Rene Swanink

Aripiprazole Augmentation in Major Depressive Disorder: A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study in Patients with Inadequate Response to Antidepressants

INTRODUCTION Effective management of major depressive disorder (MDD) continues to be a challenging task for psychiatrists and primary care physicians. This trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of adjunctive aripiprazole versus antidepressant monotherapy in patients with MDD and independently replicated the positive findings of two similar trials. METHODS Patients (N=1,147) with MDD experiencing a major depressive episode and a history of inadequate response to antidepressant monotherapy were enrolled (week 0); 827 received single-blind adjunctive placebo plus open-label antidepressant (escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine controlled release, sertraline, or venlafaxine extended release) for 8 weeks to confirm inadequate response to antidepressants; 349 patients with inadequate response were randomized (1:1) to double-blind, adjunctive placebo (n=172) or adjunctive aripiprazole (n=177; 2-20 mg/day). Primary outcome was the mean change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) Total score from baseline (week 8) to endpoint (week 14). RESULTS Clinically significant improvements in depressive symptoms as assessed by decreases in the MADRS Total score were greater with adjunctive aripiprazole (-10.1) than placebo (-6.4; P<.001). Remission rates were greater for adjunctive aripiprazole than for adjunctive placebo (week 14, 36.8% vs 18.9%; P<.001). Completion rates with adjunctive aripiprazole and placebo were high (83% vs. 87%) and discontinuations due to adverse events were low (6.2% vs 1.7%). CONCLUSION For some patients with MDD who do not obtain adequate symptom relief with antidepressant monotherapy, adjunctive therapies can significantly improve depressive symptoms. As reported, adjunctive aripiprazole was associated with a two-fold higher remission rate than adjunctive placebo. This, and previous studies, have shown that discontinuations due to adverse events were low and completion rates were high, and has indicated that both antidepressant and aripiprazole in combination were relatively well-tolerated and safe. This is the third consecutive clinical trial, in the absence of a failed trial, to demonstrate that aripiprazole augmentation to antidepressants is an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment for patients with MDD who do not respond adequately to standard antidepressant monotherapy (ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT00105196).

Aripiprazole for the treatment of psychosis in patients with Alzheimer's disease: a randomized, placebo-controlled study.

Abstract: This study compared the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of aripiprazole, a novel antipsychotic, with placebo in patients with psychosis associated with Alzheimers Disease (AD). This 10-week, double-blind, multicenter study randomized 208 outpatients (mean age, 81.5 years) with AD-associated psychosis to aripiprazole (n = 106) or placebo (n = 102). The initial aripiprazole dose of 2 mg/d was titrated upwards (5, 10, or 15 mg/d) according to efficacy and tolerability. Evaluations included Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) Psychosis subscale and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), adverse event (AE) reports, extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) rating scales, and body weight. Overall, 172 patients (83%) completed the study. Mean aripiprazole dose at end point was 10.0 mg/d. The NPI Psychosis subscale score showed improvements in both groups (aripiprazole, −6.55; placebo, −5.52; P = 0.17 at end point). Aripiprazole-treated patients showed significantly greater improvements from baseline in BPRS Psychosis and BPRS Core subscale scores at end point compared with placebo. AEs were generally mild to moderate in severity and included (aripiprazole vs. placebo): urinary tract infection (8% vs. 12%), accidental injury (8% vs. 5%), somnolence (8% vs. 1%), and bronchitis (6% vs. 3%). Somnolence was mild and not associated with falls or accidental injury. There were no significant differences from placebo in EPS scores, or clinically significant ECG abnormalities, vital signs, or weight. In conclusion, aripiprazole showed similar improvements to placebo in psychotic symptoms as assessed by NPI Psychosis subscale scores, but significantly greater effects on BPRS Core and Psychosis assessments in community-living AD patients with psychosis. Aripiprazole was safe and well tolerated in this patient population.

A Double-Blind, Randomized Comparative Study of Aripiprazole and Olanzapine in Patients with Schizophrenia

BACKGROUND Few studies have directly compared the efficacy and tolerability of atypical agents. METHODS This multicenter, randomized, double-blind study compared the efficacy and tolerability of aripiprazole (n = 355) with olanzapine (n = 348) in patients with schizophrenia experiencing acute relapse. After a 6-week acute treatment phase, patients with Clinical Global Impression-Improvement = 1-3 or > or = 20% reduction in the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS) Total score could progress to the 46-week outpatient extension phase. Co-primary study objectives were to compare efficacy at Week 6 and weight gain liability from baseline to Week 26. RESULTS The mean olanzapine dose was 15.4 mg/day compared with a mean aripiprazole dose of 23.0 mg/day. More patients treated with olanzapine (47%) completed the 52-week study than those treated with aripiprazole (39%); time to discontinuation was significantly in favor of olanzapine (p < .05). At Week 6, mean change in PANSS Total score (olanzapine, -29.5; aripiprazole, -24.6 [random regression model]) showed a treatment difference of 4.9 points. As the pre-specified non-inferiority margin (6 points) was within the 95% confidence interval (2.2-7.6) for treatment difference, olanzapine proved to be superior to aripiprazole on this measure. More patients experienced significant weight gain at Week 26 with olanzapine (40%) than with aripiprazole (21%; p < .05 [weighted generalized estimating equation analysis]), with significant differences observed from Week 3. Mean weight gain at Week 26 was significantly greater with olanzapine than with aripiprazole (+4.30 kg vs. +.13 kg, respectively). CONCLUSIONS Olanzapine had a statistically significant efficacy advantage over aripiprazole, whereas aripiprazole was associated with significantly less weight gain.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of Aripiprazole for the Treatment of Psychosis in Nursing Home Patients with Alzheimer Disease

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole treatment for psychotic symptoms associated with Alzheimer disease (AD). METHODS In this parallel group, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, flexible-dose trial, institutionalized subjects with AD and psychotic symptoms were randomized to aripiprazole (n = 131) or placebo (n = 125) for 10 weeks. The aripiprazole starting dose was 2 mg/day, and could be titrated to higher doses (5, 10, and 15 mg/day) based on efficacy and tolerability. RESULTS No significant differences in mean change [2 x SD] from baseline between aripiprazole (mean dose approximately 9 mg/day at endpoint; range = 0.7-15.0 mg) and placebo were detected in the coprimary efficacy endpoints of Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Nursing Home Version (NPI-NH) Psychosis score (aripiprazole, -4.53 [9.23]; placebo, -4.62 [9.56]; F = 0.02, df = 1, 222, p = 0.883 [ANCOVA]) and Clinical Global Impression (CGI)-Severity score (aripiprazole, -0.57 [1.63]; placebo, -0.43 [1.65]; F = 1.67, df = 1, 220, p = 0.198 [ANCOVA]) at endpoint. However, improvements in several secondary efficacy measures (NPI-NH Total, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale Total, CGI - improvement, Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory and Cornell Depression Scale scores) indicated that aripiprazole may confer clinical benefits beyond the primary outcome measures. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were similar in both groups, except for somnolence (aripiprazole, 14%; placebo, 4%). Somnolence with aripiprazole was of mild or moderate intensity, and not associated with accidental injury. Incidence of AEs related to extrapyramidal symptoms was low with aripiprazole (5%) and placebo (4%). CONCLUSIONS In nursing home residents with AD and psychosis, aripiprazole did not confer specific benefits for the treatment of psychotic symptoms; but psychological and behavioral symptoms, including agitation, anxiety, and depression, were improved with aripiprazole, with a low risk of AEs.

Dasatinib in Pediatric Patients With Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Chronic Phase: Results From a Phase II Trial

Purpose Safe, effective treatments are needed for pediatric patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP). Dasatinib is approved for treatment of adults and children with CML-CP. A phase I study determined suitable dosing for children with Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) leukemias. Methods CA180-226/NCT00777036 is a phase II, open-label, nonrandomized prospective trial of patients < 18 years of age receiving dasatinib. There are three cohorts: (1) imatinib-resistant/intolerant CML-CP, (2) imatinib-resistant/intolerant CML in accelerated/blast phase or Ph+ acute lymphoblastic leukemia (n = 17), and (3) newly diagnosed CML-CP treated with tablets or powder for oral suspension. Major cytogenetic response > 30% for imatinib-resistant/intolerant patients and complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) > 55% for newly diagnosed patients were of clinical interest. Results Of 113 patients with CML-CP, 14 (48%) who were imatinib-resistant/intolerant and 61 (73%) who were newly diagnosed remained on treatment at time of analysis. Major cytogenetic response > 30% was reached by 3 months in the imatinib-resistant/intolerant group and CCyR > 55% was reached by 6 months in the newly diagnosed CML-CP group. CCyR and major molecular response by 12 months, respectively, were 76% and 41% in the imatinib-resistant/intolerant group and 92% and 52% in newly diagnosed CML-CP group. Progression-free survival by 48 months was 78% and 93% in the imatinib-resistant/intolerant and newly diagnosed CML-CP groups, respectively. No dasatinib-related pleural or pericardial effusion, pulmonary edema, or pulmonary arterial hypertension were reported. Bone growth and development events were reported in 4% of patients. Conclusion In the largest prospective trial to date in children with CML-CP, we demonstrate that dasatinib is a safe, effective treatment of pediatric CML-CP. Target responses to first- or second-line dasatinib were met early, and deep molecular responses were observed. Safety of dasatinib in pediatric patients was similar to that observed in adults; however, no cases of pleural or pericardial effusion or pulmonary arterial hypertension were reported.