Ultramicronized N-palmitoylethanolamine associated with analgesics: Effects against persistent pain

Current epidemiological data estimate that one in five people suffers from chronic pain with considerable impairment of health-related quality of life. The pharmacological treatment is based on first- and second-line analgesic drugs, including COX-2 selective and nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, antidepressants, anti-seizure drugs and opioids, that are characterized by important side effects. N-palmitoylethanolamine (PEA) is a body's own fatty-acid ethanolamide belonging to the family of autacoid local injury antagonist amides. The anti-inflammatory and pain-relieving properties of PEA have been recognized for decades and prompted to depict its role in the endogenous mechanisms of pain control. Together with its relative abundance in food sources, this opened the way to the use of PEA as a pain-relieving nutritional intervention. Naïve PEA is a large particle size lipid molecule with low solubility and bioavailability. Reducing particle size is a useful method to increase surface area, thereby improving dissolution rate and bioavailability accordingly. Micron-size formulations of PEA (e.g., ultramicronized and co-(ultra)micronized) have shown higher oral efficacy compared to naïve PEA. In particular, ultramicronized PEA has been shown to efficiently cross the intestinal wall and, more importantly, the blood-brain and blood-spinal cord barrier. Several preclinical and clinical studies have shown the efficacy, safety and tolerability of ultramicronized PEA. This narrative review summarizes the available pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic data on ultramicronized PEA and focuses to its contribution to pain control, in particular as 'add-on' nutritional intervention. Data showing the ability of ultramicronized PEA to limit opioid side effects, including the development of tolerance, have also been reviewed.

Brivaracetam use in clinical practice: a Delphi consensus on its role as first add-on therapy in focal epilepsy and beyond

BACKGROUND

Antiseizure medications remain the cornerstone of treatment for epilepsy, although a proportion of individuals with the condition will continue to experience seizures despite appropriate therapy. Treatment choices for epilepsy are based on variables related to both the individual patient and the available medications. Brivaracetam is a third-generation agent antiseizure medication.

METHODS

We carried out a Delphi consensus exercise to define the role of brivaracetam in clinical practice and to provide guidance about its use as first add-on ASM and in selected clinical scenarios. A total of 15 consensus statements were drafted by an expert panel following review of the literature and all were approved in the first round of voting by panelists. The consensus indicated different clinical scenarios for which brivaracetam can be a good candidate for treatment, including first add-on use.

RESULTS

Overall, brivaracetam was considered to have many advantageous characteristics that render it a suitable option for patients with focal epilepsy, including a fast onset of action, favorable pharmacokinetic profile with few drug-drug interactions, broad-spectrum activity, and being well tolerated across a range of doses. Brivaracetam is also associated with sustained clinical response and good tolerability in the long term.

CONCLUSIONS

These characteristics also make it suitable as an early add-on for the elderly and for patients with post-stroke epilepsy or status epilepticus as highlighted by the present Delphi consensus.

The burden of chronic drug-refractory focal onset epilepsy: Can it be prevented?

Despite the many therapeutic options for epilepsy available today, a third of patients still have poorly controlled epilepsy. Over the years, their transition through lines of treatment exposes them to increased risk of disease progression, mortality, morbidity, mental distress, and not least significantly impaired quality of life (QoL). The present review explores the multiple factors contributing to the impairment of health-related QoL in PWE-including both seizure-related and non seizure-related. The analysis aims to identify potential areas of intervention and strategies for a more holistic approach to epilepsy care and inform policy-makers and healthcare providers in their approach to this condition.

First add-on lacosamide treatment in children with focal epilepsy in China: A multi-centre real-life cohort study

AIM

To assess the effectiveness and safety of lacosamide (LCM) as the first add-on therapy for children with focal epilepsy at multiple centres in China.

METHOD

Children aged 4-16 years with focal epilepsy from 13 epilepsy centres were included in this study. All patients were treated with LCM as the first add-on treatment and followed up for 26 weeks. The seizure frequency, seizure-free rate, ≥50% response rate, retention rate, and incidence of adverse drug reactions after the addition of LCM were analysed.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine children (58 males; aged 4-16 years; mean age 8.51 ± 2.95 years) were enroled. The mean age at first seizure was 5.74 ± 3.12 years. All patients were administered LCM as the first add-on treatment for focal epilepsy. Twenty-eight patients (28/99, 28.28%) did not experience seizures during the follow-up period. The ≥50% response rates were 80.81% (80/99), 93.88% (92/98), 98.98% (97/98), and 100.0% (98/98) at 6 weeks (visit two), 10 weeks (visit three), 18 weeks (visit four), and 26 weeks (visit five), respectively, compared to that at baseline (visit one). The intelligence scores decreased in 12 participants, remained unchanged in 64, and increased in 16. Adverse events occurred in three participants during the trial, all of which were mild.

INTERPRETATION

LCM was effective as the first add-on therapy in this real-life multi-centre study of a paediatric population with focal epilepsy. Further prospective studies with long-term follow-up periods are needed to confirm the effectiveness and tolerability of LCM.

A randomized controlled trial of add-on naproxen, simvastatin and their combination for the treatment of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder

This large randomized controlled trial examined the effect of naproxen, simvastatin or both on patients with schizophrenia. This was a large multi-center, twelve-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, four-arm clinical trial administering naproxen, simvastatin or both to 232 subjects with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. The primary outcome was change in PANSS total score. ANCOVA and mixed model analyses of the PANSS total score change showed no significant difference between naproxen and placebo (adjusted p = 0.78), simvastatin and placebo (adjusted p = 0.38) or the combination of naproxen and simvastatin compared to placebo (adjusted p = 0.72). No statistically significant drug-placebo differences were found in the PANSS subscales, CGI or BACS between all groups. There was a near significant improvement in negative symptoms (p = 0.06), and an analysis of the 5 factor PANSS factors analysis found a significant improvement in simvastatin above placebo in withdrawal (p = 0.03). These finding were not significant after correcting for multiple comparisons. A meta-analysis on changes in total PANSS scores in studies on statins in schizophrenia, including the present study together with six other studies showed a significant improvement for statins compared to placebo (Hedges' G of -0.245 (CI= -0.403, -0.086, p = 0.002). When one outlying study which showed particularly strong effects of statins was removed, part of the effect went away. In conclusion, in this study, naproxen and simvastatin alone or in combination were not efficacious in the treatment of symptoms in schizophrenia. However, the meta-analysis of all studies of simvastatin for schizophrenia indicates further research on this topic.

Assessment of a combined musculoskeletal and chest deep learning-based detection solution in an emergency setting

Rationale and objectives

Triage and diagnostic deep learning-based support solutions have started to take hold in everyday emergency radiology practice with the hope of alleviating workflows. Although previous works had proven that artificial intelligence (AI) may increase radiologist and/or emergency physician reading performances, they were restricted to finding, bodypart and/or age subgroups, without evaluating a routine emergency workflow composed of chest and musculoskeletal adult and pediatric cases. We aimed at evaluating a multiple musculoskeletal and chest radiographic findings deep learning-based commercial solution on an adult and pediatric emergency workflow, focusing on discrepancies between emergency and radiology physicians.

Material and methods

This retrospective, monocentric and observational study included 1772 patients who underwent an emergency radiograph between July and October 2020, excluding spine, skull and plain abdomen procedures. Emergency and radiology reports, obtained without AI as part of the clinical workflow, were collected and discordant cases were reviewed to obtain the radiology reference standard. Case-level AI outputs and emergency reports were compared to the reference standard. DeLong and Wald tests were used to compare ROC-AUC and Sensitivity/Specificity, respectively.

Results

Results showed an overall AI ROC-AUC of 0.954 with no difference across age or body part subgroups. Real-life emergency physicians' sensitivity was 93.7 %, not significantly different to the AI model (P = 0.105), however in 172/1772 (9.7 %) cases misdiagnosed by emergency physicians. In this subset, AI accuracy was 90.1 %.

Conclusion

This study highlighted that multiple findings AI solution for emergency radiographs is efficient and complementary to emergency physicians, and could help reduce misdiagnosis in the absence of immediate radiological expertize.

The new era of add-on asthma treatments: where do we stand?

Globally, a small proportion (5–12%) of asthma patients are estimated to have severe disease. However, severe asthma accounts for disproportionately high healthcare resource utilization. The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) management committee recommends treating patients with asthma with inhaled corticosteroids plus long-acting β₂-agonists and, when needed, adding a long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist or biologic agent. Five biologics, targeting different effectors in the type 2 inflammatory pathway, are approved for asthma treatment. However, biologics have not been compared against each other or add-on inhaled therapies in head-to-head clinical trials. As a result, their positioning versus that of current and anticipated small-molecule strategies is largely unknown. Furthermore, with the emergence of biomarkers for predicting response to biologics, a more personalized treatment approach—currently lacking with inhaled therapies—may be possible. To gain perspective, we reviewed recent advances in asthma pathophysiology, phenotypes, and biomarkers; the place of biologics in the management and personalized treatment of severe asthma; and the future of biologics and small-molecule drugs. We propose an algorithm for the stepwise treatment of severe asthma based on recommendations in the GINA strategy document that accounts for the broad range of phenotypes targeted by inhaled therapies and the specificity of biologics. In the future, both biologics and small molecules will continue to play key roles in the individualized treatment of severe asthma. However, as targeted therapies, their application will continue to be focused on patients with certain phenotypes who meet the specific criteria for use as identified in pivotal clinical trials.

Trazodone Add-on in COVID-19-related Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor-resistant Post-traumatic Stress Disorder in Healthcare Workers: Two Case Reports

COVID-19 represents a significant stress factor for all people worldwide due to several factors, including quarantine, lockdowns, fear of contagion, deaths, and other traumatic events. However, the healthcare workers (HCWs) have paid the higher price of this pandemic in terms of fatalities, contagions, and psychological well-being. Studies suggest that this particular population is at increased risk of developing a severe post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The early diagnosis and timely treatment of PTSD in HCWs may restore well-being and significantly impact health services functioning, reducing burnout, days spent far from work, disrupted personal and team empowerment, and worse job performances. In the present article, we reported on two cases of HCWs directly involved in the treatment of COVID-19 patients who showed selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor-resistant PTSD, which was successfully treated with extended-release trazodone TRZ Contramid^Ⓡ add-on.

Effects of IPS plus cognitive remediation in early psychosis: 18-month functioning outcomes of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

After a first episode of psychosis, cognitive impairments present an important barrier to successful (re-)entry into work and education. We assessed whether cognitive remediation (CR) as an add-on to Individual Placement and Support (IPS) can improve participation in regular employment and education.

METHOD

Participants with early psychosis (N = 73) were randomly assigned to receive IPS supplemented with computerized CR, or IPS plus an active control intervention (computer games). The primary outcome was the number of hours spent in competitive employment or regular education, which was assessed every month during the 18-month study period. Secondary outcomes included employment rate, cognitive functioning, mental health (assessed at baseline, 6 and 18 months), and job duration (assessed after 18 months). Both patients and assessors were blind to treatment.

RESULTS

Participants receiving IPS + CR showed greater improvement of competitive employment over time in terms of hours worked (during follow-up period: 38.5 vs. 19.6 h, B = 2.94; Wald χ² = 5.39; P = .02) and employment rate (at T2: 62.1% vs. 25.9%, χ ² = 7.39; df = 1; P = .008), compared with the IPS + control group, particularly in the longer term. The number of hours spent in regular education was lower in the IPS + CR group, with more participants having ended education for a positive reason. There was a significant beneficial effect of adjunctive CR for executive functioning, subjective cognitive functioning, and empowerment.

CONCLUSIONS

Augmenting IPS with CR has a significant impact on competitive employment in people with early psychosis, with beneficial effects being more pronounced after 18 months.

Mirabegron Add-On Therapy to Tamsulosin in Men with Overactive Bladder: Post Hoc Analyses of Efficacy from the MATCH Study

INTRODUCTION

MATCH was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study enrolling Japanese and Korean men aged ≥ 40 years who still had overactive bladder (OAB) symptoms while receiving tamsulosin. After a 4-week single-blind screening period in which patients received placebo and tamsulosin, patients were randomized to mirabegron 50 mg + tamsulosin or placebo + tamsulosin for 12 weeks (n = 568). This post hoc analysis investigated the proportion of treatment responders for each treatment group and for subgroups stratified by age based on voiding diaries and patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

METHODS

Responders were defined as those achieving normalization or clinically meaningful improvements in efficacy, or clinically important differences in PROs [≥ 10-point improvement in OAB questionnaire (OAB-q) symptom bother or total health-related quality of life (HRQoL) subscales at end of treatment (EoT; minimally important difference [MID]) or OAB symptom score (OABSS) total score decreased by ≥ 3 points at EoT [minimally clinically important change (MCIC)]].

RESULTS

At EoT, micturition frequency normalization was achieved by 30.7% of tamsulosin + mirabegron patients and 18.6% of tamsulosin + placebo patients. Normalization of urgency and incontinence was 19.1% and 60.7% for tamsulosin + mirabegron and 18.2% and 60.0% for tamsulosin + placebo. Normalization of OAB symptoms based on OABSS was 17.1% for tamsulosin + mirabegron and 14.5% for tamsulosin + placebo. Higher proportions of patients in the mirabegron add-on group versus the placebo group reported clinically meaningful improvements in micturitions, urgency, and incontinence and in MCIC for OABSS and MID for the OAB-q subscales. Double- and triple-responder findings were as predicted by the results of single-responder analyses. These results were mirrored in the age groups using cut-offs of 65 and 75 years.

CONCLUSION

Mirabegron therapy added on to tamsulosin resulted in a higher frequency of responders in terms of normalization (e.g., micturition frequency normalization), clinically meaningful improvements in efficacy (e.g., ≥ 50% decrease in urgency), and minimally important changes in PROs (e.g., MCIC in OABSS).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02656173.

A phase 2a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, add-on clinical trial of ebselen (SPI-1005) as a novel treatment for mania or hypomania

RATIONALE

Lithium is an effective prophylactic and anti-manic treatment in bipolar disorder; however, its use is declining through perceived poor tolerance and toxicity. Lithium inhibits inositol monophosphatase (IMPase), a probable key therapeutic mechanism. The anti-inflammatory drug, ebselen, also inhibits IMPase and appears well-tolerated and safe.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of adjunctive ebselen in mania using the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) (primary outcome) and the Altman Self-Rating Mania (ASRM) Scale and Clinical Global Impression-Severity Scale (CGI-S) among the secondary outcomes.

METHODS

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial conducted between October 2017 and June 2019, at Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust. Pharmacy-controlled randomisation was computer-generated, with full allocation concealment. In/outpatients (n = 68) aged 18-70, experiencing mania or hypomania, were assigned to 3 weeks ebselen (600 mg bd) (n = 33) or placebo (n = 35). Participants received usual clinical care and psychotropic medication.

RESULTS

Ebselen was numerically, but not statistically, superior to placebo in lowering scores on the YMRS (adjusted mean difference and 95% confidence interval, - 1.71 (- 5.34 to 1.91), p = 0.35) and ASRM (- 1.36 (- 3.75 to 1.17), p = 0.29). However, scores on the CGI-S were significantly lower at week 3 in ebselen-treated participants (adjusted mean difference, - 0.58 (- 1.14 to - 0.03), p = 0.04). A post hoc analysis excluding patients taking concomitant valproate treatment magnified the difference between ebselen and placebo on the YMRS. Adverse events were comparable between groups, and mild.

CONCLUSIONS

Ebselen merits further investigation where concomitant psychotropic medication is better controlled and participants taking valproate are excluded. If effective, ebselen's superior tolerance and safety could make it a useful alternative to lithium.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial Registry: www.clinicaltrials.gov , Identifier: NCT03013400.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of safety and efficacy of safinamide for motor fluctuations in patients with Parkinson's disease

Background: Safinamide, a recently developed drug with several mechanisms of action has been investigated as an add-on therapy for Parkinson's disease patients suffering from motor complications due to the usage of anti-Parkinson's medications such as levodopa and dopaminergic drugs. The aim of the study is to investigate the efficacy and safety of Safinamide as add-on therapy for Parkinson's disease patients.   Methods: A computerized literature search was conducted of PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrial.gov and Cochrane Library until August 2019. We selected relevant randomized controlled trials comparing safinamide groups to placebo groups. Relevant outcomes were pooled as mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) using Review Manager 5.3. Results: We found that the overall MD of changes in "off-time" and "on time without troublesome dyskinesia" favored the safinamide group over the placebo group (MD -0.72 h, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.56 and MD 0.71 h, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.90, respectively). Additionally, the overall MD of change in Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale part three (UPDRS III) favored the safinamide group (MD -1.83, 95% CI -2.43 to -1.23). In case of adverse events, the pooled meta-analysis did not favor the safinamide group over the placebo group. Conclusions: In this study, we provide class I evidence about the potential role of safinamide as an add-on therapy for Parkinson's disease patients suffering from motor fluctuations. However, a few included studies did not mention the data of important outcomes. Also, we report high risk of bias in individual studies. Future randomized controlled trials with different doses are recommended to provide more evidence for the efficacy and safety of safinamide as a treatment for motor complications of anti-Parkinson's medications.

A randomized, open-label, multicenter comparative trial of levetiracetam and topiramate as adjunctive treatment for patients with focal epilepsy in Korea

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this trial was to compare the effectiveness of levetiracetam (LEV) and topiramate (TPM) as adjunctive treatment for patients with focal seizures in Korea.

METHODS

In this Phase IV, open-label, multicenter trial (NCT01229735), adults were randomized to treatment with LEV (1000-3000 mg/day) or TPM (200-400 mg/day). Only patients achieving LEV ≥1000 mg/day or TPM ≥100 mg/day after a 4-week up-titration entered the 20-week dose-finding and subsequent 28-week maintenance periods. The primary outcome was the 52-week retention rate; others included safety and exploratory efficacy outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 343 randomized patients (LEV 177; TPM 166), 211 (61.5%) completed the trial. In the full analysis set (FAS), retention rate was 59.1% with LEV vs 56.6% with TPM (p = 0.7007), while in the prespecified sensitivity analysis, based on data from patients who received drug doses in the recommended range (LEV 176; TPM 113), it was 59.1% with LEV vs 42.5% with TPM (p = 0.0086). In the FAS, median percent reduction in seizure frequency from baseline was 74.47% with LEV and 67.86% with TPM (p = 0.0665); ≥50% responder rate was 69.0% vs 64.8% (p = 0.4205), and the 6-month seizure-freedom rate was 35.8% vs 22.3% (p = 0.0061). In the sensitivity analysis, differences between groups were greater, favoring LEV. Incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were 70.6% with LEV vs 77.1% with TPM; most frequently somnolence (20.3%), dizziness (18.1%), and nasopharyngitis (13.6%) with LEV; and decreased appetite (15.7%), dizziness (14.5%), and headache (14.5%) with TPM. Discontinuations due to TEAEs were 7.9% with LEV and 12.7% with TPM.

CONCLUSIONS

In this open-label trial, the 52-week retention rate was not significantly different between LEV and TPM. However, LEV was associated with a substantially higher seizure freedom rate and a more favorable safety profile than TPM in this population of Korean patients with focal seizures.

Impact of Insulin Degludec in Type 2 Diabetes: Real-World Data on Effectiveness and Safety

INTRODUCTION

Real-world evidence on effectiveness and safety of insulin degludec (IDeg) in patients with diabetes is a priority. The aim of the study was to evaluate patterns of use and the long-term effectiveness and safety of IDeg in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

This was an observational longitudinal study. A retrospective chart review of all patients with type 2 diabetes treated with IDeg was performed and temporal trends in clinical outcomes were assessed. All data was stratified by treatment modality: the switch group consisted of patients already treated with another basal insulin before initiating IDeg; the add-on group consisted of basal insulin-naïve patients.

RESULTS

Overall, 247 patients were analyzed (55 in the add-on group and 192 in the switch group), mean age 67.0 ± 10.9 years ,and diabetes duration 16.3 ± 8.9 years. Median (interquartile range) follow-up was 9.7 (8.0-11.9) months. In the add-on group, improvements were found in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (- 1.68%; p < 0.0001), fasting blood glucose (FBG) (- 64.7 mg/dL; p < 0.0001), post-prandial glucose (PPG) (- 81.1 mg/dl; p < 0.0001), and glycemic variability (i.e., standard deviation of blood glucose) (- 11.6 mg/dl; p = 0.04). Even in the switch group, improvements were found in HbA1c (- 0.57%; p < 0.0001), FBG (- 28.1 mg/dL; p < 0.0001), and PPG (- 22.6 mg/dl; p = 0.001). Body weight increase during the follow-up was not statistically significant vs. baseline in both groups. Benefits on overall, nocturnal, and severe hypoglycemia were found in the switch group.

CONCLUSION

These real-world data documented that initiating IDeg or switching to IDeg from other basal insulins in type 2 diabetes was associated with significant improvement in metabolic control without significant weight gain; a decrease in the risk of hypoglycemia was observed when switching to IDeg from another basal insulin.

Combination Therapy for Chronic Hepatitis B: Current Updates and Perspectives

Nucleos(t)ide analogues (NUCs) and interferon have been used for several decades to treat chronic hepatitis B; however, the therapeutic response remains unsatisfactory. Although NUC therapy exhibits potent on-treatment viral suppression, frequent off-therapy virological relapses suggest an indefinite treatment course. Interferon modulates the innate and adaptive antiviral immune responses and thus increases the chance of viral eradication. Interferon therapy has the advantage of a finite duration, absence of drug resistance, and durable posttreatment responses. Therefore, the combination of NUCs and interferon can theoretically facilitate a synergistic therapeutic effect. This paper summarizes the current strategies of various combination therapies into three categories: the simultaneous “dual” strategy, sequential combination “add-on” strategy, and “switch” strategy. Generally, dual therapy exhibits greater on-treatment and off-therapy viral suppression and lower drug resistance compared with NUC monotherapy. Compared with interferon monotherapy, dual therapy has greater on-treatment viral suppression but shows no difference in off-therapy sustained virological responses. Specific add-on or switch strategies provide promising on-treatment efficacy in select patients. Pretreatment or on-treatment quantitative hepatitis B surface antigen and e antigen are predictive for the treatment efficacy of combination therapy. The optimal schedule of combination regimens and individualized therapy remain to be comprehensively evaluated.

Meta-analyses of newer antiepileptic drugs as adjunct for treatment of focal epilepsy in children

AIM

This study conducted a systematic review evaluating the effectiveness of newer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) (namely, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, topiramate, vigabatrin, zonisamide, oxcarbazepine, perampanel, gabapentin, and stiripentol) as add-on for treatment of focal epilepsy in children.

METHODS

Articles were retrieved from EMBASE, Medline and Cochrane Library from inception to January 2016. Treatment outcomes were analysed based on responder, seizure-free, withdrawal and adverse event rates. Quality of each study was also assessed.

RESULTS

Twelve articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Heterogeneity and quality of the included studies were considered acceptable. Overall, newer AEDs as adjunct therapy in children with inadequate control of focal seizure showed a trend of better seizure outcomes. The pooled ORs for responder, seizure-free and withdrawal rates were 2.15 (95%CI:1.72, 2.69), 1.99 (95%CI:0.72, 5.48) and 0.69 (95%CI:1.13, 2.39) respectively. Adverse events of newer AEDs were comparatively higher than placebo (OR:1.64, 95%CI:1.13, 2.39).

CONCLUSION

In our updated review, newer AEDs as adjunct therapy for focal epilepsy in children have trends of better effectiveness compared to placebo. Newer AEDs are associated with statistically more children with >50% seizure reduction, and a trend of better seizure freedom. Their tolerability would also be considered acceptable with the observed low withdrawal rate. However, the relative lack of well-conducted RCTs evaluating their effectiveness against other active AED treatment in children would not facilitate evidence-based practice. This highlights the knowledge gap and the need for more well-conducted RCTs against active treatments to ascertain the long term effectiveness and the role of newer AEDs in managing epilepsy in children.

Maintenance therapy with second generation antipsychotics for bipolar disorder - A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Second generations antipsychotics (SGA) are frequently used for maintenance treatment in bipolar disorder. We systematically reviewed the efficacy and long-term effects of treatment with SGA, regardless of treatment strategy (SGA administered either as monotherapy or as adjunctive therapy), in comparison to placebo, lithium or valproate. Primary outcomes were relapses (mood episode recurrence) and discontinuation.

METHOD

Clinical studies were identified through database searching in PubMed, Embase, PsychInfo and Cochrane Library and critically appraised based on the Cochrane Handbook. Full data extraction of raw data was performed and analyzed with meta-analyses, and level of evidence graded using GRADE. Only randomized controlled studies (RCT) and observational studies were included, with a minimum follow-up of 6 months. Comparators used were restricted to placebo, lithium, valproate or other anti-epileptic drugs.

RESULTS

We identified 15 RCTs on SGA in bipolar disorder with follow-up-time of 6 months up to 2 years, and one observational study reporting long-term effects of up to 4 years. A total of 6142 patients were included in the randomized trials. No long-term RCTs beyond 2 years follow-up was identified. All RCTs except for one included patients with bipolar disorder type I only. All RCTs except for two included patients pre-stabilized on the drug under investigation prior to randomization (enrichment design). For SGA as adjunctive therapy to lithium or valproate, meta-analyses showed that treatment with either aripiprazole (RR: 0.65, 95% CI 0.50-0.85), quetiapine (RR: 0.38, 95% CI 0.32-0.46) or ziprasidone (RR: 0.62, 95% CI 0.40-0.96) reduced the overall risk of relapses in patients that had responded during the stabilization phase. Adjunctive therapy with quetiapine was the only drug that reduced both manic and depressive episodes. For SGA as monotherapy, only quetiapine was shown to be better than lithium/ valproate for both manic and depressive relapses, but only for patients stabilized on quetiapine during the acute phase. As monotherapy, olanzapine, quetiapine and risperidone were shown to be superior to placebo in reducing the overall risk of relapses.

LIMITATIONS

There were considerable limitations to the evidence base of maintenance treatment with SGA in bipolar disorder. Most studies used stabilized patients, i.e. enrichment design (selection bias), had considerable dropout levels (attrition bias), and variable degree of reporting bias. No long-term RCT data on efficacy is available beyond 2 years, and almost all studies are on bipolar disorder type I patients only. Despite these limitations, we elucidate quantitative findings from meta-analyses conducted on the randomized trials published on the topic.

Safety and efficacy of addition of sitagliptin to rapid-acting insulin secretagogues for glycemic control, including post-prandial hyperglycemia, among Japanese with type 2 diabetes mellitus

The safety and efficacy of sitagliptin as add-on therapy to glinides, rapid-acting insulin secretagogues, were evaluated for Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. This 52-week study consisted of a 12-week double-blind period, followed by a 40-week open-label period. During the double-blind period, patients were randomized to sitagliptin 50 mg q.d. (S/S group) or placebo (P/S group) as add-on therapy to glinide monotherapy. During the open-label period, all patients in both groups were administered sitagliptin 50 mg q.d. (or 100 mg q.d. after up-titration). During the double-blind period, the overall occurrence of adverse experiences (AE) was similar in both treatment groups. The frequency of reported AE of hypoglycemia in both groups was low and not notably different. The nature of clinical AE during the open-label period for both groups was not notably different from that of clinical AE in the sitagliptin group during the double-blind period. The between-group difference in HbA1c least squares (LS) mean of change from baseline (95 % CI) at Week 12 was -1.1 % (-1.3, -0.8) in favor of sitagliptin (P < 0.001). LS mean of reductions from baseline of fasting plasma glucose and 2-h postmeal glucose were significantly greater in the sitagliptin group than in the placebo group: -23.1 mg/dL (-32.2, -13.9) and -51.2 mg/dL (-67.4, -35.0), respectively (both P < 0.001). The changes from baseline in glycemic data in the S/S group remained generally stable throughout the 52-week treatment period.

The effect of storage conditions on sample stability in the routine clinical laboratory

BACKGROUND

'Add-on' tests are often requested for samples already in the laboratory. This study was carried out to assess the stability of common analytes in uncapped samples stored in different conditions, and therefore their suitability for 'add-on' requests.

METHODS

Storage conditions evaluated included initial storage at room temperature for 16 hours, followed by storage at 4℃ (Group 1: current conditions employed in the laboratory), compared with storage at 4℃ immediately following analysis (Group 2: optimum storage conditions).

RESULTS

Some analytes were not suitable for 'add-ons' when samples were stored in either storage condition, whereas some were suitable for 'add-ons' irrespective of storage condition. Storage conditions influenced the suitability of 'add-on' tests for a proportion of analytes including urea, amylase, total protein, alkaline phosphatase, adjusted calcium, lactate dehydrogenase, triglycerides, HDL cholesterol and total cholesterol; these analytes were stable in optimum conditions (Group 2) but not in current conditions (Group 1).

CONCLUSIONS

'Add-on' tests can only be safely performed on a proportion of routine analytes. For some analytes, storage conditions affect their suitability for delayed analysis.

Antipsychotic switching versus augmentation among early non-responders to risperidone or olanzapine in acute-phase schizophrenia

PURPOSE

We examined whether augmentation with olanzapine would be superior to switching to olanzapine among early non-responders (ENRs) to risperidone, and whether augmentation with risperidone would be superior to switching to risperidone among ENRs to olanzapine. We performed a rater-blinded, randomized clinical trial at psychiatric emergency sites. Eligible patients were newly admitted patients with acute schizophrenia. ENRs to the initial antipsychotic (Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement Scale: ≥ 4 at 2 weeks) were allocated to receive either augmentation with or switching to the other antipsychotic (RIS+OLZ vs. RIS-OLZ; OLZ+RIS vs.

OLZ-RIS) RESULTS

Sixty patients who completed 2 weeks of risperidone treatment were divided into 33 early responders (RIS-ER) and 27 ENRs (RIS+OLZ, n=14; RIS-OLZ, n=13). Although time to treatment discontinuation for any cause was significantly shorter in RIS+OLZ group (54.1 days [95% confidence interval, 41.3-67.0]) than in RIS-ER group (68.7 [61.2-76.2]; P=0.050), it was not significantly shorter in RIS-OLZ group (58.5 [43.1-73.9]) than in RIS-ER group (P=0.19). Sixty patients who completed 2 weeks of olanzapine treatment were divided into 36 early responders (OLZ-ER) and 24 ENRs (OLZ+RIS, n=11; OLZ-RIS, n=13). Although time to treatment discontinuation for any cause was significantly shorter in OLZ-RIS group (56.1days [40.7-71.5]) than in OLZ-ER group (74.9 [68.5-81.3]; P=0.008), it was not significantly shorter in OLZ+RIS group (64.6 [49.6-79.6]) than in OLZ-ER group (P=0.20).

CONCLUSION

Despite the lack of pharmacokinetic investigation of dose adequacy in this study, it is possible that switching to olanzapine among ENRs to risperidone might have a small advantage over augmentation with olanzapine, while augmentation with risperidone might have a small advantage over switching to risperidone among ENRs to olanzapine. Further research is required before it would be appropriate to modify routine practice in the direction of these findings.

Efficacy and safety of add on low-dose mirtazapine in depression

Objectives:

Although antidepressant medications are effective, they have a delayed onset of effect. Mirtazapine, an atypical antidepressant is an important option for add-on therapy in major depression. There is insufficient data on mirtazapine in Indian population; hence this study was designed to study the add-on effect of low-dose mirtazapine with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in major depressive disorder (MDD) in Indian population.

Materials and Methods:

In an open, randomized study, 60 patients were divided into two groups. In Group A (n=30) patients received conventional SSRIs for 6 weeks. In Group B (n=30) patients received conventional SSRIs with low-dose mirtazapine for 6 weeks. Patients were evaluated at baseline and then at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 weeks.

Results:

There was significant improvement in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), Montgomery and Asberg depression rating scale (MADRS) scores (P<0.05) in both groups. Mirtazapine in low dose as add on therapy showed improvement in scores, had earlier onset of action, and more number of responders and remitters as compared to conventional treatment (P<0.05). No serious adverse event was reported in either of the groups.

Conclusion:

Low-dose mirtazapine as add-on therapy has shown better efficacy, earlier onset of action and more number of responders and remitters as compared to conventional treatment in MDD in Indian patients.

Treatment-resistant Schizophrenia: Evidence-based Strategies

Treatment-resistant symptoms complicate the clinical course of schizophrenia, and a large proportion of patients do not reach functional recovery. In consequence, polypharmacy is frequently used in treatment-refractory cases, addressing psychotic positive, negative and cognitive symptoms, treatment-emergent side effects caused by antipsychotics and comorbid depressive or obsessive-compulsive symptoms. To a large extent, such strategies are not covered by pharmacological guidelines which strongly suggest antipsychotic monotherapy. Add-on strategies comprise combinations of several antipsychotic agents and augmentations with mood stabilizers; moreover, antidepressants and experimental substances are applied. Based on the accumulated evidence of clinical trials and meta-analyses, combinations of clozapine with certain second-generation antipsychotic agents and the augmentation of antipsychotics with antidepressants seem recommendable, while the augmentation with mood stabilizers cannot be considered superior to placebo. Forthcoming investigations will have to focus on innovative pharmacological agents, the clinical spectrum of cognitive deficits and the implementation of cognitive behavioral therapy.