A randomized,placebo‐ and active‐controlled study of paliperidone extended release for the treatment of acute manic and mixed episodes of bipolar I disorder

Vieta E, Nuamah IF, Lim P, Yuen EC, Palumbo JM, Hough DW, Berwaerts J. A randomized, placebo‐ and active‐controlled study of paliperidone extended release for the treatment of acute manic and mixed episodes of bipolar I disorder.
Bipolar Disord 2010: 12: 230–243. © 2010 The Authors.
Journal compilation © 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Objectives: To evaluate the antimanic efficacy and safety of paliperidone extended‐release (ER) tablets in patients with bipolar I disorder. Methods: This study included a 3‐week, double‐blind, acute treatment phase (paliperidone ER versus placebo, with quetiapine as control), and a 9‐week, double‐blind, maintenance phase (paliperidone ER versus quetiapine). Patients [n = 493; Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score ≥ 20] were randomized (2:2:1) to flexibly dosed paliperidone ER (3–12 mg/day), quetiapine (400–800 mg/day), or placebo for the acute treatment phase. During the maintenance phase, patients assigned to placebo were switched to paliperidone ER but not included in analysis of efficacy. Results: Paliperidone ER was superior to placebo at the 3‐week endpoint {primary outcome; least‐squares mean difference in change from baseline in YMRS scores [95% confidence interval (CI)]: ?5.5 (?7.57; ?3.35); p < 0.001} and noninferior to quetiapine at the 12‐week endpoint [least‐squares mean difference (95% CI): 1.7 (?0.47; 3.96)]. The median mode dose during the 12‐week treatment period was 9 mg for paliperidone ER and 600 mg for quetiapine. The most common (≥ 10%) treatment‐emergent adverse events during the 12‐week period were: headache (16%), somnolence (10%), and akathisia (10%) for paliperidone ER; somnolence (21%), sedation and dry mouth (17% each), headache (14%), and dizziness (13%) for quetiapine. Body weight increase ≥ 7% from baseline to 12‐week endpoint was 8% with paliperidone ER and 17% with quetiapine. A higher percentage of paliperidone ER (13.9%) versus quetiapine patients (7.5%) ‘switched to depression’ at the12‐week endpoint. Conclusions: Paliperidone ER (3–12 mg/day) was efficacious and tolerable in the treatment of acute mania.     

A Prospective Open‐Label Trial of Lamotrigine Monotherapy in Children and Adolescents with Bipolar Disorder

Aim: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of lamotrigine monotherapy as an acute treatment of bipolar mood elevation in children with bipolar spectrum disorders. Method: This was a 12‐week, open‐label, prospective trial of lamotrigine monotherapy to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of this compound in treating pediatric bipolar disorder. Assessments included the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), Clinical Global Impressions‐Improvement scale (CGI‐I), Children's Depression Rating Scale (CDRS), and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS). Adverse events were assessed through spontaneous self‐reports, vital signs weight monitoring, and laboratory analysis. Results: Thirty‐nine children with bipolar disorder (YMRS at entry: 31.6 ± 5.5) were enrolled in the study and 22 (56%) completed the 12‐week trial. Lamotrigine was slowly titrated to an average endpoint dose of 160.7 ± 128.3 in subjects <12 years of age (N = 22) and 219.1 ± 172.2 mg/day in children 12–17 years of age (N = 17). Treatment with lamotrigine was associated with statistically significant levels of improvement in mean YMRS scores (?14.9 ± 9.7, P < 0.001) at endpoint. Lamotrigine treatment also resulted in significant improvement in the severity of depressive, attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and psychotic symptoms. Lamotrigine was generally well tolerated with marginal increase in body weight (47.0 ± 18.0 kg vs. 47.2 ± 17.9 kg, P= 0.6) and was not associated with abnormal changes in laboratory parameters. Several participants were discontinued due to skin rash; in all cases, the rash resolved shortly after discontinuation of treatment. No patient developed Steven Johnson syndrome. Conclusions: Open‐label lamotrigine treatment appears to be beneficial in the treatment of bipolar disorder and associated conditions in children. Future placebo‐controlled, double‐blind studies are warranted to confirm these findings.     

A double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study of quetiapine for depressed adolescents with bipolar disorder

Objective: To conduct a pilot study comparing the effects of quetiapine and placebo for the treatment of depressive episodes in adolescents with bipolar I disorder. Method: Thirty‐two adolescents (ages 12–18 years) with a depressive episode associated with bipolar I disorder were randomized to eight weeks of double‐blind treatment with quetiapine, 300–600 mg/day, or placebo. This two‐site study was conducted from March 2006 through August 2007. The primary efficacy measure was change in Children’s Depression Rating Scale–Revised Version (CDRS‐R) scores from baseline to endpoint. Secondary efficacy measures included change in CDRS‐R scores over the eight‐week study period (PROC MIXED), changes from baseline to endpoint in Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM‐A), Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), and Clinical Global Impression–Bipolar Version Severity (CGI‐BP‐S) scores, as well as response and remission rates. Safety and tolerability were assessed weekly. Results: There was no statistically significant treatment group difference in change in CDRS‐R scores from baseline to endpoint (p = 0.89, effect size =?0.05, 95% confidence interval: ?0.77–0.68), nor in the average rate of change over the eight weeks of the study (p = 0.95). Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences in response (placebo =67% versus quetiapine = 71%) or remission (placebo = 40% versus quetiapine = 35%) rates, or change in HAM‐A, YMRS, or CGI‐BP‐S scores (all p > 0.7) between treatment groups. Dizziness was more commonly reported in the quetiapine (41%) than in the placebo (7%) group (Fisher’s exact test, p = 0.04). Conclusions: The results suggest that quetiapine monotherapy is no more effective than placebo for the treatment of depression in adolescents with bipolar disorder. However, limitations of the study, including the high placebo response rate, may have contributed to our findings and should be considered in the design of future investigations of pharmacological interventions for this population.     

A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of adjunctive donepezil in treatment-resistant mania

INTRODUCTION: Because there is a high rate of partial response to standard thymoleptic medication, novel augmentation strategies for treatment-resistant bipolar disorder are needed. In an open trial, donepezil augmentation was associated with improvement in manic symptoms in 9 of 11 subjects. METHOD: We conducted a 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of donepezil for treatment-resistant bipolar mania. Eligible subjects had a Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score of at least 15 despite two or more weeks of proven therapeutic levels of lithium or valproate. Subjects who completed the trial were eligible for an 8-week open trial of donepezil. Subjects were started on donepezil 5 mg/day and were eligible for dose increase to 10 mg/day after 4 weeks. RESULTS: Twelve subjects were enrolled. Eleven subjects received at least 1 week of study medication and were included in the analysis. No subjects in the donepezil group (0/6) and 60% (3/5) in the placebo group met response criteria of >30% reduction in YMRS score (Fisher's Exact p = 0.061). YMRS scores were higher at trial endpoint in the donepezil group 20.17 (3.66) compared with the placebo group [11.20 (4.60), Z = -2.476, p = 0.01]. There were no differences at trial endpoint in Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) or Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) scores in either the intent-to-treat or the completer analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Donepezil does not appear to be an effective adjunctive treatment for refractory manic symptoms. The strength of the conclusion of this trial is limited by the possibility of a false-negative result due to the small sample.     

Asenapine versus olanzapine in acute mania: a double‐blind extension study

Objective: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of asenapine versus olanzapine in the extended treatment of bipolar mania. Methods: Patients with bipolar I disorder experiencing acute manic or mixed episodes who completed either of two 3‐week, double‐blind trials with asenapine 5 or 10 mg twice daily, olanzapine 5 to 20 mg once daily, or placebo were eligible for this 9‐week, double‐blind extension study. Patients receiving active medication in the 3‐week trials continued the same regimen; those who had received placebo were blindly switched to asenapine but were assessed for safety outcomes only. The primary efficacy measure was the change from baseline to day 84 on the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score in the per‐protocol population. Results on the primary efficacy outcome were used to determine the noninferiority of asenapine versus olanzapine. Results: A total of 504 patients (placebo/asenapine, n = 94; asenapine, n = 181; olanzapine, n = 229) were enrolled in the extension study. At day 84, the mean (SD) change from baseline in YMRS total score was ?24.4 (8.7) for asenapine and ?23.9 (7.9) for olanzapine. Prespecified statistical analysis for noninferiority indicated no significant difference between asenapine and olanzapine. The overall incidence of treatment‐emergent adverse events was similar across treatment groups (77% placebo/asenapine, 77% asenapine, 78% olanzapine). Clinically significant weight gain occurred in 10%, 19%, and 31% of the placebo/asenapine, asenapine, and olanzapine groups, respectively. Conclusions: Asenapine was efficacious, showed noninferiority to olanzapine, and was well tolerated in the extended treatment of patients experiencing manic symptoms associated with bipolar I disorder.     

A placebo-controlled,double-blind study of the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole for the treatment of acute manic or mixed episodes in Asian patients with bipolar I disorder (the AMAZE study)

Objectives. To investigate the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole in Asian patients with manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder. Methods. Subjects were randomised to aripiprazole (24 mg/day; reduced to 12 mg/day if needed for tolerability; n = 128) or placebo (n = 130) for 3 weeks in this multicentre, double-blind study. The primary efficacy measure was mean change from baseline in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) Total score. Results. A total of 136 patients (aripiprazole 56.3%; placebo 49.2%) completed the study. The majority of patients (92.6%) received aripiprazole 24 mg/day. Aripiprazole produced statistically significant mean improvements in YMRS Total scores compared with placebo from Day 4 through to Week 3 (–11.3 vs. –5.3; P < 0.001). The most common adverse events (>?15% of patients; aripiprazole vs. placebo) were akathisia (22.0 vs. 5.6%) and insomnia (16.3 vs. 9.6%). Aripiprazole treatment resulted in no significant difference from placebo in change in mean body weight from baseline (–0.4 vs. –0.7 kg; P = 0.231). Aripiprazole was not associated with an elevated serum prolactin level. Conclusions. Aripiprazole had significantly greater efficacy than placebo for the treatment of acute manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder in Asian patients. Treatment was generally safe and well tolerated.     

Valnoctamide as a valproate substitute with low teratogenic potential in mania: a double‐blind,controlled, add‐on clinical trial

Bersudsky Y, Applebaum J, Gaiduk Y, Sharony L, Mishory A, Podberezsky A, Agam G, Belmaker RH. Valnoctamide as a valproate substitute with low teratogenic potential in mania: a double‐blind, controlled, add‐on clinical trial.
Bipolar Disord 2010: 12: 376–382. © 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Objectives: Valproic acid’s well‐known teratogenicity limits its use in women of childbearing age. Valnoctamide is an analog of valproate that does not undergo biotransformation to the corresponding free acid. In mice, valnoctamide has been shown to be distinctly less teratogenic than valproate. Valnoctamide is an anticonvulsant, and we hypothesized that valnoctamide is antimanic. Methods: We performed a double‐blind, five‐week, add‐on, controlled trial of valnoctamide in mania. Patients were treated with risperidone at doses of the physician’s discretion. Valnoctamide or placebo was begun at doses of 600 mg/day and increased to 1200 mg after four days. Weekly ratings by a psychiatrist blind to the study drug were conducted using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), and the Clinical Global Impression (CGI). Results: Fifteen valnoctamide patients and 17 placebo patients completed at least one post‐baseline week and were included in data analysis. In all efficacy measures valnoctamide was more effective than placebo as an add‐on to risperidone, using two‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with time as the within‐subject factor. Two‐way ANOVA showed a significant effect of time (p < 0.001) and significant interaction between treatment and time (YMRS: p = 0.012; BPRS: p = 0.007; CGI: p = 0.003). Differences between valnoctamide and placebo were significant from week 3 to week 5. Conclusion: Valnoctamide could be an important valproate substitute for women of childbearing age with bipolar disorder who may become pregnant.     

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled 26-week trial of aripiprazole in recently manic patients with bipolar I disorder

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the safety and efficacy of aripiprazole in preventing relapse of a mood episode in recently manic- or mixed-episode patients with bipolar I disorder stabilized on aripiprazole. METHOD: This randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, multicenter study enrolled patients from 76 centers in 3 countries (Argentina, Mexico, United States) from March 2000 to June 2003. Bipolar I disorder (DSM-IV) patients who had recently been hospitalized and treated for a manic or mixed episode entered an open-label stabilization phase (aripiprazole monotherapy: 15 or 30 mg/day, 6-18 weeks). After meeting stabilization criteria (Young Mania Rating Scale score of < or = 10 and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale score of < or = 13 for 6 consecutive weeks), 161 patients were randomly assigned to aripiprazole or placebo for the 26-week, double-blind phase. The primary endpoint was time to relapse for a manic, mixed, or depressive episode (defined by discontinuation caused by lack of efficacy). RESULTS: Aripiprazole was superior to placebo in delaying the time to relapse (p = .020). Aripiprazole-treated patients had significantly fewer relapses (25%) than placebo patients (43%; p = .013). Aripiprazole was superior to placebo in delaying the time to manic relapse (p = .01); however, no significant differences were observed in time to depressive relapse (p = .68). Weight gain (> or = 7% increase) occurred in 7 (13%) aripiprazole-treated and 0 placebo-treated patients. Adverse events (> or = 5% incidence and twice that of placebo) reported by aripiprazole-treated patients were akathisia, pain in the extremities, tremor, and vaginitis. CONCLUSIONS: Aripiprazole, 15 or 30 mg/day, was superior to placebo in maintaining efficacy in patients with bipolar I disorder with a recent manic or mixed episode who were stabilized and maintained on aripiprazole treatment for 6 weeks, as shown by a longer time to relapse.     

A double-blind,randomized, placebo-controlled study of quetiapine as adjunctive treatment for adolescent mania

OBJECTIVES: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study examined the efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine in combination with divalproex (DVP) for acute mania in adolescents with bipolar disorder. It was hypothesized that DVP in combination with quetiapine would be more effective than DVP alone for treating mania associated with adolescent bipolar disorder. Furthermore, it was hypothesized that quetiapine would be well tolerated. METHOD: Thirty manic or mixed bipolar I adolescents (12-18 years) received an initial DVP dose of 20 mg/kg and were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of combination therapy with quetiapine, which was titrated to 450 mg/day (n = 15) or placebo (n = 15). Primary efficacy measures were change from baseline to endpoint in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score and YMRS response rate. Safety and tolerability were assessed weekly. RESULTS: The DVP + quetiapine group demonstrated a statistically significantly greater reduction in YMRS scores from baseline to endpoint than the DVP + placebo group (F(1,27) = 5.04, p =.03). Moreover, YMRS response rate was significantly greater in the DVP + quetiapine group than in the DVP + placebo group (87% versus 53%; Fisher exact test, p =.05). No significant group differences from baseline to endpoint in safety measures were noted. Sedation, rated as mild or moderate, was significantly more common in the DVP + quetiapine group than in the DVP + placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study indicate that quetiapine in combination with DVP is more effective for the treatment of adolescent bipolar mania than DVP alone. In addition, the results suggest that quetiapine is well tolerated when used in combination with DVP for the treatment of mania.     

Corrigendum

In Volume 10, Supplement 1, February 2008, this Abstract was omitted from the Poster Session. The correct citation for the Abstract is Bipolar Disord 2008; 10 (Suppl. 1). We apologize for this error. A DOUBLE‐BLIND, PLACEBO‐CONTROLLED STUDY WITH ACUTE AND CONTINUATION PHASE OF QUETIAPINE AND LITHIUM IN ADULTS WITH BIPOLAR DEPRESSION (EMBOLDEN I) AH Young^a, A Carlsson^b, B Olausson^b, B Paulsson^b and M Brecher^{c a}Department of Psychiatry, Institute of Mental Health, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, ^bAstraZeneca, Södertälje, Sweden, ^cAstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Wilmington, DE, USA Background and aims: Evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine and lithium monotherapy for major depressive episodes in bipolar disorder during an acute 8‐week period and up to 52‐week continuation phase. Methods: A total of 802 patients (499 bipolar I, 303 bipolar II) were randomized to quetiapine 300 mg/day (n = 265), quetiapine 600 mg/day (n = 268), lithium 600 mg/day (n = 136), or placebo (n = 133) for 8 weeks. Primary endpoint was change from baseline to 8 weeks in MADRS total score. After 8 weeks, patients with MADRS ≤ 12 and YMRS ≤ 12 entered a 26–52‐week continuation phase of quetiapine (300 mg/day or 600 mg/day) or placebo. Patients on lithium received 300 mg/day of quetiapine (results of continuation phase not included here and to be presented separately). Results: LSM MADRS score change at 8 weeks was ?15.36 (quetiapine 300 mg/day), ?16.10 (quetiapine 600 mg/day), ?13.60 (lithium), and ?11.81 (placebo; p < 0.001 for both quetiapine doses, p = 0.123 for lithium, versus placebo; LOCF ANCOVA). Quetiapine (both doses)‐treated, but not lithium‐treated, patients showed significantly greater improvements (p ≤ 0.05) in MADRS response and remission rates, HAM‐D, CGI‐BP‐S, CGI‐BP‐change, and HAM‐A at Week 8 versus placebo; MADRS item 10 (suicidal thoughts) improved with quetiapine 600 mg/day versus placebo (p = 0.013). Most common adverse events considered drug‐related included somnolence, dry mouth, and dizziness with quetiapine (both doses) and nausea with lithium. Conclusions: Quetiapine (300 mg/day or 600 mg/day) was more effective than placebo for the treatment of acute depressive episodes in bipolar I and bipolar II disorder. Quetiapine treatment was generally well tolerated.     

Efficacy of aripiprazole adjunctive to lithium or valproate in the long-term treatment of patients with bipolar I disorder with an inadequate response to lithium or valproate monotherapy: a multicenter, double-blind, randomized study

Marcus R, Khan A, Rollin L, Morris B, Timko K, Carson W, Sanchez R. Efficacy of aripiprazole adjunctive to lithium or valproate in the long‐term treatment of patients with bipolar I disorder with an inadequate response to lithium or valproate monotherapy: a multicenter, double‐blind, randomized study.
Bipolar Disord 2011: 13: 133–144. © 2011 The Authors.
Journal compilation © 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Listen to interview with article author Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole (ARI) adjunctive to lithium (Li) or valproate (Val) (ARI + Li / Val) compared with placebo (PLB) adjunctive to Li or Val (PLB + Li / Val) as maintenance therapy for patients with bipolar I disorder who had an inadequate response to Li or Val monotherapy. Methods: Patients with a current manic/mixed episode received Li or Val for at least 2 weeks. Those with an inadequate response [Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score ≥ 16 and ≤ 35% decrease from baseline at 2 weeks] received adjunctive single‐blind ARI plus mood stabilizer. Patients who achieved stability [YMRS and Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score ≤ 12] for 12 consecutive weeks were randomized to double‐blind ARI (10–30 mg/day) or PLB + Li / Val. Relapse was monitored for 52 weeks. Adverse events (AEs) were also evaluated. Results: A total of 337 patients were randomized to ARI + Li / Val (n = 168) or PLB + Li / Val (n = 169). The Kaplan–Meier relapse rate at 52 weeks was 17% with ARI + Li / Val and 29% with PLB + Li / Val. ARI + Li / Val significantly delayed time to any relapse compared with PLB + Li / Val; hazard ratio = 0.54 (95% confidence interval: 0.33–0.89; log‐rank p = 0.014). The most common AEs ≥ 5% (ARI + Li / Val versus PLB + Li / Val) were headache (13.2% versus 10.8%), weight increase (9.0% versus 6.6%), tremor (6.0% versus 2.4%), and insomnia (5.4% versus 9.6%). Conclusions: Continuation of ARI + Li / Val treatment increased the time to relapse to any mood episode compared with Li or Val monotherapy, and was relatively well tolerated during the one‐year study. These findings suggest that there is a long‐term benefit in continuing ARI adjunctive to a mood stabilizer after sustained remission is achieved.     

A randomized,double‐blind,placebo‐controlled study of maintenance treatment with adjunctive risperidone long‐acting therapy in patients with bipolar I disorder who relapse frequently

Objective: No large controlled trials have evaluated adjunctive maintenance treatment with long‐acting injectable antipsychotics in patients with bipolar disorder. This study assessed whether adjunctive maintenance treatment with risperidone long‐acting therapy (RLAT), added to treatment‐as‐usual (TAU) medications for bipolar disorder, delays relapse in patients with bipolar disorder type I. Methods: This study included patients with bipolar disorder type I with ≥ four mood episodes in the 12 months prior to study entry. Following a 16‐week, open‐label stabilization phase with RLAT plus TAU, remitted patients entered a 52‐week, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, relapse‐prevention phase. Randomized patients continued treatment with adjunctive RLAT (25–50 mg every two weeks) plus TAU (n = 65) or switched to adjunctive placebo injection plus TAU (n = 59). The primary outcome measure was time to relapse to any mood episode. Results: Of 240 enrolled patients, 124 entered double‐blind treatment. Time to relapse was longer in patients receiving adjunctive RLAT (p = 0.010). Relapse rates were 23.1% (n = 15) with adjunctive RLAT versus 45.8% (n = 27) with adjunctive placebo; relative relapse risk was 2.3‐fold higher with adjunctive placebo (p = 0.011). Completion rates were: adjunctive RLAT, 60.0% (n = 39) and adjunctive placebo, 42.4% (n = 25; p = 0.050). Adverse event (AE)‐related discontinuations were 4.6% (n = 3) and 1.7% (n = 1), respectively. Common AEs (adjunctive RLAT versus adjunctive placebo) were: tremor (24.6% versus 10.2%), insomnia (20.0% versus 18.6%), muscle rigidity (12.3% versus 5.1%), weight increased (6.2% versus 1.7%), and hypokinesia (7.7% versus 0.0%). Conclusions: Adjunctive RLAT significantly delayed time to relapse in patients with bipolar disorder type I who relapse frequently. Safety and tolerability of RLAT were generally consistent with that previously observed.     

A placebo-controlled,double-blind study of the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole in patients with acute bipolar mania

OBJECTIVE: The authors compared the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole, a novel antipsychotic, to placebo for treatment of patients in an acute manic or mixed episode of bipolar disorder. METHOD: This 3-week, multicenter, double-blind study randomly assigned 262 bipolar disorder patients in an acute manic or mixed episode to aripiprazole, 30 mg/day (reduced to 15 mg/day if needed for tolerability), or placebo. Patients remained hospitalized for at least 2 of the weeks. The primary efficacy measure was mean change from baseline in total score on the Young Mania Rating Scale; response was defined as a decrease in score of > or =50%. RESULTS: Aripiprazole produced statistically significant mean improvements in total score on the Young Mania Rating Scale compared with placebo (-8.2 versus -3.4, respectively) and produced a significantly higher response rate (40% versus 19%). For key efficacy variables (response per Young Mania Rating Scale; Clinical Global Impression-Bipolar Version scores for severity of illness [mania] and change from preceding phase [mania]), aripiprazole separated from placebo by day 4. The completion rate was significantly higher with aripiprazole than with placebo (42% versus 21%). Discontinuations due to adverse events did not differ significantly between the aripiprazole and placebo groups. There were no significant changes in body weight versus placebo, and aripiprazole was not associated with elevated serum prolactin or QTc prolongation. CONCLUSIONS: Aripiprazole had significantly greater efficacy than placebo for the treatment of bipolar disorder patients in acute manic or mixed episodes and was safe and well tolerated in this randomized controlled trial.     

Safety and efficacy from a 6‐week double‐blind study and a 52‐week open‐label extension of aripiprazole in adolescents with schizophrenia in Japan

Aim

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of aripiprazole in adolescents with schizophrenia (SCZ) in Japan.

Methods

In a 6‐week, randomized, double‐blind, dose‐comparison study, adolescents (aged 13–17 years) with SCZ were randomized to receive aripiprazole 2, 6–12, or 24–30 mg/day. Patients who completed the 6‐week study participated in a 52‐week, flexible‐dose, open‐label extension (OLE) study of aripiprazole (initial dose: 2 mg/day, maintenance dose: 6–24 mg/day, maximum dose: 30 mg/day).

Results

In the 6‐week study, the percentage of patients completing treatment was: 77.1% (27/35) for 2 mg/day; 80.0% (24/30) for 6–12 mg/day; and 85.4% (35/41) for 24–30 mg/day. The least squares mean change in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score from baseline to endpoint (primary efficacy endpoint, last observation carried forward) was ?19.6 for 2 mg/day, ?16.5 for 6–12 mg/day, and ? 21.6 for 24–30 mg/day. The most common (≥20% patients in any group) treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAE) were nausea, akathisia, insomnia, and somnolence. Most TEAE were mild or moderate in severity. There were no deaths. In the OLE, 60.3% (41/68) of patients completed treatment, and the PANSS total score decreased by ?7.9 from OLE baseline to week 52. The most common (≥20% patients) TEAE were nasopharyngitis and somnolence. Most TEAE were mild or moderate in severity. There were no deaths.

Conclusion

These study results suggest that aripiprazole would be safe and well tolerated in both short‐ and long‐term treatment for adolescents with SCZ in Japan.

     

A randomized,double‐blind,controlled trial evaluating the effect of intranasal insulin on neurocognitive function in euthymic patients with bipolar disorder

McIntyre RS, Soczynska JK, Woldeyohannes HO, Miranda A, Vaccarino A, MacQueen G, Lewis GF, Kennedy SH. A randomized, double‐blind, controlled trial evaluating the effect of intranasal insulin on neurocognitive function in euthymic patients with bipolar disorder. Bipolar Disord 2012: 14: 697–706. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Background: Neurocognitive deficits are prevalent, persistent, and implicated as mediators of functional impairment in adults with bipolar disorder. Notwithstanding progress in the development of pharmacological treatments for various phases of bipolar disorder, no available treatment has been proven to be reliably efficacious in treating neurocognitive deficits. Emerging evidence indicates that insulin dysregulation may be pertinent to neurocognitive function. In keeping with this view, we tested the hypothesis that intranasal insulin administration would improve measures of neurocognitive performance in euthymic adults with bipolar disorder. Methods: Sixty‐two adults with bipolar I/II disorder (based on the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview 5.0) were randomized to adjunctive intranasal insulin 40 IU q.i.d. (n = 34) or placebo (n = 28) for eight weeks. All subjects were prospectively verified to be euthymic on the basis of a total score of ≤ 3 on the seven‐item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD‐7) and ≤ 7 on the 11‐item Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) for a minimum of 28 consecutive days. Neurocognitive function and outcome was assessed with a neurocognitive battery. Results: There were no significant between‐group differences in mean age of the subjects {i.e., mean age 40 [standard deviation (SD) = 10.15] years in the insulin and 39 [SD = 10.41] in the placebo groups, respectively}. In the insulin group, n = 27 (79.4%) had bipolar I disorder, while n = 7 (21.6%) had bipolar II disorder. In the placebo group, n = 25 (89.3%) had bipolar I disorder, while n = 3 (10.7%) had bipolar II disorder. All subjects received concomitant medications; medications remained stable during study enrollment. A significant improvement versus placebo was noted with intranasal insulin therapy on executive function (i.e., Trail Making Test–Part B). Time effects were significant for most California Verbal Learning Test indices and the Process Dissociation Task–Habit Estimate, suggesting an improved performance from baseline to endpoint with no between‐group differences. Intranasal insulin was well tolerated; no subject exhibited hypoglycemia or other safety concerns. Conclusions: Adjunctive intranasal insulin administration significantly improved a single measure of executive function in bipolar disorder. We were unable to detect between‐group differences on other neurocognitive measures, with improvement noted in both groups. Subject phenotyping on the basis of pre‐existing neurocognitive deficits and/or genotype [e.g., apolipoprotein E (ApoE)] may possibly identify a more responsive subgroup.     

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of oxcarbazepine in the treatment of bipolar disorder in children and adolescents

OBJECTIVE: This multicenter trial examined the efficacy and safety of oxcarbazepine in the treatment of bipolar disorder in children and adolescents. METHOD: A total of 116 outpatients 7 to 18 years of age with bipolar I disorder, manic or mixed, were recruited at 20 centers in the United States and randomly assigned to receive 7 weeks of double-blinded, flexibly dosed treatment with oxcarbazepine (maximum dose 900-2400 mg/day) or placebo. The primary efficacy measure was the mean change from baseline to endpoint in the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), using the last-observation-carried-forward method. RESULTS: Oxcarbazepine (mean dose=1515 mg/day) did not significantly improve YMRS scores at endpoint compared with placebo [adjusted mean change: oxcarbazepine, -10.90 (N=55); placebo, -9.79 (N=55)]. Dizziness, nausea, somnolence, diplopia, fatigue, and rash were each reported in at least 5% of the patients in the oxcarbazepine group with an incidence at least twice that of the placebo group. The majority of adverse events were mild to moderate and occurred during the titration period. Eleven patients (19%) in the oxcarbazepine group discontinued the study because of adverse events, compared with two (4%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Oxcarbazepine is not significantly superior to placebo in the treatment of bipolar disorder in youths. While the overall adverse event profile was similar to that reported for patients with epilepsy, the incidence of psychiatric adverse events for both the oxcarbazepine and placebo groups was higher than that reported for the epilepsy population.     

The effectiveness and tolerability of aripiprazole for pediatric bipolar disorders: a retrospective chart review

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this retrospective chart review was to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of aripiprazole for the treatment of children and adolescents with bipolar disorders. METHODS: The medical charts of all children and adolescents with a DSM-IV diagnosis of bipolar disorder, type I, type II, not otherwise specified (NOS), or schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, and who were treated with aripiprazole were reviewed by two child and adolescent psychiatrists who independently confirmed their DSM-IV diagnoses, severity, and the improvement of illness using the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) Severity and Improvement scores for bipolar disorder (CGI-BP) and the Clinical Global Assessment Scale (CGAS). RESULTS: Thirty patients who were treated with aripiprazole were identified (mean starting dose=9 +/- 4 mg/day, mean final dose=10 +/- 3 mg/day). The overall response rate, defined by a CGI-Improvement score of < or = 2 at endpoint, was 67%. There was a statistically significant improvement in CGAS scores (48 +/- 11 to 65 +/- 11, signed rank = 191, p <0.0001) and CGI-S scores (4.2 +/- 0.8 to 2.8 +/- 1.0, signed rank=-172, p <0.0001, effect size=1.90) from baseline to endpoint. No serious adverse events were identified. Common side effects were sedation (n=10, 33%), akathisia (n=7, 23%), and gastrointestinal disturbances (n=2, 7%). Baseline and endpoint weights were available for 14 (47%) of the patients. Change in weight ranged from +5 to -21 kg and 12 (86%) of 14 patients lost weight (mean weight loss was 3 +/- 6 kg). CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective chart review suggests that aripiprazole may be effective and well tolerated for children and adolescents with bipolar disorders. Controlled studies of aripiprazole for the treatment of pediatric bipolar disorder are necessary.     

A Placebo-Controlled,Fixed-Dose Study of Aripiprazole in Children and Adolescents With Irritability Associated With Autistic Disorder

ObjectiveTo evaluate the short-term efficacy and safety of aripiprazole in the treatment of irritability in children and adolescents with autistic disorder.MethodTwo hundred eighteen children and adolescents (aged 6–17 years) with a diagnosis of autistic disorder, and with behaviors such as tantrums, aggression, self-injurious behavior, or a combination of these symptoms, were randomized 1:1:1:1 to aripiprazole (5, 10, or 15 mg/day) or placebo in this 8-week double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Efficacy was evaluated using the caregiver-rated Aberrant Behavior Checklist Irritability subscale (primary efficacy measure) and the clinician-rated Clinical Global Impressions–Improvement score. Safety and tolerability were also assessed.ResultsAt week 8, all aripiprazole doses produced significantly greater improvement than placebo in mean Aberrant Behavior Checklist Irritability subscale scores (5 mg/day, ?12.4; 10 mg/day, ?13.2; 15 mg/day, ?14.4; versus placebo, ?8.4; all p < .05). All aripiprazole doses demonstrated significantly greater im provements in mean Clinical Global Impressions–Improvement score than placebo at week 8. Discontinuation rates due to adverse events were as follows: placebo 7.7%, aripiprazole 5 mg/day 9.4%, 10 mg/day 13.6%, and 15 mg/day 7.4%. The most common adverse event leading to discontinuation was sedation. There were two serious adverse events: presyncope (5 mg/day) and aggression (10 mg/day). At week 8, mean weight change (last observation carried forward) was as follows: placebo +0.3 kg, aripiprazole 5 mg/day +1.3 kg, 10 mg/day +1.3 kg, and 15 mg/day +1.5 kg; all p < .05 versus placebo.ConclusionsAripiprazole was efficacious and generally safe and well tolerated in the treatment of children and adol escents with irritability associated with autistic disorder. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry, 2009;48(11):1110–1119.     

Topiramate monotherapy in the management of acute mania: results of four double-blind placebo-controlled trials

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate monotherapy in adults with acute manic or mixed episodes of bipolar I disorder. METHODS: In four trials, adults hospitalized with acute mania, a diagnosis of bipolar I disorder, history of > or =1 previous manic or mixed episodes, and > or =20 Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score were randomized to double-blind treatment with topiramate (target doses: 200, 400, or 600 mg/day) or placebo; two trials included an active comparator (lithium, 1500 mg/day). The core study duration in all trials was 3 weeks; three trials also had 9-week double-blind extensions. The primary efficacy variable was mean change from baseline in YMRS in the core 3-week study. RESULTS: Changes in YMRS score during 3 weeks were not significantly different for topiramate versus placebo (mean YMRS reductions, -5.1 to -8.4). Mean YMRS reductions in lithium-treated groups were significantly greater (p < or = 0.001 versus placebo and topiramate). A similar pattern was observed after 12 weeks of double-blind treatment in studies with double-blind extensions. Paresthesia, appetite decrease, dry mouth, and weight loss were more frequently associated with topiramate than with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: These studies do not support the efficacy of topiramate as monotherapy in acute mania or mixed episodes in adults with bipolar I disorder. Topiramate was not associated with mood destabilization measured as mania exacerbation or treatment-emergent depression. Lithium was confirmed as an effective therapy in this population.     

Analyses of treatment-emergent mania with olanzapine/fluoxetine combination in the treatment of bipolar depression

BACKGROUND: Treatment-emergent mania is a potential risk when patients with bipolar disorder are treated with antidepressant agents. These subanalyses compare treatment-emergent mania rates in bipolar I depressed patients treated with olanzapine, placebo, or olanzapine/fluoxetine combination. METHOD: In this 8-week, double-blind investigation, patients with bipolar I depression (DSM-IV criteria) (N = 833, baseline Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score > or = 20) were randomly assigned to olanzapine (5-20 mg/day, N = 370), placebo (N = 377), or olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (6/25, 6/50, or 12/50 mg/day; N = 86). Treatment-emergent mania was evaluated with the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), the Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar Edition (CGI-BP) Severity of Mania scale, and adverse events records. RESULTS: Overall rates of study discontinuation due to mania were low and not significantly different among the therapy groups (p = .358). Incidence of treatment-emergent mania (defined as a YMRS score < 15 at baseline and > or = 15 at any subsequent visit) did not differ significantly among therapy groups (olanzapine 5.7%, placebo 6.7%, olanzapine/fluoxetine combination 6.4%; p = .861). Subjects receiving olanzapine or olanzapine/fluoxetine combination had greater mean decreases in YMRS scores than those receiving placebo (p < .001 for both). Subjects receiving olanzapine or olanzapine/fluoxetine combination also had greater mean decreases in CGI-BP scores than those receiving placebo (p = .040 and p = .003, respectively). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that olanzapine/fluoxetine combination does not present a greater risk of treatment-emergent mania compared to olanzapine or placebo over 8 weeks of acute treatment for bipolar I depression. Due to the cyclical nature of bipolar disorder, patients taking olanzapine/fluoxetine combination for bipolar depression should still be monitored for signs or symptoms of emerging mania.