Thomas R. Thompson

Lamotrigine in the acute treatment of bipolar depression: results of five double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES The efficacy of lamotrigine as maintenance treatment for bipolar disorder (BD), particularly for delaying depressive episodes, is well established, but its efficacy in the acute treatment of bipolar depression is less clear. This paper reports the results of five randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of lamotrigine monotherapy for the acute treatment of bipolar depression. METHODS Adult subjects with bipolar I or II disorder experiencing a depressive episode were randomized to placebo or lamotrigine monotherapy (after titration, at a fixed dose of 50 mg or 200 mg daily in Study 1; a flexible dose of 100-400 mg daily in Study 2; or a fixed dose of 200 mg daily in Studies 3, 4 and 5) for 7-10 weeks. RESULTS Lamotrigine did not differ significantly from placebo on primary efficacy endpoints [17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale in Studies 1 and 2; Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) in Studies 3, 4 and 5]. In Study 1, lamotrigine significantly separated from placebo on some secondary measures of efficacy, including the MADRS, the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) and the CGI-Improvement (CGI-I), but seldom differed on secondary efficacy endpoints for the other studies. CONCLUSIONS Lamotrigine monotherapy did not demonstrate efficacy in the acute treatment of bipolar depression in four out of five placebo-controlled clinical studies. Lamotrigine was well tolerated in the acute treatment of bipolar depression.

Maintenance treatment outcomes in older patients with bipolar I disorder.

OBJECTIVE The efficacy and tolerability of mood stabilizers in older adults with bipolar disorder remains understudied. Authors retrospectively examined response to lamotrigine, lithium, and placebo in older (>or=age 55) adults with Bipolar I disorder (DSM-IV) who participated in two mixed-age, maintenance studies examining time to intervention for an emerging mood episode (manic/hypomanic/mixed or depressed) and drug tolerability. METHODS In all, 588 patients received double-blind lamotrigine (LTG, 100 mg-400 mg/day), lithium (Li, 0.8 mEq/L-1.1 mEq/L), or placebo (PBO); data from 98 older adults (LTG: 33, Li: 34, PBO: 31) were examined. Mean modal total daily doses were LTG 240 mg and Li 750 mg. RESULTS LTG significantly delayed time to intervention for any mood episode and for a depressive episode, compared with placebo. Li significantly delayed time to intervention for mania/hypomania/mixed compared with placebo. Back pain and headache were the most common adverse events during LTG treatment; rash: LTG, 3%; Li, 6%; and PBO, 0; no serious rash was reported. The most common adverse events (>10%) during lithium treatment were dyspraxia, tremor, xerostomia, headache, infection, amnesia, dizziness, diarrhea, nausea, and fatigue. CONCLUSION Lamotrigine and lithium may be effective and well-tolerated maintenance therapies for older adults with Bipolar I depression.

A Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial of Lamotrigine as an Antidepressant Augmentation Agent in Treatment-Refractory Unipolar Depression

BACKGROUND Previous reports have suggested that lamotrigine is effective as an antidepressant augmentation agent in patients with treatment-resistant unipolar depression. This study is the largest double-blind placebo-controlled study conducted to date of lamotrigine in this role. METHOD In this multicenter trial, conducted at 19 sites, patients aged 18-65 years with a DSM-IV/ICD-10 diagnosis of unipolar, nonpsychotic major depressive disorder (confirmed by the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview) who had failed at least 1 adequate trial of an antidepressant (N = 183) were first treated for 8 weeks with open-label paroxetine or paroxetine controlled-release in dosages up to 50 mg/d or 62.5 mg/d, respectively. Individuals with a 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) score ≥ 15 (n = 96) were then randomized on a double-blind basis to receive either placebo or lamotrigine in dosages titrated upward to a maximum of 400 mg/d for 10 weeks. Sixty-five patients completed the study. The primary outcome measure was the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and the main secondary outcome measures were the HDRS-17 and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) and Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) ratings. Data were collected from 2003 to 2006. RESULTS Results of the primary efficacy analysis of the randomized patients using the MADRS, HDRS-17, CGI-S, and CGI-I did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference between lamotrigine and placebo groups, although some secondary analyses were suggestive of efficacy, particularly in those patients who completed the study (completer analysis) and in more severely ill patients (HDRS-17 ≥ 25). CONCLUSIONS This add-on study of patients with treatment-resistant depression failed to detect a statistically significant difference between lamotrigine and placebo given for 10 weeks. However, post hoc analyses suggest that future studies of lamotrigines efficacy might focus on specific subgroups with depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00901407.

Recurrence in Bipolar I Disorder: A Post Hoc Analysis Excluding Relapses in Two Double-blind Maintenance Studies

OBJECTIVE To assess the efficacy of lamotrigine or lithium in preventing mood recurrence (i.e., a new mood episode) in bipolar disorder. METHODS Data from bipolar I patients with relapses (i.e., mood episodes having the same polarity as the index episode within 90 or 180 days of randomization) were excluded from post hoc efficacy analyses of two 18-month, placebo-controlled maintenance trials of lamotrigine and lithium. RESULTS Both lamotrigine and lithium were more effective than placebo in delaying the time to intervention for any mood episode (depression, mania, hypomania, or mixed) when relapses that occurred in the first 90 days were excluded from the analyses (p = .002, lamotrigine vs. placebo; p = .010, lithium vs. placebo). Results were similar when patients with mood episodes within 180 days of randomization were excluded. CONCLUSIONS Both lamotrigine and lithium maintenance therapy protected against mood episode recurrence in bipolar I disorder.

Prospective, open-label trial measuring satisfaction and convenience of two formulations of lamotrigine in subjects with mood disorders.

Background Lamotrigine is an anticonvulsant drug indicated for the maintenance treatment of bipolar I disorder and for various types of epilepsy. An orally disintegrating tablet (ODT) of lamotrigine was developed to provide a formulation option that might increase patient convenience and satisfaction. Methods Subjects with mood disorders who reported difficulty swallowing currently prescribed lamotrigine immediate-release medication (baseline) were enrolled and treated with lamotrigine ODT for three weeks (end of treatment). Subject satisfaction and convenience were measured using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM). Also measured were global psychopathology using the Clinical Global Impression severity index (CGI-S) and depressive symptoms using the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II). Results Lamotrigine ODT was found to be significantly more convenient to use than lamotrigine immediate-release (change in baseline TSQM convenience score: 23.3, n = 97, P < 0.001). The mean TSQM global satisfaction score was similar at baseline (76.3) and after treatment with lamotrigine ODT (76.0). There were no significant changes on CGI-S and BDI-II. Conclusion Subjects reported that lamotrigine ODT was significantly more convenient than lamotrigine immediate-release, while both formulations were associated with good satisfaction. Lamotrigine ODT may be a treatment option for patients who have difficulty swallowing medication.

Proof-of-Concept Randomized Trial of the Monoclonal Antibody GSK249320 Versus Placebo in Stroke Patients

Background and Purpose— One class of poststroke restorative therapy focuses on promoting axon outgrowth by blocking myelin-based inhibitory proteins such as myelin-associated glycoprotein. The purpose of the current study was to extend preclinical and clinical findings of GSK249320, a humanized monoclonal antibody to myelin-associated glycoprotein with disabled Fc region, to explore effects on motor outcomes poststroke. Methods— In this phase IIb double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study, patients at 30 centers with ischemic stroke 24 to 72 hours prior and gait deficits were randomized to 2 IV infusions of GSK249320 or placebo. Primary outcome measure was change in gait velocity from baseline to day 90. Results— A total of 134 subjects were randomized between May 2013 and July 2014. The 2 groups were overall well matched at baseline. The study was stopped at the prespecified interim analysis because the treatment difference met the predefined futility criteria cutoff; change in gait velocity to day 90 was 0.55±0.46 (mean±SD) in the GSK249320 group and 0.56±0.50 for placebo. Secondary end points including upper extremity function were concordant. The 2 IV infusions of GSK249320 were well tolerated. No neutralizing antibodies to GSK249320 were detected. Conclusions— GSK249320, within 72 hours of stroke, demonstrated no improvement on gait velocity compared with placebo. Possible reasons include challenges translating findings into humans and no direct evidence that the therapy reached the biological target. The antibody was well tolerated and showed low immunogenicity, findings potentially useful to future studies aiming to use a monoclonal antibody to modify activity in specific biological pathways to improve recovery from stroke. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01808261.

Characteristics and symptomatology of patients diagnosed with unipolar depression at risk for undiagnosed bipolar disorder: a bipolar survey.

OBJECTIVE To identify characteristics of patients diagnosed with unipolar depression who may have undiagnosed bipolar disorder. METHODS Patients diagnosed with unipolar depression by a healthcare provider were identified through the Consumer Health Sciences National Health and Wellness Survey. Manic symptoms, comorbid conditions, psychiatric symptomatology, use of healthcare resources, and patient demographics were identified through Internet-based questionnaires. A self-report adapted version of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition-Text Revision criteria identified symptoms consistent with a manic episode. Psychological well-being was measured by the Psychological General Well-Being Index. RESULTS Of the 1,602 respondents who met inclusion criteria, 219 (14% or approximately 1 out of 7) reported symptoms consistent with a manic episode and were considered at risk for undiagnosed bipolar disorder. These respondents were younger and had a lower socioeconomic status. At-risk patients rated their depression as more severe and experienced greater impairment of psychological well-being. More than 70% of those at risk reported speaking with a healthcare provider about their mania symptoms. Comorbid mental disorders, especially anxiety-related conditions, were common in these patients. CONCLUSION These findings underscore the importance of evaluating unipolar patients for bipolar disorder and may help clinicians identify symptoms and comorbidities associated with patients with unipolar depression at risk for undiagnosed bipolar disorder.

Adjunctive treatment for mood stabilization of patients with bipolar I disorder treated with lamotrigine.

OBJECTIVE To describe the effect of supplemental psychotropic medications, specifically anxiolytics with sedative/hypnotics (ASH) combined with lamotrigine (LTG) on stabilization of symptoms in patients with bipolar I disorder. METHOD Symptomatic patients participating in two LTG maintenance trials were classified post-hoc as those initiating LTG as monotherapy (n=313) or as adjunctive therapy (n=814) and further characterized by supplemental add-on therapies received during an open-label treatment phase. Patients were considered stabilized if they reached a stable dose of LTG monotherapy (100-200 mg/day) and had a Clinical Global Impressions-Severity scale score <3 for at least 4 weeks. Stabilization rates were compared across initial- and supplemental-treatment groups. RESULTS Patients who initiated and were maintained on LTG monotherapy were stabilized at a slightly higher rate compared with those taking LTG adjunctive therapy (55% vs 48%; P=.080). Stabilization rates were numerically higher for LTG monotherapy patients who later received only ASH as supplemental medication compared with LTG monotherapy throughout, but this difference was not significant (66% vs 55%; P=.271). Stabilization rates were significantly higher for monotherapy patients who later received ASH alone versus other psychotropic medications (66% vs 28%; P=.001). For patients initiating LTG as adjunctive therapy, adding ASH alone resulted in significantly higher stabilization rates than adding another psychotropic medication (62% vs 33%; P<.001). CONCLUSION LTG and adjunctive treatment with ASH may be useful in the treatment of acute mood symptoms in patients with bipolar I disorder.