placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint for each treatment was measured as the least‐squares (LS) mean change from baseline to week 12 in percent “off” time reduction during the waking day, as recorded by patient diaries. The primary efficacy analysis was a 1‐sided Williams test for dose‐response trend at the 0.025 level of significance. At week 12, dose‐response trends, as determined by the Williams test, were not statistically significant for LS mean reduction in percent “off” time during the waking day (P = 0.061, with significance defined as P ≤ 0.025). The 2 higher perampanel doses (ITT population; n = 258) produced nonsignificant reductions from baseline to week 12 in percent “off” time during the waking day versus placebo (7.59%, P= 0.421 [1 mg], 8.60%, P = 0.257 [2 mg] versus 5.05% [placebo]; significance for pairwise comparisons defined as P ≤ 0.05). There were no significant changes in dyskinesia or cognitive function in any perampanel group versus placebo. Adverse events were similar across treatment groups. Perampanel treatment was well tolerated and safe, but failed to achieve statistical significance in primary and secondary endpoints. © 2010 Movement Disorder Society     

Aripiprazole for the treatment of pediatric bipolar I disorder: a 30‐week,randomized, placebo‐controlled study

Objective: To evaluate the long‐term efficacy, safety, and tolerability of aripiprazole in pediatric subjects with bipolar I disorder. Methods: A randomized, double‐blind, 30‐week, placebo‐controlled study of aripiprazole (10 or 30 mg/day) in youths (10–17 years) with bipolar I disorder (manic or mixed) ± psychotic features (n = 296) was performed. After four weeks, acute treatment completers continued receiving ≤26 weeks of double‐blind treatment (n = 210). The primary outcome was Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score change. Results: Of the 210 subjects who entered the 26‐week extension phase, 32.4% completed the study (45.3% for aripiprazole 10 mg/day, 31.0% for aripiprazole 30 mg/day, and 18.8% for placebo). Both aripiprazole doses demonstrated significantly (p < 0.001) greater improvements in YMRS total score at endpoint compared with placebo in protocol‐specified last observation carried forward analyses, but not in observed case or mixed‐model repeated measures at week 30. Overall time to all‐cause discontinuation was longer for aripiprazole 10 mg/day (15.6 weeks) and aripiprazole 30 mg/day (9.5 weeks) compared with placebo (5.3 weeks; both p < 0.05 versus placebo). Both aripiprazole doses were significantly superior to placebo regarding response rates, Children’s Global Assessment of Functioning and Clinical Global Impressions‐Bipolar severity of overall and mania scores at endpoint in all analyses. Commonly reported adverse events included headache, somnolence, and extrapyramidal disorder. Conclusions: Aripiprazole 10 mg/day and 30 mg/day were superior to placebo and generally well tolerated in pediatric subjects with bipolar I disorder up to 30 weeks. Despite the benefits of treatment, completion rates were low in all treatment arms.     

Atomoxetine treatment in adults with attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder and comorbid social anxiety disorder

Background: To evaluate the effect of atomoxetine (ATX) on attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and comorbid social anxiety disorder in adults. Methods: Randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, conducted in adults with ADHD and social anxiety disorder. Patients received 40–100 mg ATX (n=224) or placebo (n=218) for 14 weeks following a 2‐week placebo lead‐in period. Efficacy measures included the Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale: Investigator‐Rated: Screening Version (CAARS:Inv:SV), Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS), Clinical Global Impression‐Overall‐Severity (CGI‐O‐S), State‐Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), Social Adjustment Scale‐Self Report (SAS), and Adult ADHD Quality of Life Scale‐29 (AAQoL). Safety and tolerability were also assessed. Results: ATX mean change (?8.7±10.0) from baseline (29.6±10.4) on CAARS:Inv:SV Total ADHD Symptoms score was significantly greater than placebo mean change (?5.6±10.2) from baseline (31.2±9.4; P<.001). ATX mean change (?22.9±25.3) from baseline (85.3±23.6) on LSAS Total score was significant compared to placebo mean change (?14.4±20.3) from baseline (82.1±21.3; P<.001). The visit‐wise analysis revealed greater improvement on the CAARS:Inv:SV Total ADHD Symptoms score and LSAS Total score for ATX at every time point throughout the study (P values ≤.012). Mean changes in CGI‐O‐S, STAI‐Trait Anxiety scores, and AAQoL Total score were significantly greater for ATX compared to placebo. Mean change for both groups on STAI‐State Anxiety scores was comparable. Improvement on SAS for ATX compared to placebo was not significant. Rates of insomnia, nausea, dry mouth, and dizziness were higher with ATX than with placebo. Discontinuation rates due to treatment‐emergent adverse events were similar between groups. Conclusions: ATX monotherapy effectively improved symptoms of ADHD and comorbid social anxiety disorder in adults and was well tolerated. Depression and Anxiety, 2009. Published 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Randomized placebo-controlled trial of escitalopram and venlafaxine XR in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is a highly prevalent and disabling condition. Escitalopram and venlafaxine extended release (XR) both are indicated for the treatment of GAD. Outpatients (ages 18-65 years) with DSM-IV-defined GAD (Hamilton Anxiety Scale [HAMA] >or=20) were eligible to participate in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, flexible-dose trial. Following randomization, patients received 8 weeks of double-blind treatment with escitalopram (10-20 mg/day; N=127), venlafaxine XR (75-225 mg/day; N=129), or placebo (N=136). The primary efficacy parameter was mean change from baseline at week 8 in HAMA total score, using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) approach. Secondary efficacy parameters were HAMA psychic anxiety subscale, Clinical Global Impressions of Severity (CGI-S) and Improvement (CGI-I) scales. Treatment was completed by 77% of patients. The least square mean difference for change from baseline at week 8 in HAMA total score for escitalopram and venlafaxine XR versus placebo were -1.52 (P=.09) and -2.27 (P=.01), respectively, for LOCF, and -1.92 (P=.033) and -3.02 (P=.001), respectively, for Observed Cases (OC). On all secondary parameters, both active treatments were significantly superior to placebo on the LOCF and OC analyses. Discontinuation due to adverse events was not different for escitalopram versus placebo (7 versus 5%, P=.61), but was significantly greater for venlafaxine XR (13%) versus placebo (P=.03). Venlafaxine XR, but not escitalopram, separated from placebo on the primary efficacy measure, using the LOCF approach. However, overall efficacy analyses suggest that escitalopram and venlafaxine XR are both effective treatments for GAD. Escitalopram was better tolerated.     

Efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram in 12- and 24-week treatment of social anxiety disorder: randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, fixed-dose study

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are the pharmacological treatment of choice for the treatment of social anxiety disorder (SAD). The efficacy and tolerability of fixed doses of escitalopram were compared to those of placebo in the long-term treatment of generalised SAD, using paroxetine as an active reference. Patients with a DSM-IV diagnosis of SAD between 18-65 years of age were randomised to 24 weeks of double-blind treatment with placebo (n = 166), 5 mg escitalopram (n = 167), 10 mg escitalopram (n = 167), 20 mg escitalopram (n = 170), or 20 mg paroxetine (n = 169). Based on the primary efficacy parameter, Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS) total score at Week 12 (LOCF), a significantly superior therapeutic effect compared to placebo was seen for 5 and 20 mg escitalopram and for all doses for the OC analyses. Further improvement in LSAS scores was seen at Week 24 (OC and LOCF), with significant superiority over placebo for all doses of escitalopram, and 20 mg escitalopram was significantly superior to 20 mg paroxetine. Response to treatment (assessed by a Clinical Global Impression-Improvement score < or = 2) was significantly higher for all active treatments than for placebo at Week 12. Clinical relevance was supported by a significant decrease in all the Sheehan disability scores, and the good tolerability of escitalopram treatment. It is concluded that doses of 5-20 mg escitalopram are effective and well tolerated in the short- and long-term treatment of generalised SAD.     

Safety and efficacy of ranirestat in patients with mild‐to‐moderate diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy

We examined the efficacy and safety of ranirestat in patients with diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSPN). Patients (18–75 years) with stable type 1/2 diabetes mellitus and DSPN were eligible for this global, double‐blind, phase II/III study ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00927914). Patients (n = 800) were randomized 1 : 1 : 1 to placebo, ranirestat 40 mg/day or 80 mg/day (265 : 264 : 271). Change in peroneal motor nerve conduction velocity (PMNCV) from baseline to 24 months was the primary endpoint with a goal improvement vs. placebo ≥1.2 m/s. Other endpoints included symptoms, quality‐of‐life, and safety. Six hundred thirty‐three patients completed the study. The PMNCV difference from placebo was significant at 6, 12, and 18 months in both ranirestat groups, but <1.2 m/s. The mean improvement from baseline at 24 months was +0.49, +0.95, and +0.90 m/s for placebo, ranirestat 40 mg and 80 mg, respectively (NS). The treatment difference vs. placebo reached significance when ranirestat groups were combined in a post hoc analysis (+0.44 m/s; p = 0.0237). There was no effect of ranirestat on safety assessments, secondary or exploratory endpoints vs. placebo. Ranirestat was well tolerated and improved PMNCV, but did not achieve any efficacy endpoints. The absence of PMNCV worsening in the placebo group underscores the challenges of DSPN studies in patients with well‐controlled diabetes.     

Prucalopride in the treatment of chronic constipation in patients from the Asia‐Pacific region: a randomized,double‐blind,placebo‐controlled study

Background The study evaluated efficacy and safety of the 2 mg dose of prucalopride compared to placebo in patients with chronic constipation (CC) from the Asia‐Pacific region. Methods Randomized, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group, phase III study with 2‐week run‐in, 12‐week treatment phase, and 1‐week follow‐up. Adult patients with CC (≤2 spontaneous bowel movements per week) received 2 mg prucalopride or placebo, once‐daily, for 12 weeks. Primary efficacy measure was percentage of patients with average of ≥3 spontaneous complete bowel movements (SCBMs) per week (Responders) during the 12‐week treatment. A key secondary endpoint was Responders during first 4 weeks of treatment. Other efficacy assessments were based on patient diaries, their assessments of symptoms and quality of life, and investigator’s assessment on efficacy of treatment. Safety assessments included adverse events, laboratory values, and cardiovascular events. Key Results Efficacy and safety were evaluated for 501 patients who received study drug. On the primary endpoint, prucalopride was significantly more effective than placebo with 83 (33.3%) vs 26 (10.3%) patients having a weekly average of ≥3 SCBMs during the 12‐week treatment (P < 0.001). Respective percentages were 34.5%vs 11.1% over first 4 weeks (P < 0.001). On other secondary endpoints, clinical improvement was generally larger and statistically superior (P < 0.001) in the prucalopride group. Most frequently reported adverse events were diarrhea, nausea, abdominal pain, and headache. Conclusion & Inferences Prucalopride 2 mg given once‐daily significantly improved bowel function, associated symptoms, and satisfaction in CC over a 12‐week treatment period, and was safe and well tolerated by patients in the Asia‐Pacific region.     

Randomized,double‐blind,multicenter evaluation of pramipexole extended release once daily in early Parkinson's disease

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pramipexole extended release (ER) administered once daily in early Parkinson's disease (PD). Pramipexole immediate release (IR) administered three times daily (TID) is an efficacious and generally well‐tolerated treatment for PD. A pramipexole ER formulation is now available. We performed a randomized, double‐blind, placebo and active comparator–controlled trial in subjects with early PD. The primary efficacy and safety evaluation of pramipexole ER compared with placebo took place at week 18. Two hundred fifty‐nine subjects were randomized 2:2:1 to treatment with pramipexole ER once daily, pramipexole IR TID, or placebo. Levodopa rescue was required by 7 subjects in the placebo group (14%), 3 subjects in the pramipexole ER group (2.9%, P = 0.0160), and 1 subject in the pramipexole IR group (1.0%, P = 0.0017). Adjusted mean [standard error (SE)] change in Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) II [activities of daily living (ADL)] + III (motor) scores from baseline to week 18, including post‐levodopa rescue evaluations, was ?5.1 (1.3) in the placebo group, ?8.1 (1.1) in the pramipexole ER group (P = 0.0282), and ?8.4 (1.1) in the pramipexole IR group (P = 0.0153). Adjusted mean (SE) change in UPDRS ADL + motor scores, censoring post‐levodopa rescue data, was ?2.7 (1.3) in the placebo group, ?7.4 (1.1) in the pramipexole ER group (P = 0.0010), and ?7.5 (1.1) in the pramipexole IR group (P = 0.0006). Adverse events more common with pramipexole ER than placebo included somnolence, nausea, constipation, and fatigue. Pramipexole ER administered once daily was demonstrated to be efficacious compared with placebo and provided similar efficacy and tolerability as pramipexole IR administered TID. © 2010 Movement Disorder Society