Patterns of response to aripiprazole, lithium, haloperidol, and placebo across factor scores of mania.

BACKGROUND: A previous factor analysis of Young Mania Rating Scale and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale items identified composite factors of depression, mania, sleep disturbance, judgment/impulsivity, and irritability/hostility as major components of psychiatric symptoms in acute mania or mixed episodes in a series of trials of antipsychotics. However, it is unknown whether these factors predict treatment outcome. METHODS: Data from six double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trials with aripiprazole in acute manic or mixed episodes in adults with bipolar I disorder were pooled for this analysis and the previously identified factors were examined for their value in predicting treatment outcome. Treatment efficacy was assessed for aripiprazole (n = 1,001), haloperidol (n = 324), lithium (n = 155), and placebo (n = 694) at baseline, days 4, 7, and 10, and then weekly to study end. Mean change in factor scores from baseline to week 3 was assessed by receiver operating characteristics curves for percentage factor change at day 4 and week 1. RESULTS: Subjects receiving aripiprazole, haloperidol, and lithium significantly improved mania factor scores versus placebo. Factors most predictive of endpoint efficacy for aripiprazole were judgment/impulsivity at day 4 and mania at week 1. Optimal factor score improvement for outcome prediction was approximately 40% to 50%. Early efficacy predicted treatment outcome across all factors; however, response at week 1 was a better predictor than response at day 4. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis confirms clinical benefits in early treatment/assessment for subjects with bipolar mania and suggests that certain symptom factors in mixed or manic episodes may be most predictive of treatment response.

Efficacy of aripiprazole versus placebo as adjuncts to lithium or valproate in relapse prevention of manic or mixed episodes in bipolar I patients stratified by index manic or mixed episode.

BACKGROUND: Differences in response to treatment have been observed for bipolar disorder (BPD) patients with manic or mixed episodes. This post-hoc analysis examined the maintenance effect of aripiprazole in combination with lithium or valproate in subpopulations of patients entering a relapse prevention study with either manic or mixed bipolar episodes. METHODS: A long-term relapse prevention study of BPD patients with manic or mixed episodes included a single-blind stabilization phase, in which patients were stabilized with single-blind aripiprazole plus lithium or valproate (maintaining stability for 12 weeks), and a double-blind relapse assessment phase, where patients were randomized to aripiprazole or placebo plus lithium or valproate for up to 52 weeks. Lithium and valproate groups were pooled. RESULTS: The time to relapse of any mood episode was longer in the adjunctive aripiprazole group versus the lithium/valproate monotherapy group for the manic (p<0.01) but not mixed population (p=0.59). The LOCF analysis indicated a significantly greater reduction in YMRS total score from baseline with continued aripiprazole versus placebo at 52 weeks in both manic (treatment difference=-3.32, p<0.01) and mixed episode populations (treatment difference=-2.56, p=0.02). Overall, adverse event profiles were similar between the populations. LIMITATION: The lithium and valproate subgroups were combined. CONCLUSIONS: The continuation of aripiprazole in stabilized BPD patients treated with lithium or valproate increased the time to relapse of any mood episode for manic but not mixed patients; both groups achieved greater stability in YMRS total score with adjunctive aripiprazole. Thus, adjunctive aripiprazole may be more appropriate for stabilized patients with manic episodes.

Investigation into the long-term metabolic effects of aripiprazole adjunctive to lithium, valproate, or lamotrigine.

BACKGROUND: Bipolar I disorder (BPD) patients are often overweight or obese, and likely to have metabolic syndrome. Several medications used to treat BPD are associated with increased body weight and/or worsening metabolic parameters. METHODS: Metabolic data were analyzed from two efficacy studies of aripiprazole plus the mood stabilizers, lithium/valproate (Study CN138-189), or lamotrigine (Study CN138-392), in the long-term treatment (52 weeks) of BPD. Changes in body weight, individual metabolic parameters, and incidence of metabolic syndrome were assessed. RESULTS: In the lithium/valproate study, modest increases in body weight were observed at Week 52 in both groups: 1.7 ± 0.8 kg in the lithium/valproate group, and 1.6 ± 0.7 kg in the adjunctive aripiprazole group; this difference was nonsignificant. In the lamotrigine study, decreases in body weight were observed at Week 52 with lamotrigine alone (-2.2 ± 1.0 kg), whereas a modest increase was observed when combined with aripiprazole (0.4 ± 1.0 kg). In both studies, rates of metabolic syndrome at 52 weeks did not increase from baseline with aripiprazole, and median changes from baseline in individual metabolic syndrome parameters were similar with both mood stabilizer monotherapy and the addition of aripiprazole as an adjunctive therapy. LIMITATIONS: This was a post-hoc analysis, and a low percentage of patients completed the lamotrigine study. CONCLUSIONS: Aripiprazole plus a mood stabilizer has minimal impact on metabolic changes in predominantly overweight/obese BPD patients over a 52-week period. In both studies, modest mean increases in weight with the addition of aripiprazole were not accompanied by increased rates of metabolic syndrome or changes in metabolic parameters.

Multivariate analysis of bipolar mania: retrospectively assessed structure of bipolar I manic and mixed episodes in randomized clinical trial participants.

BACKGROUND: Manic episodes are heterogeneous. Mixed states may differ in important clinical characteristics from other manic episodes. However, it has not been established whether mixed states are a distinct type of episodes, or a common basic structure exists across manic episodes. METHODS: Using 2179 well-characterized subjects in the pretreatment phase of six randomized, clinical trials, we conducted rotated factor analysis followed by cluster analysis, using all items from the Young Mania Rating Scale and the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Scale. Analyses were conducted for all subjects (n=2179) and for those in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) mixed (n=644) and non-mixed (n=1535) episodes separately. RESULTS: There were five factors characterized (in order of variance accounted for) as depression, mania, sleep disturbance, judgment/impulsivity and irritability/hostility. Cluster analysis identified five clusters. Three were predominately manic, with depression scores below average for the overall group. Two had high average depression scores; these clusters differed in irritability/hostility. Judgment/impulsivity scores were similar across factors. Essentially identical factors and clusters existed whether analyses were done in all subjects or only in subjects classified by DSM-IV as mixed or non-mixed. LIMITATIONS: Exclusion criteria of studies may limit generalizability of findings. DISCUSSION: All manic episodes, whether mixed or non-mixed, shared a similar structure according to factor/cluster analysis. Patients with high depression factor scores were heterogeneous with respect to irritability. These data suggest that depressive symptoms should be considered a dimensional property across manic episodes, rather than as defining a specific type of episode.

Aripiprazole in bipolar depression: a pooled, post-hoc analysis by severity of core depressive symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: This post-hoc analysis of pooled data from two similarly designed trials assessed the impact of aripiprazole monotherapy vs. placebo on treatment outcomes based on baseline severity of core depressive symptoms in patients with bipolar I disorder. METHODS: Patients were classified as severely depressed (Bech-6 Total score > 15) or less severely depressed (Bech-6 Total score < 15). Efficacy was assessed by mean changes in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) Total and MADRS-6 subscale scores from baseline to endpoint using a mixed model repeated measures analysis. RESULTS: A total of 133 patients (n = 62 on active aripiprazole) were classified as severely depressed and 612 patients (n = 309 aripiprazole) as less severely depressed. At endpoint, the mean MADRS Total score reduction for severely depressed patients receiving aripiprazole compared with placebo was -19.4 vs. -15.4 (P = 0.14), whereas MADRS-6 subscale score reduction for patients receiving aripiprazole compared with placebo was -13.8 vs. -10.3 (P = 0.07). Adverse event profiles were similar between the two severity groups. CONCLUSIONS: Symptomatic improvements assessed here suggest that aripiprazole monotherapy at the doses studied may provide some improvements in core symptoms of depression in patients with bipolar I disorder who were more severely depressed.

Aripiprazole in combination with lamotrigine for the long-term treatment of patients with bipolar I disorder (manic or mixed): a randomized, multicenter, double-blind study (CN138-392).

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole (ARI) plus lamotrigine (LTG) compared with placebo (PBO) plus LTG, for long-term treatment in bipolar I disorder patients with a recent manic/mixed episode. METHODS: After a 9-24 week stabilization phase receiving single-blind ARI (10-30 mg/day) plus open-label LTG (100 or 200 mg/day), patients maintaining stability (Young Mania Rating Scale/Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total scores ≤ 12) with ARI+LTG for eight consecutive weeks were randomized to continue on double-blind ARI + LTG or to receive PBO + LTG, after removing ARI from ARI + LTG treatment, and followed up for 52 weeks. The primary outcome measure was time from randomization to relapse into a manic/mixed episode. RESULTS: A total of 787 patients entered the stabilization phase, and 351 were randomized to ARI + LTG (n = 178) or PBO + LTG (n = 173). ARI + LTG yielded a numerically longer time to manic/mixed relapse than PBO + LTG, but it was not statistically significant [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.55; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.30-1.03; p = 0.058]. The estimated relapse rates at Week 52 were 11% for ARI + LTG and 23% for PBO + LTG, yielding a number needed-to-treat of nine (95% CI: 5-121). The three most common adverse events were akathisia [10.8%, 6.1% for ARI + LTG and PBO + LTG, respectively; number needed-to-harm (NNH) = 22], insomnia (7.4%, 11.5%), and anxiety (7.4%, 3.6%). Mean weight change was 0.43 kg and -1.81 kg, respectively (last observation carried forward, p = 0.001). Rates of ≥ 7% weight gain with ARI + LTG and PBO + LTG were 11.9% and 3.5%, respectively (NNH = 12). CONCLUSIONS: ARI + LTG delayed the time to manic/mixed relapse but did not reach statistical significance. Safety and tolerability results revealed no unexpected adverse events for ARI combination with LTG.

Efficacy and safety of adjunctive aripiprazole in major depressive disorder in older patients: a pooled subpopulation analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adjunctive aripiprazole compared with standard antidepressant therapy (ADT) for older patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who demonstrated an incomplete response to standard antidepressant monotherapy. METHODS: Data from three similar 14-week studies (an 8-week prospective ADT treatment phase and a 6-week randomized, double-blind phase) of aripiprazole augmentation were pooled for this post hoc analysis. Two age groups were defined: younger patients (aged 18-49 years) and older patients (aged 50-67 years). The older patient group was further divided into three subgroups: 50-55, 56-60, and 61-67 years. The efficacy endpoint was the mean change in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score from end of the prospective phase (Week 8) to endpoint (Week 14, last observation carried forward (LOCF)). Remission was defined as MADRS total score ≤10 at endpoint. RESULTS: Four hundred and nine older patients (placebo, n = 198; aripiprazole, n = 211) and 679 younger patients (placebo, n = 341; aripiprazole, n = 338) were included in this analysis. Older patients receiving aripiprazole demonstrated significantly greater improvement in MADRS total score versus placebo at Week 14 (-10.0 vs. -6.4; p < 0.001; LOCF), similar to the improvement seen in younger patients. Remission rates were significantly higher with aripiprazole versus placebo in older (32.5% vs. 17.1%; p < 0.001) and younger (26.9% vs. 16.4%; p < 0.001) patients. Akathisia was the most common adverse event in both the older (17.1%) and younger (26.0%) patient groups. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive aripiprazole was effective in improving depressive symptoms in older patients, 50-67 years, with MDD who have had an inadequate response to standard antidepressant medication.

Clinical value of early partial symptomatic improvement in the prediction of response and remission during short-term treatment trials in 3369 subjects with bipolar I or II depression.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical value of early partial symptomatic improvement in predicting the probability of response during the short-term treatment of bipolar depression. METHODS: Blinded data from 10 multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in bipolar I or II depression were used to determine if early improvement (≥20% reduction in depression symptom severity after 14 days of treatment) predicted later short-term response or remission. Sensitivity, specificity, efficiency, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) were calculated using an intent to treat analysis of individual and pooled study data. RESULTS: 1913 patients were randomized to active compounds (aripiprazole, lamotrigine, olanzapine/olanzapine-fluoxetine, and quetiapine), and 1456 to placebo. In the pooled positive studies, early improvement predicted response and remission with high sensitivity (86% and 88%, respectively), but rates of false positives were high (53% and 59%, respectively). Pooled negative predictive values for response/remission (i.e. confidence in knowing the drug will not result in response or remission) were 74% and 82%, respectively, with low rates of false negatives (14% and 12%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Early improvement in an individual patient does not appear to be a reliable predictor of eventual response or remission due to an unacceptably high false positive rate. However, the absence of early improvement appears to be a highly reliable predictor of eventual non-response, suggesting that clinicians can have confidence in knowing when a drug is not going to work during short-term treatment. Patients who fail to demonstrate early improvement within the first two weeks of treatment may benefit from a change in therapy.

A 52-week, double-blind evaluation of the metabolic effects of aripiprazole and lithium in bipolar I disorder.

INTRODUCTION: Metabolic risk factors, termed metabolic syndrome, which include obesity, diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, are more common in patients with bipolar disorder than in the general population. Moreover, medications used to treat bipolar disorder carry some risk of worsening metabolic parameters. METHOD: The study was conducted at 46 study centers in the United States, although only 31 study centers enrolled patients in the 40-week extension phase. Patients with acute bipolar I mania, manic or mixed (DSM-IV-TR criteria; Young Mania Rating Scale score ≥ 20), who required hospitalization were randomly assigned to double-blind aripiprazole (15-30 mg/d), lithium (900-1500 mg/d), or placebo for 3 weeks. Patients treated with aripiprazole or lithium continued treatment to week 12, after which they could enter a double-blind 40-week extension phase. Patients were enrolled in the 12-week acute treatment phase between April 2004 and July 2006; the first patient entered extension treatment in October 2004, and the last patient completed treatment in May 2007. Changes in metabolic parameters were compared between patients treated with aripiprazole or lithium for up to 52 weeks using last observation carried forward and analysis of covariance. Analysis stratified by baseline body mass index (BMI) was also conducted. RESULTS: Modest increases in body weight were observed in both groups: +0.97 kg (2.1 lb) for aripiprazole (n = 127) and + 0.74 (1.6 lb) for lithium (n = 136), P = .60. A significant difference in body weight increase was observed only among patients with a BMI < 25: + 2.66 kg (5.9 lb) for aripiprazole (n = 35) and + 0.40 kg (0.9 lb) for lithium (n = 37), P = .02. Mean changes from baseline to week 52 in fasting levels of total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, plasma glucose, triglycerides, or insulin (last observation carried forward) were small in both aripiprazole and lithium treatment groups; no significant differences were observed. Mean laboratory values were within the normal or borderline range for both treatment groups across all BMI categories. CONCLUSION: Comparably modest and similar changes in metabolic parameters were observed in patients with bipolar disorder treated for up to 1 year with either lithium or aripiprazole. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00095511.

A pooled MADRS/IDS cross-correlation analysis: clinician and patient self-report assessment of improvement in core depressive symptoms with adjunctive aripiprazole.

BACKGROUND: These analyses aimed to examine the pattern of improvement in depression symptoms with adjunctive aripiprazole. METHODS: Data were pooled (724 subjects: n = 356 placebo, n = 368 aripiprazole) from 2 double-blind, 6-week aripiprazole studies. Pearson correlation coefficients (r) were calculated between changes on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) line items and selected Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (IDS) line items using last observation carried forward. The magnitude of change was expressed as a between-group effect size (ES). RESULTS: At end point, adjunctive aripiprazole demonstrated significant improvement versus antidepressant therapy alone in 8 of the 10 MADRS items (MADRS total score Cohen effect size = 0.37) and 12 of the 30 IDS items (IDS total score Cohen ES = 0.18). Analysis of correlation data identified 5 MADRS items assessing mood, lassitude, inability to feel, self-worth, and suicidal thoughts that correlated with similar IDS items; these showed a similar pattern of rapid, sustained response to adjunctive aripiprazole and a similar ES. Other symptoms associated with depression (tension associated with feeling anxious, irritability, and lack of concentration) did not show statistically significant changes on either scale at end point. The IDS identified an additional 3 important depression-related symptoms (diminished libido, view of self, and interpersonal sensitivity) that showed significant rapid and sustained improvement with adjunctive aripiprazole. CONCLUSIONS: This cross-correlation analysis confirmed that improvement in core depressive symptoms with adjunctive aripiprazole was identified by both clinicians and patients. Clinically, these changes were maintained during the study. Theoretically, these findings lead to important questions regarding neurochemical changes produced by aripiprazole when used in combination with antidepressants.

Effects of aripiprazole adjunctive to standard antidepressant treatment on the core symptoms of depression: a post-hoc, pooled analysis of two large, placebo-controlled studies.

BACKGROUND: Although antipsychotic agents have a long history of use in depression, their effectiveness in treating core symptoms of depression such as loss of interest has been questioned. Adjunctive aripiprazole is beneficial for the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder but its effects on specific symptoms have not been reported. The objective of this study was to examine the effects of aripiprazole on core symptoms of depression. METHODS: This is a post-hoc, pooled analysis of two trials of aripiprazole augmentation of standard antidepressants (ADT) in patients with major depression. Patients with an inadequate response to ADT received adjunctive aripiprazole (n=373) or placebo (n=368) for 6 weeks. Change on four subscales of the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D17) that capture core depression symptoms was determined and change on individual HAM-D items also was assessed. The magnitude of within-group change for the subscales and individual items was expressed as effect size (ES) and between-group significance tested with ANCOVA. The magnitude of change was also examined comparing the response rates for aripiprazole and placebo on HAM-D17 and the four subscales. Change on three composite subscales - anxiety, insomnia and drive was also examined. RESULTS: Within-group change on the four core subscales was substantial (ES=1.1-1.2) and similar to that for the 17-item HAM-D total score. Between-group comparisons indicated mean change and response rates were significantly greater with adjunctive aripiprazole than placebo for each core subscale (all p<0.01). Individual HAM-D17 items showing the greatest change from baseline with adjunctive aripiprazole: depressed mood (within-group ES=1.03) work and activities (ES=0.86), guilt (ES=0.77) and psychic anxiety (ES=0.67) are the same symptoms identified by each of the core subscales and each of these items differed significantly from change on that item with placebo (p<0.01). On three composite scales, adjunctive aripiprazole was significantly more effective than placebo with respect to mean change for anxiety, insomnia and drive (all p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Aripiprazole augmentation of standard ADT results in significant, clinically meaningful changes in the core symptoms of depression. It is also associated with significant change in anxiety, insomnia, and drive components of the 17-item HAM-D.

Global benefit-risk analysis of adjunctive aripiprazole in the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVE: This study quantified the overall merit of adjunctive aripiprazole in major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: Global benefit-risk (GBR) analysis quantified the benefit and risk differences between adjunctive aripiprazole and antidepressant (ADT) monotherapy. Three hundred and fifty six patients receiving ADT monotherapy and 366 patients receiving ADT and adjunctive aripiprazole (2-20 mg/day) were included. Efficacy measures included the Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale (MADRS) Total score response (> or =50% reduction) and remission (response plus Total score < or = 10). Treatment-emergent adverse events were classified by severity. GBR ratio measures evaluated the relative benefit of adjunctive aripiprazole. Logistic regression models tested the effect of adjunctive aripiprazole on GBR and were used to identify predictors of net benefit and potential factors affecting the adjunctive aripiprazole treatment effect. RESULTS: For MADRS-defined response and remission, the relative gain of adjunctive aripiprazole versus ADT monotherapy was 1.46 (p = 0.044) and 1.43 (p = 0.085), respectively. Gender, current escitalopram, duration of current episode, and baseline body mass index are potential factors affecting the adjunctive aripiprazole treatment effect. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with ADT monotherapy, adjunctive aripiprazole was associated with an improved benefit-risk profile in MDD.

A non-randomized study to investigate the effects of the atypical antipsychotic aripiprazole on the steady-state pharmacokinetics of lamotrigine in patients with bipolar I disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of aripiprazole on steady-state pharmacokinetics of lamotrigine in patients with bipolar I disorder who were clinically stable on lamotrigine (100-400 mg/day) for >or=4 weeks. METHODS: In this open-label study, aripiprazole was administered at 10 mg/day for 3 days, 20 mg/day for 3 days, then 30 mg/day for 8 days. Blood samples were collected on Days -1 and 14 for determination of lamotrigine steady-state pharmacokinetic parameters. Safety and tolerability were assessed. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were administered aripiprazole in combination with lamotrigine. Geometric mean (GM) values for lamotrigine maximum plasma concentration were similar for lamotrigine alone (26 ng/mL) and with co-administered aripiprazole (23 ng/mL). GM values for plasma lamotrigine area under the concentration-time curve (AUCtau) were comparable for lamotrigine alone (434 ng/h/mL) and with co-administered aripiprazole (394 ng/h/mL). Median T(max) of lamotrigine alone and combined with aripiprazole was 1.98 and 0.77 h, respectively. No changes to lamotrigine dose-normalized plasma trough concentrations were observed with co-administered aripiprazole. Sixteen patients (88.9%) experienced >or=1 adverse event (AE), the most common of which was insomnia (n = 6). CONCLUSIONS: Aripiprazole had no meaningful effect on lamotrigine steady-state pharmacokinetics in patients with bipolar I disorder. No dosage adjustment of lamotrigine is required and the combination was generally safe and well tolerated.

Safety and Tolerability of Adjunctive Aripiprazole in Major Depressive Disorder: A Pooled Post Hoc Analysis (studies CN138-139 and CN138-163).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and tolerability of aripiprazole adjunctive to standard antidepressant therapy (ADT) for patients with major depressive disorder (DSM-IV-TR criteria). METHOD: Data from 2 identical studies of aripiprazole augmentation (8 weeks of prospective ADT treatment followed by 6 weeks of randomized double-blind adjunctive treatment) were pooled. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and weight, electrocardiogram (ECG), and laboratory measurements were assessed during the 6-week phase, including time course, severity, resolution, and predictors. The studies were conducted from June 2004 to April 2006 and September 2004 to December 2006. RESULTS: The safety analysis included 737 outpatients (aripiprazole, n = 371; placebo, n = 366). The majority of patients completed the trials (aripiprazole, 86%; placebo, 88%). Common TEAEs (≥ 5% and twice the placebo rate) with aripiprazole were akathisia (25%), restlessness (12%), insomnia (8%), fatigue (8%), blurred vision (6%), and constipation (5%). Most TEAEs were of mild to moderate severity (aripiprazole, 89%; placebo, 95%). TEAE rates in the aripiprazole and placebo groups were not affected by ADT, age, or gender. Discontinuation due to TEAEs was low (aripiprazole, 3%; placebo, 1%). Mean weight change was higher with aripiprazole versus placebo (1.73 kg vs 0.38 kg, P < .001). At endpoint, clinical laboratory parameters, vital signs, and ECG indices (including QT(c) interval) were similar between groups. Akathisia with aripiprazole generally occurred in the first 3 weeks (76%), was of mild to moderate severity (92%), and led to discontinuation in 3 patients (0.8%). Within the aripiprazole group, age (18-40 years) was the only positive predictor for akathisia. CONCLUSIONS: In this short-term post hoc analysis, aripiprazole as augmentation to ADT demonstrated a safety and tolerability profile similar to that in monotherapy studies in other psychiatric populations. Controlled long-term safety and efficacy data of aripiprazole as adjunctive to ADT are warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00095823 (CN138-139) and NCT00095758 (CN138-163).

Criteria for defining symptomatic and sustained remission in bipolar I disorder: a post-hoc analysis of a 26-week aripiprazole study (study CN138-010).

OBJECTIVE: Remission is a key goal after treating an acute episode of bipolar I disorder, but greater understanding is needed of the correlation between attaining remission at a specific time point and maintaining sustained remission. This post-hoc analysis assessed symptomatic point remission and sustained remission according to either a standard criterion (YMRS ≤ 12) or a set of more rigorous criteria (YMRS ≤ 7, MADRS ≤ 10, and CGI-I = 1) using data from a 26-week, randomized, double-blind, placebocontrolled study with the atypical antipsychotic aripiprazole in patients with bipolar I disorder. METHODS: Following ≥ 6 consecutive weeks' stabilization with open-label aripiprazole, 161 patients were randomized (1:1) to aripiprazole or placebo for up to 26 weeks. Symptomatic remission rates were determined at Weeks 8, 16, and 26; sustained remission rates were determined at each visit up until Weeks 8, 16, and 26, including a requirement to maintain remission for ≥ 8 consecutive weeks (frequency counts, LOCF analysis). RESULTS: Compared with the standard criterion (YMRS ≤ 12), symptomatic and sustained remission criteria were fulfilled at a lower rate at all time points when defined with YMRS ≤ 7, and lower still with additional MADRS ≤ 10 and CGI-I = 1 criteria. In aripiprazole-treated patients, symptomatic remission rates were consistent at Weeks 8, 16, and 26; sustained remission rates at Week 8 were retained at Weeks 16 and 26. CONCLUSIONS: When discerning an operational definition of remission in patients with a recent manic or mixed episode, the YMRS ≤ 7 criterion and sustaining this criterion for ≥ 8 weeks can be a useful clinical or research tool for assessing clinical recovery.

Examining the efficacy of adjunctive aripiprazole in major depressive disorder: a pooled analysis of 2 studies.

BACKGROUND: Patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who fail to achieve complete remission with antidepressant therapy may benefit from augmentation therapy with an atypical antipsychotic. METHOD: A pooled analysis was performed on 2 identical 14-week studies (8-week prospective antidepressant therapy treatment phase followed by 6-week randomized double-blind phase) evaluating the efficacy of adjunctive aripiprazole (2-20 mg/day) in DSM-IV-TR-defined MDD patients with an inadequate response to antidepressant therapy. Primary efficacy endpoint was the mean change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score from end of the prospective phase (week 8) to end of randomized phase (week 14, last observation carried forward). Subgroup analyses were performed. The key secondary endpoint was mean change in Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) mean score. RESULTS: At endpoint, mean change in MADRS total score was significantly greater with adjunctive aripiprazole (-8.7) than with adjunctive placebo (-5.7; p < .001). Except for a differential treatment-by-sex interaction, change in MADRS total scores were consistently greater with adjunctive aripiprazole than with adjunctive placebo, regardless of race, age, episode duration, prior antidepressant therapy response, number of historical treatment failures, severity of depressive symptoms, and antidepressant. At endpoint, MADRS remission rates were significantly greater with adjunctive aripiprazole than with placebo (25.7% vs. 15.4%; p < .001). Adjunctive aripiprazole also demonstrated significantly greater improvements in mean change from baseline in SDS total score than adjunctive placebo (-1.2 vs. -0.6; p = .001). CONCLUSION: Augmentation of antidepressant therapy with the atypical antipsychotic aripiprazole resulted in significant efficacy benefits across a range of subgroups of patients with MDD. Further study of a treatment-by-sex interaction is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00095823 and NCT00095758.

Adjunctive aripiprazole in major depressive disorder: analysis of efficacy and safety in patients with anxious and atypical features.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of adjunctive aripiprazole to standard antidepressant therapy (ADT) for patients with DSM-IV major depressive disorder with anxious/atypical features at baseline. METHOD: Data from 2 identical 14-week studies (an 8-week prospective ADT treatment phase and a 6-week randomized, double-blind phase) of aripiprazole augmentation were pooled to evaluate efficacy and safety in the 2 subgroups. The primary efficacy endpoint was mean change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score from end of ADT treatment to end of randomized treatment (last observation carried forward). Anxious depression was defined by a Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression anxiety/somatization factor score ≥ 7, and atypical depression was defined by previously described criteria on the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report. Both anxious and atypical subtypes were defined based on symptoms at entry into prospective ADT (week 0). Patients were enrolled between June 2004 and April 2006 in one study and from September 2004 to December 2006 in the other (total randomized population, N = 742; anxious/nonanxious population, N = 740; atypical/nonatypical population, N = 737). RESULTS: Completion rates were between 84% and 90% and comparable across all subgroups, with low discontinuations due to adverse events. Patients receiving adjunctive aripiprazole demonstrated significantly greater improvement in MADRS total score versus patients receiving adjunctive placebo, starting at week 1 or week 2 and continuing through to endpoint (anxious: -8.72 vs. -6.17, p ≤ .001; nonanxious: -8.61 vs. -4.97, p ≤ .001; atypical: -9.31 vs. -5.15, p ≤ .001; nonatypical: -8.08 vs. -6.22, p < .05). At endpoint, remission rates were also significantly higher with adjunctive aripiprazole versus adjunctive placebo (p < .05) in all subgroups. Treatment emergent adverse event profile was similar in all subgroups and comparable to the total population. Reporting of akathisia and weight gain on aripiprazole treatment did not differ between subgroups. CONCLUSION: Adjunctive aripiprazole is an effective treatment for patients with major depression presenting with either anxious or atypical features. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00095823 and NCT00095758.

Aripiprazole monotherapy for maintenance therapy in bipolar I disorder: a 100-week, double-blind study versus placebo.

OBJECTIVE: A 26-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled relapse prevention study of aripiprazole was designed a priori with a prospective, 74-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled extension phase. Efficacy and tolerability of aripiprazole for relapse prevention in bipolar I disorder was, therefore, evaluated for 100 weeks. METHOD: Patients with DSM-IV bipolar I disorder, recent manic or mixed episode, received open-label aripiprazole 15 or 30 mg/day (started at 30 mg/day) for 6 to 18 weeks. Patients achieving stabilization (Young Mania Rating Scale score or= 5% incidence and twice placebo rate) were tremor, akathisia, dry mouth, hypertension, weight gain, vaginitis, abnormal thinking, pharyngitis, and flu syndrome. Mean weight change from baseline to 100 weeks (last observation carried forward) was +0.4 +/- 0.8 kg with aripiprazole and -1.9 +/- 0.8 kg with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Over a 100-week treatment period, aripiprazole monotherapy was effective for relapse prevention in patients who were initially stabilized on aripiprazole for 6 consecutive weeks, and it maintained a good safety and tolerability profile. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00036348.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled 26-week trial of aripiprazole in recently manic patients with bipolar I disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the safety and efficacy of aripiprazole in preventing relapse of a mood episode in recently manic- or mixed-episode patients with bipolar I disorder stabilized on aripiprazole. METHOD: This randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, multicenter study enrolled patients from 76 centers in 3 countries (Argentina, Mexico, United States) from March 2000 to June 2003. Bipolar I disorder (DSM-IV) patients who had recently been hospitalized and treated for a manic or mixed episode entered an open-label stabilization phase (aripiprazole monotherapy: 15 or 30 mg/day, 6-18 weeks). After meeting stabilization criteria (Young Mania Rating Scale score of < or = 10 and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale score of < or = 13 for 6 consecutive weeks), 161 patients were randomly assigned to aripiprazole or placebo for the 26-week, double-blind phase. The primary endpoint was time to relapse for a manic, mixed, or depressive episode (defined by discontinuation caused by lack of efficacy). RESULTS: Aripiprazole was superior to placebo in delaying the time to relapse (p = .020). Aripiprazole-treated patients had significantly fewer relapses (25%) than placebo patients (43%; p = .013). Aripiprazole was superior to placebo in delaying the time to manic relapse (p = .01); however, no significant differences were observed in time to depressive relapse (p = .68). Weight gain (> or = 7% increase) occurred in 7 (13%) aripiprazole-treated and 0 placebo-treated patients. Adverse events (> or = 5% incidence and twice that of placebo) reported by aripiprazole-treated patients were akathisia, pain in the extremities, tremor, and vaginitis. CONCLUSIONS: Aripiprazole, 15 or 30 mg/day, was superior to placebo in maintaining efficacy in patients with bipolar I disorder with a recent manic or mixed episode who were stabilized and maintained on aripiprazole treatment for 6 weeks, as shown by a longer time to relapse.