Post-traumatic stress disorder in hospital doctors after the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Prior studies showed that during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic healthcare workers had a higher risk of developing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms. However, studies conducted among doctors several years after the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic are scarce.

AIMS

To evaluate the prevalence of PTSD among hospital doctors and to describe potential explanatory factors.

METHODS

The Protec-Cov study was an observational, cross-sectional, multicentre study, which used an anonymous online questionnaire to evaluate PTSD in doctors from six hospitals in France between December 2021 and March 2022. The presence of PTSD was assessed using the Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist Scale (PCLS) questionnaire with a cut-off of 44.

RESULTS

Among the 307 doctors included, 18% presented a PCLS ≥44. The multivariate analysis showed that factors associated with a PCLS ≥44 were having a higher workload than before the COVID-19 pandemic (odds ratio [OR] = 4.75; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.68-13.38), not feeling recognized within the professional environment (OR = 2.83; 95% CI 1.26-6.33), and feeling isolated because of the lockdown (OR = 4.2; 95% CI 1.97-8.95). Approximately 30% of hospital doctors (n = 91) felt a need for psychological support but only 31% of them (n = 28) received support.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our findings, a high prevalence of PTSD was observed among hospital doctors 2 years after the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study supports an early diagnosis of PTSD in this category of healthcare workers and warrants further study.

[Analysis of the profile of employees declared unfit for the job : How do societal or extra-professional factors contribute, and what are the consequences for employment?]

INTRODUCTION

Professional career can be modified by health problems. Professional impairment, certified by an occupational health physician, can be followed by a redeployment or occupational disintegration.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the profiles of workers declared unfit for their workplace and the profiles of those who have no remaining work capacity (RWC).

METHODS

The workers followed by an inter-enterprise occupational health service composed of 20 occupational physicians. The characteristics of workers declared unfit for work were extracted from the medical files: age, gender, activity sector (Naf), socioprofessional category (PCS), pathology leading to professional impairment (CIM10), status of obligation to employ disabled workers (BOETH). Factors associated with unfitness to work due to no remaining work capacity (RWC) were identified by logistic regression models.

RESULTS

In 2019, 82678 workers in France were followed by the SPSTI and 554 (0.67%), of whom 162 had no RWC, were declared unfit to work by an occupational health physician. Professional impairment rates were highest for women and workers > 55 years old. Psychological (29%) and rheumatic (50%) pathologies were the most frequent causes of professional impairment. BOETH status was identified among 63%. Age > 45 and psychological pathology were significantly associated with absent RWC, whereas gender, activity sector and PCS were not.

DISCUSSION

No comprehensive public administration records of professional impairment exist in France. While past studies have described the profiles of workers who were unfit for their workplace, none have characterized those without RWC, who are high risk of precarity.

CONCLUSIONS

Psychological pathologies generate the most professional impairment in persons without RWC. Prevention of these pathologies is essential. While rheumatic disease is the first cause of professional impairment, the proportion of workers with these diseases who have no remaining work capacity is relatively low; this may be due to the efforts made to facilitate their return to work.

Prévalence du SARS-CoV-2, étude sérologique en France chez des salariés non confinés et confinés

Objectifs: Evaluer rétrospectivement le taux de salariés, confinés (en télétravail) et non confinés, infectés par le SARS-CoV-2 après le 1^er confinement (Avril à Mai 2020).

Méthode: Un dépistage sérologique des anticorps anti-SARS-CoV-2, IgG et IgM, et un questionnaire sur leurs symptômes a été proposé aux 2090 salariés d’une même entreprise.

Résultats: La sérologie était positive pour 5,6% des 786 salariés inclus entre fin avril et juillet 2020 : 4,05% chez les non confinés, et 6,72%, chez les confinés (p=NS).

Parmi les positifs, 86,4% avaient présenté des symptômes, sans différence significative entre confinés et non confinés. Enfin, 1.7% des asymptomatiques étaient positifs.

Les symptômes n’étaient pas significativement différents entre les 2 groupes sauf pour l’anosmie-agueusie significativement plus fréquente dans le groupe des confinés.

Les symptômes significativement associés à une sérologie positive étaient l’anosmie-agueusie, la fièvre-sensation de fièvre-frissons, les courbatures, la fatigue malaise, un syndrome grippal et des symptômes respiratoires.

Ce faible taux de contamination peut être le résultat des mesures de prévention renforcées mises en place pour les salariés dès fin janvier 2020 par le Médecin du Travail pour limiter le risque de contamination au sein des locaux.

Conclusion: La prévalence du SARS-CoV-2 dans l’entreprise de fin avril à juillet 2020 était inférieure de moitié au taux rapporté dans la population d’Ile de France à la même période sans différence entre les salariés ayant poursuivi leur activité en présentiel par rapport aux confinés.

Efficacy of adjunctive aripiprazole to lithium or valproate in the long-term treatment of mania in subjects with bipolar i disorder (CN138–189)

Objectives

To evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of adjunctive aripiprazole (ARI) to lithium (LI) or valproate (VAL) in delaying time to relapse in bipolar I disorder.

Methods

Bipolar I disorder subjects with a current manic or mixed episode received LI or VAL for at least 2 weeks; inadequate responders (YMRS score ≥ 16 and ≤35% decrease from baseline at 2 weeks) received adjunctive ARI. Subjects maintaining mood stability (YMRS and MADRS ≤ 12 for 12 consecutive weeks) were randomised 1:1 to double-blind ARI (10 to 30 mg/day) or placebo (PBO) plus LI or VAL. Relapse was monitored up to 52 weeks.

Results

337 subjects were randomised to continuation of mood stabiliser plus adjunctive ARI or PBO; 61.3% and 52.7%, respectively, completed the study. Adjunctive ARI significantly delayed the time to any relapse, hazard ratio = 0.544 (95% CI: 0.33, 0.89, log-rank p = 0.014). Overall relapse rates at 52 weeks were 14.9% and 25.4% in ARI vs PBO subjects. A superior reduction in CGI-BP Mania Severity of Illness from baseline at 52 weeks was also observed (0.3 vs. 0.0, respectively, p = 0.01). Adverse events generally were as expected per known drug and illness profiles with no significant difference in mean change in body weight between adjunctive PBO (0.60 kg) and adjunctive ARI (1.07 kg) (p = 0.49 Week 52, LOCF).

Conclusion

Continuation of aripiprazole treatment increased time to relapse to any mood episode compared with placebo plus LI/VAL over 1 year, indicating a long-term benefit in continuing adjunctive aripiprazole to a mood stabiliser after sustained remission is achieved.

Assessment of nivolumab exposure and clinical safety of 480 mg every 4 weeks flat-dosing schedule in patients with cancer

Background

A nivolumab monotherapy flat-dosing regimen of 480 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) has been approved in several markets, including the United States, Canada, and European Union, as an alternative dosing regimen for several indications. Approvals of this Q4W regimen were based on population pharmacokinetic (PK) analyses, established flat exposure–response relationships, and clinical safety. The objective of this study was to compare the PK exposure of 480 mg Q4W with 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (Q2W) and 240 mg Q2W using modeling and simulation, and to evaluate clinical safety of the Q4W regimen.

Patients and methods

Nivolumab PK exposure for the 480 mg Q4W schedule was simulated for 3817 patients across multiple tumor types and compared with those for the 3 mg/kg Q2W and 240 mg Q2W schedules. The safety profile of the Q4W schedule was assessed by analysis of clinical data from 61 patients who transitioned to nivolumab 480 mg Q4W from 3 mg/kg Q2W during four phase III clinical trials.

Results

Compared with 3 mg/kg Q2W, nivolumab 480 mg Q4W produced similar time-averaged concentration, approximately 16% lower trough concentration, and 45% higher peak concentration at steady state. The peak concentration for 480 mg Q4W was significantly lower than that of 10 mg/kg Q2W, a dose previously shown to have an acceptable tolerability and safety profile. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) that started after transitioning from 3 mg/kg Q2W to 480 mg Q4W were reported in 14.8% of patients, with 1.6% of patients reporting grades 3–4 TRAEs. Pooled safety data for these patients are consistent with those for the 3 mg/kg Q2W schedules, and no new safety signals were identified.

Conclusions

The time-averaged steady-state exposure and safety profile of nivolumab 480 mg Q4W are consistent with that of 3 mg/kg Q2W across multiple tumor types. Nivolumab 480 mg Q4W represents a new dosing schedule option, and in addition to 240 mg Q2W, provides convenience and flexibility for patient care.

Clinical trial numbers

NCT01721772, NCT01668784, NCT01673867, NCT01642004

Evaluation of Two Dosing Regimens for Nivolumab in Combination With Ipilimumab in Patients With Advanced Melanoma: Results From the Phase IIIb/IV CheckMate 511 Trial

PURPOSE

Nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (NIVO1+IPI3) is approved for first-line treatment of patients with advanced melanoma in several countries. We conducted a phase IIIb/IV study (CheckMate 511) to determine if nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg (NIVO3+IPI1) improves the safety profile of the combination.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients (N = 360) age 18 years or older with previously untreated, unresectable stage III or IV melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to NIVO3+IPI1 or NIVO1+IPI3 once every 3 weeks for four doses. After 6 weeks, all patients received NIVO 480 mg once every 4 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was a comparison of the incidence of treatment-related grade 3 to 5 adverse events (AEs) between groups. Secondary end points included descriptive analyses of objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. The study was not designed to formally demonstrate noninferiority of NIVO3+IPI1 to NIVO1+IPI3 for efficacy end points.

RESULTS

At a minimum follow-up of 12 months, incidence of treatment-related grade 3 to 5 AEs was 34% with NIVO3+IPI1 versus 48% with NIVO1+IPI3 ( P = .006). In descriptive analyses, objective response rate was 45.6% in the NIVO3+IPI1 group and 50.6% in the NIVO1+IPI3 group, with complete responses in 15.0% and 13.5% of patients, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 9.9 months in the NIVO3+IPI1 group and 8.9 months in the NIVO1+IPI3 group. Median overall survival was not reached in either group.

CONCLUSION

The CheckMate 511 study met its primary end point, demonstrating a significantly lower incidence of treatment-related grade 3-5 AEs with NIVO3+IPI1 versus NIVO1+IPI3. Descriptive analyses showed that there were no meaningful differences between the groups for any efficacy end point, although longer follow up may help to better characterize efficacy outcomes.

Overall Survival with Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma

BACKGROUND

Nivolumab combined with ipilimumab resulted in longer progression-free survival and a higher objective response rate than ipilimumab alone in a phase 3 trial involving patients with advanced melanoma. We now report 3-year overall survival outcomes in this trial.

METHODS

We randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, patients with previously untreated advanced melanoma to receive nivolumab at a dose of 1 mg per kilogram of body weight plus ipilimumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks; nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks plus placebo; or ipilimumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses plus placebo, until progression, the occurrence of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. Randomization was stratified according to programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status, BRAF mutation status, and metastasis stage. The two primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and in the nivolumab group versus the ipilimumab group.

RESULTS

At a minimum follow-up of 36 months, the median overall survival had not been reached in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and was 37.6 months in the nivolumab group, as compared with 19.9 months in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio for death with nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.55 [P<0.001]; hazard ratio for death with nivolumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.65 [P<0.001]). The overall survival rate at 3 years was 58% in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 52% in the nivolumab group, as compared with 34% in the ipilimumab group. The safety profile was unchanged from the initial report. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 59% of the patients in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group, in 21% of those in the nivolumab group, and in 28% of those in the ipilimumab group.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with advanced melanoma, significantly longer overall survival occurred with combination therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or with nivolumab alone than with ipilimumab alone. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 067 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844505 .).

Searching for rare diseases in PubMed: a blind comparison of Orphanet expert query and query based on terminological knowledge

BACKGROUND

Despite international initiatives like Orphanet, it remains difficult to find up-to-date information about rare diseases. The aim of this study is to propose an exhaustive set of queries for PubMed based on terminological knowledge and to evaluate it versus the queries based on expertise provided by the most frequently used resource in Europe: Orphanet.

METHODS

Four rare disease terminologies (MeSH, OMIM, HPO and HRDO) were manually mapped to each other permitting the automatic creation of expended terminological queries for rare diseases. For 30 rare diseases, 30 citations retrieved by Orphanet expert query and/or query based on terminological knowledge were assessed for relevance by two independent reviewers unaware of the query's origin. An adjudication procedure was used to resolve any discrepancy. Precision, relative recall and F-measure were all computed.

RESULTS

For each Orphanet rare disease (n = 8982), there was a corresponding terminological query, in contrast with only 2284 queries provided by Orphanet. Only 553 citations were evaluated due to queries with 0 or only a few hits. There were no significant differences between the Orpha query and terminological query in terms of precision, respectively 0.61 vs 0.52 (p = 0.13). Nevertheless, terminological queries retrieved more citations more often than Orpha queries (0.57 vs. 0.33; p = 0.01). Interestingly, Orpha queries seemed to retrieve older citations than terminological queries (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The terminological queries proposed in this study are now currently available for all rare diseases. They may be a useful tool for both precision or recall oriented literature search.

Abstract 2860: Improved clinical response in patients with advanced melanoma treated with nivolumab combined with ipilimumab compared to ipilimumab alone

Background: Blockade of the immune checkpoints PD-1 and CTLA-4 each results in improved overall survival in patients (pts) with metastatic melanoma using monotherapy. In a phase 1 dose-escalation study, dual inhibition of these pathways by nivolumab (NIVO) and ipilimumab (IPI) demonstrated encouraging antitumor activity.

Methods: Treatment-naïve pts with advanced melanoma were randomized (double-blind) 2:1 to IPI 3 mg/kg combined with either NIVO 1 mg/kg (NIVO+IPI combination group) or placebo (PBO; IPI alone group) every 3 weeks (Q3W) for 4 doses, followed by NIVO 3 mg/kg or PBO, respectively, Q2W until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) in BRAF wild-type (WT) pts. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), ORR in BRAF V600 mutation-positive (MT) pts, and safety.

Results: In BRAF WT pts, ORR was 60% (43/72) in the NIVO+IPI group vs 11% (4/37) in the IPI group (P&lt;0.0001); complete response reported in 12 (17%) and 0 pts, respectively. Median change in target lesions was 57% reduction for NIVO+IPI vs 4% increase for IPI alone. Median duration of response was not reached in either group. In BRAF WT pts, median PFS was 8.9 months for NIVO+IPI; 4.7 months for IPI (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.22-0.71; P = 0.0012). Similar results for ORR and PFS favoring the combination were observed in BRAF MT pts (Table). A higher rate of drug-related grade 3-4 adverse events was observed in the NIVO+IPI group compared to IPI (Table), leading to more frequent discontinuation. Pts who discontinued NIVO+IPI due to study drug toxicity had a 67% response rate; most continue to respond. Immune-mediated AEs were manageable by standard treatment interventions, and the majority resolved with immune-modulating medication.

Conclusion: NIVO+IPI significantly improved ORR and PFS compared to IPI alone in treatment-naïve pts with advanced melanoma, and had a manageable safety profile.

Efficacy (evaluated in all randomized patients)BRAF WTBRAF WTBRAF MTNIVO+IPIIPINIVO+IPIIPIRandomized patients, N72372310ORR,% (95% CI)59.7 (47.5-71.1)a10.8 (3.0-25.4)a43.5 (23.2-65.5)0 (0-30.8)Best overall response, n (%)Complete response12 (16.7)04 (17.4)0Partial response31 (43.1)4 (10.8)6 (26.1)0Stable disease10 (13.9)12 (32.4)5 (21.7)2 (20.0)Progressive disease10 (13.9)16 (43.2)5 (21.7)7 (70.0)Median PFS, mo (95% CI)8.9 (7.0, NE)4.7 (2.8, 5.3)7.4 (2.8, NE)2.7 (0.99, 5.4)HR, (95% CI)0.40 (0.22-0.71) P = 0.00120.33 (0.1, 0.9)bSafety (evaluated in all treated patients)Patients reporting AE, n (%)NIVO+IPI (N = 94)IPI (N = 46)Any GradeGrade 3-4Any GradeGrade 3-4Treatment-related AEs86 (91.5)48 (51.1)42 (91.3)9 (19.6)aP&lt;0.0001; estimated odds ratio for objective response 12.23 (95% CI, 3.69-51.40)bDue to the small sample size in the BRAF MT subgroup, no P-value is provided NE = not estimable

Citation Format: F. Stephen Hodi, Michael A. Postow, Jason Chesney, Anna C. Pavlick, Caroline Robert, Kenneth Grossmann, David McDermott, Gerald Linette, Nicolas Meyer, Jeffrey Giguere, Sanjiv S. Agarwala, Montaser Shaheen, Marc S. Ernstoff, David R. Minor, April Salama, Matthew H. Taylor, Linda Rollin, Christine Horak, Paul Gagnier, Jedd D. Wolchok. Improved clinical response in patients with advanced melanoma treated with nivolumab combined with ipilimumab compared to ipilimumab alone. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 106th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2015 Apr 18-22; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(15 Suppl):Abstract nr 2860. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2015-2860

Efficacy and safety results from a phase III trial of nivolumab (NIVO) alone or combined with ipilimumab (IPI) versus IPI alone in treatment-naive patients (pts) with advanced melanoma (MEL) (CheckMate 067)

LBA1

Background: The results of a phase I study in MEL suggested complementary clinical activity with NIVO (a PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor) plus IPI (a CTLA-4 checkpoint inhibitor). Here, we report the results of a randomized, double-blind, phase III trial designed to evaluate NIVO combined with IPI or NIVO alone vs IPI alone in MEL. Methods: Treatment-naïve pts (N = 945) were randomized 1:1:1 to NIVO 1 mg/kg Q2W + IPI 3 mg/kg Q3W for 4 doses followed by NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W, NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W + placebo, or IPI 3 mg/kg Q3W for 4 doses + placebo, until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Pts were stratified by PD-L1 status, BRAF mutation status, and M-stage. Co-primary endpoints are progression-free survival (PFS) (reported here) and overall survival (pts continue to be followed). Secondary endpoints include objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST v1.1 and safety. Results: At a minimum follow-up of 9 months, NIVO + IPI and NIVO alone significantly improved PFS and ORR vs IPI (Table). Grade 3-4 drug-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 55.0%, 16.3%, and 27.3% of pts in the NIVO + IPI, NIVO, and IPI arms, respectively (most commonly diarrhea [9.3%, 2.2%, 6.1%], increased lipase [8.6%, 3.5%, 3.9%], increased alanine aminotransferase [8.3%, 1.3%, 1.6%], and colitis [7.7%, 0.6%, 8.7%]). Drug-related AEs led to discontinuation in 36.4%, 7.7%, and 14.8% of pts in the NIVO + IPI, NIVO, and IPI arms, with 0, 1, and 1 drug-related deaths, respectively. Efficacy outcomes by PD-L1 status will also be presented. Conclusions: NIVO + IPI and NIVO alone had superior clinical activity vs IPI alone. The results with NIVO + IPI and NIVO alone further suggest complementary activity of the two agents. There were no new safety signals or drug-related deaths observed with the combination. Clinical trial information: NCT01844505. [Table: see text]

Multidisciplinary department of "Return to Work After a Cancer": a French experience of support groups for vocational rehabilitation

This qualitative pilot exploratory study focuses on support groups for vocational rehabilitation after cancer implemented in a French and innovative multidisciplinary department of "Return to Work after a Cancer." Sixty-three patients were invited to participate to constitute two support groups of 20 participants. Questionnaires are sent to assess their benefit according to the participants' point of view. For 58% of participants, support groups helped the return to work, and for 70% it provided personal, family, and relational support. Support groups are a relevant response to expectations and specific issues of patients experiencing return to work after cancer.

Hazard information needs and information seeking in French workers

BACKGROUND

Data about perceived needs of workers for information on occupational hazards or diseases (OHDs) are scarce and the behaviour of workers seeking information on these matters is not well known.

AIMS

To describe workers' needs and behaviour in seeking information about OHDs.

METHODS

All workers attending for consultation at an occupational health service in Upper Normandy within 1 week were invited to fill in an anonymous questionnaire.

RESULTS

Of the 2640 workers responding 58% declared a need for information about OHD, but only 37% actually sought that information. Whereas 82% of workers mentioned the internet and their general physician (GP) as sources of information on OHD, only 43% mentioned their occupational physician (OP). Furthermore, information received from OPs was not considered more reliable than that from GPs.

CONCLUSIONS

Workers report a need for information about OHDs. Although most of them trust information given by OPs, they do not use OPs to obtain OHD information, but instead use less reliable sources such as the internet or their GPs.

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

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 comparison of two fixed doses of aripiprazole with placebo in acutely relapsed, hospitalized patients with bipolar disorder I (manic or mixed) in subpopulations (CN138-007)

This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of two fixed doses of aripiprazole (15 mg/day, n = 131 and 30 mg/day, n = 136) compared with placebo (n = 134) in acutely manic or mixed bipolar I hospitalized patients. The mean change from baseline to Week 3 in the YMRS Total Scores was -10.01 (95% CI: -11.92, -8.09) for aripiprazole 15 mg/day, -10.80 (95% CI: -12.71, -8.90) for aripiprazole 30 mg/day, and -10.12 (95% CI: -12.01, -8.24) for placebo. The most frequent adverse events (> or = 10% and greater than placebo) for either of the aripiprazole treatment groups were headache, nausea, dyspepsia, insomnia, agitation, constipation, akathisia, anxiety, lightheadedness, vomiting, diarrhea, asthenia and extremity pain. Aripiprazole 15 or 30 mg/day was not significantly more effective than placebo in the treatment of bipolar I disorder acute mania at endpoint (Week 3). A high placebo response rate may have accounted for the lack of separation between treatment groups.

Aripiprazole in the treatment of acute manic or mixed episodes in patients with bipolar I disorder: a 3-week placebo-controlled study

This study compares the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a partial dopamine agonist, aripiprazole, with placebo in the treatment of patients with bipolar I disorder experiencing an acute manic or mixed episode. In total, 272 hospitalized patients were randomized to aripiprazole 30 mg/day or placebo in this 3-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Dosing could be reduced to 15 mg/day for tolerability and, subsequently, increased to 30 mg/day based on clinical response. Primary efficacy measure was mean change from baseline to endpoint in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score; response was defined as > or = 50% decrease from baseline YMRS score. Aripiprazole-treated patients demonstrated significantly greater improvement from baseline to endpoint in mean YMRS total scores compared with placebo-treated patients as early as Day 4 and sustained through Week 3. A significantly higher response rate was observed in aripiprazole-treated patients (53% vs. 32% at endpoint). Aripiprazole produced significantly greater improvements from baseline on other efficacy assessments compared with placebo, including Clinical Global Impression - Bipolar Version Severity and Improvement scores. The 30 mg/day dose was maintained by 85% of aripiprazole-treated patients. Incidence of discontinuations due to adverse events was similar for aripiprazole (8.8%) and placebo (7.5%). Aripiprazole treatment resulted in no significant difference from placebo in change in mean body weight and was not associated with elevated serum prolactin or QTc prolongation. In conclusion, aripiprazole demonstrated superior efficacy to placebo in the treatment of patients with bipolar I disorder presenting with acute manic or mixed episodes, and exhibited a favourable safety and tolerability profile.