Jamie Mullen

Quetiapine versus placebo in combination with lithium or divalproex for the treatment of bipolar mania.

Abstract: Quetiapine (QTP) combined with lithium (Li) or divalproex (DVP) for the treatment of mania was evaluated in 2 double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. Patients were randomized to 3 or 6 weeks of treatment with QTP plus Li/DVP or placebo (PBO) plus Li/DVP. Quetiapine was dosed up to 800 mg/d; Li was dosed to achieve serum concentrations of 0.7-1.0 mEq/L and DVP to 50-100 μg/mL. A total of 402 patients were randomized: 197 to QTP + Li/DVP and 205 to PBO + Li/DVP. The mean quetiapine dose in responders was 492 (±204) mg/d. Improvement in the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) at day 21 in the QTP + Li/DVP group (−15.29) was statistically superior to the PBO + Li/DVP group (−12.19) (P < 0.05). A statistically significant difference in favor of quetiapine was observed within the first week (P < 0.05). Significantly more QTP + Li/DVP patients achieved a response (≥50% decrease in the YMRS) at day 21 (QTP + Li/DVP, 55.7%; PBO + Li/DVP, 41.6%;P < 0.01). Improvements in Clinical Global Impression-Bipolar Severity of Illness scores by day 21 were also significantly greater in QTP + Li/DVP-treated patients (−1.59) versus PBO + Li/DVP (−1.19) (P < 0.01). Common adverse events (≥5% and twice that in the PBO + Li/DVP group) in the QTP + Li/DVP group were somnolence, dry mouth, and asthenia. Quetiapine combined with Li/DVP was not associated with extrapyramidal symptoms (including akathisia) or emergent depression. More QTP + Li/DVP-treated patients completed the trial, and there was no difference in discontinuation rates due to adverse events between the two groups. Quetiapine, in combination with lithium or divalproex, is well tolerated and has superior efficacy to lithium or divalproex alone in the treatment of bipolar mania.

A Comparison of the Relative Safety, Efficacy, and Tolerability of Quetiapine and Risperidone in Outpatients with Schizophrenia and Other Psychotic Disorders: The Quetiapine Experience with Safety and Tolerability (QUEST) Study

BACKGROUND The few published direct comparative studies of the tolerability and efficacy of atypical antipsychotic agents were performed in relatively homogeneous populations that may not be typical of patients seen in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE The Quetiapine Experience with Safety and Tolerability (QUEST) study compared the relative safety, tolerability, and efficacy of quetiapine and risperidone in outpatients with a broad range of psychotic symptoms. METHODS This was a multicenter, 4-month, open-label, randomized clinical trial. Patients were randomized in a 3:1 ratio to receive quetiapine or risperidone. Doses were adjusted to maximize efficacy and to minimize adverse events. Extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) were assessed with an EPS checklist; adverse events were recorded. Efficacy was assessed using the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale, Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS), and Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D). RESULTS A total of 728 patients were randomized, 553 to quetiapine and 175 to risperidone. Mean prescribed doses over the study period were 253.9 mg/d quetiapine and 4.4 mg/d risperidone. At the end of 4 months, EPS declined in both treatment groups, but quetiapine-treated patients were significantly less likely to require dose adjustment or concurrent anti-EPS medication (P < 0.001). The most common adverse events in the quetiapine and risperidone groups were somnolence (31.3% and 15.4%, respectively), dry mouth (14.5% and 6.9%), and dizziness (12.7% and 6.9%). Overall, tolerance to side effects with the 2 drugs, measured by dropout rates, was comparable. At each visit, a higher percentage of quetiapine-treated patients showed improvement on the CGI scale, but there were no significant between-group differences on the PANSS. At end point, quetiapine-treated patients had significantly lower HAM-D scores (P = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS The results of this study suggest that quetiapine is as effective as risperidone for the treatment of psychotic symptoms, is more effective for depressive symptoms, may have a more favorable EPS profile, and has comparable overall tolerability.

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.

Quetiapine for the treatment of bipolar mania in older adults

OBJECTIVES A post hoc analysis of pooled data from two quetiapine monotherapy clinical trials was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine therapy (twice daily, 400-800 mg/day) among bipolar manic adults aged 55 years and older. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score at Day 21. A secondary endpoint was change from baseline in YMRS score at Day 84. METHODS A total of 407 patients made up the safety population, consisting of 59 older adults (aged >or=55 years) and 348 younger adults. A total of 403 patients made up the efficacy population, consisting of 59 older adults and 344 younger adults. Efficacy outcomes were analyzed using covariance models (ANCOVA); descriptive statistics are presented for safety outcomes. RESULTS Both older and younger individuals treated with quetiapine had significant improvement from baseline on YMRS scores compared with placebo-treated patients. The older adult group demonstrated a sustained reduction in YMRS score compared with placebo that was apparent by Day 4 of treatment. For the quetiapine treatment groups, the most common adverse effects (at a frequency >or=10%) were dry mouth, somnolence, postural hypotension, insomnia, weight gain, and dizziness in older adults, and dry mouth, somnolence, and insomnia in younger adults. For the placebo treatment groups, insomnia was the most common adverse event in both older and younger adults. CONCLUSIONS This secondary analysis suggests that quetiapine represents a potentially useful treatment option among older adults with bipolar I mania. Studies with a primary focus of geriatric bipolar mania, and including larger patient numbers, are needed to confirm these findings.

Reporting outcomes in clinical trials for bipolar disorder: a commentary and suggestions for change.

OBJECTIVE Newer outcome measures and statistical reporting that better translate efficacy data to evidence-based psychiatric care are needed when evaluating clinical trials for bipolar disorder. Using efficacy studies as illustrations, the authors review and recommend changes in the reporting of traditional clinical outcomes both in the acute and maintenance phases of bipolar disorder. METHODS Definitions of response, remission, relapse, recovery, and recurrence are reviewed and recommendations for change are made. These suggestions include reporting the numbers needed to treat or harm (NNT or NNH), and a ratio of the two, likelihood of help or harm (LHH), as an important element of the effect size (ES). Moreover, models of prediction that conduct sensitivity or specificity analyses and utilize decision trees to help predict positive and negative outcomes of interest (for instance, excessive weight gain, or time to remission) using positive or negative predictive values (PPV or NPV) are reviewed for potential value to clinicians. Finally, functional and cognitive assessments are recommended for maintenance studies of bipolar disorder. RESULTS The examples provided in this manuscript underscore that reporting the NNT or NNH, or alternative effect sizes, or using PPV or NPV may be of particular value to clinicians. Such reports are likely to help translate efficacy-driven clinical data to information that will more readily guide clinicians on the benefits and risks of specific interventions in bipolar disorder. CONCLUSIONS The authors opine that reporting these newer outcomes, such as NNT or NNH, area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), or PPV or NPV will help translate the results of clinical trials into a language that is more readily understood by clinicians. Moreover, assessing and evaluating functional and cognitive outcomes will not only inform clinicians about potential differences among therapeutic options, but likely will make it easier to communicate such differences to persons with bipolar illness or to their families. Finally, we hope such scientific and research efforts will translate to optimism for recovery-based outcomes in persons with bipolar disorder.

The Eye As a Biomarker for Alzheimer's Disease

Alzheimers disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder resulting in dementia and eventual death. It is the leading cause of dementia and the number of cases are projected to rise in the next few decades. Pathological hallmarks of AD include the presence of hyperphosphorylated tau and amyloid protein deposition. Currently, these pathological biomarkers are detected either through cerebrospinal fluid analysis, brain imaging or post-mortem. Though effective, these methods are not widely available due to issues such as the difficulty in acquiring samples, lack of infrastructure or high cost. Given that the eye possesses clear optics and shares many neural and vascular similarities to the brain, it offers a direct window to cerebral pathology. These unique characteristics lend itself to being a relatively inexpensive biomarker for AD which carries the potential for wide implementation. The development of ocular biomarkers can have far implications in the discovery of treatments which can improve the quality of lives of patients. In this review, we consider the current evidence for ocular biomarkers in AD and explore potential future avenues of research in this area.

A Random-Assignment, Double-Blind, Clinical Trial of Once- vs Twice-Daily Administration of Quetiapine Fumarate in Patients with Schizophrenia or Schizoaffective Disorder: A Pilot Study

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of administering quetiapine once vs twice daily. Method: Utilizing a double-blind design, 21 hospitalized adult men or women with DSM-IV schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, who had received unchanged doses (for 2 weeks) of either 400 or 600 mg daily of quetiapine administered in 2 doses, were randomly assigned to once- or twice-daily administration for 4 weeks and then crossed over to the opposite dosing regimen for an additional 4 weeks. Standard psychopathology and safety measures were used in the study. Results: Nearly 70% (15/21) of the subjects met the a priori efficacy responder criteria with no statistical differences in response between those assigned to once- or twice-daily quetiapine administration. Statistical analyses confirmed that most subjects maintained efficacy during the switch to once- or twice-daily administration with quetiapine. A minority (15%) did experience worsening of symptoms or orthostatic hypotension during the crossover. Quetiapine was generally well tolerated at either twice- or once-daily administration. Conclusions: These pilot data suggest that it is clinically feasible to switch most quetiapine-treated subjects receiving a therapeutic twice-daily dosing schedule to a once-daily regimen. A minority may experience worsening of symptoms or orthostatic hypotension during the switch. This strategy of administering quetiapine entirely at bedtime may promote improved adherence to treatment.

A comparison of extrapyramidal symptoms in older outpatients treated with quetiapine or risperidone

SUMMARY Objective: To compare the tolerability of quetiapine with risperidone in older outpatients. Research design and methods: Post hoc analysis of a subset of older patients (aged 60–80; n = 92) from a randomized, 4-month, multicenter, open-label trial comparing quetiapine and risperidone in an outpatient setting. Participants had various neuropsychiatric disorders associated with psychosis as defined by criteria from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edn). Main outcome measures: The main outcome measure was an extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) checklist, used to assess motor symptoms, including parkinsonism, at baseline and after treatment. The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and the Clinical Global Impression scale were used to assess therapeutic efficacy. Results: Substantial EPS (defined as EPS requiring a dosage adjustment or use of medication to reduce EPS) occurred less often with quetiapine (median dosage, 200 mg/day) than with risperidone (median dosage, 3 mg/day); odds ratio, 0.31 ( P < 0.03). Quetiapine was also less likely than risperidone to cause akathisia or hypertonia. Both compounds produced comparable reductions in PANSS scores. Conclusions: Interpretation of findings in this report is limited by the open-label design of the study and the post hoc nature of this analysis. However, the results suggest that quetiapine, when given within the recommended dosage range, has a benign EPS profile, with potentially greater tolerability and comparable efficacy to risperidone in older outpatients with psychotic disorders.

Population Pharmacokinetic Modeling With Enterohepatic Circulation for AZD3241 in Healthy Subjects and Patients With Multiple System Atrophy

AZD3241 is a potent and selective myeloperoxidase inhibitor potentially for the treatment of a number of neurodegenerative disorders, including multiple system atrophy (MSA). The objectives of this work were to develop a population pharmacokinetic (PopPK) model for AZD3241 and to investigate the correlation between AZD3241 exposure and myeloperoxidase inhibition. The PopPK model was developed using AZD3241 data from one phase 1 study in healthy subjects and one phase 2 study in patients with MSA. A one‐compartment model incorporating a gallbladder compartment for enterohepatic circulation, sequential zero‐first order absorption, and first‐order elimination adequately described the AZD3241 concentration profiles. The apparent clearance and central volume of distribution were 63.1 L/h (interindividual variability: 34.8%) and 121.9 L (interindividual variability: 44.0%), respectively. The enterohepatic circulation model reasonably captured the second peak of AZD3241, and high‐fat food increased the absorption rate by 69%. A linear regression model was applied to describe the relationship between AZD3241 exposure and percentage change from baseline in myeloperoxidase‐specific activity. The developed PopPK model was consistent with known pharmacokinetic characteristics of AZD3241. This model can be used to estimate AZD3241 exposure in patients with MSA and could be applied to future pharmacokinetic‐pharmacodynamic analyses of AZD3241 in clinical development.

Clinical Bioavailability of the Novel BACE1 Inhibitor Lanabecestat (AZD3293): Assessment of Tablet Formulations Versus an Oral Solution and the Impact of Gastric pH on Pharmacokinetics

The relative bioavailability of lanabecestat administered as 2 tablet formulations versus an oral solution was investigated. This phase 1 single‐center, open‐label, randomized, 3‐period crossover study involved healthy male and nonfertile female subjects aged 18–55 years (NCT02039180). Subjects received a single 50‐mg lanabecestat dose as solution, tablet A, or tablet B on day 1 of each crossover period; 14 of 16 subjects completed the study. Relative bioavailability based on plasma lanabecestat AUC0–∞ (area under the plasma drug concentration–time curve from zero to infinity) geometric mean ratio versus oral solution (primary variable) was: tablet A, 1.052 (90% confidence interval [CI], 1.001–1.106); tablet B, 1.040 (0.989–1.093). These 90%CIs for geometric mean ratios are within accepted standard bioequivalence boundaries for all other pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters for both lanabecestat and metabolite (AZ13569724). All 3 formulations had similar plasma lanabecestat concentration–time profiles. Six adverse events were reported by 6 subjects (37.5%, all mild). GastroPlus modeling predicted a negligible impact of gastric pH changes on systemic PK (up to pH 7.4). Both tablet formulations fall within standard accepted bioequivalence criteria versus the oral solution. A single 50‐mg lanabecestat dose was well tolerated as a solution or tablet formulation in this population.