Clinical features of patients with treatment-emergent suicidal behavior following initiation of paroxetine therapy.

BACKGROUND: Understanding suicidal behavior is an important component of assessing suicidality in psychiatric patients. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) conducted a meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials to compare suicidality in adult patients treated with paroxetine vs. placebo. The goal was to identify emergent clinical characteristics of patients with definitive suicidal behavior (DSB: preparatory act, suicide attempt, completed suicide). METHODS: The dataset comprised 14,911 patients from 57 placebo-controlled paroxetine trials. Possible cases of suicidality were identified and were blindly reviewed by an expert panel, which categorized cases as suicidal or non-suicidal. DSB incidences were compared between paroxetine and placebo. Clinical narratives and case report forms for major depressive disorder (MDD) and anxiety disorder patients with DSB were reviewed. For MDD, rating scale items relating to suicidality, insomnia, agitation, and anxiety were examined. RESULTS: Overall (all indications) there were no differences between paroxetine and placebo for DSB (50/8958 [0.56%] vs. 40/5953 [0.67%], respectively; OR=1.2 [CI 0.8, 1.9]; p=0.483). However, in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), the incidence of DSB was greater for paroxetine (11/3455 [0.32%] vs. 1/1978 [0.05%], OR=6.7 [CI 1.1, 149.4]; p=0.058). Review of the 11 paroxetine MDD cases revealed common clinical features: symptomatic improvement; younger age (18-30 years); psychosocial stressors; overdose as method; and absent/mild suicidal ideation at the visit prior to the event. There was no evidence for a consistent adverse event profile or onset of akathisia/agitation or a manic/mixed state. Anxiety disorder patients with DSB had a heterogeneous clinical picture. LIMITATIONS: Limitations to the study include the relatively small number of cases and the retrospective nature of the study. CONCLUSIONS: DSB incidence was similar between paroxetine and placebo overall, but a higher frequency of DSB was found for paroxetine in MDD patients, driven by young adults aged < or =30 years. Most MDD patients with DSB improved prior to the attempt and experienced a psychosocial stressor. Patients should receive careful monitoring for suicidality during paroxetine therapy.

Sumatriptan-naproxen for acute treatment of migraine: a randomized trial.

CONTEXT: Multiple pathogenic mechanisms may be involved in generating the migraine symptom complex, and multimechanism-targeted therapy may confer advantages over monotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose tablet containing sumatriptan succinate and naproxen sodium relative to efficacy and safety of each monotherapy and placebo for the acute treatment of migraine. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Two replicate, randomized, double-blind, single-attack, parallel-group studies conducted among 1461 (study 1) and 1495 (study 2) patients at 118 US clinical centers who were diagnosed as having migraine and received study treatment for a moderate or severe migraine attack. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive a single tablet containing sumatriptan, 85 mg, and naproxen sodium, 500 mg; sumatriptan, 85 mg (monotherapy); naproxen sodium, 500 mg (monotherapy); or placebo, to be used after onset of a migraine with moderate to severe pain. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measures included the percentages of patients with headache relief 2 hours after dosing, absence of photophobia, absence of phonophobia, and absence of nausea for the comparison between sumatriptan-naproxen sodium and placebo, and the percentages of patients with sustained pain-free response for the comparison between sumatriptan-naproxen sodium and each monotherapy. RESULTS: Sumatriptan-naproxen sodium was more effective than placebo for headache relief at 2 hours after dosing (study 1, 65% vs 28%; P<.001 and study 2, 57% vs 29%; P<.001), absence of photophobia at 2 hours (58% vs 26%; P<.001 and 50% vs 32%; P<.001), and absence of phonophobia at 2 hours (61% vs 38%; P<.001 and 56% vs 34%; P<.001). The absence of nausea 2 hours after dosing was higher with sumatriptan-naproxen sodium than placebo in study 1 (71% vs 65%; P = .007), but in study 2 rates of absence of nausea did not differ between sumatriptan-naproxen sodium and placebo (65% vs 64%; P = .71). For 2- to 24-hour sustained pain-free response, sumatriptan-naproxen sodium was superior at P<.01 (25% and 23% in studies 1 and 2, respectively) to sumatriptan monotherapy (16% and 14% in studies 1 and 2), naproxen sodium monotherapy (10% and 10% in studies 1 and 2), and placebo (8% and 7% in studies 1 and 2). The incidence of adverse events was similar between sumatriptan-naproxen sodium and sumatriptan monotherapy. CONCLUSION: Sumatriptan, 85 mg, plus naproxen sodium, 500 mg, as a single tablet for acute treatment of migraine resulted in more favorable clinical benefits compared with either monotherapy, with an acceptable and well-tolerated adverse effect profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00434083 (study 1); NCT00433732 (study 2).

Prevalence of migraine and response to sumatriptan in patients self-reporting tension/stress headache.

OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to evaluate the prevalence of migraine and its responsiveness to migraine-specific therapy in patients with self-reported tension-type headache. METHODS: Patients were adults (n = 423) consulting one of 54 North American study sites including primary care clinics, neurology clinics, and headache clinics. The study comprised an initial diagnosis phase to determine the headache diagnosis of patients entering the study with self-reported tension/stress headache, including that previously diagnosed by a health care provider. Patients reporting tension/stress headache were evaluated and diagnosed as having migraine with or without aura, probable migraine, tension-type headache, or another headache type. Exclusion criteria included prior diagnosis of migraine or probable migraine and the presence of headache for at least 15 days monthly during either of the 2 months before screening. The initial phase was followed by a randomized, double-blind treatment phase to evaluate the efficacy of sumatriptan 100 mg tablets for the treatment of a single migraine attack in those meeting International Headache Society (IHS) criteria for migraine during the diagnosis phase. RESULTS: Of 423 patients reporting tension/stress headache at study entry, 84% (n = 357) were diagnosed at the clinic visit as fulfilling IHS criteria for migraine without aura or migraine with aura, and 65% (n = 276) were diagnosed with migraine only (i.e., with no other concurrent headache diagnosis). Three hundred thirty-two (332) patients entered the double-blind treatment phase. Headache relief rates 2h post-dose, the primary efficacy endpoint, did not significantly differ between sumatriptan and placebo (p = 0.099). However, improvements were significantly (p < 0.05) greater with sumatriptan than placebo on several other headache-related efficacy measures. CONCLUSIONS: Migraine headache may go unrecognized in patients with self-reported tension headache. Among patients having self-reported tension headache and diagnosed with migraine during the study, response to acute treatment with sumatriptan was inconclusive. Improvement with sumatriptan versus placebo was observed for some measures and not for others. The results should be interpreted in the context of study limitations including use of patient self-reports to assess headache diagnosis and possible lack of representativeness arising from the predominantly white sample.

Two replicate randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of the time to onset of pain relief in the acute treatment of migraine with a fast-disintegrating/rapid-release formulation of sumatriptan tablets.

BACKGROUND: The gastric stasis that commonly accompanies migraine headache may impair absorption of conventional oral tablets in the stomach. A fast-disintegrating/rapid-release formulation of sumatriptan has been developed to enhance tablet disintegration and drug dispersion and potentially improve absorption. OBJECTIVE: Two studies were conducted comparing the time to onset of relief from moderate or severe migraine pain with the fast-disintegrating/rapid-release formulation of sumatriptan tablets 50 and 100 mg and placebo. METHODS: These were 2 identically designed randomized, double-blind, parallel-group studies. Sumatriptan 50 or 100 mg or placebo was taken on an outpatient basis to treat a single moderate or severe migraine attack. Using a personal digital assistant, patients recorded the time of dosing and the time at which pain severity reached none or mild (ie, pain relief) or none (ie, pain free) in real time so that the time to onset of relief could be measured as a continuous variable. Onset of relief was defined as the earliest time point at which a statistically significant difference in pain relief compared with placebo was achieved and maintained through 2 hours after dosing. Before dosing and at pre-determined time points after dosing, patients also provided an assessment of migraine pain as none, mild, moderate, or severe. At a clinic visit within 1 week after treatment of the migraine attack, patients were queried about adverse events. For each adverse event, investigators recorded whether study medication was considered the cause. Data analyses were undertaken for each study individually and, in post hoc analyses of the primary and key secondary end points, on pooled data from both studies. RESULTS: The 2 studies comprised 2696 patients: 902 received sumatriptan 50 mg, 902 received sumatriptan 100 mg, and 892 received placebo. Patients' mean age ranged from 40.2 to 40.8 years across treatment groups, and most patients were female (83%-87%) and white (92%-93%). In the analysis of pooled data, sumatriptan tablets provided significantly more effective pain relief compared with placebo as early as 20 minutes after dosing with the 100-mg dose and as early as 30 minutes after dosing with the 50-mg dose (P < or = 0.05). Similar results were observed for the individual studies: in study 1, sumatriptan tablets were significantly more effective than placebo at 25 minutes with the 100-mg dose and at 50 minutes with the 50-mg dose; in study 2, sumatriptan tablets were significantly more effective than placebo at 17 minutes for the 100-mg dose and at 30 minutes for the 50-mg dose (P < or = 0.05). In the pooled data, the cumulative percentages of patients with pain relief by 2 hours after dosing were 72% for the 100-mg dose and 67% for the 50-mg dose, compared with 42% for placebo (P < or = 0.001, both sumatriptan doses vs placebo). The cumulative percentages of patients with a pain-free response by 2 hours were 47% for the 100-mg dose, 40% for the 50-mg dose, and 15% for placebo (P < or = 0.001, both sumatriptan doses vs placebo). In the individual studies, significantly more patients receiving either sumatriptan dose were migraine free 2 hours after dosing and had sustained pain relief and a sustained pain-free response over 24 hours compared with placebo (P < or = 0.001, both sumatriptan doses vs placebo). The only drug-related adverse events reported in >2% of patients in any treatment group in either study were nausea (both studies: 3% sumatriptan 100 mg, 2% sumatriptan 50 mg, 1% placebo) and paresthesia (study 1: <1% sumatriptan 100 mg, <1% sumatriptan 50 mg, 0% placebo; study 2: 3% sumatriptan 100 mg, 1% sumatriptan 50 mg, <1% placebo). CONCLUSIONS: In these studies, sumatriptan tablets in a fast-disintegrating/rapid-release formulation were effective for the acute treatment of moderate to severe migraine pain, were generally well tolerated, and achieved an onset of pain relief as early as 20 minutes for 100 mg and as early as 30 minutes for 50 mg.

Lamotrigine monotherapy improves health-related quality of life in epilepsy: a double-blind comparison with valproate.

The effects of monotherapy with lamotrigine on health-related quality of life were compared with those of valproate monotherapy in a randomized, double-blind trial designed to evaluate treatment-emergent weight changes in patients with epilepsy. At the end of 8 months of treatment, significantly more patients using lamotrigine compared with valproate experienced quality-of-life improvements on the Health Perceptions (42% vs 15%), Energy/Fatigue (47% vs 28%), and Social Isolation (35% vs 16%) subscales of the Quality of Life in Epilepsy-89 (QOLIE-89) questionnaire (P<0.05). Compared with valproate-treated patients, lamotrigine-treated patients were four times more likely to experience improvement in Health Perceptions, 2.3 times more likely to experience improvement in Energy/Fatigue, and 2.8 times more likely to experience improvement in Social Isolation (P<0.05). These quality-of-life improvements are consistent with the improvements in mood measured with the Beck Depression Inventory, the Cornell Dysthymia Rating Scale, and the Profile of Mood States among patients receiving lamotrigine. These data show that lamotrigine monotherapy provides benefits over valproate monotherapy in improving several aspects of health-related quality of life in patients with epilepsy. The observation that quality-of-life improvements during lamotrigine monotherapy occurred concurrently with improvements in mood suggests that the quality-of-life and mood changes may be causally related.

Lamotrigine Monotherapy Improves Depressive Symptoms in Epilepsy: A Double-Blind Comparison with Valproate.

Depressive symptoms are highly prevalent in patients with epilepsy. The antiepileptic drug lamotrigine has been shown to be an effective treatment for the depressive phase of bipolar disorder and to enhance mood and well-being in epilepsy patients. The effects of lamotrigine monotherapy on depressive symptoms in epilepsy have not been evaluated to date in a controlled clinical trial. A recently completed double-blind epilepsy trial comparing the effects of lamotrigine monotherapy and valproate monotherapy on weight change incorporated a battery of standard mood assessments. Mean screening Beck Depression Inventory scores showed that both lamotrigine and valproate groups suffered from mild depression at baseline. Lamotrigine monotherapy was reliably associated with earlier and larger improvements than valproate in mood assessed with the Beck Depression Inventory, the Cornell Dysthymia Rating Scale, and the Profile of Mood States. Considered in the context of other data showing lamotrigine's antidepressant efficacy in bipolar depression, these results suggest that lamotrigine improves mood in mildly depressed patients with epilepsy. Lamotrigine may be particularly useful in treating epilepsy patients with comorbid depression, the most common psychiatric illness in epilepsy.