Efficacy of quetiapine monotherapy in bipolar I and II depression: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study (the BOLDER II study)

This study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine monotherapy for depressive episodes in patients with bipolar I or II disorder (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition) who were randomized to 8 weeks of double-blind treatment with quetiapine (300 or 600 mg/d; once daily, evening dosing) or placebo. Patients were assessed weekly using the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D). The primary end point was change in MADRS total score from baseline to Week 8 (analysis of covariance/last-observation-carried-forward analysis). Of 509 patients randomized, 59% completed the study. Improvements from baseline in mean MADRS total scores were significantly greater with quetiapine 300 and 600 mg/d than with placebo from first evaluation (Week 1) through Week 8 (both P 相似文献   

Efficacy of extended release quetiapine fumarate monotherapy in patients with major depressive disorder: a pooled analysis of two 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies

Prospectively planned pooled analysis evaluating the efficacy of quetiapine extended release (XR) monotherapy in major depressive disorder (MDD). Data were pooled from two 6-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of quetiapine XR in outpatients with MDD. The primary endpoint was Montgomery-?sberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score change from randomization at week 6. Other evaluations were MADRS response/remission, Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety, and subgroup analyses. A total of 968 patients were randomized to quetiapine XR, 150 mg/day (n=315), 300 mg/day (n=323), or placebo (n=330). The mean MADRS total score reductions from randomization were significant at week 6 with quetiapine XR, 150 mg/day (-14.7; P<0.001) and 300 mg/day (-14.7; P<0.001) versus placebo (-11.1), with significant reductions versus placebo from week 1 onward. Response rates (week 6): 52.7% (P<0.001) quetiapine XR 150 mg/day and 49.5% (P<0.001) quetiapine XR 300 mg/day versus placebo (33.0%). MADRS remission (score≤8; week 6): 23.5% (P=0.208) quetiapine XR 150 mg/day and 28.8% (P<0.01) quetiapine XR 300 mg/day versus placebo (19.4%). Quetiapine XR (both doses) significantly improved eight of 10 MADRS items versus placebo at week 6. The therapeutic effect of quetiapine XR was neither limited to nor driven by factors such as sex, age, or severity of depression. In patients with MDD, quetiapine XR (150 and 300 mg/day) monotherapy reduced depressive symptoms, with significant improvements compared with placebo from week 1 onward.     

Quetiapine: a review of its use in the management of bipolar depression

Quetiapine (Seroquel?) is an orally administered atypical antipsychotic that is indicated for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, including bipolar depression. An extended-release (XR) formulation of quetiapine is also available. This review summarizes the pharmacological properties, efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine and quetiapine XR in patients with bipolar depression. Quetiapine is an antagonist at both serotonin 5-HT2 and dopamine D2 receptors, and its antipsychotic effects are thought to stem from interactions at these receptors. The antidepressant effects of quetiapine are poorly understood, but may be related to antagonism of 5-HT2A receptors in cortical regions, partial agonism of 5-HT1A in the prefrontal cortex in association with increased extracellular dopamine release in the region, or to reduced synaptic reuptake of noradrenaline resulting from inhibition of the noradrenaline reuptake transporter by the quetiapine metabolite norquetiapine. The efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine was evaluated in five 8-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre or multinational trials in patients with a major depressive episode (MDE) associated with bipolar disorder. Across trials, monotherapy with oral quetiapine 300 or 600?mg/day (or quetiapine XR 300?mg/day) produced significantly greater improvements than placebo in depressive symptoms (primary endpoint), according to the change in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score. In general, quetiapine and quetiapine XR were also associated with significantly higher MDE response and remission rates than placebo. Across trials, quetiapine and quetiapine XR produced significantly greater improvements in global severity of illness scores than placebo, according to changes in the Clinical Global Impressions scale score. There were no differences in treatment outcomes between quetiapine 300?mg/day and 600?mg/day dosage groups. Patients with bipolar depression who responded to quetiapine during two 8-week acute treatment trials also benefited from continuing quetiapine therapy for up to 52 weeks. Compared with quetiapine responders randomized to placebo, quetiapine responders who continued quetiapine 300 or 600?mg/day had a significantly reduced risk of recurrence of any mood events and of depression mood events, but not of hypomanic/manic events. In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, quetiapine maintenance therapy for up to 104 weeks was more efficacious than placebo or lithium in prolonging the time to recurrence of any mood event (primary endpoint). Patients in this trial had bipolar I disorder with mania, depression or a mixed episode as the index episode, and the trial included only patients who were responsive to acute phase quetiapine, which may have introduced a positive bias in favour of quetiapine over lithium during maintenance therapy. Quetiapine 300 or 600?mg/day and quetiapine XR 300?mg/day was generally well tolerated in patients with bipolar depression, with most treatment-emergent adverse events being of mild to moderate severity. The most frequent adverse events occurring during the acute treatment phase were dry mouth, sedation, somnolence, dizziness (quetiapine and quetiapine XR), constipation (quetiapine) and increased appetite (quetiapine XR). Extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) occurred across quetiapine and placebo groups, but there were no significant differences between quetiapine and placebo recipients on objective measures of EPS and akathisia. In some trials, quetiapine recipients experienced significantly greater weight gain than placebo recipients. Across trials, some quetiapine recipients had clinically relevant increases in blood glucose or lipid parameters, although these also occurred in patients from other treatment groups. The clinical significance of these changes is uncertain. In conclusion, quetiapine and quetiapine XR are valuable additions to the first-line treatments for bipolar depression. Further head-to-head trials of quetiapine versus other drug regimens that are effective in bipolar depression would be of considerable interest.     

Quetiapine monotherapy for mania associated with bipolar disorder: combined analysis of two international, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled studies

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of quetiapine monotherapy for mania in bipolar disorder by an a priori defined combined analysis of data from two placebo-controlled studies. METHOD: The intent-to-treat (ITT) populations from two studies of patients with DSM-IV bipolar I disorder, manic episode, randomised to 12 weeks of double-blind treatment with quetiapine (up to 800 mg/day) or placebo were combined. The primary efficacy endpoint was change in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score from baseline to Day 21. Secondary endpoints included change from baseline in YMRS to Day 84, YMRS response and remission rates and change from baseline to Days 21 and 84 in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Clinical Global Impressions (CGI), Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar (CGI-BP) and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). These endpoints were analysed as continuous variables, using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with the baseline as covariate. In order to account for any difference in response between studies, the analyses were stratified by study as a fixed effect, and centre as a random effect. The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to analyse binary variables. A chi square test was used to compare the frequency of adverse events between the treatment groups. RESULTS: The combined analysis included a total of 403 patients from two quetiapine monotherapy studies in patients with bipolar I disorder. A significant improvement in YMRS score was observed from Day 4 (p = 0.021) onward in the quetiapine group compared with placebo. The treatment advantage of quetiapine over placebo continued to increase to Day 21 (p < 0.001) and Day 84 (p < 0.001). Significantly more quetiapine-treated than placebo-treated patients achieved a response (p < 0.001). The average quetiapine dose in responders was approximately 600 mg daily. Of adverse events occurring in > or = 5% of patients, quetiapine-treated patients had a significantly greater incidence versus placebo of somnolence (16.3% vs. 4.0%), dry mouth (15.8% vs. 3%), weight gain (9.1% vs. 1.5%) and dizziness (6.7% vs. 2.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The data from this combined analysis support the results from the individual studies and indicate that quetiapine monotherapy is effective across a broad range of mood symptoms, fast-acting and well tolerated in the treatment of mania.     

Quetiapine extended release: adjunctive treatment in major depressive disorder

Quetiapine extended release (XR) is a once-daily oral formulation of the atypical antipsychotic quetiapine that is available for use as adjunctive therapy in major depressive disorder (MDD). Systemic quetiapine exposure after orally administered quetiapine XR is similar to that of quetiapine immediate release at the same dosage, although quetiapine XR is absorbed more slowly and plasma concentrations are more stable over time. In two 6-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational trials in patients with MDD with an inadequate response to antidepressants, quetiapine XR 300?mg/day adjunctive to antidepressant reduced depressive symptoms significantly more than antidepressant plus placebo, according to changes in Montgomery-?sberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total scores. In one trial, adjunctive quetiapine XR 150?mg/day also led to significantly greater reductions in MADRS total scores than antidepressant plus placebo. MDD response rates were significantly higher with adjunctive quetiapine XR 300?mg/day (but not 150?mg/day) than with antidepressant plus placebo. The numbers needed to treat to achieve an additional response over antidepressant plus placebo were 11-18 and 8-9 in the quetiapine XR 150 and 300?mg/day dosage groups, respectively. Treatment-emergent adverse events were mostly of mild to moderate severity; 1% of adjunctive quetiapine XR and 1.3% of antidepressant plus placebo recipients reported serious adverse events.     

A randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled trial of quetiapine augmentation of fluoxetine in major depressive disorder

The objective of this study was to investigate whether quetiapine, when compared with placebo, can speed the onset of action and improve the quality of response to fluoxetine treatment in patients suffering from major depressive disorder. A total of 114 patients with major depressive disorder were enrolled in an 8-week treatment study. Patients were initiated on a course of fluoxetine treatment and randomized to quetiapine or placebo. Quetiapine was flexibly dosed starting at 25 mg to a maximum of 100 mg daily. Mixed-effects regression showed that quetiapine plus fluoxetine did not achieve 50% reduction in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale score or improvement in Hamilton Anxiety Scale, Clinical Global Improvement (CGI)-Severity, and CGI-Improvement scores sooner than the fluoxetine plus placebo group; however both groups improved in all scores over time. Mixed-effects linear regression of insomnia scores showed that the quetiapine plus fluoxetine group improved significantly more rapidly compared with the fluoxetine plus placebo group. The study indicates that quetiapine plus fluoxetine did not achieve a reduction in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale score or improvement in Hamilton Anxiety Scale or CGI scores from baseline sooner than the fluoxetine plus placebo group. The combination of quetiapine and fluoxetine, however, improved sleep over fluoxetine alone over the first few weeks of treatment.     

The efficacy and tolerability of once-daily extended release quetiapine fumarate in hospitalized patients with acute schizophrenia: a 6-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Objectives: This study aimed to demonstrate efficacy of once-daily extended release quetiapine fumarate (quetiapine XR) versus placebo in patients with acute schizophrenia. Methods: In this 6-week, randomized, double-blind study (5077IL/0041) patients were randomized to receive quetiapine XR (300, 600, or 800 mg/day), quetiapine fumarate immediate release (quetiapine IR) [300 or 600 mg/day], or placebo. Primary endpoint was change from baseline in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score at Day 42. Secondary variables included PANSS response rate at Day 42 (>/=30% decrease in PANSS total score from baseline) and Clinical Global Impressions Severity (CGI-S) and Improvement (CGI-I) ratings. Safety assessments included adverse event (AE) reporting and laboratory measures. Results: Of 532 patients randomized, 222 (41.7%) completed the study. Improvements in PANSS total scores from baseline to Day 42 across treatment groups were: quetiapine XR 300 mg/day -5.01, 600 mg/day -13.01 and 800 mg/day -11.17, quetiapine IR 300 mg/day -9.42 and 600 mg/day -6.97, and placebo -5.19; the difference in change was statistically significant only for quetiapine XR 600 mg/day (p = 0.033). There were no statistically significant differences between active treatment groups and placebo for PANSS response rates. Several post hoc analyses were conducted to explain the study efficacy outcome but these were inconclusive. Quetiapine XR was generally well tolerated with the majority of AEs being mild or moderate in intensity and no unexpected AEs. Conclusions: Superior efficacy of quetiapine XR versus placebo in patients with schizophrenia was demonstrated for quetiapine XR 600 mg/day. The safety and tolerability profile of quetiapine XR was similar to that of quetiapine IR.     

Efficacy and tolerability of extended release quetiapine fumarate monotherapy in the acute treatment of generalized anxiety disorder: a randomized, placebo controlled and active-controlled study

The main objective of this study was to evaluate efficacy and tolerability of once-daily extended release quetiapine fumarate (quetiapine XR) monotherapy in generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). This was a 8 week randomized, 2-week follow-up, double-blind, placebo-controlled, and active-controlled study. Patients were randomized to quetiapine XR 150 (n=219) or 300 mg/day (n=207); escitalopram, 10 mg/day (n=213); or placebo (n=215). The primary endpoint was the change from randomization at week 8 in Hamilton Anxiety Rating (HAM-A) total score. Week 8 mean HAM-A total score was significantly reduced from randomization with quetiapine XR 150 mg/day (-13.9, P<0.001), 300 mg/day (-12.3, P<0.05) and escitalopram (-12.3, P<0.05) versus placebo (-10.7); significant improvements with quetiapine XR (150 and 300 mg/day) versus placebo (P<0.001) were also shown at day 4. At week 8, significant improvements versus placebo were observed in HAM-A psychic [quetiapine XR (both doses) and escitalopram] and somatic (quetiapine XR 150 mg/day and escitalopram) cluster scores and HAM-A response and remission rates (quetiapine XR 150 mg/day). Most common adverse events were dry mouth, somnolence and sedation (quetiapine XR), headache, and nausea (escitalopram). In patients with GAD, quetiapine XR (150 and 300 mg/day) demonstrated significant efficacy at week 8 with symptom improvement as early as day 4. We concluded that quetiapine XR safety and tolerability results were consistent with the known profile of quetiapine.     

Eight-week, placebo-controlled, double-blind comparison of the antidepressant efficacy and tolerability of bupropion XR and venlafaxine XR

The efficacy, safety and tolerability of bupropion XR and venlafaxine XR was assessed and compared with placebo in adult outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD). Adults meeting DSM-IV criteria for MDD with a minimum Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) 17-Item total score of > or =18 were randomized to eight weeks of double-blind treatment with either bupropion XR (150 mg/day), venlafaxine XR (75 mg/day) or placebo. At the end of the fourth week of treatment, a dosage increase to bupropion XR 300 mg/day or venlafaxine XR 150 mg/day was allowed if, in the opinion of the investigator, response was inadequate. The primary efficacy endpoint was mean change from baseline at week 8 in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score last observation carried forward (LOCF). Mean changes from baseline at week 8 (LOCF) in MADRS total score were statistically significant for bupropion XR and venlafaxine XR patients compared to the placebo group: -16.0 for bupropion XR (P = 0.006 vs placebo), -17.1 for venlafaxine XR (P < 0.001 vs placebo) and -13.5 for placebo. Secondary outcomes (including CGI-S, HAM-A, MEI, Q-LES-Q-SF, responder and remitter analyses) also improved significantly for both active treatment groups compared with placebo. The most frequently reported adverse events were dry mouth and insomnia for bupropion XR, and nausea, hyperhidrosis, fatigue, and insomnia for venlafaxine XR. In this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, bupropion XR at doses up to 300 mg/day and venlafaxine XR at doses up to 150 mg/day demonstrated comparable antidepressant efficacy.     

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of desvenlafaxine succinate in the treatment of major depressive disorder

The antidepressant efficacy and safety of desvenlafaxine succinate (desvenlafaxine) were evaluated in a phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Outpatients with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder were treated with fixed once-daily doses of desvenlafaxine 200 or 400 mg for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy measure was change from baseline on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. At the final on-therapy evaluation, adjusted mean change from baseline in 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression total score was greater for desvenlafaxine 200 and 400 mg/day vs. placebo. Both desvenlafaxine doses showed greater efficacy than placebo on the secondary efficacy measures, including the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale scores, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores, CGI-Severity, and 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression response rate. Desvenlafaxine 200 mg/day was also significantly better than placebo on remission, Visual Analog Scale-Pain Intensity overall scores, and some Visual Analog Scale-Pain Intensity subscale scores. Desvenlafaxine 400 mg/day was significantly better than placebo on selected Visual Analog Scale-Pain Intensity subscale scores. Most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity, and safety assessments revealed few clinically significant changes in vital signs, laboratory tests, and electrocardiogram results. These data provide support for the efficacy and safety of desvenlafaxine in the treatment of major depressive disorder.     

Reboxetine,a new noradrenaline selective antidepressant,is at least as effective as fluoxetine in the treatment of depression

The clinical profile of reboxetine, a selective noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, was compared with that of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor fluoxetine and placebo in a double-blind, multicenter, parallel-group clinical trial of patients with major depression. Among the 381 patients treated with reboxetine 8 to 10 mg/day, fluoxetine 20 to 40 mg/day, or placebo for up to 8 weeks, a statistically significant greater reduction in the mean Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (21-item HAM-D) total score (the primary efficacy variable) was seen for both active treatment groups compared with placebo (p < 0.024). A significantly greater proportion of patients treated with either reboxetine or fluoxetine also achieved a response (>or=50% reduction in HAM-D) or remission (HAM-D 相似文献   

The efficacy and safety of aripiprazole as adjunctive therapy in major depressive disorder: a second multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Nonresponse to one or more antidepressants is common and an important public health problem. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of adjunctive aripiprazole or placebo to standard antidepressant therapy (ADT) in patients with major depressive disorder who showed an inadequate response to at least 1 and up to 3 historical and 1 additional prospective ADT. The study comprised a 7-28-day screening, an 8-week prospective treatment, and a 6-week randomization phase. During prospective treatment, patients experiencing a major depressive episode (17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression total score > or = 18) received single-blind adjunctive placebo plus clinicians' choice of ADT (escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine controlled-release, sertraline, or venlafaxine extended-release). Subjects with inadequate response were randomized to adjunctive placebo (n = 190) or adjunctive aripiprazole (n = 191) (starting dose 5 mg/d, dose adjustments 2-20 mg/d, mean end-point dose of 11.0 mg/d). The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score from end of prospective treatment phase to end of randomized treatment phase (last observation carried forward). Mean change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score was significantly greater with adjunctive aripiprazole than placebo (-8.5 vs -5.7; P = 0.001). Remission rates were significantly greater with adjunctive aripiprazole than placebo (25.4% vs 15.2%; P = 0.016) as were response rates (32.4% vs 17.4%; P < 0.001). Adverse events occurring in 10% of patients or more with adjunctive placebo or aripiprazole were akathisia (4.2% vs 25.9%), headache (10.5% vs 9.0%), and fatigue (3.7% vs 10.1%). Incidence of adverse events leading to discontinuation was low (adjunctive placebo [1.1%] vs adjunctive aripiprazole [3.7%]). Aripiprazole is an effective and safe adjunctive therapy as demonstrated in this short-term study for patients who are nonresponsive to standard ADT.     

A double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of quetiapine as an add-on therapy to lithium or divalproex for the treatment of bipolar mania

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine combined with lithium or divalproex in the treatment of bipolar mania. Patients were randomized to 6 weeks of quetiapine (up to 800 mg/day) and lithium/divalproex (Li/DVP) (target trough serum concentrations of 0.7-1.0 mEq/L and 50-100 microg/mL, respectively) or placebo and lithium/divalproex. Quetiapine+lithium/divalproex treatment (n=104) showed a 2.0-point greater improvement on the primary outcome (change from baseline in Young Mania Rating Scale total score at day 21) compared with placebo+lithium/divalproex (n=96), and a 2.8-point greater difference by day 42, but the differences between groups were not statistically significant. Other efficacy measures, however, did show a statistically significant advantage in favor of quetiapine+lithium/divalproex over lithium/divalproex monotherapy at day 42. Improvement of mean Young Mania Rating Scale scores with quetiapine+lithium/divalproex was numerically but not statistically significantly greater than lithium/divalproex monotherapy in the treatment of bipolar mania. Potential reasons for the failure of quetiapine+lithium/divalproex to differentiate from placebo+lithium/divalproex treatment on the primary outcome measure and the implications of this for the treatment of mania and future studies are discussed. Overall, the combination of quetiapine with lithium or divalproex was well tolerated.     

Improvements in neurocognitive function and mood following adjunctive treatment with mifepristone (RU-486) in bipolar disorder.

High cortisol levels are found in severe mood disorders, particularly bipolar disorder. Hypercortisolaemia may cause or exacerbate both neurocognitive impairment and depressive symptoms. We hypothesized that antiglucocorticoid treatments, particularly corticosteroid receptor antagonists, would improve neurocognitive functioning and attenuate depressive symptoms in this disorder. To test this hypothesis, 20 bipolar patients were treated with 600 mg/day of the corticosteroid receptor antagonist mifepristone (RU-486) or placebo for 1 week in a double-blind crossover design. Over the total 6 weeks of the study, neurocognitive and neuroendocrine function were evaluated at baseline, days 21 and 42. Mood symptoms were evaluated weekly. Nineteen subjects completed the protocol; there were no drop-outs due to adverse events. Following treatment with mifepristone, selective improvement in neurocognitive functioning was observed. Spatial working memory performance was significantly improved compared to placebo (19.8% improvement over placebo). Measures of verbal fluency and spatial recognition memory were also improved after mifepristone. Beneficial effects on mood were found; Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores were significantly reduced compared to baseline (mean reduction of 5.1 points) as were Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores (mean reduction of 6.05 points). No significant change occurred after placebo. These data require replication but provide preliminary evidence that glucocorticoid receptor antagonists may have useful cognitive-enhancing and possibly antidepressant properties in bipolar disorder.     

Quetiapine or haloperidol as monotherapy for bipolar mania--a 12-week, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial.

METHODS: Patients (n=302) with bipolar I disorder (manic episode) were randomised to 12 weeks' double-blind treatment with quetiapine (flexibly dosed up to 800 mg/day), placebo, or haloperidol (up to 8 mg/day). The primary efficacy outcome variable was change from baseline to Day 21 in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score. RESULTS: YMRS score improved with quetiapine at Day 21 (-12.29 versus -8.32 for placebo; P<0.01). The difference in favor of quetiapine increased by Day 84 (-17.52 versus -9.48; P<0.001). Haloperidol also showed an advantage over placebo at Days 21 and 84 (P<0.001). There was no significant difference in efficacy measures between quetiapine and haloperidol groups at any assessment except Day 21. The only common adverse event with quetiapine was somnolence (12.7%). Extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), including akathisia, occurred at 59.6% with haloperidol, 12.7% with quetiapine, 15.8% with placebo. Most quetiapine responders (84%) received a dose of 400-800 mg/day. CONCLUSIONS: Quetiapine was effective and well tolerated. The efficacy and tolerability profile of haloperidol (including its propensity for EPS) supported study validity.     

Extended Release Quetiapine Fumarate (Quetiapine XR) as Adjunct Therapy in Patients with Generalized Anxiety Disorder and a History of Inadequate Treatment Response: A Randomized,Double-Blind Study

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of adjunct extended release quetiapine fumarate (quetiapine XR) in patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and inadequate response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors/ serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SSRI/SNRIs).

Methods

11-week (1-week single-blind placebo run-in; 8-week randomized treatment; 2-week post-treatment period), double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients were randomized to quetiapine XR or placebo adjunct to SSRI/SNRI. 50 mg initial dose; 150 mg/day, Day 3; 300 mg/day, Weeks × and 4 if indicated (Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness [CGI-S] ≥ 4; 150 mg/day tolerated). Primary endpoint: change from randomization to Week 8 in HAM-A total score. Secondary variables: Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A) psychic/somatic clusters, response and remission; and CGI-S.

Results

409 patients were randomized to quetiapine XR (n = 209) or placebo (n = 200); 41% and 55% of patients, respectively, had dose increases (300 mg/day). Week 8 mean change in HAM-A total score was not statistically significant for quetiapine XR (–10.74; p = 0.079) versus placebo (–9.61). Secondary variables were generally consistent with the primary analysis, except a significant reduction in HAM-A total score at Week 1 (–6.45, quetiapine XR versus –4.47, placebo; p < 0.001); significant improvements in HAM-A psychic cluster (p < 0.05) and CGI-S total (p < 0.05) scores at Week 8. Adverse events (.10% either group) were dry mouth, somnolence, sedation, headache, and dizziness.

Conclusions

In patients with GAD and inadequate response to SSRI/SNRI, adjunct quetiapine XR did not show a statistically significant effect for the primary endpoint at Week 8, although some secondary endpoints were statistically significant versus placebo. Quetiapine XR was generally well tolerated.     

Clinical effect of nemifitide, a novel pentapeptide antidepressant, in the treatment of severely depressed refractory patients

Clinical data were evaluated from an open-label, single-center, pilot study in patients with chronic refractory depression. The primary efficacy criterion was the change from baseline using the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale. The secondary efficacy criteria were the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale. Response to treatment (40-240 mg once per day by subcutaneous injection for 10-20 doses) was defined as more than 50% improvement in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale from baseline or Clinical Global Impression-Improvement < or =2 and lasting for at least two sequential weeks. Patients with a sustained response at the end point in the acute main treatment phase were enrolled for up to 2 years in a maintenance phase of the study to determine duration of response and to initiate retreatments upon relapse. Of the 25 patients with chronic refractory depression, 11 patients showed a response for Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale and one responded according to the secondary criterion Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. In seven of the 11 responders to Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale the effects were sustained for the remainder of the acute phase. Two additional sustained responders identified according to secondary criteria (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale or Clinical Global Impression-Improvement) were also enrolled in the maintenance phase. All nine sustained responders were retreated, as needed, in the maintenance phase of the study, ranging from 71 to 660 days. Mean duration of response following initial treatment and between retreatments was around 2 months. Pharmacokinetic data indicated dose-proportional systemic exposure to the drug.     

Short-term intravenous citalopram augmentation in partial/nonresponders with major depression: a randomized placebo-controlled study

Approximately 30-45% of patients with major depressive episode (MDE) do not fully respond to standard recommended treatments and further strategies of intervention, including pharmacological augmentation, have been proposed for these patients. This study was aimed to evaluate the efficacy of short-term, low-dose (10 mg/day) intravenous (i.v.) citalopram augmentation versus placebo in a sample of patients with MDE and partial or no response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Thirty-six patients with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, 4th edition, text revision criteria MDE and partial or no response to oral SSRIs were selected and randomly assigned to citalopram (n=18) or to placebo (n=18) i.v. augmentation. The augmentation regimen lasted 5 consecutive days during which the patients were maintained on their current treatment with oral SSRIs. Analyses of variance with repeated measures on Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total scores, administered daily with blind-raters conditions, were done. With regard to the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total scores, a significant time effect (F=42.02, P<0.0001) and timextreatment effect (F=21.17, P<0.0001) were found in favor of citalopram. Similar results were obtained from the analysis on Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total scores: time effect (F=50.07, P<0.0001), timextreatment effect (F=19.91, P<0.0001), and treatment effect (F=4.07, P=0.05). Even though referred to a small sample, the present findings seem to suggest that short-term, low-dose, i.v. citalopram augmentation may be effective in depressed patients with partial or no response to oral SSRIs. Further controlled studies performed with double-blind conditions are warranted to confirm the present results.     

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled prophylaxis trial of oxcarbazepine as adjunctive treatment to lithium in the long-term treatment of bipolar I and II disorder

We evaluated the prophylactic efficacy and the long-term tolerability of oxcarbazepine administration in the treatment of bipolar I and II disorder as an adjunctive therapy to lithium. We conducted a 52-wk, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre, clinical trial. Bipolar I and II DSM-IV outpatients, having had two or more episodes in the last year, but currently being in remission, were randomly assigned on a 1:1 ratio to oxcarbazepine (n=26) or placebo (n=29) as adjuncts to ongoing treatment with lithium. The primary efficacy variable was the length of the remission period assessed by means of the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Other assessments were the Clinical Global Impression (CGI-BP-M), functional activity (GAF), anxiety (HAMA) and impulsiveness (BIS-11). The average time until first recurrence of any type was 19.2+/-13.9 wk and 18.6+/-17.0 wk for oxcarbazepine and placebo respectively (p=0.315). Ten (38.46%) patients had a recurrence of any kind in the oxcarbazepine group vs. 17 (58.62%) in the placebo group (p=0.1354). There was a trend for depressive episodes being less likely in the oxcarbazepine group compared to the placebo group (11.54% and 31.03% respectively, p=0.085), and for better functionality with the GAF (p=0.074). Impulsivity was significantly better prevented by oxcarbazepine (p=0.0443). Overall, oxcarbazepine was well tolerated. This pilot, randomized clinical trial, suggests that oxcarbazepine might have some prophylactic efficacy with regards to impulsivity and perhaps mood episodes in patients taking lithium, although further, adequately powered controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.     

Quetiapine monotherapy for mania associated with bipolar disorder: combined analysis of two international,double-blind,randomised, placebo-controlled studies

ABSTRACT

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of quetiapine monotherapy for mania in bipolar disorder by an a priori defined combined analysis of data from two placebo-controlled studies.

Method: The intent-to-treat (ITT) populations from two studies of patients with DSM-IV bipolar I disorder, manic episode, randomised to 12 weeks of double-blind treatment with quetiapine (up to 800?mg/day) or placebo were combined. The primary efficacy endpoint was change in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score from baseline to Day 21. Secondary endpoints included change from baseline in YMRS to Day 84, YMRS response and remission rates and change from baseline to Days 21 and 84 in the Montgomery–Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Clinical Global Impressions (CGI), Clinical Global Impressions – Bipolar (CGI-BP) and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). These endpoints were analysed as continuous variables, using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with the baseline as covariate. In order to account for any difference in response between studies, the analyses were stratified by study as a fixed effect, and centre as a random effect. The Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel test was used to analyse binary variables. A chi square test was used to compare the frequency of adverse events between the treatment groups.

Results: The combined analysis included a total of 403 patients from two quetiapine monotherapy studies in patients with bipolar I disorder. A significant improvement in YMRS score was observed from Day 4 (?p = 0.021) onward in the quetiapine group compared with placebo. The treatment advantage of quetiapine over placebo continued to increase to Day 21 (?p < 0.001) and Day 84 (?p < 0.001). Significantly more quetiapine-treated than placebo-treated patients achieved a response (?p < 0.001). The average quetiapine dose in responders was approximately 600?mg daily. Of adverse events occurring in ≥ 5% of patients, quetiapine-treated patients had a significantly greater incidence versus placebo of somnolence (16.3% vs. 4.0%), dry mouth (15.8% vs. 3%), weight gain (9.1% vs. 1.5%) and dizziness (6.7% vs. 2.5%).

Conclusions: The data from this combined analysis support the results from the individual studies and indicate that quetiapine monotherapy is effective across a broad range of mood symptoms, fast-acting and well tolerated in the treatment of mania.