Eileen Brown

Prasugrel versus Clopidogrel for Acute Coronary Syndromes without Revascularization

BACKGROUND The effect of intensified platelet inhibition for patients with unstable angina or myocardial infarction without ST-segment elevation who do not undergo revascularization has not been delineated. METHODS In this double-blind, randomized trial, in a primary analysis involving 7243 patients under the age of 75 years receiving aspirin, we evaluated up to 30 months of treatment with prasugrel (10 mg daily) versus clopidogrel (75 mg daily). In a secondary analysis involving 2083 patients 75 years of age or older, we evaluated 5 mg of prasugrel versus 75 mg of clopidogrel. RESULTS At a median follow-up of 17 months, the primary end point of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke among patients under the age of 75 years occurred in 13.9% of the prasugrel group and 16.0% of the clopidogrel group (hazard ratio in the prasugrel group, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.05; P=0.21). Similar results were observed in the overall population. The prespecified analysis of multiple recurrent ischemic events (all components of the primary end point) suggested a lower risk for prasugrel among patients under the age of 75 years (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.00; P=0.04). Rates of severe and intracranial bleeding were similar in the two groups in all age groups. There was no significant between-group difference in the frequency of nonhemorrhagic serious adverse events, except for a higher frequency of heart failure in the clopidogrel group. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with unstable angina or myocardial infarction without ST-segment elevation, prasugrel did not significantly reduce the frequency of the primary end point, as compared with clopidogrel, and similar risks of bleeding were observed. (Funded by Eli Lilly and Daiichi Sankyo; TRILOGY ACS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00699998.).

Fluoxetine for acute treatment of depression in children and adolescents: A placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND This report presents results from the acute treatment phase of a clinical trial designed to confirm efficacy of a fixed dose of 20 mg of fluoxetine in children and adolescents with major depressive disorder (MDD). METHOD After a 3-week screening period, 122 children and 97 adolescents with MDD ( ) were randomly assigned to placebo or fluoxetine. After a 1-week placebo lead-in, fluoxetine-treated patients received fluoxetine 10 mg/day for 1 week, then fluoxetine 20 mg/day for 8 weeks. RESULTS Fluoxetine was associated with greater mean improvement in Childrens Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R) score than placebo after 1 week ( <.05) and throughout the study period. Significantly more fluoxetine-treated patients (41%) met the prospectively defined criteria for remission than did placebo-treated patients (20%) ( <.01). More fluoxetine- (65%) than placebo-treated (53%) patients met the prospectively defined response criterion of > or =30% decrease in CDRS-R score, but this difference was not significant ( =.093). Significantly more fluoxetine-than placebo-treated patients completed acute treatment ( =.001). There were no significant differences between treatment groups in discontinuations due to adverse events ( =.408). CONCLUSION Fluoxetine 20 mg daily appears to be well tolerated and effective for acute treatment of MDD in child and adolescent outpatients. Fluoxetine is the only antidepressant that has demonstrated efficacy in two placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials of pediatric depression.

Platelet Function During Extended Prasugrel and Clopidogrel Therapy for Patients With ACS Treated Without Revascularization: The TRILOGY ACS Platelet Function Substudy

CONTEXT The relationship of platelet function testing measurements with outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) initially managed medically without revascularization is unknown. OBJECTIVE To characterize the differences and evaluate clinical outcomes associated with platelet reactivity among patients with ACS treated with clopidogrel or prasugrel. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS Patients with medically managed unstable angina or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were enrolled in the TRILOGY ACS trial (2008 to 2011) comparing clopidogrel vs prasugrel. Of 9326 participants, 27.5% were included in a platelet function substudy: 1286 treated with prasugrel and 1278 treated with clopidogrel. INTERVENTIONS Aspirin with either prasugrel (10 or 5 mg/d) or clopidogrel (75 mg/d); those 75 years or older and younger than 75 years but who weighed less than 60 kg received a 5-mg prasugrel maintenance dose. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Platelet reactivity, measured in P2Y12 reaction units (PRUs), was performed at baseline, at 2 hours, and at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 30 months after randomization. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke through 30 months. RESULTS Among participants younger than 75 years and weighing 60 kg or more, the median PRU values at 30 days were 64 (interquartile range [IQR], 33-128) in the prasugrel group vs 200 (IQR, 141-260) in the clopidogrel group (P < .001), a difference that persisted through all subsequent time points. For participants younger than 75 years and weighing less than 60 kg, the median 30-day PRU values were 139 (IQR, 86-203) for the prasugrel group vs 209 (IQR, 148-283) for the clopidogrel group (P < .001), and for participants 75 years or older, the median PRU values were 164 (IQR, 105-216) for the prasugrel group vs 222 (IQR, 148-268) for the clopidogrel group (P < .001). At 30 months the rate of the primary efficacy end point was 17.2% (160 events) in the prasugrel group vs 18.9% (180 events) in the clopidogrel group (P = .29). There were no significant differences in the continuous distributions of 30-day PRU values for participants with a primary efficacy end point event after 30 days (n = 214) compared with participants without an event (n = 1794; P = .07) and no significant relationship between the occurence of the primary efficacy end point and continuous PRU values (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] for increase of 60 PRUs, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.96-1.11; P = .44). Similar findings were observed with 30-day PRU cut points used to define high on-treatment platelet reactivity-PRU more than 208 (adjusted HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.89-1.52, P = .28) and PRU more than 230 (adjusted HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.90-1.61; P = .21). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with ACS without ST-segment elevation and initially managed without revascularization, prasugrel was associated with lower platelet reactivity than clopidogrel, irrespective of age, weight, and dose. Among those in the platelet substudy, no significant differences existed between prasugrel vs clopidogrel in the occurence of the primary efficacy end point through 30 months and no significant association existed between platelet reactivity and occurrence of ischemic outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00699998.

Study design and rationale of a comparison of prasugrel and clopidogrel in medically managed patients with unstable angina/non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the TaRgeted platelet Inhibition to cLarify the Optimal strateGy to medicallY manage Acute Coronary Syndromes (TRILOGY ACS) trial.

Practice guidelines recommend dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel for patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE ACS) regardless of in-hospital management strategy. Prasugrel-a thienopyridine adenosine diphosphate receptor antagonist that provides higher and less variable levels of platelet inhibition than clopidogrel-has demonstrated benefit when used to treat ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. However, the optimal approach to antiplatelet therapy for high-risk, medically managed NSTE ACS patients remains uncertain, as these patients have not been the focus of previous clinical trials of these therapies. TRILOGY ACS is a phase 3, randomized, double-blind trial enrolling approximately 10,300 NSTE ACS patients within 10 days of presentation with either unstable angina or NSTE myocardial infarction who are not intended to undergo revascularization procedures for their index event. Patients will be randomly allocated to prasugrel + aspirin versus clopidogrel + aspirin for a median duration of 18 months. A reduction in the maintenance dose of prasugrel for elderly patients (age >or=75 years) and those with body weight <60 kg is planned. The primary composite efficacy end point will be time to first occurrence of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke in patients aged <75 years. If the superiority of prasugrel is established in patients aged <75 years, the treatment arms will then be compared for all subjects (including those aged >or=75 years). TRILOGY ACS is the largest randomized clinical trial to date focusing exclusively on medically managed NSTE ACS patients and will provide important information regarding the optimal approach to oral antiplatelet therapy for this high-risk, understudied population.

Premenstrual daily fluoxetine for premenstrual dysphoric disorder: a placebo-controlled, clinical trial using computerized diaries.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate premenstrual daily dosing with fluoxetine for treatment of premenstrual dysphoric disorder. METHODS After a two‐cycle screening and one‐cycle single‐blind placebo period, 260 women were randomized to fluoxetine 10 mg, fluoxetine 20 mg, or placebo (dosed daily from 14 days before next expected menses through the first full day of bleeding) for three cycles. Women recorded premenstrual dysphoric disorder symptoms daily using a computerized version of the Daily Record of Severity of Problems. RESULTS Premenstrual daily fluoxetine 20 mg demonstrated significant improvement in mean Daily Record of Severity of Problems luteal scores compared with placebo (P = .005); premenstrual daily fluoxetine 10 mg did not (P = .100). Daily Record of Severity of Problems total scores were statistically significantly improved by the first treatment cycle for both active treatment groups. However, only fluoxetine 20 mg remained statistically significantly superior to placebo throughout the active treatment phase of the trial. Both fluoxetine groups showed significant treatment advantage over placebo for mood‐related symptoms (P < .05). Only premenstrual daily fluoxetine 20 mg showed significant treatment advantage over placebo for physical symptoms of breast tenderness (P < .001), bloating (P = .001), and joint/muscle pain (P = .037). Treatment was well tolerated; discontinuations due to adverse events did not differ among the three groups (P = .316). CONCLUSION Premenstrual daily dosing with fluoxetine effectively treats mood, physical, and social functioning symptoms associated with premenstrual dysphoric disorder. Fluoxetine 20 mg appears to have comparable tolerability with, and better efficacy than, fluoxetine 10 mg.

Weekly luteal-phase dosing with enteric-coated fluoxetine 90 mg in premenstrual dysphoric disorder: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND Because the symptoms of premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) are limited to the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle, the potential benefit of luteal-phase dosing has been hypothesized. OBJECTIVE This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of enteric-coated fluoxetine 90 mg given once or twice during the luteal phase for the treatment of PMDD. METHODS Study drug was given 14 and 7 days before expected menses during the luteal phase of 3 menstrual cycles. After a screening period and single-blind placebo lead-in period, eligible women were randomized to I of 3 treatment groups: enteric-coated fluoxetine 90 mg on both days (LPWDx2); placebo 14 days before menses and enteric-coated fluoxetine 90 mg 7 days before menses (LPWDx1); or placebo on both days (PLC). The primary efficacy measure was change from baseline in mean luteal-phase scores on the Daily Record of Severity of Problems (DRSP). Secondary efficacy measures included scores on the Rating Scale for Premenstrual Tension Syndrome, Clinician-Rated (PMTS-C); the Clinical Global Impression (CGI)-Severity scale; and the Patient Global Impression (PGI)-Improvement scale. Quality of life was assessed using the Sheehan Disability Scale. RESULTS Two hundred fifty-seven women were randomized to treatment. At the end of the study, the LPWDx2 group had statistically significant improvements in DRSP total, DRSP mood subtotal, DRSP social functioning subtotal, PMTS-C, CGI-Severity, PGI-Improvement, and Sheehan Disability Scale work and family life scores compared with LPWDx1 and PLC (each measure, P < 0.05). There was also a statistically significant improvement in the score on the social life section of the Sheehan Disability Scale with LPWDx2 compared with PLC (P = 0.037). Across all treatment groups, 5 patients discontinued due to nonserious adverse events. Rates of discontinuation for any reason did not differ between the 3 treatment groups. CONCLUSION The findings of this study support the efficacy and tolerability of enteric-coated fluoxetine 90 mg given twice during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle for the treatment of PMDD.

Acute dysphoric mania: treatment response to olanzapine versus placebo.

A substantial number of patients with mania have significant concomitant depressive features, and they may respond differently to mood stabilizers than patients with pure mania. This post-hoc analysis explored the response characteristics of olanzapine versus placebo in bipolar I manic patients with dysphoric and nondysphoric mania (differentiated by baseline Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HAM-D] score of >20). Two similar, double-blind, randomized trials comparing olanzapine, 5–20 mg, to placebo were pooled for these analyses (N = 246). Mean changes in Young-Mania Rating Scale (Y-MRS) and HAM-D scores during 3 weeks of treatment were examined. Twenty-eight percent of patients had dysphoric mania (olanzapine, n = 33; placebo, n = 35). Among these patients, olanzapine-treated patients had greater improvement within 1 week than did placebo-treated patients on both mania ratings (Y-MRS: −9.7 vs. −3.0 points;p = 0.011) and depressive symptom ratings (HAM-D: −9.9 vs. −5.4 points;p = 0.025). Among those manic subjects without prominent depressive symptoms (olanzapine, n = 91; placebo, n = 87), mean Y-MRS improvement from baseline to endpoint with olanzapine (−11.5 points) versus placebo (−6.13 points) was comparable to the improvement seen with olanzapine versus placebo in the dysphoric mania subgroup (p = 0.476, test of interaction). In acutely ill manic patients with significant depressive symptoms, olanzapine demonstrated a broad spectrum of efficacy, effectively treating both manic and depressive symptoms. The magnitude of the antimanic response appears similar, regardless of baseline depressive features. Additional experience with putative mood stabilizers and atypical agents in mixed mania should include an exploration of their efficacy in treating both manic and depressive mood symptoms.

Olanzapine/fluoxetine combination vs. lamotrigine in the 6-month treatment of bipolar I depression

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC) compared with lamotrigine (Lam) for long-term treatment of bipolar I depression, this 25-wk, randomized, double-blind study compared OFC (6/25, 6/50, 12/25, or 12/50 mg/d, n=205) with Lam titrated to 200 mg/d (n=205) in patients with bipolar I disorder, depressed. A protocol-specified analysis of 7-wk outcomes was previously reported. Outcome measures included Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) (primary), Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) scores. OFC-treated patients had significantly greater improvement than Lam-treated patients over 25 wk on CGI-S (p=0.008), MADRS (p=0.005), and YMRS (p<0.001) scores, and from baseline across visits from week 5 (titration complete) to the end of the study on CGI-S (p=0.043), MADRS (p=0.017), and YMRS (p=0.001) scores. Of patients in remission after the 7-wk acute phase, there was no significant difference between treatment groups in the incidence of relapse (MADRS >15, p=0.528). Rate of treatment-emergent mania was not significantly different by treatment (p=0.401). OFC-treated patients had more frequent (p<0.05) somnolence, increased appetite, dry mouth, sedation, weight gain, and tremor; Lam-treated patients had more frequent insomnia. There was a significant difference in incidence of treatment-emergent cholesterol > or = 240 (p<0.001) and in weight gain of > or = 7% (p<0.001) in favour of the Lam group. Patients with bipolar I depression had significantly greater symptom improvement over 25 wk on OFC compared with Lam. There was no treatment difference in incidence of relapse. OFC-treated patients had more treatment-emergent adverse events and greater incidence of weight gain and hypercholesterolaemia.

Failed efficacy of fluoxetine in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder: Results of a fixed-dose, placebo-controlled study.

A multicenter, double-blind, 12-week, placebo-controlled trial of 411 randomized patients, predominantly women diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder, failed to show a difference between either dose of fluoxetine treatment and placebo. The mean changes from baseline (SD) measured by the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale scores were −42.9 (23.1), −42.8 (27.9), and −36.6 (25.7) in the 20-mg fluoxetine, 40-mg fluoxetine, and placebo arms, respectively. Placebo response rate was substantially higher in this study than in a previously published fluoxetine trial of posttraumatic stress disorder.

Effect of prasugrel pre-treatment strategy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for NSTEMI: the ACCOAST-PCI study.

BACKGROUND After percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), treatment with a P2Y12 antagonist with aspirin is recommended for 1 year. OBJECTIVES The oral P2Y12 antagonists ticagrelor and prasugrel have higher recommendations than clopidogrel, but it is unknown if administration before the start of PCI is beneficial. METHODS In the randomized, double-blind ACCOAST (A Comparison of prasugrel at the time of percutaneous Coronary intervention Or as pre-treatment At the time of diagnosis in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction) trial, 4,033 patients were diagnosed with NSTEMI and 68.7% underwent PCI; 1,394 received pre-treatment with prasugrel (30-mg loading dose), and 1,376 received placebo. At the time of PCI, patients who received pre-treatment with prasugrel received an additional 30-mg dose of prasugrel, and those who received placebo received a 60-mg loading dose of prasugrel. Primary efficacy was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, urgent revascularization, or glycoprotein IIb/IIIa bailout through 7 days from randomization. Investigators captured the presence of thrombus on initial angiography and during PCI. RESULTS The incidence of the primary endpoint through 7 days from randomization in the pre-treatment group versus the no pre-treatment group was 13.1% versus 13.1% (p = 0.93). Pre-treatment with prasugrel was not associated with decreases in any ischemic event, including total mortality. Patients with thrombus on angiography had a 3-fold higher incidence of the primary endpoint than patients without thrombus. There was no impact of pre-treatment with prasugrel on the presence of thrombus before PCI or on occurrence of stent thrombosis after PCI. There was a 3-fold increase in all non-coronary artery bypass graft Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major bleeding and a 6-fold increase in non-coronary artery bypass graft life-threatening bleeding with pre-treatment with prasugrel; the same trends persisted in patients who had radial or femoral access even with use of a closure device. CONCLUSIONS These findings support deferring treatment with prasugrel until a decision is made about revascularization in patients with NSTEMI undergoing angiography within 48 h of admission. (A Comparison of prasugrel at the time of percutaneous Coronary intervention Or as pre-treatment At the time of diagnosis in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [ACCOAST]; NCT01015287).