Estimation of risk of neuropsychiatric adverse events from varenicline, bupropion and nicotine patch versus placebo: secondary analysis of results from the EAGLES trial using Bayes factors

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Analysed using classical frequentist hypothesis testing with alpha set to 0.05, the Evaluating Adverse Events in a Global Smoking Cessation Study (EAGLES) did not find enough evidence to reject the hypothesis of no difference in neuropsychiatric adverse events (NPSAEs) attributable to varenicline, bupropion, or nicotine patch compared with placebo. This might be because the null hypothesis was true or because the data were insensitive. The present study aimed to test the hypothesis more directly using Bayes factors.

DESIGN

EAGLES was a randomised, double-blind, triple-dummy, controlled trial.

SETTING

Global (16 countries across five continents), between November 2011 and January 2015.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were smokers with (n = 4116) and without (n = 4028) psychiatric disorders.

INTERVENTIONS

Varenicline (1 mg twice daily), bupropion (150 mg twice daily), nicotine patch (21 mg once daily with taper) and matched placebos.

MEASUREMENTS

The outcomes included: (i) a composite measure of moderate/severe NPSAEs; and (ii) a composite measure of severe NPSAEs. The relative evidence for there being no difference in NPSAEs versus data insensitivity for the medications was calculated in the full and sub-samples using Bayes factors and corresponding robustness regions.

FINDINGS

For all but two comparisons, Bayes factors were <1/3, indicating moderate to strong evidence for no difference in risk of NPSAEs between active medications and placebo (Bayes factor = 0.02-0.23). In the psychiatric cohort versus placebo, the data were suggestive, but not conclusive of no increase in NPSAEs with varenicline (Bayes factor = 0.52) and bupropion (Bayes factor = 0.71). Here, the robustness regions ruled out a ≥7% and ≥8% risk increase with varenicline and bupropion, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Secondary analysis of the Evaluating Adverse Events in a Global Smoking Cessation Study trial using Bayes factors provides moderate to strong evidence that use of varenicline, bupropion or nicotine patches for smoking cessation does not increase the risk of neuropsychiatric adverse events relative to use of placebo in smokers without a history of psychiatric disorder. For smokers with a history of psychiatric disorder the evidence also points to no increased risk but with less confidence.

Safety and efficacy of first-line smoking cessation pharmacotherapies in bipolar disorders: Subgroup analysis of a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

Post hoc analyses of EAGLES data to examine safety and efficacy of first-line smoking cessation pharmacotherapies in smokers with bipolar disorders (BD).

METHODS

Smokers with BD I/II (n = 285; 81.4% with BD I) and a comparison nonpsychiatric cohort (NPC; n = 2794) were randomly assigned to varenicline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), or placebo for 12 weeks, plus weekly counseling. Primary outcomes were occurrence of moderate to severe neuropsychiatric adverse events (NPSAEs) and Weeks 9-12 biochemically-confirmed continuous abstinence (CA) rates.

RESULTS

For BD smokers, NPSAE risk differences versus placebo were: varenicline, 6.17 (95% CI: -7.84 to 20.18); bupropion, 4.09 (-8.82 to 16.99); NRT, -0.56 (-12.34 to 11.22). ORs for Weeks 9-12 CA, comparing active medication to placebo among BD smokers were: varenicline, 2.61 (0.68-9.95); bupropion, 1.29 (0.31-5.37), NRT, 0.71 (0.14-3.74). Pooling across treatments, NPSAE occurrence was higher (10.7% versus 2.3%; P < 0.001) and CA rates were lower (22.8% versus 13.3%; P = 0.008) in BD than NPC.

LIMITATIONS

Study not powered to detect differences in safety and efficacy in the BD subcohort; generalizability limited to stably treated BD without current substance use disorders.

CONCLUSIONS

Smokers with BD had higher risk of NPSAEs and were less likely to quit overall than NPC smokers. Among smokers with BD, NPSAE risk difference estimates for active treatments versus placebo ranged from 1% lower to 6% higher. Efficacy of varenicline in smokers with BD was similar to EAGLES main outcomes; bupropion and NRT effect sizes were descriptively lower. Varenicline may be a tolerable and effective cessation treatment for smokers with BD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (https://clinicaltrials.gov/): NCT01456936.

Predictors of Neuropsychiatric Adverse Events with Smoking Cessation Medications in the Randomized Controlled EAGLES Trial

BACKGROUND

Pre-treatment factors that increase smokers' risk of experiencing neuropsychiatric adverse events (NPSAEs) when quitting smoking are unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To identify baseline smoker characteristics beyond the history of mental illness that predict which participants were more likely to experience moderate to severe NPSAEs in EAGLES.

DESIGN

A prospective correlational cohort study in the context of a multinational, multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial.

PARTICIPANTS

Smokers without (N = 3984; NPC)/with (N = 4050; PC) histories of, or current clinically stable, psychiatric disorders including mood (N = 2882; 71%), anxiety (N = 782; 19%), and psychotic (N = 386; 10%) disorders.

INTERVENTIONS

Bupropion, 150 mg twice daily, or varenicline, 1 mg twice daily, versus active control (nicotine patch, 21 mg/day with taper) and placebo for 12 weeks with 12-week non-treatment follow-up.

MAIN MEASURES

Primary safety outcome was the incidence of a composite measure of moderate/severe NPSAEs. Associations among baseline demographic/clinical characteristics and the primary safety endpoint were analyzed post hoc via generalized linear regression.

KEY RESULTS

The incidence of moderate to severe NPSAEs was higher among smokers in the PC (238/4050; 5.9%) than in the NPC (84/3984; 2.1%). Three baseline characteristics predicted increased risk for experiencing clinically significant NPSAEs when quitting regardless of carrying a psychiatric diagnosis: current symptoms of anxiety (for every ~ 4-unit increase in HADS anxiety score, the absolute risk of occurrence of the NPSAE endpoint increased by 1% in both PC and NPC); prior history of suicidal ideation and/or behavior (PC, 4.4% increase; P = 0.001; NPC, 4.1% increase; P = 0.02), and being of White race (versus Black: PC, 2.9% ± 0.9 [SE] increase; P = 0.002; and NPC, 3.4% ± 0.8 [SE] increase; P = 0.001). Among smokers with psychiatric disorders, younger age, female sex, history of substance use disorders, and proxy measures of nicotine dependence or psychiatric illness severity also predicted greater risk. There were no significant interactions between these characteristics and treatment. Smokers with unstable psychiatric disorders or with current, active substance abuse were excluded from the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Irrespective of cessation pharmacotherapy use, smokers attempting to quit were more likely to experience moderate to severe NPSAEs if they reported current anxiety or prior suicidal ideation at baseline and were White. In smokers with a psychiatric history, female sex, younger age, and greater severity of nicotine dependence were also predictive.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01456936.

Factors associated with the efficacy of smoking cessation treatments and predictors of smoking abstinence in EAGLES

AIMS

To assess (1) how far the efficacies of front-line smoking cessation pharmacotherapies vary as a function of smoker characteristics and (2) associations between these characteristics and success of smoking cessation attempts.

DESIGN

Prospective correlational study in the context of a double-blind randomized trial. The outcome was regressed individually onto each covariate after adjusting for treatment, and then a forward stepwise model constructed. Treatment moderator effects of covariates were tested by treatment × covariate interactions.

SETTING

Health service facilities in multiple countries.

PARTICIPANTS

Data came from 8120 smokers willing to make a quit attempt, randomized to varenicline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) or placebo in Evaluating Adverse Events in a Global Smoking Cessation Study (EAGLES) between 30 November 2011 and 13 January 2015.

MEASUREMENTS

Smoker characteristics measured at baseline were country, psychiatric history, sex, age, body mass index (BMI), ethnic group, life-time suicidal ideation/behaviour, anxiety, depression, aggression, psychotropic medication, history of alcohol/substance use disorder, age of starting smoking, cigarette dependence [Fagerström Test for Cigarette Dependence (FTCD)] and prior use of study medicines. Outcome was biochemically confirmed continuous abstinence at weeks 9-24 from start of treatment.

FINDINGS

No statistically significant treatment × covariate interactions were found. Odds of success were associated independently positively with age [odds ratio (OR) = 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.00, 1.01], BMI (1.01; 95% CI = 1.00, 1.02) and age of starting smoking (1.03; 95% CI = 1.02, 1.04). Odds were associated independently negatively with US (versus non-US) study site (0.53; 95% CI = 0.46, 0.61), black (versus white) ethnic group (0.57; 95% CI = 0.45, 0.72), mood disorder (0.85; 95% CI = 0.73, 0.99), anxiety disorder (0.71; 95% CI = 0.55, 0.90) and psychotic disorder (0.73; 95% CI = 0.50, 1.07), taking psychotropic medication (0.81; 95% CI = 0.68, 0.95), FTCD (0.89; 95% CI = 0.87, 0.92) and previous use of NRT (0.78; 95% CI = 0.67, 0.91).

CONCLUSIONS

While a range of smoker characteristics-including psychiatric history, cigarette dependence and prior use of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT)-are associated with lower cessation rates, they do not substantially influence the efficacy of varenicline, bupropion or NRT.

Cardiovascular adverse events in the drug-development program of bupropion for smoking cessation: A systematic retrospective adjudication effort

BACKGROUND

In 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration requested that GlaxoSmithKline perform retrospective adjudication of cardiovascular (CV) events reported in the bupropion drug-development trials for smoking cessation.

HYPOTHESIS

Retrospective adjudication of clinical trial data will not increase the identification of adverse events.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive retrospective analysis of adverse events in 19 previously completed controlled US clinical trials of bupropion marketed for the treatment of smoking cessation, yielding 9479 subjects (5290 bupropion, 2927 placebo, 1018 active control [ACT], and 244 treated concurrently with bupropion and ACT). All adverse events were sent to the Duke Clinical Research Institute for adjudication by Clinical Events Classification (CEC) physician reviewers. The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse CV events: CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), and nonfatal stroke.

RESULTS

Overall, 416 nonfatal CV events in 366 subjects, and 22 deaths, were identified and processed for adjudication. Of these, 7 nonfatal MIs (4 bupropion, 3 placebo, 0 ACT), 5 nonfatal strokes (1 bupropion, 3 placebo, 1 ACT), and 9 CV deaths (4 bupropion, 4 placebo, 1 ACT) were confirmed by the CEC Committee. The primary endpoint occurred in 3/4297 (0.07%) subjects in the bupropion group and in 4/2927 (0.14%) subjects in the placebo group (log-rank P value: 0.613).

CONCLUSIONS

CV events in bupropion clinical trials for smoking cessation were uncommon, with no observed increase among subjects assigned to bupropion vs placebo. However, this effort was limited by a paucity of quality data.

Neuropsychiatric safety and efficacy of varenicline, bupropion, and nicotine patch in smokers with and without psychiatric disorders (EAGLES): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Substantial concerns have been raised about the neuropsychiatric safety of the smoking cessation medications varenicline and bupropion. Their efficacy relative to nicotine patch largely relies on indirect comparisons, and there is limited information on safety and efficacy in smokers with psychiatric disorders. We compared the relative neuropsychiatric safety risk and efficacy of varenicline and bupropion with nicotine patch and placebo in smokers with and without psychiatric disorders.

METHODS

We did a randomised, double-blind, triple-dummy, placebo-controlled and active-controlled (nicotine patch; 21 mg per day with taper) trial of varenicline (1 mg twice a day) and bupropion (150 mg twice a day) for 12 weeks with 12-week non-treatment follow-up done at 140 centres (clinical trial centres, academic centres, and outpatient clinics) in 16 countries between Nov 30, 2011, and Jan 13, 2015. Participants were motivated-to-quit smokers with and without psychiatric disorders who received brief cessation counselling at each visit. Randomisation was computer generated (1:1:1:1 ratio). Participants, investigators, and research personnel were masked to treatment assignments. The primary endpoint was the incidence of a composite measure of moderate and severe neuropsychiatric adverse events. The main efficacy endpoint was biochemically confirmed continuous abstinence for weeks 9-12. All participants randomly assigned were included in the efficacy analysis and those who received treatment were included in the safety analysis. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT01456936) and is now closed.

FINDINGS

8144 participants were randomly assigned, 4116 to the psychiatric cohort (4074 included in the safety analysis) and 4028 to the non-psychiatric cohort (3984 included in the safety analysis). In the non-psychiatric cohort, 13 (1·3%) of 990 participants reported moderate and severe neuropsychiatric adverse events in the varenicline group, 22 (2·2%) of 989 in the bupropion group, 25 (2·5%) of 1006 in the nicotine patch group, and 24 (2·4%) of 999 in the placebo group. The varenicline-placebo and bupropion-placebo risk differences (RDs) for moderate and severe neuropsychiatric adverse events were -1·28 (95% CI -2·40 to -0·15) and -0·08 (-1·37 to 1·21), respectively; the RDs for comparisons with nicotine patch were -1·07 (-2·21 to 0·08) and 0·13 (-1·19 to 1·45), respectively. In the psychiatric cohort, moderate and severe neuropsychiatric adverse events were reported in 67 (6·5%) of 1026 participants in the varenicline group, 68 (6·7%) of 1017 in the bupropion group, 53 (5·2%) of 1016 in the nicotine patch group, and 50 (4·9%) of 1015 in the placebo group. The varenicline-placebo and bupropion-placebo RDs were 1·59 (95% CI -0·42 to 3·59) and 1·78 (-0·24 to 3·81), respectively; the RDs versus nicotine patch were 1·22 (-0·81 to 3·25) and 1·42 (-0·63 to 3·46), respectively. Varenicline-treated participants achieved higher abstinence rates than those on placebo (odds ratio [OR] 3·61, 95% CI 3·07 to 4·24), nicotine patch (1·68, 1·46 to 1·93), and bupropion (1·75, 1·52 to 2·01). Those on bupropion and nicotine patch achieved higher abstinence rates than those on placebo (OR 2·07 [1·75 to 2·45] and 2·15 [1·82 to 2·54], respectively). Across cohorts, the most frequent adverse events by treatment group were nausea (varenicline, 25% [511 of 2016 participants]), insomnia (bupropion, 12% [245 of 2006 participants]), abnormal dreams (nicotine patch, 12% [251 of 2022 participants]), and headache (placebo, 10% [199 of 2014 participants]). Efficacy treatment comparison did not differ by cohort.

INTERPRETATION

The study did not show a significant increase in neuropsychiatric adverse events attributable to varenicline or bupropion relative to nicotine patch or placebo. Varenicline was more effective than placebo, nicotine patch, and bupropion in helping smokers achieve abstinence, whereas bupropion and nicotine patch were more effective than placebo.

FUNDING

Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline.

Adjunctive Maintenance Lamotrigine for Pediatric Bipolar I Disorder: A Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Withdrawal Study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the efficacy of lamotrigine versus placebo in 10- to 17-year-olds with bipolar I disorder (BP-I) who were receiving conventional bipolar disorder treatment.

METHOD

In this randomized withdrawal trial, patients with BP-I of at least moderate severity received lamotrigine during an ≤18-week open-label phase. Patients who maintained a stable lamotrigine dose for ≥2 weeks and Clinical Global Impression-Bipolar Severity of Illness (CGI-BP[S]) score of ≤3 for ≥6 consecutive weeks were randomized to double-blind lamotrigine or placebo for ≤36 weeks.

RESULTS

Of 301 patients enrolled, 298 comprised the open-label intention-to-treat population, with 173 (58%) randomized. Of these patients, 41 (24%) completed the study. In the open-label phase, the mean (SD) baseline CGI-BP(S) rating was 4.4 (0.57), and the mean (standard error [SE]) time to stabilization was 101 (1.6) days. During the randomized phase, mean (SE) time to occurrence of a bipolar event (TOBE) for lamotrigine versus placebo (primary endpoint) was 155 (14.7) versus 50 (3.8), 163 (12.2) versus 120 (12.2), and 136 (15.4) versus 107 (13.8) days for the 3 index mood states (depressed, manic/hypomanic, mixed). The primary stratified log-rank analysis of TOBE was not statistically significant (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.63; p = .072); however, the prespecified Cox regression analysis favored lamotrigine (p = .047). In 13- to 17-year-olds, log-rank analysis of TOBE significantly favored lamotrigine (HR = 0.46; p = .015), but not in 10- to 12-year-olds (HR = 0.93; p = .877). Dermatologic events were reported in 4% (open-label phase) and 2% (randomized phase) of patients receiving lamotrigine. Suicidality-related adverse events were reported in 7% (open-label phase) and 7% (randomized phase) of patients receiving lamotrigine.

CONCLUSION

Although the primary analysis failed to detect a benefit of add-on lamotrigine for BP-I in 10- to 17-year-olds, lamotrigine may be effective in a subset of older adolescents. Clinical trial registration information-Lamictal as Add-on Treatment for Bipolar I Disorder in Pediatric Patients; http://clinicaltrials.gov/; NCT00723450.

Relief of menstrual symptoms and migraine with a single-tablet formulation of sumatriptan and naproxen sodium

BACKGROUND

Dysmenorrhea and menstrual migraine may share a common pathogenic pathway. Both appear to be mediated, in part, by an excess of prostaglandin production that occurs during menstruation.

METHODS

Data were pooled from two replicate randomized controlled trials of 621 adult menstrual migraineurs with dysmenorrhea who treated migraine with sumatriptan-naproxen or placebo. Along with headache symptoms, nonpain menstrual symptoms (bloating, fatigue, and irritability) and menstrual pain symptoms (abdominal and back pain) were recorded at the time periods of 30 minutes and 1, 2, 4, and 4-24 hours. Relief of menstrual symptoms was compared using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Logistic regression was used to determine the odds of a headache response with increasing numbers of moderate to severe dymenorrheic symptoms.

RESULTS

Sumatriptan-naproxen was superior to placebo for relief of tiredness, irritability, and abdominal pain at the time periods of 2, 4, and 4-24 hours (p≤0.023); back pain at the time periods of 4 and 4-24 hours (p≤0.023); and bloating at 4-24 hours endpoint (p=0.01). The odds ratios (ORs) of attaining migraine pain freedom for 2 hours and for sustained 2-24 hours decreased as moderate to severe dysmenorrhea symptoms increased with sumatriptan-naproxen versus placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with sumatriptan-naproxen may provide relief of menstrual symptoms and migraine in female migraineurs with dysmenorrhea. The presence of moderate to severe dysmenorrhea symptoms is associated with decreased response rates for menstrual migraine, suggesting that the co-occurrence of these disorders may negatively impact the results of migraine-abortive therapy.

Analgesic efficacy and safety of the novel p38 MAP kinase inhibitor, losmapimod, in patients with neuropathic pain following peripheral nerve injury: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Inhibitors of p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase are undergoing evaluation as a novel class of anti-rheumatic drugs, by virtue of their ability to suppress the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines. Emerging data suggests that they may also attenuate peripheral or central sensitization in neuropathic pain. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study was undertaken to evaluate the analgesic efficacy of losmapimod (GW856553), a novel p38α/β inhibitor, in subjects with neuropathic pain following traumatic peripheral nerve injury.

METHODS

One hundred and sixty-eight subjects with pain of at least moderate intensity (average daily score ≥4 on an 11-point pain intensity numeric rating scale; PI-NRS) at baseline were randomized to receive oral losmapimod, 7.5 mg BID or placebo for 28 days. Efficacy and safety assessments were undertaken at weekly clinic visits.

RESULTS

The mean treatment difference for the change in average daily pain score from baseline to week 4 of treatment based on the PI-NRS was -0.22 (95% CI -0.73, 0.28) in favour of losmapimod over placebo (p = 0.39). There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences between the treatment groups over the 4-week dosing period for either the primary or secondary efficacy variables. There were no unexpected safety or tolerability findings following dosing with losmapimod.

CONCLUSIONS

Losmapimod could not be differentiated from placebo in terms of a primary analgesia response in patients with pain following peripheral nerve injury. The lack of response could reflect inadequate exposure at central sites of action or differences between rodent and human with respect to the target or neuropathic pain mechanisms.

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy in lamotrigine randomized-controlled trials

PURPOSE

Nonrandomized studies of the relationship of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) with sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) may be susceptible to confounding by tonic-clonic seizure frequency, polypharmacy, and other potential risk factors for SUDEP. We evaluated the risk of SUDEP with lamotrigine (LTG) compared to active comparators and placebo in randomized controlled clinical trials conducted by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) between 1984 and 2009.

METHODS

Among 7,774 subjects in 42 randomized clinical trials, there were 39 all-cause deaths. Ten deaths occurred >2 weeks after discontinuation of study medication and were excluded. Narrative summaries of deaths were independently reviewed by three clinical experts (TT, LH, DF), who were blinded to randomized treatment arm. The risk of definite or probable SUDEP was compared between treatment arms for each trial type (placebo-controlled, active-comparator, crossover), using exact statistical methods.

KEY FINDINGS

Of 29 on-treatment deaths, eight were definite/probable SUDEP, four were possible SUDEP, and 17 were non-SUDEP. The overall, unadjusted rate of definite/probable SUDEP for LTG was 2.2 events per 1,000-patient years (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.70-5.4). The odds ratios (OR) for on-treatment, definite/probable SUDEP in LTG arms relative to comparator arms, adjusted for length of exposure and trial, were the following: placebo-controlled, OR 0.22 (95% CI 0.00-3.14; p = 0.26); active-comparator, OR 2.18 (95% CI 0.17-117; p = 0.89); and placebo-controlled cross-over, OR 1.08 (95% CI 0.00-42.2; p = 1.0).

SIGNIFICANCE

There was no statistically significant difference in rate of SUDEP between LTG and comparator groups. However, the CIs were wide and a clinically important effect cannot be excluded.

Meta-analysis of suicidality in placebo-controlled clinical trials of adults taking bupropion

OBJECTIVE

To assess a possible relationship between treatment with bupropion (vs placebo) and expressed suicidal ideation and behavior.

DATA SOURCES

This analysis, based on the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) analysis of antidepressant suicidality data, included 8,953 adult subjects receiving bupropion and 6,520 adult subjects receiving placebo from randomized, placebo-controlled trials with bupropion conducted between 1976 and 2006 across multiple indications, including major depressive disorder (MDD). A text string search of the adverse event database and case report form comments was performed to identify potential suicidal events. FDA search criteria included the following text strings: accident-, injur-, suic-, or overdos-, including all events coded as accidental overdose, attempt, cut, gas, hang, hung, jump, mutilat-, self damag-, self harm, self inflict-, shoot, slash, poison, asphyxiation, suffocation, firearm, burn, drown, gun, immolat-, and monoxide, and the following terms were added by GlaxoSmithKline to the search criteria: accident, lacerat-, MVA, and hospital. The database search included data beginning from the first dose of study medication through 1 day following the last dose.

DATA EXTRACTION

Suicidal event narratives were classified using the Columbia Classification Algorithm for Suicide Assessment. Additionally, changes on rating scale items for depressed mood and suicidality were analyzed.

DATA SYNTHESIS

In the MDD population, the incidence of suicidal behavior or ideation was 17/3,179 (0.53%) versus 11/2,310 (0.48%) for the bupropion and placebo groups, respectively (OR = 1.28; 95% CI, 0.59-2.86). For suicidal behavior, the incidence was 8/3,179 (0.25%) versus 2/2,310 (0.09%), respectively (OR = 3.52; 95% CI, 0.81-24.48). No suicidal behavior event was noted in the other indications, and no completed suicides were reported during treatment. No significant worsening was observed for bupropion relative to placebo on the rating scale items. No differential treatment effects were observed by gender or age; regardless of treatment, however, the 18- to 24-year-old group had the greatest odds of having a suicide event.

CONCLUSIONS

Although no statistically significant differences were observed between bupropion and placebo in expressed suicidal ideation or behavior, we believe that all patients treated with antidepressants should receive careful monitoring for clinical worsening, suicidality, or unusual changes in behavior.

Double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison of the antidepressant efficacy and tolerability of bupropion XR and venlafaxine XR

Bupropion, a noradrenaline/dopamine reuptake inhibitor, and venlafaxine, a serotonin/noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, are both established antidepressants with proven efficacy in randomized controlled clinical trials. The objective of this double-blind, randomized, placebo- and active-controlled, eight-week, flexible-dose study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of the once-daily extended-release formulations of these two antidepressants compared with placebo. Patients with major depressive disorder were randomized to once-daily treatment with bupropion XR 150 mg (n = 204), the extended-release formulation of venlafaxine (venlafaxine XR) 75 mg (n = 198) or placebo (n = 189) during weeks 1 to 4, with the option to double the dose at week 5 if response was inadequate. In this study, bupropion XR did not demonstrate statistically significant evidence of greater improvement from baseline compared with placebo on week 8 Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating scale scores (primary endpoint) or on secondary endpoints including CGI, HAM-A and responder and remitter analyses. Descriptive statistics for venlafaxine XR indicated separation versus placebo on MADRS total scores at week 8 and other intermediate time points, and on other endpoints including CGI, HAM-A and responder and remitter analyses. Both active treatments elicited improvement on the Sheehan Disability Scale and its subscales and were generally well tolerated at the doses studied. Rates of nausea, dry mouth, dizziness, hyperhidrosis, insomnia, constipation, tremor, anorexia and male sexual dysfunction were elevated in the venlafaxine XR group, consistent with its mixed serotonergic/noradrenergic mechanism. Rates of dry mouth, insomnia and hyperhidrosis were elevated in the bupropion XR group, consistent with its catecholaminergic mechanism.

Double-blind, placebo-controlled evaluation of extended-release bupropion in elderly patients with major depressive disorder

Major depressive disorder in the elderly is associated with increased morbidity and reduced quality of life. This 10 week, placebo-controlled study investigated the efficacy and tolerability of extended-release bupropion (150-300 mg once daily) in depressed patients aged 65 years or older. The statistical assumptions necessary for the validity of the protocol-specified analysis of covariance were not met for the analysis of the primary outcome variable (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score at Week 10, last observation carried forward). Alternative statistical methods used for the analysis of this variable demonstrated statistical significance. Statistically significant improvements were observed on the majority of secondary end points when compared with placebo, including the health outcome measures for motivation and energy, and life satisfaction and contentment. Adverse events were generally mild to moderate and similar between treatment groups. This study demonstrated that the extended-release bupropion is an effective, well-tolerated treatment for major depression in the elderly.

Eight-week, placebo-controlled, double-blind comparison of the antidepressant efficacy and tolerability of bupropion XR and venlafaxine XR

The efficacy, safety and tolerability of bupropion XR and venlafaxine XR was assessed and compared with placebo in adult outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD). Adults meeting DSM-IV criteria for MDD with a minimum Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) 17-Item total score of > or =18 were randomized to eight weeks of double-blind treatment with either bupropion XR (150 mg/day), venlafaxine XR (75 mg/day) or placebo. At the end of the fourth week of treatment, a dosage increase to bupropion XR 300 mg/day or venlafaxine XR 150 mg/day was allowed if, in the opinion of the investigator, response was inadequate. The primary efficacy endpoint was mean change from baseline at week 8 in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score last observation carried forward (LOCF). Mean changes from baseline at week 8 (LOCF) in MADRS total score were statistically significant for bupropion XR and venlafaxine XR patients compared to the placebo group: -16.0 for bupropion XR (P = 0.006 vs placebo), -17.1 for venlafaxine XR (P < 0.001 vs placebo) and -13.5 for placebo. Secondary outcomes (including CGI-S, HAM-A, MEI, Q-LES-Q-SF, responder and remitter analyses) also improved significantly for both active treatment groups compared with placebo. The most frequently reported adverse events were dry mouth and insomnia for bupropion XR, and nausea, hyperhidrosis, fatigue, and insomnia for venlafaxine XR. In this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, bupropion XR at doses up to 300 mg/day and venlafaxine XR at doses up to 150 mg/day demonstrated comparable antidepressant efficacy.

Efficacy of bupropion and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in the treatment of major depressive disorder with high levels of anxiety (anxious depression): a pooled analysis of 10 studies

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this work was to compare the efficacy of the norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake inhibitor bupropion with the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the treatment of major depressive disorder with high levels of anxiety (anxious depression).

METHOD

Ten double-blind, randomized studies from 1991 through 2006 were combined (N = 2122). Anxious depression was defined as a 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17) anxiety-somatization factor score >or= 7.

RESULTS

Among patients with anxious depression (N = 1275), response rates were greater following SSRI than bupropion treatment according to the HAM-D-17 (65.4% vs. 59.4%, p = .03) and the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (61.5% vs. 54.5%, p = .03). There was also a greater reduction in HAM-D-17 mean +/- SD scores (-14.1 +/- 7.6 vs. -13.2 +/- 7.9, p = .03) and a trend toward statistical significance for a greater reduction in HAM-A mean +/- SD scores (-10.5 +/- 7.4 vs. -9.6 +/- 7.6, p = .05) in favor of SSRI treatment among patients with anxious depression. There was no statistically significant difference in efficacy between bupropion and the SSRIs among patients with moderate/low levels of anxiety.

CONCLUSIONS

There appears to be a modest advantage for the SSRIs compared to bupropion in the treatment of anxious depression (6% difference in response rates). Using the number-needed-to-treat (NNT) statistic as 1 indicator of clinical significance, nearly 17 patients would need to be treated with an SSRI than with bupropion in order to obtain 1 additional responder. This difference falls well above the limit of NNT = 10, which was suggested by the United Kingdom's National Institute of Clinical Excellence. Nevertheless, the present work is of theoretical interest because it provides preliminary evidence suggesting a central role for serotonin in the regulation of symptoms of negative affect such as anxiety.

Efficacy of bupropion and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in the treatment of anxiety symptoms in major depressive disorder: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from 10 double-blind, randomized clinical trials

The goal of this work was to compare the efficacy of the norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitor bupropion with the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the treatment of anxiety symptoms in major depressive disorder (MDD). Ten double-blind, randomized studies, involving a total of 2890 bupropion-, SSRI- or placebo- treated patients were pooled. Anxiety symptoms of depression were defined using the Hamilton depression rating scale (HDRS) Anxiety-Somatization factor (HDRS-AS) score, as well as the Hamilton anxiety scale (HAM-A) score. Both bupropion and the SSRIs led to a comparable degree of improvement in anxiety symptoms, defined using the HDRS-AS score (-3.8+/-2.8 vs. -3.9+/-2.8, p=0.130) or HAM-A score (-8.8+/-7.2 vs. -9.1+/-7.0, p=0.177). There was no consistent difference in the time to anxiolysis between the two treatment groups. In addition, there was no difference in the proportion of bupropion- and SSRI- remitters who continued to experience residual anxiety, defined as a HDRS-AS score >0 at endpoint (69.2% vs. 74.7%, p=0.081) or a HAM-A score >7 at endpoint (9.5% vs. 8.4%, p=0.284). Finally, there was no statistically significant difference in the severity of residual anxiety symptoms between bupropion- or SSRI- treated patients with remitted depression, defined using the HDRS-AS (1.15+/-1.14 vs. 1.25+/-1.09, p=0.569), or HAM-A scores at endpoint (3.30+/-2.89 vs. 3.31+/-2.89, p=0.552). Contrary to clinician impression, there does not appear to be any difference in the anxiolytic efficacy of bupropion and the SSRIs when used to treat MDD.

Comparing the rapidity of response during treatment of major depressive disorder with bupropion and the SSRIs: a pooled survival analysis of 7 double-blind, randomized clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

Several controlled studies, as well as a meta-analysis, suggest that the efficacy of bupropion, a norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitor, is comparable to that of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). The current analysis was undertaken to determine if these antidepressants differ in rapidity of clinical effect.

METHOD

Individual patient data were obtained from 7 double-blind, randomized studies of 8 weeks' duration that compared bupropion (N = 836) and SSRIs (sertraline, paroxetine, fluoxetine, and escitalopram; N = 836). Time to first response and first remission were compared between treatment groups with the use of Cox proportional hazards regression models, stratified by trial number, with depression severity at baseline as a covariate. A secondary analysis compared outcomes in the 2 bupropion versus escitalopram studies. Random-effects meta-analyses were then conducted to confirm the survival-analysis findings.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between bupropion and the SSRIs in time to first response (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.955; p = .43) and first remission (HR = 1.00; p = .97). Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference between bupropion and escitalopram in time to first response (HR = 0.897; p = .29), and first remission (HR = 0.999; p = .99). These results were confirmed with the use of random-effects meta-analyses (p > .05, all 4 analyses).

CONCLUSION

There does not appear to be any statistically detectable difference in the rapidity of antidepressant effect between bupropion and the SSRIs overall or escitalopram specifically.

Relative antidepressant efficacy of bupropion and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in major depressive disorder: gender-age interactions

To determine whether age/gender-based differences in efficacy exist between bupropion and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for major depressive disorder, we pooled the findings of 10 double-blind studies comparing bupropion with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. Men (N=943) and women (N=1179) were divided into three age groups (younger than 40, 40-55, older than 55). Improvement in terms of the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, as well as the Bech melancholia, anxiety-somatization, and insomnia factors of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale was compared between the two treatment groups. Of 64 pair-wise comparisons, only one was statistically significant. Specifically, more women treated with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor experienced a 50% or greater decrease in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale Anxiety-Somatization scores (58.8 versus 63.8%, P=0.0394). No difference, however, was seen in the degree of resolution of Hamilton Depression Rating Scale Anxiety-Somatization scores (continuous measure) between women treated with bupropion versus a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (P=0.114). Bupropion and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, thus, appear to be equally effective in treating depressive symptoms, as well as anxious/somatic symptoms and insomnia in depression. No gender-related or age-related differences were found except that greater improvement was seen in anxious/somatic symptoms of depression among women during selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatment. This finding could, however, not be replicated when improvement in anxious/somatic symptoms was defined as a continuous measure.

Resolution of sleepiness and fatigue in major depressive disorder: A comparison of bupropion and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to examine whether the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) with the norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitor (NDRI) bupropion results in a greater resolution of sleepiness and fatigue than with the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).

METHODS

Six double-blind, randomized clinical trials comparing bupropion (n = 662) with an SSRI (n = 655) for the treatment of MDD were pooled. Hypersomnia scores were defined as the sum of scores of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) items #22, 23, and 24. Fatigue scores were defined as the score of HDRS item #13.

RESULTS

There was a greater improvement in hypersomnia scores among bupropion-treated than SSRI-treated (p < .0001) or placebo-treated patients (p = .0008). There was also a greater improvement in fatigue scores among bupropion-treated (p < .0001) and SSRI-treated (p = .0005) than placebo-treated patients as well as a greater improvement in fatigue scores among bupropion-treated than SSRI-treated patients (p = .0078). Fewer bupropion-remitters than SSRI-remitters experienced residual hypersomnia (20.5% vs. 32.1%; p = .0014) or residual fatigue (19.5% vs. 30.2%; p = .0020).

CONCLUSION

Treatment of MDD with the NDRI bupropion resulted in a greater resolution of sleepiness and fatigue than SSRIs treatment. Although preliminary, these results warrant prospectively designed studies examining potential differences between bupropion and the SSRIs on these specific depressive symptoms.

Extended-release bupropion for patients with major depressive disorder presenting with symptoms of reduced energy, pleasure, and interest: findings from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVE

This multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluated the efficacy and safety of extended-release bupropion (bupropion XL) in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) with prominent symptoms of decreased energy, pleasure, and interest.

METHOD

Eligible adult outpatients meeting DSM-IV criteria for MDD were randomly assigned to bupropion XL 300 to 450 mg/day (N = 135) or placebo (N = 139) for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy measure, change from baseline on the 30-item Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self Report (IDS-IVR-30) total score, was obtained using interactive voice response (IVR) technology. Secondary measures included change from baseline on the 30-item Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Clinician-Rated (IDS-C-30) total score and change in domain subset scores for energy, pleasure, and interest; for insomnia; and for anxiety. Response and remission rates were also calculated. Safety was assessed by withdrawal rates, adverse events (AEs), body weight, and vital signs. The study was conducted from June 24, 2003, to June 30, 2004.

RESULTS

Bupropion XL was superior to placebo at endpoint in reducing the IDS-IVR-30 total score (p = .018) and the energy, pleasure, and interest domain (p = .007) and the insomnia domain (p = .023) scores. IDS-C-30 outcomes were also significant (p < .001; p < .001, and p = .008, respectively). Clinician-rated remission rates were significantly higher with bupropion XL than placebo (32% vs. 18%, IDS-C-30; 41% vs. 27%, IDS-IVR-30), as were response rates (50% vs. 35%, IDS-C-30; 53% vs. 38%, Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement of Illness). Most AEs were mild or moderate. The incidence of a >or= 7% body weight loss was 3.7% with bupropion XL and 1.4% with placebo.

CONCLUSION

Bupropion XL was effective and well tolerated in MDD patients with decreased energy, pleasure, and interest.

Bupropion extended release compared with escitalopram: effects on sexual functioning and antidepressant efficacy in 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects on sexual functioning and the antidepressant efficacy of once-daily bupropion extended release (XL) and escitalopram in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHOD

Adult outpatients with moderate to severe DSM-IV-defined MDD and normal sexual functioning were randomly assigned to receive bupropion XL (300-450 mg/day; N = 276), escitalopram (10-20 mg/day; N = 281), or placebo (N = 273) for up to 8 weeks in 2 identically designed, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group studies (study 1 conducted from February 6, 2003, to June 10, 2004; study 2 conducted from January 21, 2003, to June 15, 2004). Data were analyzed prospectively for each study individually, and pooled data were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

In both the individual studies and the pooled dataset, the incidence of orgasm dysfunction at week 8 (primary endpoint) and the incidence of worsened sexual functioning at the end of the treatment period were statistically significantly lower with bupropion XL than with escitalopram (p < .05), not statistically different between bupropion XL and placebo (p > or = .067), and statistically significantly higher with escitalopram than with placebo (p < or = .001). The percentages of patients with orgasm dysfunction at week 8 in study 1, study 2, and the pooled dataset, respectively, were 13%, 16%, and 15% with bupropion XL; 32%, 29%, and 30% with escitalopram; and 11%, 8%, and 9% with placebo. The respective percentages of patients with worsened sexual functioning at the end of the treatment period were 18%, 22%, and 20% with bupropion XL; 37%, 34%, and 36% with escitalopram; and 14%, 16%, and 15% with placebo. Mean changes in Changes in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire scores for all domains at week 8 were statistically significantly worse for escitalopram compared with bupropion XL (p < or = .05). Separation from placebo could not be established at a statistical .05 level for bupropion on 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17) total score. However, escitalopram showed statistical superiority to placebo on HAM-D-17 total score in one of the 2 studies and in the pooled data. Bupropion XL did not statistically differ from escitalopram with respect to mean change in HAM-D-17 total score, HAM-D-17 response or remission rates, percentage of patients much or very much improved on Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale scores, or mean changes in the Hospital Anxiety and Depression (HAD) scale total score or Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale score at week 8.

CONCLUSIONS

Bupropion XL had a sexual tolerability profile significantly better than that of escitalopram with similar HAM-D-17 remission rates and HAD total scores in patients with MDD.

Seasonal affective disorder and its prevention by anticipatory treatment with bupropion XL

BACKGROUND

Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) can cause significant distress and impairment. No antidepressant studies have previously attempted to prevent the onset of autumn-winter depression.

METHODS

Three prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled prevention trials were conducted on 1042 SAD patients, enrolled in autumn and treated while still well, across the northern US and Canada. Patients received either bupropion XL 150-300 mg or placebo daily by mouth from enrollment until spring and were then followed off medications for 8 additional weeks. Primary efficacy variables were end-of-treatment depression-free rates and survival distributions of depressive recurrence.

RESULTS

Despite a reported average of 13 previous seasonal depressive episodes, almost 60% of patients had never previously been treated for depression. Major depression recurrence rates during the three studies for bupropion XL and placebo groups were 19% versus 30% (p = 0.026), 13% versus 21% (p = 0.049), and 16% versus 31%; yielding a relative risk reduction across the three studies of 44% for patients taking bupropion XL. Survival analyses for depression onset also favored bupropion XL over placebo (p = .081, .057, and <.001).

CONCLUSIONS

It is possible to prevent recurrence of seasonal major depressive episodes by beginning bupropion treatment early in the season while patients are still well.

Effect of bupropion SR on specific symptom clusters of depression: analysis of the 31-item Hamilton Rating Scale for depression

Principal component (PC) analysis is a statistical technique that has been used to identify core depression symptoms on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D). PC analysis is also a useful method to identify unidimensional scales of the HAM-D that are more sensitive to change following antidepressant treatment. Although there have been previous PC investigations of various versions of the HAM-D, there have been no investigations of the 31-item HAM-D scale or investigations that include subjects administered bupropion SR. We performed a PC analysis on data from 910 outpatients who participated in randomized, double-blind trials evaluating bupropion SR versus placebo for major depression. The goal of our analysis was to 1) identify components (domains) of the 31-item HAM-D and 2) determine patient response to bupropion SR using the domains identified. PC analysis produced a solution comprised of 7 domains of the HAM-D that accounted for approximately 49% of the total variance. Bupropion SR demonstrated a significant reduction (p<.01, least square mean change) in symptoms over placebo on 4 domains (cognitive, retardation, fatigue/interest, and anxiety items).

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator T wave oversensing caused by hyperglycemia

This case report highlights a previously unreported cause of T wave oversensing in a patient with an ICD and recent onset diabetes. Consistent T wave oversensing was observed at elevated serum glucose levels and this finding was reproduced with a glucose challenge. No T wave oversensing was seen during treatment of hyperglycemia. Alterations in serum chemistry may account for intermittent T wave oversensing in patients with ICDs.

Bupropion SR as an aid to smoking cessation in smokers treated previously with bupropion: a randomized placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Many persons who attempt to quit smoking have made previous unsuccessful attempts to quit with pharmacologic aids. An understanding of the impact of these previous attempts to quit is vital for selecting medications that may be more successful in a future attempt to quit. In particular, the effect of repeated use of bupropion SR (Zyban; INN, amfebutamone) on abstinence rates has not been studied previously.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in 450 smokers who had previously used bupropion in a smoking cessation attempt. The study consisted of a screening phase, a 12-week treatment phase, and a follow-up at month 6. Participants made regular clinic visits throughout the treatment phase during which they received brief counseling sessions to encourage abstinence from smoking. The primary end point was continuous abstinence from smoking from weeks 4 through 7. Secondary efficacy end points were examined throughout the treatment phase and at follow-up after 6 months.

RESULTS

In participants receiving bupropion SR, 27% (61 of 226) remained abstinent throughout the period from weeks 4 through 7 compared with 5% (11 of 224) of participants receiving placebo (P <.001). Significantly (P <.001) more participants who received bupropion SR during the treatment phase remained continuously abstinent from the start of week 4 through month 6 (27 of 226; 12%) compared with participants who received placebo (5 of 224; 2%). Eleven participants receiving placebo (5%) and 19 participants receiving bupropion SR (8%) stopped taking the study medication because of an adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

Bupropion SR is an effective medication for retreatment of smokers who have used bupropion SR previously.

Using prior information to allocate significance levels for multiple endpoints

We maximize power in a replicated clinical trial involving multiple endpoints by adjusting the individual significance levels for each hypothesis, using preliminary data to obtain the optimal adjustments. The levels are constrained to control the familywise error rate. Power is defined as the expected number of significances, where expectations are taken with respect to the posterior distributions of the non-centrality parameters under non-informative priors. Sample size requirements for the replicate study are given. Intuitive principles such as downweighting insignificant variables from a preliminary study and giving primary endpoints more emphasis are justifiable within the conceptual framework.

Cognitive performance on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale: effect of education

The cognitive subscale of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog) is used to monitor disease progression and treatment efficacy in clinical trials of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Using data from a 12-week drug trial, we retrospectively studied the effect of education on ADAS-Cog performance in a group of 444 patients with AD. The effect of education was statistically significant on baseline ADAS-Cog total scores. This effect remained statistically significant after controlling for age, gender, and dementia severity. Education effects were also statistically significant at week 12 for ADAS-Cog total and 10 of 11 subitem scores in 138 AD patients in the placebo arm of the trial. Post hoc analysis showed that non-high school graduates performed worse than those with greater educational levels across a broad range of cognitive domains. Our results, in conjunction with reports linking lower educational level with a higher risk for AD, suggest that educational level of patients be given consideration in the design and interpretation of cognitive tests in AD drug trials.