Utilization of Observational Data as a Proxy Cohort for Comparison Purposes with Open-Label Study Results: An Example from Alzheimer's Disease

BACKGROUND

Randomized placebo-controlled trials in the development of disease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer's disease are typically of short duration (12-18 months), and health economic modeling requires extrapolation of treatment effects beyond the trial period.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether observational data can be used to extrapolate data from open-label trials, we compared outcomes (cognition, function, behavior) over 36 months for patients with mild Alzheimer's disease dementia in the GERAS observational study (proxy for placebo control) with those of the mild Alzheimer's disease population on active treatment (solanezumab) in two 18-month randomized placebo-controlled trials (EXPEDITION and EXPEDITION2) and the additional 18-month open-label extension study (EXPEDITION-EXT).

DESIGN AND SETTING

Analysis of longitudinal data from patients with mild Alzheimer's disease dementia in the GERAS observational study (conducted in France, Germany and the United Kingdom) and the EXPEDITION program (conducted in Europe, North America, South America, Asia and Australia).

PARTICIPANTS

European and North American community-living patients, aged ≥55 years, with probable Alzheimer's disease dementia and their caregivers. Mild Alzheimer's disease dementia was defined as a Mini-Mental State Examination score of 20-26 in EXPEDITION and 21-26 in GERAS.

INTERVENTION

Active treatment in both randomized placebo-controlled trials and the open-label extension study was intravenous solanezumab 400 mg every 4 weeks. Patients in GERAS were receiving treatment as part of standard care.

MEASUREMENTS

Between-group differences for changes from baseline over 36 months in cognitive function, ability to perform activities of daily living, and behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia were assessed using models stratified by propensity score.

RESULTS

At baseline, patients and caregivers participating in GERAS were significantly older than those in the EXPEDITION studies, and the GERAS patient cohort had fewer years of education and a shorter time since diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. The baseline mean Mini-Mental State Examination score of the GERAS cohort was significantly higher (indicating better cognition) than that of patients receiving placebo or active treatment in the pooled EXPEDITION studies Baseline functional ability scores were significantly lower for the GERAS cohort, indicating poorer functioning. Propensity score stratification achieved a good balance in the baseline variables between GERAS and the two EXPEDITION arms. Over 18 months, least squares mean changes from baseline in outcome measures were similar in the GERAS cohort and the pooled placebo groups from the randomized controlled trials. Also, the 18-month results for the comparison between the GERAS cohort and the pooled active treatment groups from the randomized controlled trials were generally similar to those reported for the comparison with the control group in the randomized trial. Comparison of active treatment (EXPEDITION-EXT) and observational study (GERAS, as proxy control) results over 36 months of the open-label trial showed a significantly smaller decline in activities of daily living (instrumental and basic) in the active treatment group, reflecting better functioning, but no between-group differences at 36 months for cognitive function or behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia.

CONCLUSIONS

Comparing results from clinical trials and observational studies (real-world data) may be a useful methodological approach for informing long-term outcomes in Alzheimer's disease drug development and could be used to inform health economic modeling. Further research using this methodological approach is needed.

Treatment of patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain in China: a double-blind randomised trial of duloxetine vs. placebo

BACKGROUND

Duloxetine has been approved in the United States, European Union and some Asian countries for the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). We assessed the efficacy and safety of duloxetine (60 mg once daily) compared with placebo in Chinese patients suffering from DPNP.

METHODS

This was a phase 3, multicenter, randomised, double-blind, parallel, placebo-controlled, 12-week trial of the treatment of DPNP with duloxetine. Subjects were male and female outpatients ≥ 18 years of age with DPNP, as assessed by the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument, and had a rating of ≥ 4 on the Brief Pain Inventory-Modified Short Form-Severity weekly average pain item. The primary efficacy measure was the reduction in pain severity from baseline to 12 weeks, as measured by the weekly mean of 24-h average pain ratings recorded in the patient's diary. Mean changes from baseline in efficacy measures were analysed by a restricted maximum likelihood-based, mixed-effects model repeated measures approach and by analysis of covariance.

RESULTS

Of the 405 patients randomised, 203 patients were assigned to duloxetine 60 mg once daily and 202 patients were assigned to placebo. Duloxetine-treated patients showed significantly greater pain relief on 24-h average pain ratings compared with placebo-treated patients each week of the 12-week study period [week 12: least squares (LS) mean change duloxetine: -2.40, placebo: -1.97; LS mean change difference (95% confidence interval) = -0.43 (-0.82, -0.04), p = 0.030]. Compared with placebo, patients treated with duloxetine experienced higher rates of nausea (p = 0.010), somnolence (p < 0.001) and asthenia (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Duloxetine-treated patients showed significantly greater pain relief compared with placebo-treated patients over the 12-week study period. Duloxetine was shown in Chinese patients to have a safety profile similar to that found in previous duloxetine trials.

Comparative safety and tolerability of duloxetine vs. pregabalin vs. duloxetine plus gabapentin in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain

OBJECTIVE

The safety and tolerability of three treatments for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) were compared.

METHODS

A 12-week, randomized, open-label study confirming the non-inferiority of duloxetine (N = 138) vs. pregabalin (N = 134) and the combination of duloxetine plus gabapentin (N = 135) as the primary outcome was previously published. Patients had an inadequate pain response to a stable dose of gabapentin (≥ 900 mg/day) for ≥ 5 weeks prior to study enrolment. Data from that study were assessed in this current analysis for a detailed report of safety and tolerability.

RESULTS

Completion rates did not differ significantly between the groups. Discontinuation because of adverse events was significantly greater in the duloxetine (19.6%) vs. pregabalin group (10.4%; p = 0.04); no differences emerged between the duloxetine vs. duloxetine plus gabapentin (13.3%) groups (p = 0.19) or pregabalin vs. duloxetine plus gabapentin groups (p = 0.57). Adverse event rates varied: nausea, insomnia, hyperhidrosis and decreased appetite were reported significantly more often in patients treated with duloxetine vs. patients treated with pregabalin (each p ≤ 0.01); insomnia significantly more in patients treated with duloxetine vs. duloxetine plus gabapentin (p = 0.01); peripheral oedema significantly more in patients treated with pregabalin vs. duloxetine and duloxetine plus gabapentin (p ≤ 0.001 each) and nausea, hyperhidrosis, decreased appetite and vomiting significantly more in patients treated with duloxetine plus gabapentin vs. pregabalin (each p ≤ 0.05). At end-point, weight change differed significantly among treatment groups: patients in the pregabalin group on average gained weight (1.0 ± 0.04 kg); while, patients in the duloxetine and duloxetine plus gabapentin groups on average lost weight (-2.39 ± 0.04 and -1.06 ± 0.04 kg, respectively) (pregabalin vs. duloxetine, p ≤ 0.001; pregabalin vs. duloxetine plus gabapentin, p ≤ 0.001; duloxetine vs. duloxetine plus gabapentin, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Duloxetine, pregabalin and duloxetine plus gabapentin were generally safe and tolerable for the treatment of DPNP.

Frequency and outcomes of painful physical symptoms in a naturalistic population with major depressive disorder: an analysis of pooled observational studies focusing on subjects aged 65 years and over

AIMS

To estimate the frequency of painful physical symptoms (PPS) in elderly subjects (≥ 65 years) with major depressive disorder (MDD) in real-world clinical conditions and to establish whether PPS are associated with poor depression outcomes, including more severe depression and worse health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

METHODS

Observational studies of MDD that included assessment of PPS and elderly subjects were screened. Measures of PPS were based on the Somatic Symptom Inventory (SSI) or Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Data from a variety of depressive symptom severity and HRQoL scales were used. Analysis cohorts were based on age [aged ≥ 65 years (elderly) or < 65 years (younger)] and/or PPS status (presence or absence); five subsets were used to examine specific outcomes in matched elderly subjects.

RESULTS

Data from seven studies (representing 26 countries) were collated. Of the 11,477 subjects, 14% were aged ≥ 65 years and 71% were classified as having PPS (PPS+). PPS were more frequent in elderly subjects (74% vs. 70% of younger subjects) and were positively associated with being female and Hispanic, and negatively associated with being East Asian in the elderly. The presence of PPS was associated with more severe clinical symptomatology and comparatively poorer HRQoL in elderly subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

PPS, although frequent in younger MDD patients, were slightly more frequent in elderly MDD patients and associated with comparatively poorer clinical and functional outcomes. As elderly patients report somatic symptoms more readily than emotional symptoms, physicians should consider depression in addition to physical causes when PPS are present.

Attributes of response in depressed patients switched to treatment with duloxetine

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to assess clinical and functional outcomes associated with switching to duloxetine treatment in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) experiencing emotional and painful physical symptoms in their current episode.

METHODS

In this 8-week, multinational, multicentre, single-arm, open-label clinical trial, 242 MDD patients were switched to duloxetine 60 mg/day after selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) or serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) treatment. The primary analysis compared mean change from baseline in Brief Pain Inventory-Modified Short Form (BPI-SF) interference score between initial responders [≥ 50% reduction from baseline on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD(17)) Maier subscale] and initial non-responders after 4 weeks. Initial responders continued with duloxetine 60 mg/day. Initial non-responders received duloxetine 120 mg/day for the remaining 4 weeks. Depression, pain, anxiety and functional outcomes were also compared after 8 weeks.

RESULTS

BPI-SF interference decreased from baseline in initial responders (n = 108) and initial non-responders (n = 85) after 4 weeks of duloxetine treatment, with greater reductions in initial responders [BPI-SF mean difference in reduction: 1.01 (95% CI 0.42-1.61); p < 0.001]. Reductions in pain interference favouring initial responders were also apparent after 8 weeks [0.68 (95% CI: 0.03-1.33); p = 0.042]. Depression, pain, anxiety and function improved over 8 weeks across patient groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Elements of core mood and pain are important residual symptoms following poor treatment response in MDD. Early improvement in these symptoms after switching to duloxetine indicated an increased chance of functional recovery.

Duloxetine 60 mg/day for the prevention of depressive recurrences: post hoc analyses from a recurrence prevention study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of duloxetine 60 mg/day in the prevention of depressive recurrence in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHODS

Patients having at least three episodes of MDD in the past 5 years received open-label (OL) duloxetine 60-120 mg/day for up to 34 weeks. Patients meeting response criteria were then randomised to either duloxetine or placebo for up to 52 weeks of double-blind maintenance treatment. Only patients taking duloxetine 60 mg/day during the OL phase, and randomised to either duloxetine (remained on 60 mg/day dose) or placebo, were included in this post hoc analysis. The primary outcome measure was time to recurrence of a major depressive episode. The 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD(17)) was used to evaluate depressive symptomatology. Global and physical functioning and pain were also assessed. Safety and tolerability were assessed via analysis of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), vital signs and weight.

RESULTS

A total of 124 patients were randomised to duloxetine 60 mg/day (n = 64) or placebo (n = 60). Time to depressive recurrence was significantly longer in duloxetine-treated patients compared with placebo-treated patients (p = 0.001). During the double-blind maintenance phase, 31.7% of placebo-treated patients experienced a depressive recurrence compared with 12.5% of duloxetine-treated patients (p = 0.004). The HAMD(17) total score and most of its subscales as well as the Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S), significantly worsened in the placebo group compared with the duloxetine 60 mg/day group. There were no significant differences between treatment groups in TEAEs, discontinuations because of adverse events, vital signs or weight.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with duloxetine 60 mg/day was associated with a longer time to depressive recurrence and a significantly lower recurrence rate compared with placebo.

Association between painful physical symptoms and clinical outcomes in East Asian patients with major depressive disorder: a 3-month prospective observational study

AIMS

Reports from non-Asian populations indicate that painful physical symptoms (PPS) are associated with poorer clinical and functional outcomes in major depressive disorder (MDD). The purpose of this study is to report comparative changes in disease severity, treatment patterns and quality of life observed in East Asian patients with MDD, with and without PPS, as assessed prospectively over a 3-month observation period.

METHODS

This observational study enrolled 909 patients with MDD in psychiatric care settings in China, Hong Kong, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore and Taiwan. Patients were classified as PPS positive (PPS+) or negative (PPS-) based on mean modified Somatic Symptom Inventory scores of >or= 2 or < 2 respectively. The Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S) and 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD(17)) determined depression severity; a visual analogue scale (VAS) determined pain severity; and the EuroQoL (EQ-5D) assessed well-being after 3 months observation.

RESULTS

Of the 909 enrollees, 355/471 (75.4%) of PPS+ patients and 363/438 (82.9%) of PPS- patients completed the study (p = 0.006). PPS+ patients improved less than PPS- patients on depression, pain and quality of life measures during the study (HAMD(17) p < 0.001, CGI-S p < 0.001, VAS p = 0.008 and EQ-5D p = 0.004). Fewer PPS+ patients (46.5%) achieved remission compared with PPS- patients (69.4%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

As the presence of PPS is associated with poorer outcomes in East Asian MDD patients, clinical management should aim to address both the mental and PPS associated with MDD.

The safety and tolerability of duloxetine in depressed elderly patients with and without medical comorbidity

AIM AND METHODS

The impact of medical comorbidity on the efficacy and tolerability of duloxetine in elderly patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) was investigated in this study. Data were obtained from a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in 311 patients with MDD aged 65-89. The primary outcome measure was a prespecified composite cognitive score based on four cognitive tests: (i) Verbal Learning and Recall Test; (ii) Symbol Digit Substitution Test; (iii) 2-Digit Cancellation Test and (iv) Letter-Number Sequencing Test. Secondary measures included the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), 17-Item Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD17), Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) Scale, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain and 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). Tolerability measures included adverse events reported as the reason for discontinuation and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). The consistency of the effect of duloxetine vs. placebo comparing patients with and without medical comorbidity (vascular disease, diabetes, arthritis or any of these) was investigated.

RESULTS

Overall, duloxetine 60 mg/day demonstrated significantly greater improvement compared with placebo for the composite cognitive score, GDS and HAMD17 total scores, CGI-Severity, HAMD17 response and remission rates, and some of the SF-36 and VAS measures. There were few significant treatment-by-comorbidity subgroup interactions for these efficacy variables, or for adverse events reported as the reason for discontinuation and common TEAEs.

CONCLUSIONS

The present analyses suggested that the efficacy of duloxetine on cognition and depression in elderly patients, and its tolerability, were not largely affected by the comorbidity status. These results further support the use of duloxetine in elderly patients with MDD.

Patterns of depressive symptom response in duloxetine-treated outpatients with mild, moderate or more severe depression

AIMS

This was a post hoc analysis to determine whether baseline severity of depression influenced the efficacy of duloxetine in treating major depressive disorder (MDD) and to better characterise the symptom response profile for duloxetine in patients with mild, moderate or more severe depression.

METHODS

Data were pooled from four double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in which outpatients with MDD were randomised to duloxetine (60 mg/day) or placebo for 8-9 weeks. Patients were retrospectively stratified according to baseline 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating scale (HAMD17) total scores: mild=total score<or=19 (duloxetine, n=246; placebo, n=184); moderate=20-24 (duloxetine, n=333; placebo, n=217); severe=25+ (duloxetine, n=127; placebo, n=87).

RESULTS

Duloxetine produced significantly greater baseline-to-end-point improvement vs. placebo (p<0.05) on the HAMD17 total score, Maier and retardation subscales, HAMD17 items 1 (depressed mood), 7 (work and activities) and 10 (psychic anxiety) in all three patient cohorts. The largest effect sizes were observed in assessments of core emotional depressive symptoms. A significant improvement for duloxetine vs. placebo was not observed for sleep-related symptoms at end-point or genital symptoms at any time point during acute treatment. With respect to the time course of depressive symptom improvement, the data show that regardless of baseline severity, the most rapid and consistent improvement for duloxetine compared with placebo was observed in the core symptoms of MDD (measured by the Maier subscale).

CONCLUSION

Regardless of baseline MDD severity, duloxetine at one dose (60 mg/day) produced a significant improvement compared with placebo on the core emotional symptoms of MDD.

A randomized controlled trial of duloxetine in diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain

BACKGROUND

Serotonin (5-HT) and norepinephrine (NE) are involved in pain modulation via descending inhibitory pathways in the brain and spinal cord.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of duloxetine, a dual reuptake inhibitor of 5-HT and NE, on the reduction of pain severity, as well as secondary outcome measures in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).

METHODS

In this double-blind study, patients with DPNP and without comorbid depression were randomly assigned to treatment with duloxetine 60 mg once daily (QD), duloxetine 60 mg twice daily (BID), or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the weekly mean score of 24-hour average pain severity on the 11-point Likert scale. Secondary measures and health outcome measures were also assessed.

RESULTS

Duloxetine 60 mg QD and 60 mg BID demonstrated improvement in the management of DPNP and showed rapid onset of action, with separation from placebo beginning at week 1 on the 24-hour average pain severity score. For all secondary measures for pain (except allodynia), mean changes showed an advantage of duloxetine over placebo, with no significant difference between 60 mg QD and 60 mg BID. Clinical Global Impression of Severity and Patient's Global Impression of Improvement evaluation demonstrated greater improvement on duloxetine- vs placebo-treated patients. Duloxetine showed no notable interference on diabetic controls, and both doses were safely administered.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms previous findings that duloxetine at 60 mg QD and 60 mg BID is effective and safe in the management of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain.

Duloxetine 60 mg once daily in the treatment of milder major depressive disorder

There is ongoing debate regarding the effectiveness of antidepressants in patients with milder major depressive disorder (MDD). This post-hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of duloxetine in the subset of 159 (75 duloxetine and 84 placebo) patients with milder MDD (baseline HAMD17 total score > or = 15 and < or = 18) who were treated once daily with duloxetine 60 mg or placebo in two identical, 9-week, randomised, double-blind trials. At endpoint, change from baseline on HAMD17 was greater in the duloxetine group (-7.0) than in the placebo group (-4.1) (p = 0.005). Response and remission rates, and improvement on the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) scale, the Patient Global Impressions-Improvement (PGI-I) scale, and measures of painful symptoms were also significantly better in the duloxetine group (p < 0.05). Tolerability was consistent with that seen in previous studies of duloxetine in patients with more severe depression. In conclusion, duloxetine 60 mg/day is effective and well tolerated in milder MDD.

Rapid tranquilization with olanzapine in acute psychosis: a case series

Acute, high-dose loading strategies (rapid neuroleptization) with the first-generation antipsychotics administered orally or parenterally, alone or combined with benzodiazepines, have been a commonly used treatment paradigm for controlling acutely agitated psychotic patients. The rationale was to achieve high plasma levels of drug within a shorter time period, resulting in rapid symptom mitigation. However, studies have shown that rapid neuroleptization with first-generation antipsychotics is associated with a greater incidence of side effects. To our knowledge, loading strategies with second-generation antipsychotics have not been investigated, primarily owing to a need for dose titration. Olanzapine, a second-generation antipsychotic, is well tolerated in doses ranging from 5 to 20 mg. The objective of this report was to determine experience with the use of up to 20 mg of an oral loading dose of olanzapine administered within 4 hours in the treatment of patients early in an acute psychotic phase of their illness. In the reported case series of 57 patients, olanzapine initiated at 15 to 20 mg/day was a safe and effective medication for rapidly calming the agitation of acutely agitated psychotic patients (rapid tranquilization). Furthermore, dose reduction over 2 to 3 weeks was achieved in a number of patients without appreciable loss of efficacy.

[Fat-rich diets in patients with mild chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD)]

A study was made in stable patients suffering from mild COLD of the maximum capacity for ergometric cycle exercise and gas exchange at rest and during maximum exercise, measured by indirect calorimetry. During the period of study (3 months) one group of patients receive the usual diet while the other received an oral nutritional supplement rich in fats an minimum of 75% of their energy expenditure measured at rest. The patients studied, with mild COLD, were hypermetabolic, and although at rest they presented indirect calorimetry data such as would correspond to similar subjects, during exercise not just the limit on exercise became clear but also the alteration to ventilatory capacity and gas exchange. The fat-rich nutritional supplement administered for three months did not succeed in enhancing exercise capacity or in altering gas exchange during maximum exercise is stable patients with mild COLD.

A report of three multiclinic trials evaluating arbaprostil in arthritic patients with ASA/NSAID gastric mucosal damage. The Upjohn Company Arbaprostil ASA/NSAID Gastric Mucosal Damage Treatment Study Groups

Three randomized, placebo-controlled multiclinic trials involving arbaprostil dosages of (a) 10 micrograms; (b) 25 micrograms; and (c) 10, 25, or 50 micrograms orally for 4 wk in patients older than 18 yr with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis who had endoscopically documented nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug-associated gastric mucosal damage were conducted in the United States. All patients continued taking the nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and were reendoscoped after 4 wk of therapy. Success at that time was defined as complete resolution of all gastric mucosal damage. Six hundred fifty-eight patients were enrolled in the three trials. Significantly more patients experienced healing in the arbaprostil treatment groups in all trials compared with those who received placebo. The healing rates in the various trials were 68% and 32% (10 micrograms vs. placebo; p = 0.007); 77% and 23% (25 micrograms vs. placebo; p less than 0.001); and 52%, 46%, 35%, and 16% (50, 25, and 10 micrograms vs. placebo; p less than 0.001, less than 0.001, and 0.002, respectively). Diarrhea, mostly of a mild nature, was the only arbaprostil-associated side effect and was found with the 25- and 50-microgram dosages (33% and 59%, respectively). No exacerbation of arthritis signs or symptoms was found. Arbaprostil at doses with varying effects on gastric acid secretion (25 and 50 micrograms) was documented in these trials to be an effective and safe agent for healing gastric mucosal damage associated with aspirin or other nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in patients with either rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis without adversely affecting joint symptomatology.

Anorexia nervosa, bulimia, and pregnancy

Of 74 women previously treated for anorexia nervosa or bulimia, 15 had conceived 23 pregnancies when assessed at follow-up. The status of the eating disorder, course of pregnancy and delivery, infant health, and postpartum adjustment are described. Women in whom eating disorders were in remission at conception had greater maternal weight gain and babies with higher birth weights and 5-minute Apgar scores than women who conceived while they still had symptoms of restricting anorexia nervosa or bulimia. Women who had symptoms of eating disorders at conception also had continuance or worsening of these symptoms during pregnancy and the postpartum year. We recommend delay of pregnancy until the eating disorder is truly in remission.

Bronchoscopy in diffuse lung disease: evaluation by open lung biopsy in nondiagnostic transbronchial lung biopsy

Transbronchial lung biopsy through the flexible bronchoscope is used widely for the diagnosis of diffuse lung disease; however, a significant number of specimens obtained by the bronchoscopic 2-mm biopsy forceps will reveal nonspecific findings, eg, interstitial fibrosis or nonspecific pneumonitis. Such a report may be an accurate reflection of the presence of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis or nonspecific pneumonitis, but may merely indicate that the true diagnosis has been missed. We retrospectively studied 38 patients with diffuse lung disease whose transbronchial lung biopsies yielded nonspecific abnormalities. Subsequently, these patients were subjected to open lung biopsies. Nineteen of the 38 patients (50%) had a specific diagnosis made by open lung biopsy. The diagnoses included bronchiolitis obliterans, alveolar proteinosis, metastatic carcinoma, lymphoma, tuberculosis, and bronchioloalveolar cell carcinoma. Although transbronchial lung biopsy is useful in the diagnosis of many diffuse lung diseases, it is not a replacement for open lung biopsy. When nonspecific findings by transbronchial lung biopsy do not correlate with the clinical picture, open lung biopsy should be performed.

Psychiatric assessment of patients with "20th-century disease" ("total allergy syndrome")

"Twentieth-century disease", or "total allergy syndrome", is a condition attributed to hypersensitivity to the environment that may sometimes be seen as so serious that the patient is incapable of living in the modern world. Although the popular media frequently carry stories about it, there is little scientific literature. It is diagnosed by clinical ecologists, who maintain, among other theories, that susceptible individuals experience an overload in assaults by artificial materials in the environment. The patients usually have multiple ill defined symptoms for which no organic cause can be found, but they vigorously resist psychiatric referral, as they attribute their symptoms to allergy. A group of 18 patients who were purportedly suffering from 20th-century disease were referred to a university psychiatric consultation liaison service. They virtually all had a long history of visits to physicians, and their symptoms were characteristic of several well known psychiatric disorders. The case histories and management of three of them are presented. Although this group of patients may have been atypical in that they had more severe psychologic symptoms, the experience indicates that a psychiatric diagnosis ought to be considered. The symptoms of 20th-century disease have much in common with other conditions known to physicians for centuries.