Labor market affiliation of patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms: a population-based matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

Patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) suffer from substantial symptoms and risk of debilitating complications, yet observational data on their labor market affiliation are scarce.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a descriptive cohort study using data from Danish nationwide registries, including patients diagnosed with MPN in 2010-2016. Each patient was matched with up to ten comparators without MPN on age, sex, level of education, and region of residence. We assessed pre- and post-diagnosis labor market affiliation, defined as working, unemployed, or receiving sickness benefit, disability pension, retirement pension, or other health-related benefits. Labor market affiliation was assessed weekly from two years pre-diagnosis until death, emigration, or 31 December 2018. For patients and comparators, we reported percentage point (pp) changes in labor market affiliation cross-sectionally from week -104 pre-diagnosis to week 104 post-diagnosis.

RESULTS

The study included 3,342 patients with MPN and 32,737 comparators. From two years pre-diagnosis until two years post-diagnosis, a larger reduction in the proportion working was observed among patients than comparators (essential thrombocythemia: 10.2 [95% CI: 6.3-14.1] vs. 6.8 [95% CI: 5.5-8.0] pp; polycythemia vera: 9.6 [95% CI: 5.9-13.2] vs. 7.4 [95% CI: 6.2-8.7] pp; myelofibrosis: 8.1 [95% CI: 3.0-13.2] vs. 5.8 [95% CI: 4.2-7.5] pp; and unclassifiable MPN: 8.0 [95% CI: 3.0-13.0] vs. 7.4 [95% CI: 5.7-9.1] pp). Correspondingly, an increase in the proportion of patients receiving sickness benefits including other health-related benefits was evident around the time of diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Overall, we found that Danish patients with essential thrombocythemia, polycythemia vera, myelofibrosis, and unclassifiable MPN had slightly impaired labor market affiliation compared with a population of the same age and sex. From two years pre-diagnosis to two years post-diagnosis, we observed a larger reduction in the proportion of patients with MPN working and a greater proportion receiving sickness benefits compared with matched individuals.

Healthcare resource utilization in patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms: A Danish nationwide matched cohort study

Few studies have assessed healthcare resource utilization (HRU) in patients with Philadelphia-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) using a matched cohort design. Further, no detailed assessment of HRU in the years preceding an MPN diagnosis exists. We conducted a registry-based nationwide Danish cohort study, including patients with essential thrombocythemia, polycythemia vera, myelofibrosis, and unclassifiable MPN diagnosed between January 2010 and December 2016. HRU data were summarized annually from 2 years before MPN diagnosis until emigration, death, or end of study (December 2017). We included 3342 MPN patients and 32 737 comparisons without an MPN diagnosis, matched on sex, age, region of residence, and level of education. During the study period, the difference in HRU (rate ratio) between patients and matched comparisons ranged from 1.0 to 1.5 for general practitioner contacts, 0.9 to 2.2 for hospitalizations, 0.9 to 3.8 for inpatient days, 1.0 to 4.0 for outpatient visits, 1.3 to 2.1 for emergency department visits, and 1.0 to 4.1 for treatments/examinations. In conclusion, MPN patients had overall higher HRU than the matched comparisons throughout the follow-up period (maximum 8 years). Further, MPN patients had substantially increased HRU in both the primary and secondary healthcare sector in the 2 years preceding the diagnosis.

Socioeconomic cost of AML in Sweden—A population‐based study using multiple nation‐wide registers

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is associated with a high economic and clinical burden. Recently novel therapies have been added to standard treatment regimens. Here, we evaluated the economic impact of AML up until the introduction of these novel therapies. Individual data on 2954 adult patients diagnosed from 2007 to 2015 from five Swedish national population‐based registers were used, enabling analyses from diagnosis to either death or 5‐year follow‐up for survival, inpatient and outpatient costs, costs of prescribed drugs, sick leave, and early retirement. Costs per patient were stratified by age group, treatment options, and FLT3‐ITD status. The expected 5‐year costs per patient differed substantially between age groups. Patients aged 18–59 years had an expected mean cost per patient of €170,748, while age groups 60–69 years, 70–79 years, and >80 years incurred an expected mean cost of €92,252, €48,344, and €24,118, respectively, over 5 years. Patients <60 years undergoing stem cell transplantation had the highest costs (€228,525 over 5 years). About 60% of costs for these patients were from hospitalizations and 20% from sick leave and early retirement; cost per day was highest from the first admission to complete remission. This study provides a baseline for socioeconomic evaluations of novel therapies in AML in Sweden.

Prospective Study of Chromogranin A as a Predictor of Progression in Patients with Pancreatic, Small-Intestinal, and Unknown Primary Neuroendocrine Tumors

BACKGROUND

Retrospective studies are conflicting but most of them report that an increase in plasma chromogranin A (CgA) predicts tumor progression in neuroendocrine tumor (NET) patients. Prospectively, we investigated if a change in plasma CgA is associated with tumor burden changes in NET patients with disseminated disease.

METHODS

We included 239 patients treated at 5 NET centers from December 2010 to December 2013. CgA was measured within 6 weeks of a CT or MRI in a patient undergoing at least 2 scan examinations performed over a period of 1-24 months. In a post hoc analysis, CgA measured 3-6 months prior to the CT/MRI was analyzed. Changes in tumor size were evaluated by RECIST1.1. A 25% change in CgA was chosen to discriminate between increased, decreased, or unchanged levels.

RESULTS

In 671 events (2 CT/MRI scans and 2 corresponding CgA measurements), we found a weak positive correlation between the RECIST 1.1 responses and change in plasma CgA from baseline (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient: 0.15; p < 0.05). Of 304 events in the post hoc analysis, 58 showed progression, 228 showed stable disease, and 18 showed regression, with a median change in CgA of 19% (IQR: 57 to -20%), -12% (23 to -38%), and -73% (-55 to -83%), respectively. The correlation coefficient for all sites was 0.17 (p = 0.003), and it was 0.16 (p = 0.07), 0.18 (p = 0.04), and 0.20 (p = 0.21) for small-intestinal (n = 137), pancreatic (n = 123), and unknown primary NET (n = 40), respectively. In the 58 patients showing tumor progression, the sensitivity and specificity of an increased CgA concentration were 36 and 82%, respectively, with positive and negative predictive values of 32 and 85%.

CONCLUSIONS

In this prospective study of gastroenteropancreatic NET patients, we observed only a weak association between a change in plasma CgA and changes in tumor burden. CgA as a single biomarker was thus inadequate to predict tumor progression.

A randomised, placebo-controlled 52-week trial of continued quetiapine treatment in recently depressed patients with bipolar I and bipolar II disorder

OBJECTIVES

To examine the longer-term efficacy of quetiapine monotherapy in bipolar depression in a preplanned pooling of data from the EMBOLDEN I and II studies.

METHODS

Patients (N = 584) with bipolar I or II disorder (most recent episode: depressed) who achieved remission after 8 weeks of treatment with quetiapine (300 or 600 mg/day) were randomised to the same quetiapine dose or placebo for 26-52 weeks or until mood event recurrence.

RESULTS

The risk for recurrence of a mood event was significantly lower with quetiapine than placebo (HR 0.51 (95% CI: 0.38-0.69); < 0.001). Quetiapine was associated with a lower risk for recurrence of depressive events (HR 0.43 (95% CI: 0.30-0.62); P < 0.001) but recurrence of manic/hypomanic events was not significantly reduced (HR 0.75 (95% CI: 0.45-1.24; P = 0.263). There was a lower risk of recurrence of mood events in bipolar I (HR 0.58 (95% CI: 0.41-0.82), P = 0.002) and bipolar II patients (HR 0.33 (95% CI: 0.18-0.60), P < 0.001). Discontinuation rates due to adverse events were 4.3, 4.0 and 1.7% for quetiapine 300 mg/day, 600 mg/day and placebo, respectively. Safety data, including changes in lipid and glucose parameters, were consistent with the recognized profile of quetiapine.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of quetiapine monotherapy in bipolar depression is maintained during continued treatment for 26-52 weeks. Quetiapine was generally well tolerated.

Quetiapine monotherapy as treatment for anxiety symptoms in patients with bipolar depression: a pooled analysis of results from 2 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine monotherapy for anxiety symptoms in patients with bipolar disorder experiencing depression in the BipOLar DEpRession (BOLDER I and II) studies.

METHOD

A post hoc analysis of anxiety symptoms in 1,051 acutely depressed patients with bipolar I or II disorder (DSM-IV) from 2 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled 8-week studies of quetiapine (300 or 600 mg once daily) was conducted. Anxiety symptoms were assessed using Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS) total and psychic (items 1-6, 14) and somatic (items 7-13) anxiety subscale scores (mixed-model repeated measure and last-observation-carried-forward analysis of change from baseline at each assessment). The BOLDER I study was conducted between September 2002 and October 2003, and the BOLDER II study was conducted between June 2004 and August 2005.

RESULTS

Mean baseline HARS total scores were similar across the treatment groups (300 mg/d: 18.9, 600 mg/d and placebo: both 18.6). There was a significantly greater improvement from baseline in mean HARS total scores at the first evaluation (week 1) in both quetiapine groups compared with placebo (300 mg/d: -4.6, P < .001 and 600 mg/d: -4.1, P = .003 vs placebo: -2.8). These improvements were sustained through week 8 with both quetiapine doses (300 mg/d: -10.1, P < .001 and 600 mg/d: -10.5, P < .001 vs placebo: -6.9). At week 8, there was also significant improvement from baseline in HARS psychic and somatic anxiety subscale scores compared with placebo (P < .001). The baseline severity of anxiety did not impact the improvement in depressive symptoms. Common adverse events included dry mouth, sedation, somnolence, and dizziness.

CONCLUSIONS

In this pooled analysis, quetiapine monotherapy was more effective than placebo and generally well tolerated for the treatment of both depressive and anxiety symptoms in patients with bipolar disorder.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00060489 (BOLDER I) and NCT00083954 (BOLDER II).

Continuation of quetiapine versus switching to placebo or lithium for maintenance treatment of bipolar I disorder (Trial 144: a randomized controlled study)

OBJECTIVE

Quetiapine, combined with lithium or divalproex, demonstrates efficacy in the maintenance treatment of bipolar I disorder. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of quetiapine monotherapy as maintenance treatment in bipolar I disorder compared with switching to placebo or lithium.

METHOD

Patients aged ≥ 18 years with DSM-IV-diagnosed bipolar I disorder and a current or recent manic, depressive, or mixed episode received open-label quetiapine (300-800 mg/d) for 4-24 weeks. Patients achieving stabilization were randomized to continue quetiapine or to switch to placebo or lithium (0.6-1.2 mEq/L) for up to 104 weeks in a double-blind trial. Outcome measures included times to recurrence of any mood event (primary outcome measure), manic event, or depressive event. Safety assessments included adverse events and laboratory values. The study was terminated early after planned interim analysis provided positive results. The study was conducted between March 2005 and July 2007.

RESULTS

Of 2,438 patients starting open-label quetiapine, 1,226 (50.3%) were randomized to double-blind treatment, including 1,172 (95.6%) in the intent-to-treat population. Time to recurrence of any mood event was significantly longer for quetiapine versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.23-0.38; P < .0001) and for lithium versus placebo (HR = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.36-0.59; P < .0001). Quetiapine and lithium significantly increased time to recurrence of both manic events (quetiapine: HR = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.21-0.40; P < .0001; lithium: HR = 0.37; 95% CI, 0.27-0.53; P < .0001) and depressive events (quetiapine: HR = 0.30; 95% CI, 0.20-0.44; P < .0001; lithium: HR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.42-0.84; P < .004) compared with placebo. Overall rates of adverse events were generally similar between treatment groups, and safety findings for quetiapine were consistent with its known profile.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients stabilized during acute quetiapine treatment, continuation of quetiapine significantly increased time to recurrence of any mood, manic, or depressive event compared with switching to placebo. Switching to lithium was also more effective than placebo for the prevention of manic and depressive events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00314184.

A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of quetiapine and paroxetine as monotherapy in adults with bipolar depression (EMBOLDEN II)

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine and paroxetine monotherapy for major depression in bipolar disorder.

METHOD

740 patients (478 bipolar I, 262 bipolar II) with major depressive episodes (DSM-IV) were randomly assigned to quetiapine 300 mg/d (n = 245), quetiapine 600 mg/d (n = 247), paroxetine 20 mg/d (n = 122), or placebo (n = 126) for 8 weeks. The primary end point was the change from baseline in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. The study was conducted from May 2005 to May 2007.

RESULTS

Mean MADRS score change from baseline at 8 weeks was -16.19 for quetiapine 300 mg, -16.31 for quetiapine 600 mg, -13.76 for paroxetine, and -12.60 for placebo (P < .001 for both quetiapine doses, P = .313 for paroxetine, vs placebo). Quetiapine-treated (both doses), but not paroxetine-treated, patients showed significantly greater improvements (P < or = .05) in most secondary outcomes measures at week 8 versus the placebo group. Paroxetine significantly improved Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale scores versus placebo (P < .05) but not MADRS or Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) scores. Both quetiapine doses were associated with greater improvements than paroxetine for MADRS and HDRS scores. The most common adverse events were dry mouth, somnolence, sedation, and dizziness with quetiapine (both doses) and dry mouth, sedation, headache, insomnia, and nausea with paroxetine. The incidence of treatment-emergent mania/hypomania was lower with quetiapine compared with paroxetine and placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Quetiapine (300 or 600 mg/d), but not paroxetine, was more effective than placebo for treating acute depressive episodes in bipolar I and II disorder. Quetiapine treatment was generally well tolerated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00119652.

A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of quetiapine and lithium monotherapy in adults in the acute phase of bipolar depression (EMBOLDEN I)

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine and lithium monotherapy with that of placebo for a major depressive episode in bipolar disorder.

METHOD

802 patients with DSM-IV-defined bipolar disorder (499 bipolar I, 303 bipolar II) were randomly allocated to quetiapine 300 mg/d (n = 265), quetiapine 600 mg/d (n = 268), lithium 600 to 1800 mg/d (n = 136), or placebo (n = 133) for 8 weeks. Primary endpoint was the change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. The study was conducted from August 2005 to May 2007.

RESULTS

Mean MADRS total score change from baseline at week 8 was -15.4 for quetiapine 300 mg/d, -16.1 for quetiapine 600 mg/d, -13.6 for lithium, and -11.8 for placebo (P < .001 for both quetiapine doses, P = .123 for lithium, vs placebo). Quetiapine 600 mg/d was significantly more effective than lithium in improving MADRS total score at week 8 (P = .013). Quetiapine-treated (both doses), but not lithium-treated, patients showed significant improvements (P < .05) in MADRS response and remission rates, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar-Severity of Illness and -Change, and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS) scores at week 8 versus placebo. Both quetiapine doses were more effective than lithium at week 8 on the HDRS and HARS. The most common adverse events were somnolence, dry mouth, and dizziness with quetiapine (both doses) and nausea with lithium.

CONCLUSIONS

Quetiapine (300 or 600 mg/d) was more effective than placebo for the treatment of episodes of acute depression in bipolar disorder. Lithium did not significantly differ from placebo on the main measures of efficacy. Both treatments were generally well tolerated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00206141.

Maintenance treatment for patients with bipolar I disorder: results from a north american study of quetiapine in combination with lithium or divalproex (trial 127)

OBJECTIVE

The authors evaluated the efficacy and safety of quetiapine plus lithium or divalproex in the prevention of recurrent mood events in patients with stabilized bipolar I disorder.

METHOD

A total of 1,953 patients received open-label quetiapine (400-800 mg/day in flexible, divided doses) with either lithium or divalproex (target serum concentrations 0.5-1.2 meq/liter and 50-125 microg/ml, respectively) for up to 36 weeks. After at least 12 weeks of clinical stability, 628 patients were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with quetiapine or placebo, in combination with lithium or divalproex, for up to 104 weeks. The primary efficacy measure was time to recurrence of any mood event (mania, depression, or a mixed episode).

RESULTS

Fewer patients in the quetiapine group experienced a mood event compared with the placebo group (20.3% versus 52.1%). The hazard ratio for time to recurrence of a mood event was 0.32. Hazard ratios were similar for mania and depression events (0.30 and 0.33, respectively). Sedation, weight increase, and hypothyroidism occurred more frequently in the quetiapine group, as did discontinuations due to adverse events. The incidence and incidence density of a single emergent blood glucose value > or =126 mg/dl were higher in the quetiapine group (12.6% versus 5.4%; 18.44 versus 9.56 patients per 100 patient-years). Adverse events were generally consistent with the known tolerability profile of quetiapine.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients stabilized on quetiapine plus lithium or divalproex, continued treatment was associated with a significant risk reduction in the time to recurrence of any mood event compared with placebo and lithium or divalproex.

The psychometric validation of the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) in patients with bipolar disorder

Bipolar disorder (BD) adversely affects daily activities/functioning. The Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) assesses disability in work/school activities, family relationships, and social functioning, and it evaluates the functional impact of psychiatric disorders. BD outpatients from 21 U.S. sites completed a battery of validated instruments (including the SDS) three times over 8-12 weeks. Instrument reliability (internal consistency, test-retest), validity (construct, convergent validity, known groups) and responsiveness were measured. There were missing data for the SDS in 2% of the 225 subjects with BD. One factor explained 82% of the variance. All SDS items had rotated factor loadings on the first factor >0.90, confirming the appropriateness of the SDS total score. Item-scale correlations surpassed 0.40. There was excellent internal consistency reliability for the SDS total score (Cronbach's alpha=0.89). Test-retest reliability was acceptable for the SDS total score (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.73). Correlations with other instruments demonstrate convergent and divergent validity. The SDS total and item scores significantly discriminated between (self-rated) overall health status, clinician-rated functional status, and clinician-rated depression, evidencing known group validity. The SDS demonstrated ability to detect change over time. The SDS is a valid, reliable measure of disability and is responsive to change over time when used in subjects with BD.

Quetiapine for the treatment of bipolar II depression: analysis of data from two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine monotherapy for depressive episodes in patients with bipolar II disorder.

METHODS

A post-hoc evaluation was conducted in 351 patients with bipolar II depression combined from two similarly designed double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, 8-week studies of quetiapine (300 or 600 mg/day) that included patients with bipolar I or II disorder (DSM-IV) exhibiting moderate to severe depression. The primary endpoint was change from baseline to week 8 in MADRS total score. Secondary endpoints included HAM-D, HAM-A, and CGI.

RESULTS

In patients with bipolar II disorder, improvement in mean MADRS total score from baseline was significantly greater with quetiapine 300 (n = 107) and 600 mg/day (n = 106) from the first assessment (week 1) through week 8 compared with placebo (n = 108). The mean change from baseline at week 8 for quetiapine 300 and 600 mg/day versus placebo was -17.1 and -17.9 versus -13.3 (P = 0.005 and P = 0.001 versus placebo), respectively. Change in HAM-D, HAM-A, and CGI were also significantly greater for quetiapine groups versus placebo. Common adverse events in the quetiapine groups included dry mouth, sedation, and somnolence.

CONCLUSION

Quetiapine demonstrated significant efficacy as monotherapy, compared with placebo, for the treatment of acute depressive episodes in bipolar II disorder.

Quetiapine: Mood Stabilization Across all Phases of Bipolar Disorder

Background:

Following resolution of acute symptoms (manic and depressed), most patients with bipolar disorder experience affective recurrences and residual functional impairment. This indicates a need for a treatment that not only manages the acute phase of illness but also maintains the stabilized patient.

Methods:

Data are presented to support the effectiveness of quetiapine in: managing the acutely ill patient; maintaining the euthymic patient by preventing mood event recurrence; and improving patient-perceived functioning.

Results:

Quetiapine monotherapy demonstrates efficacy against mania symptoms as early as Day 4 (Trials 104 and 105 [pooled datasets]; P< 0.05 vs placebo) and Week 1 in bipolar depression (BOLDER and EMBOLDEN [pooled datasets]; P< 0.001 vs placebo). The acute antidepressive effect was significant for both bipolar I and II populations. As continuation therapy in bipolar depression, quetiapine is associated with a significant reduction in the risk of depressive mood event recurrence (EMBOLDEN I and II; P< 0.001 vs placebo). Moreover, quetiapine significantly reduces the risk of recurrence of mania or depression events as an adjunct to lithium or divalproex (Trials 126 and 127; P< 0.0001), and as monotherapy (Trial 144; P< 0.001). Quetiapine is generally well tolerated in all phases.

Conclusions:

Quetiapine fulfills mood stabilization criteria by demonstrating efficacy in all phases of bipolar disorder. To date, quetiapine is the only treatment to show robust efficacy against both poles of bipolar disorder, without causing an excess shift to the opposite pole, and to prevent mood episode recurrence irrespective of the index episode.Supported by funding from AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP.

Quetiapine monotherapy in the treatment of depressive episodes of bipolar I and II disorder: Improvements in quality of life and quality of sleep

INTRODUCTION

The depressive symptoms of bipolar disorder impact health-related quality of life, quality of sleep and functioning. The BOLDER I and II trials demonstrated that quetiapine significantly improves depressive symptoms in patients with acute bipolar depression. Post-hoc analysis of the BOLDER I and II data permits a detailed investigation of the effects of quetiapine on these other measures in this patient population.

METHODS

Secondary analysis was performed on data from BOLDER I and II, which were two 8-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies of quetiapine at fixed doses (300 or 600 mg/day) in a total of 1051 patients with acute depressive episodes of bipolar I or II disorder. Measures included the Short-Form Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (Q-LES-Q SF) in BOLDER I and II, the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) in BOLDER I, and the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) in BOLDER II. Analyses of Q-LES-Q SF score changes were based on data from the combined BOLDER I and II populations, and analyses of PSQI and SDS score changes were based on BOLDER I and BOLDER II populations, respectively.

RESULTS

Assessments at day 57 by mixed-model repeated measures analysis demonstrated that quetiapine relative to placebo provided significant or numerical improvements in rating scale score on the Q-LES-Q SF (10.89 with 300 mg/day and 12.14 with 600 mg/day vs. 7.79 with placebo; p<0.001 for each quetiapine dose), PSQI (-5.34 and -6.00 vs. -3.35; p<0.001, each dose), and SDS (-7.78 and -8.25 vs. -6.49; p=0.156 and 0.054, respectively). Effect sizes at day 57 with quetiapine 300 and 600 mg/day, respectively, were 0.34 and 0.46 for Q-LES-Q SF, 0.59 and 0.79 for PSQI, and 0.17 and 0.23 for SDS. Improvements were evident at first post-baseline assessment on day 29 and were consistent over the majority of rating scale domains. Quetiapine was generally well tolerated and most adverse events were of mild to moderate intensity.

CONCLUSIONS

Quetiapine monotherapy is effective in improving impairment in important aspects of life that accompany improvements in depressive symptoms in patients with acute bipolar depression.

Reporting outcomes in clinical trials for bipolar disorder: a commentary and suggestions for change

OBJECTIVE

Newer outcome measures and statistical reporting that better translate efficacy data to evidence-based psychiatric care are needed when evaluating clinical trials for bipolar disorder. Using efficacy studies as illustrations, the authors review and recommend changes in the reporting of traditional clinical outcomes both in the acute and maintenance phases of bipolar disorder.

METHODS

Definitions of response, remission, relapse, recovery, and recurrence are reviewed and recommendations for change are made. These suggestions include reporting the numbers needed to treat or harm (NNT or NNH), and a ratio of the two, likelihood of help or harm (LHH), as an important element of the effect size (ES). Moreover, models of prediction that conduct sensitivity or specificity analyses and utilize decision trees to help predict positive and negative outcomes of interest (for instance, excessive weight gain, or time to remission) using positive or negative predictive values (PPV or NPV) are reviewed for potential value to clinicians. Finally, functional and cognitive assessments are recommended for maintenance studies of bipolar disorder.

RESULTS

The examples provided in this manuscript underscore that reporting the NNT or NNH, or alternative effect sizes, or using PPV or NPV may be of particular value to clinicians. Such reports are likely to help translate efficacy-driven clinical data to information that will more readily guide clinicians on the benefits and risks of specific interventions in bipolar disorder.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors opine that reporting these newer outcomes, such as NNT or NNH, area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), or PPV or NPV will help translate the results of clinical trials into a language that is more readily understood by clinicians. Moreover, assessing and evaluating functional and cognitive outcomes will not only inform clinicians about potential differences among therapeutic options, but likely will make it easier to communicate such differences to persons with bipolar illness or to their families. Finally, we hope such scientific and research efforts will translate to optimism for recovery-based outcomes in persons with bipolar disorder.

Efficacy of quetiapine monotherapy for the treatment of depressive episodes in bipolar I disorder: a post hoc analysis of combined results from 2 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine monotherapy for the treatment of major depressive episodes in patients with bipolar I disorder, as a post hoc analysis of data from 2 large studies, the BipOLar DEpRession (BOLDER) I and II studies, which investigated the overall efficacy of quetiapine in both bipolar I and II disorder.

METHOD

A combined cohort of patients with depressive episodes in bipolar I disorder (DSM-IV criteria) (N = 694) from 2 nearly identical double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies that each randomly assigned patients with bipolar I and II disorder to 8 weeks of treatment with quetiapine 300 or 600 mg/day or placebo was analyzed. The primary efficacy measure was change from baseline to end of treatment (week 8) in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total scores.

RESULTS

In the combined cohort of patients with depressive episodes in bipolar I disorder from 2 studies, there were significantly greater clinical improvements in mean MADRS total scores among patients who received quetiapine compared with placebo from baseline to week 1 and through week 8 (at week 8: quetiapine 300 mg/day = -19.4; 600 mg/day = -19.6; placebo = -12.6; p < .001 for each dose), providing effect sizes of 0.78 and 0.80, respectively. Changes in MADRS were unrelated to reports of sedation and somnolence. The most common adverse events (AEs) with quetiapine were dry mouth, somnolence, sedation, dizziness, and constipation. Rates of withdrawal because of these AEs were relatively low.

CONCLUSIONS

Quetiapine monotherapy (300 and 600 mg/day) is more effective than placebo and generally well tolerated for the treatment of depressive episodes in patients with bipolar I disorder.

Associations between estimated acrylamide intakes, and hemoglobin AA adducts in a sample from the Malmö Diet and Cancer cohort

OBJECTIVE

To examine the coherence of estimated intakes of acrylamide (AA) from foods, with hemoglobin (Hb) AA adduct levels, an objective marker of environmental AA exposure.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study.

SETTING

The Malmö Diet and Cancer study, a large population-based prospective cohort (n=28 098) in the south of Sweden.

SUBJECTS

A sample of non-smoking (n=70) and smoking (n=72) women and men selected to obtain large variation in Hb AA adducts.

METHODS

Self-reported data on the usual consumption of foods were combined with published data on the AA content in Swedish foods. The Hb AA adduct levels were determined by a modified Edman degradation method. Linear regression and correlation analysis examined associations between estimated AA intakes, and Hb AA adducts.

RESULTS

In randomly selected individuals (n=40), the estimated median AA intake was 28 mug per day. In linear regression models, adjusting for sex, significant associations were seen in non-smokers between Hb AA adducts and estimated AA from foods (P=0.006). In smokers both AA from foods (P=0.006) and the calculated amount of tobacco consumed (P=0.003) were significantly associated with Hb AA adducts. Positive partial correlations between dietary AA estimates and Hb AA adducts were seen in smoking men (r=0.37) and women (r=0.59), and in non-smoking men (r=0.60), but not in non-smoking women.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that both diet and tobacco are important sources of the environmental AA exposure, although the lack of correlations in non-smoking women cast doubt on the validity of dietary AA intake estimates used in cancer epidemiology, or suggest that unrecognized factors may influence the internal dose measure of AA exposure.

Rates of remission/euthymia with quetiapine in combination with lithium/divalproex for the treatment of acute mania

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this analysis was to compare the rates of remission/euthymia in patients with bipolar mania receiving quetiapine in combination with lithium/divalproex (QTP+Li/DVP) versus placebo (PBO) in combination with Li/DVP (PBO+Li/DVP).

METHODS

A pooled analysis of two (one 3-week and one 6-week) double-blind studies of a total of 370 patients hospitalized with bipolar I mania who received quetiapine (up to 800 mg/day) in combination with Li (mean serum concentration 0.76 mEq/L) or DVP (mean serum concentration 69.5 microg/mL) was performed. For both studies, data were analyzed at Day 21. In addition, for the 6-week study, data were analyzed at Day 42. Five different criteria for remission/euthymia were used: (i) Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score < or = 12; (ii) YMRS score < or = 12 plus a Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score < or = 10; (iii) YMRS score < or = 12+MADRS score < or = 8; (iv) YMRS score < or = 8; and (v) YMRS score < or = 8 plus a score < or = 2 for the YMRS core items of Irritability, Speech, Content, and Disruptive/Aggressive Behavior.

RESULTS

In the pooled analysis, Day 21 remission rates (YMRS < or = 12) were significantly higher in patients treated with QTP+Li/DVP compared with those who received PBO+Li/DVP (48.7% versus 33.0%, p=0.003). Rates of remission/euthymia (YMRS < or = 12+MADRS < or = 10) were similarly improved with QTP+Li/DVP compared with Li/DVP alone (43.2% versus 26.5%, p=0.001). Using the most stringent criteria (YMRS < or = 12+MADRS < or = 8), rates of remission/euthymia were again significantly higher with QTP+Li/DVP than with Li/DVP alone (38.4% versus 25.9%, p=0.014). More patients treated with quetiapine met the stringent criterion of YMRS < or = 8 (31.9% versus 24.3%; p=NS). A trend in favor of quetiapine was also observed for the more stringent criterion of YMRS < or = 8 plus core items < or = 2 (28.1% versus 23.2%; p=NS). For the 6-week study, at Day 42, YMRS was < or = 12 in 68.3% of patients treated with QTP+Li/DVP compared with 57.3% of those who received PBO+Li/DVP (p=NS). Respective rates based on the remission criterion of YMRS < or = 8 were 36.5% and 32.3% (p=NS), and with YMRS < or = 8 and core items < or = 2 were 53.8% and 45.8% (p=NS). However, a significant difference was observed between patients treated with QTP+Li/DVP versus those treated with PBO+Li/DVP using criteria of YMRS < or = 12+MADRS < or = 10 (63.5% versus 49.0%, p<0.05) or YMRS < or = 12+MADRS < or = 8 (61.5% versus 46.9%, p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

At Days 21 and 42, quetiapine combined with Li/DVP compared to Li/DVP monotherapy yielded significant, sustained improvements in the rate of clinical remission/euthymia in patients with bipolar mania. Longer-term studies are warranted to assess whether quetiapine combined with other mood stabilizing medications can yield even longer-term resolution of symptoms of acute mania while concurrently preventing emergence of depressive symptoms.

Treatment of agitation and aggression in bipolar mania: efficacy of quetiapine

OBJECTIVE

Agitation and aggression are potentially disruptive and dangerous features of bipolar mania. This analysis evaluated the effects of quetiapine on agitation and aggression in patients with bipolar I mania.

METHODS

Four double-blind, randomized, controlled trials were conducted using similar protocols; 407 patients with bipolar I mania were randomized to quetiapine monotherapy (200-800 mg/day) or placebo for 12 weeks, and 402 patients were randomized to quetiapine (200-800 mg/day) or placebo in combination with lithium (Li) or divalproex (DVP) for 3 or 6 weeks. Measurements of agitation included the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) Activation subscale, PANSS Supplemental Aggression Risk subscale scores, and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) items relevant to agitation.

RESULTS

Initial reductions in both the PANSS Activation and PANSS Supplemental Aggression Risk subscale scores were noted by Day 4 with quetiapine and placebo. The reduction in PANSS Activation subscale scores was significantly greater with quetiapine monotherapy than placebo first at Day 21 (-3.5 versus -1.4, P<0.001) and also at Day 84 (-4.8 versus -1.2, P<0.001). The improvement in PANSS Supplemental Aggression Risk subscale score was significantly greater with quetiapine monotherapy than placebo by Day 14 (P<0.01) and all time points thereafter including Day 21 (-4.0 versus -1.8, P<0.001) and Day 84 (-5.6 versus -1.7, P<0.001). In combination therapy, the mean improvement in PANSS Activation subscale score at Day 21 was numerically but not significantly different with QTP+Li/DVP than PBO+Li/DVP (-4.2 versus -3.2, P=0.087). The mean PANSS Supplemental Aggression Risk subscale scores were significantly improved at Day 21 with QTP+Li/DVP versus PBO+Li/DVP (-5.05 versus -3.69, P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Quetiapine is an effective and appropriate treatment choice in managing agitation and aggression associated with bipolar mania.

Rates of remission/euthymia with quetiapine monotherapy compared with placebo in patients with acute mania

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of quetiapine monotherapy compared with placebo on acute (3-week) and more sustained (12-week) rates of response and remission/euthymia in bipolar disorder patients with acute mania.

METHODS

Two similar 12-week multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies were conducted, with an a priori decision to combine the data and analyze response and remission rates. Response was measured as a decrease of at least 50% in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) scores from baseline to Day 21 and Day 84. Five remission/euthymia criteria were employed to determine efficacy at Day 21 and Day 84: (i) YMRS score < or = 12; (ii) YMRS score < or = 12 and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score < or = 10; (iii) YMRS score < or = 12 and MADRS score < or = 8; (iv) YMRS score < or = 8; and (v) YMRS score < or = 8 plus a score < or = 2 for the YMRS core items of Irritability, Speech, Content, and Disruptive/Aggressive Behavior.

RESULTS

Patients treated with quetiapine (n=208) and placebo (n=195) had mean YMRS scores at entry of 33.3+/-6.3 and 33.5+/-6.7, respectively. Significantly higher response rates were observed with quetiapine compared with placebo, at Days 21 (48.1% versus 31.3%; p<0.001) and 84 (66.8% versus 40.0%; p<0.001). At Day 21, remission/euthymia rates with quetiapine monotherapy versus placebo were: 37.5% versus 23.1% (YMRS < or = 12), 35.6% versus 21.5% (YMRS < or = 12+MADRS < or = 10), 35.1% versus 20.0% (YMRS < or = 12+MADRS < or = 8), 25.0% versus 14.4% (YMRS < or = 8), and 21.6% versus 14.4% (YMRS < or = 8 plus core items < or = 2) (p<0.01 for all comparisons except YMRS < or = 8 plus core items < or = 2: p=0.06). By Day 84, these had increased to: 65.4% versus 35.9% (YMRS < or = 12), 60.1% versus 30.8% (YMRS < or = 12+MADRS < or = 10), 58.7% versus 29.7% (YMRS < or = 12+MADRS < or = 8), 60.1% versus 30.3% (YMRS < or = 8), and 56.7% versus 29.7% (YMRS < or = 8 plus core items < or = 2) (p<0.001 for all comparisons). The average daily dose of quetiapine in responders was 575 mg/day at Day 21 and 598 mg/day at Day 84. Quetiapine was generally well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Quetiapine was associated with significantly higher response and remission/euthymia rates compared with placebo with most criteria used, in patients with acute mania at the end of both 3 and 12 weeks.

Quetiapine in the treatment of acute mania: target dose for efficacious treatment

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the available evidence from randomized clinical trials regarding the effective dose range and optimal dose of quetiapine when treating bipolar I disorder patients with acute mania.

METHODS

Patients with acute mania were treated with quetiapine as monotherapy (for 12 weeks) or in combination with lithium (mean serum concentration 0.76 mEq/L) or divalproex (mean serum concentration 69.5 microg/mL) (Li/DVP) (for 3-6 weeks) in four double-blind, placebo-controlled studies according to a predetermined dosing schedule. Guidance for the dosing of quetiapine involved increasing the first day's dose (100 mg/day) by 100 mg on a daily basis until Day 4 (400 mg/day), then adjusting the dose up to 600 mg/day at Day 5, and up to 800 mg/day thereafter. Pooled data from the two monotherapy studies and the two combination therapy studies have been used to evaluate the effective quetiapine dose range. As the dose was flexible, effective dose was estimated by the mean last-week dose among responders. The mean last-week dose was defined as the median dose during the 7 days before the last available Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) assessment. Patients who achieved a > or = 50% decrease in the YMRS total score from baseline to end of treatment with quetiapine were considered responders. Tolerability was assessed from direct patient reports.

RESULTS

According to randomized clinical trials, administration of quetiapine compared with placebo achieved a statistically significant improvement in change from baseline YMRS score within the first week and onward, as monotherapy or in combination with Li/DVP. The average quetiapine dose (+/-SD) in responders during the last week of treatment was 575 (+/-175) at Day 21 and 598 (+/-198) mg/day at Day 84 for monotherapy, and 584+/-208 mg/day at Day 21 for combination therapy, with most responders receiving doses within the range of 400-800 mg/day. Dose escalation was rapid, with 92% of patients treated with monotherapy and 80% of patients treated with combination therapy reaching doses of 400 mg/day by Day 4, in accordance with protocol-defined dosing guidance. This dose administration schedule was generally well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

The mean last-week median dose among responders suggests that 600 mg/day of quetiapine is an effective target dose in acute mania.

Quetiapine in the treatment of acute bipolar mania: efficacy across a broad range of symptoms

OBJECTIVE

An ideal antimanic therapy is well tolerated and offers full multidimensional symptom relief. The efficacy of quetiapine in the treatment of acute bipolar mania has previously been established. This post-hoc analysis aims to extend our understanding of quetiapine's antimanic efficacy by evaluating its therapeutic effect across the full spectrum of manic symptoms.

METHODS

Patient-level data from four similar, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of quetiapine in bipolar disorder patients with DSM-IV acute mania were combined. Two trials investigated quetiapine as monotherapy (twice daily) and two trials assessed the combination of quetiapine with either lithium (Li) or divalproex (DVP). Changes in scores on the total Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), and on each of the 11 items comprising the YMRS, were the primary measures of interest in this analysis. Changes in the Supplemental Aggression and Agitation subscales of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) were secondary measures analyzed.

RESULTS

Quetiapine as monotherapy, or in combination with Li or DVP, was a highly effective treatment for acute mania, as shown by overall change scores in the total YMRS. Patients treated with quetiapine monotherapy exhibited a significantly greater reduction (versus placebo) in YMRS total scores at Day 4 (-3.5 versus -2.2; p=0.021), with an increasing between-group difference reported throughout the duration of the trials at Day 21 (-13.6 versus -7.8; p<0.001) and at study endpoint on Day 84 (-19.0 versus -9.6; p<0.001). Quetiapine was also superior in efficacy to placebo on all categorical (i.e., response and remission rates) and secondary outcome parameters. On each of the 11 YMRS items, including the double-weighted core manic items, quetiapine was significantly superior to placebo (p<0.05). Effect sizes at Day 84 ranged from 0.37 to 0.61. Quetiapine in combination with Li/DVP offered a significant benefit over Li/DVP monotherapy, starting at Day 7 (p<0.05) and continuing to the primary study endpoint on Day 21 (p=0.01). Four of 11 YMRS items improved significantly more on quetiapine combination therapy than on Li/DVP monotherapy. The efficacy of quetiapine in these trials appeared independent of baseline disease severity, the presence of psychosis, and treatment-emergent sedation/somnolence. Quetiapine monotherapy produced significantly greater improvement than placebo on the PANSS Activation and the PANSS Supplemental Aggression Risk subscale scores. Similar findings were obtained with quetiapine combined with Li or DVP.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with bipolar disorder may report severe and complex manic symptoms. The results herein indicate that quetiapine is efficacious across the multiple dimensions of mania, including medically serious symptoms commonly encountered in practice.

A double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of quetiapine as an add-on therapy to lithium or divalproex for the treatment of bipolar mania

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine combined with lithium or divalproex in the treatment of bipolar mania. Patients were randomized to 6 weeks of quetiapine (up to 800 mg/day) and lithium/divalproex (Li/DVP) (target trough serum concentrations of 0.7-1.0 mEq/L and 50-100 microg/mL, respectively) or placebo and lithium/divalproex. Quetiapine+lithium/divalproex treatment (n=104) showed a 2.0-point greater improvement on the primary outcome (change from baseline in Young Mania Rating Scale total score at day 21) compared with placebo+lithium/divalproex (n=96), and a 2.8-point greater difference by day 42, but the differences between groups were not statistically significant. Other efficacy measures, however, did show a statistically significant advantage in favor of quetiapine+lithium/divalproex over lithium/divalproex monotherapy at day 42. Improvement of mean Young Mania Rating Scale scores with quetiapine+lithium/divalproex was numerically but not statistically significantly greater than lithium/divalproex monotherapy in the treatment of bipolar mania. Potential reasons for the failure of quetiapine+lithium/divalproex to differentiate from placebo+lithium/divalproex treatment on the primary outcome measure and the implications of this for the treatment of mania and future studies are discussed. Overall, the combination of quetiapine with lithium or divalproex was well tolerated.

Efficacy of quetiapine monotherapy in bipolar I and II depression: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study (the BOLDER II study)

This study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine monotherapy for depressive episodes in patients with bipolar I or II disorder (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition) who were randomized to 8 weeks of double-blind treatment with quetiapine (300 or 600 mg/d; once daily, evening dosing) or placebo. Patients were assessed weekly using the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D). The primary end point was change in MADRS total score from baseline to Week 8 (analysis of covariance/last-observation-carried-forward analysis). Of 509 patients randomized, 59% completed the study. Improvements from baseline in mean MADRS total scores were significantly greater with quetiapine 300 and 600 mg/d than with placebo from first evaluation (Week 1) through Week 8 (both P <or= 0.001 vs. placebo). Therapeutic effect sizes at Week 8 were 0.61 and 0.54 for quetiapine 300 and 600 mg/d, respectively. Improvements in mean HAM-D scores were also significantly greater with both quetiapine doses than with placebo (P < 0.001) as early as Week 1 and throughout the study. The MADRS response and remission rates were also significantly greater in both quetiapine dose groups compared with placebo. Improvements in primary and secondary outcomes were observed with both 300 and 600 mg/d quetiapine without major differences between the doses. Common adverse events included dry mouth, sedation, somnolence, dizziness, and constipation. The incidence of treatment-emergent mania or hypomania was lower with quetiapine treatment than placebo. This study demonstrates that quetiapine monotherapy is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for depressive episodes in bipolar disorder, confirming the results observed from a previous study (BipOLar DEpRession [BOLDER] I).

Placebo-level incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) with quetiapine in controlled studies of patients with bipolar mania

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), including akathisia, with quetiapine in patients with bipolar mania.

METHODS

Data were analyzed from four similarly designed, randomized, double-blind, 3- to 12-week studies. Two studies evaluated quetiapine monotherapy (up to 800 mg/day) (n = 209) versus placebo (n = 198), with lithium or haloperidol monotherapy as respective active controls. Two studies evaluated quetiapine (up to 800 mg/day) in combination with a mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex, QTP + Li/DVP) (n = 196) compared to placebo and mood stabilizer (PBO + Li/DVP) (n = 203). Extrapyramidal symptoms were evaluated using the Simpson-Angus Scale (SAS), the Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale (BARS), adverse event reports and anticholinergic drug usage.

RESULTS

The incidence of EPS-related adverse events, including akathisia, was no different with quetiapine monotherapy (12.9%) than with placebo (13.1%). Similarly, EPS-related adverse events with QTP + Li/DVP (21.4%) were no different than with PBO + Li/DVP (19.2%). Adverse events related to EPS occurred in 59.6% of patients treated with haloperidol (n = 99) monotherapy, whereas 26.5% of patients treated with lithium (n = 98) monotherapy experienced adverse events related to EPS. The incidence of akathisia was low and similar with quetiapine monotherapy (3.3%) and placebo (6.1%), and with QTP + Li/DVP (3.6%) and PBO + Li/DVP (4.9%). Lithium was associated with a significantly higher incidence (p < 0.05) of tremor (18.4%) than quetiapine (5.6%); cerebellar tremor, which is a known adverse effect of lithium, may have contributed to the elevated rate of tremor in patients receiving lithium therapy. Haloperidol induced a significantly higher incidence (p < 0.001) of akathisia (33.3% versus 5.9%), tremor (30.3% versus 7.8%), and extrapyramidal syndrome (35.4% versus 5.9%) than quetiapine. No significant differences were observed between quetiapine and placebo on SAS and BARS scores. Anticholinergic use was low and similar with quetiapine or placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

In bipolar mania, the incidence of EPS, including akathisia, with quetiapine therapy is similar to that with placebo.

Quetiapine or haloperidol as monotherapy for bipolar mania--a 12-week, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial

METHODS

Patients (n=302) with bipolar I disorder (manic episode) were randomised to 12 weeks' double-blind treatment with quetiapine (flexibly dosed up to 800 mg/day), placebo, or haloperidol (up to 8 mg/day). The primary efficacy outcome variable was change from baseline to Day 21 in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score.

RESULTS

YMRS score improved with quetiapine at Day 21 (-12.29 versus -8.32 for placebo; P<0.01). The difference in favor of quetiapine increased by Day 84 (-17.52 versus -9.48; P<0.001). Haloperidol also showed an advantage over placebo at Days 21 and 84 (P<0.001). There was no significant difference in efficacy measures between quetiapine and haloperidol groups at any assessment except Day 21. The only common adverse event with quetiapine was somnolence (12.7%). Extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), including akathisia, occurred at 59.6% with haloperidol, 12.7% with quetiapine, 15.8% with placebo. Most quetiapine responders (84%) received a dose of 400-800 mg/day.

CONCLUSIONS

Quetiapine was effective and well tolerated. The efficacy and tolerability profile of haloperidol (including its propensity for EPS) supported study validity.

Quetiapine monotherapy for mania associated with bipolar disorder: combined analysis of two international, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled studies

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of quetiapine monotherapy for mania in bipolar disorder by an a priori defined combined analysis of data from two placebo-controlled studies.

METHOD

The intent-to-treat (ITT) populations from two studies of patients with DSM-IV bipolar I disorder, manic episode, randomised to 12 weeks of double-blind treatment with quetiapine (up to 800 mg/day) or placebo were combined. The primary efficacy endpoint was change in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score from baseline to Day 21. Secondary endpoints included change from baseline in YMRS to Day 84, YMRS response and remission rates and change from baseline to Days 21 and 84 in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Clinical Global Impressions (CGI), Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar (CGI-BP) and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). These endpoints were analysed as continuous variables, using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with the baseline as covariate. In order to account for any difference in response between studies, the analyses were stratified by study as a fixed effect, and centre as a random effect. The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to analyse binary variables. A chi square test was used to compare the frequency of adverse events between the treatment groups.

RESULTS

The combined analysis included a total of 403 patients from two quetiapine monotherapy studies in patients with bipolar I disorder. A significant improvement in YMRS score was observed from Day 4 (p = 0.021) onward in the quetiapine group compared with placebo. The treatment advantage of quetiapine over placebo continued to increase to Day 21 (p < 0.001) and Day 84 (p < 0.001). Significantly more quetiapine-treated than placebo-treated patients achieved a response (p < 0.001). The average quetiapine dose in responders was approximately 600 mg daily. Of adverse events occurring in > or = 5% of patients, quetiapine-treated patients had a significantly greater incidence versus placebo of somnolence (16.3% vs. 4.0%), dry mouth (15.8% vs. 3%), weight gain (9.1% vs. 1.5%) and dizziness (6.7% vs. 2.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

The data from this combined analysis support the results from the individual studies and indicate that quetiapine monotherapy is effective across a broad range of mood symptoms, fast-acting and well tolerated in the treatment of mania.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled efficacy and safety study of quetiapine or lithium as monotherapy for mania in bipolar disorder

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine monotherapy versus placebo for the treatment of mania associated with bipolar disorder.

METHOD

In an international, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, 12-week study, patients with a DSM-IV diagnosis of bipolar I disorder (manic episode) were randomly assigned to treatment with quetiapine (flexibly dosed up to 800 mg/day), placebo, or lithium. The primary efficacy measure was change from baseline in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score at day 21. Data were gathered from April 2001 to May 2002.

RESULTS

More patients in the quetiapine (72/107) and lithium (67/98) groups completed the study compared with the placebo group (35/97). Improvement (reduction) in YMRS score was significantly greater for quetiapine than placebo at day 7 (-8.03 vs. -4.89; p < .01), and the difference between groups continued to increase over time to day 21 (-14.6 vs. -6.7; p < .001) and to endpoint at day 84 (-20.3 vs. -9.0; p < .001). Significantly more quetiapine patients compared with placebo patients fulfilled YMRS response criteria at day 21 (53.3% vs. 27.4%; p < .001) and at day 84 (72.0% vs. 41.1%; p < .001). Quetiapine was also superior to placebo in efficacy at day 21 and day 84 by all secondary measures. Lithium-treated patients improved significantly compared with placebo patients and similarly to quetiapine-treated patients on the primary efficacy measure. The most common adverse events for quetiapine were dry mouth, somnolence, and weight gain, while lithium was associated with tremor and insomnia. The quetiapine and placebo groups had similar, low levels of extrapyramidal symptom-related adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Quetiapine demonstrated superior efficacy to placebo in patients with bipolar mania and was well tolerated.

Quetiapine versus placebo in combination with lithium or divalproex for the treatment of bipolar mania

Quetiapine (QTP) combined with lithium (Li) or divalproex (DVP) for the treatment of mania was evaluated in 2 double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. Patients were randomized to 3 or 6 weeks of treatment with QTP plus Li/DVP or placebo (PBO) plus Li/DVP. Quetiapine was dosed up to 800 mg/d; Li was dosed to achieve serum concentrations of 0.7-1.0 mEq/L and DVP to 50-100 microg/mL. A total of 402 patients were randomized: 197 to QTP + Li/DVP and 205 to PBO + Li/DVP. The mean quetiapine dose in responders was 492 (+/-204) mg/d. Improvement in the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) at day 21 in the QTP + Li/DVP group (-15.29) was statistically superior to the PBO + Li/DVP group (-12.19) (P < 0.05). A statistically significant difference in favor of quetiapine was observed within the first week (P < 0.05). Significantly more QTP + Li/DVP patients achieved a response (> or =50% decrease in the YMRS) at day 21 (QTP + Li/DVP, 55.7%; PBO + Li/DVP, 41.6%;P < 0.01). Improvements in Clinical Global Impression-Bipolar Severity of Illness scores by day 21 were also significantly greater in QTP + Li/DVP-treated patients (-1.59) versus PBO + Li/DVP (-1.19) (P < 0.01). Common adverse events (> or =5% and twice that in the PBO + Li/DVP group) in the QTP + Li/DVP group were somnolence, dry mouth, and asthenia. Quetiapine combined with Li/DVP was not associated with extrapyramidal symptoms (including akathisia) or emergent depression. More QTP + Li/DVP-treated patients completed the trial, and there was no difference in discontinuation rates due to adverse events between the two groups. Quetiapine, in combination with lithium or divalproex, is well tolerated and has superior efficacy to lithium or divalproex alone in the treatment of bipolar mania.

Paranasal sinus ventilation in healthy subjects and in patients with sinus disease evaluated with the 133-xenon washout technique

Ventilation of the paranasal sinuses is of great importance in sinus pathophysiology. Therefore, methods of measuring sinus ventilation are important for the evaluation of patients with sinus disease. In the present study, a 133-xenon washout technique was used to evaluate the ventilation of the paranasal sinuses in 34 healthy subjects and in 13 subjects with sinus disease (5 patients with nasal polyposis and 8 patients with chronic sinusitis). For this purpose, a 133-xenon-air mixture was insufflated in each nostril and the washout of the radioactive gas from the paranasal sinuses was monitored with a dynamic single-photon-emission computed tomography camera. The half-time (+/-SD) was found to be 18 +/- 18 minutes for the maxillary sinus, 10 +/- 8 minutes for the frontal sinus, and 18 +/- 23 minutes for the posterior ethmoid and sphenoid sinuses in the healthy subjects. Repeated measurements in 18 of the healthy subjects indicated that the method had acceptable reproducibility according to a Bland-Altman plot. The 133-xenon washout was not influenced by insufflation pressure, nasal patency, or body position. The subjects with sinus disease exhibited half-times of 77 +/- 101 minutes for the maxillary sinus, 91 +/- 124 minutes for the frontal sinus, and 60 +/- 60 minutes for the posterior ethmoid and sphenoid sinuses. For patients with nasal polyposis, the half-time was significantly longer than that in healthy subjects, while patients with chronic sinusitis did not differ from healthy subjects in this respect.

The multiplicative model for cancer risk assessment: applicability to acrylamide

According to a multiplicative model for prediction of cancer risk for genotoxic agents the incremental cancer risk is, for low-intermediate exposures, proportional to target doses of the genotoxic substance and to the background risk in control groups. This model has been applied to evaluate cancer tests of acrylamide in rodents. Because of its reactivity toward DNA, glycidamide is assumed to be the causative genotoxic metabolite of acrylamide. Evaluation of experimental data according to the multiplicative model shows that mice, compared with rats, are of the order of 10 times more sensitive per administered dose of acrylamide. The US EPA procedure would, however, generally predict rats to be about twice as sensitive as mice to carcinogenic chemicals, because their estimates are based on scaling of the dose per square meter body surface area, as a surrogate for metabolic differences between the species. The comparison of rats and mice with respect to observed cancer incidence is at a key position in the evaluation of the usefulness of risk models for extrapolation between species. In the present study mice and rats were compared, with respect to in vivo doses of acrylamide and the metabolite glycidamide, after exposure to acrylamide. The relative in vivo doses were inferred from levels of hemoglobin adducts. The adduct levels from glycidamide were, per administered dose of acrylamide, approximately 3-10 times higher in mice than in rats. In combination with the above mentioned higher sensitivity of mice than rats in cancer tests of acrylamide this is compatible with the concept that glycidamide is the key genotoxic factor in acrylamide exposure. Furthermore, it is shown that the multiplicative, i.e. relative, risk model and measurements of the dose of the genotoxic factor give good prediction of the observed risk from acrylamide in cancer tests with rats and mice.

Factors influencing 133-xenon washout in a nose-sinus model

The 133-xenon washout technique is a non-invasive method for the evaluation of ventilation of the paranasal sinuses. The half-time of 133-xenon washout (T(1/2)) is considered to reflect sinus ostial function and sinus ventilation. However, it is not known how morphological and physiological factors affect the washout from the paranasal sinuses. The aim of the present study was to evaluate how sinus volume, ostial diameter and nasal ventilation influence 133-xenon washout in a nose-sinus model. This is important for the interpretation of measurements of 133-xenon washout from paranasal sinuses in healthy subjects and in subjects with sinus disease. The 133-xenon washout was measured with a scintillation camera. The statistical analysis of the results showed that the logarithm (to the base 10) of the half-time of 133-xenon washout is linearly related to the ostial diameter, the sinus volume and the nasal ventilation in the model. In a multiple linear regression model, the most important factor contributing to 133-xenon washout was found to be the ostial diameter, which explained 76% of the variation in log T(1/2). In the same statistical model the sinus volume explained 7.5% and the ventilation 5.3% of the variation in log T(1/2). Calculations of the functional ostial diameter in healthy subjects were made, based on the results of the model study. The mean functional ostial diameter was found to be 3.5 mm (range 0.5-7.5 mm). The results obtained with the present model experiments may be of importance for the correct interpretation of the results of measurements of 133-xenon washout in healthy subjects and patients.

Nasal mucosal congestion during the menstrual cycle

A relationship between the reactivity of the nasal mucosa and changes in female sex hormones have been debated for a long time, although no evidence has been presented to prove or disprove this relationship. Nasal patency was therefore measured by nasal expiratory peak-flow in 26 women for two months in order to study changes in nasal mucosal congestion during the menstrual cycle. In another eight women, nasal congestion was measured by acoustic rhinometry, and symptoms of nasal stuffiness were registered during periods when there were various levels of plasma oestradiol and progesterone. Finally, nasal mucosal biopsies were taken for preparation of receptors for oestradiol and progesterone. This study could not verify the effects of female sex hormones on the nasal mucosa. This could be explained by the fact that no receptors for oestradiol and progesterone were found.

Ventilation of the paranasal sinuses studied with dynamic emission computer tomography

This investigation's aim was to study a noninvasive method for determining the ventilation of the nasal sinuses. For this purpose, different insufflation techniques using xenon 133 were tried, along with different scintillation camera techniques. Xenon 133 gas was used for insufflation in the nose and sinuses, and the half-time of the washout curves was determined with the aid of digital scintillation cameras, one of which was capable of dynamic tomography. The tomographic procedure was superior because it made it possible to study the washout from the ethmoidal/sphenoidal sinuses as well. The washout was followed for up to 150 minutes. Great variations in washout were found between different sinuses and also in the same sinus over time. The single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) technique, which is easy to perform and gives a limited absorbed dose to the patient, seems promising for the future evaluation of sinus ventilation and ostial function.

Nasal mucosal blood flow at rest and during exercise

Nasal airway resistance increases at rest in the supine position and decreases during exercise due to changes of the thickness of the nasal mucosa regulated by the capacitance vessels. The resistance vessels regulating blood flow have not not been evaluated in these conditions before. In 15 healthy subjects the nasal mucosal blood flow was measured in rest and exercise with the 133Xe washout method. No change in blood flow was registered during exercise, which demonstrates that the blood flow and the blood content of the human nasal mucosa are not affected in the same way by exercise.

Tympanometry before and during nitrous oxide anesthesia with middle ear effusion

During nitrous oxide anesthesia the nitrous oxide passes from blood to the normal middle ear space. Middle ear pressures before and during anesthesia in ears of pediatric patients with secretory otitis media have been measured with tympanometry. The subjects were divided into groups depending on the primary middle ear pressure and the pressure change during anesthesia. The reason for the different tympanometric findings in patients with secretory otitis media might be differences in the states of the mucous membrane of the middle ear. The usefulness of measuring middle ear pressures during nitrous oxide anesthesia is discussed.