Improvement in Renal Function and Reduction in Serum Uric Acid with Intensive Statin Therapy in Older Patients: A Post Hoc Analysis of the SAGE Trial.

BACKGROUND: Improvement in renal function and decreases in serum uric acid (SUA) have been reported following prolonged high-intensity statin (HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor) therapy. This post hoc analysis of the SAGE trial examined the effect of intensive versus less intensive statin therapy on renal function, safety, and laboratory parameters, including SUA, in elderly coronary artery disease (CAD) patients (65-85 years) with or without chronic kidney disease (CKD). METHODS: Patients were randomized to atorvastatin 80 mg/day or pravastatin 40 mg/day and treated for 12 months. Patients were stratified using Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs) in CKD (eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) and non-CKD populations. RESULTS: Of the 893 patients randomized, 858 had complete renal data and 418 of 858 (49%) had CKD (99% Stage 3). Over 12 months, eGFR increased with atorvastatin and remained stable with pravastatin (+2.38 vs. +0.18 mL/min/1.73 m(2), respectively; p < 0.0001). MDRD eGFR improved significantly in both CKD treatment arms; however, the increased eGFR in patients without CKD was significantly greater with atorvastatin (+2.08 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) than with pravastatin (-1.04 mL/min/1.73 m(2)). Modest reductions in SUA were observed in both treatment arms, but a greater fall occurred with atorvastatin than with pravastatin (-0.52 vs. -0.09 mg/dL, p < 0.0001). Change in SUA correlated negatively with changes in eGFR and positively with changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Reports of myalgia were rare (3.6% CKD; 5.7% non-CKD), and there were no episodes of rhabdomyolysis. Elevated serum alanine and aspartate transaminase to >3 times the upper limit of normal occurred in 4.4% of atorvastatin- and 0.2% of pravastatin-treated patients. CONCLUSION: Intensive management of dyslipidemia in older patients with stable coronary heart disease may have beneficial effects on renal function and SUA.

A Post Hoc Analysis of the Effect of Weight on Efficacy in Depressed Patients Treated With Desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d and 100 mg/d.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of baseline body mass index (BMI) on efficacy and weight change in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) treated with desvenlafaxine or placebo in a pooled, post hoc analysis. METHOD: Adults with MDD were randomly assigned to placebo or desvenlafaxine (50 mg or 100 mg) in 8 short-term, double-blind studies and 1 longer-term randomized withdrawal study (the studies were published between 2007 and 2013). Change from baseline in 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) total score at week 8 was analyzed in normal (BMI ≤ 25 kg/m(2)), overweight (25 kg/m(2) < BMI ≤ 30 kg/m(2)), and obese (BMI > 30 kg/m(2)) subgroups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Weight change was analyzed in BMI subgroups using ANCOVA and a mixed-effects model for repeated measures. RESULTS: Desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d or 100 mg/d improved HDRS-17 scores significantly from baseline to week 8 (last observation carried forward) versus placebo in all BMI subgroups (normal: n = 1,122; overweight: n = 960; obese: n = 1,302; all P ≤ .0027); improvement was greatest in normal BMI patients. There was a statistically significant decrease in weight (< 1 kg) with short-term desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d and 100 mg/d versus placebo in all BMI subgroups (all P < .0001). In the randomized withdrawal study (n = 548), no statistically significant difference in weight was observed for desvenlafaxine versus placebo in any BMI subgroup. Baseline BMI predicted weight change in short-term and longer-term desvenlafaxine treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Desvenlafaxine significantly improved symptoms of depression versus placebo regardless of baseline BMI. In all BMI subgroups, desvenlafaxine was associated with statistically significant weight loss (< 1 kg) versus placebo over 8 weeks, but no significant differences longer term. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00072774, NCT00277823, NCT00300378, NCT00384033, NCT00798707, NCT00863798, NCT01121484, NCT00824291, NCT00887224.

An Analysis of Relapse Rates and Predictors of Relapse in 2 Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trials of Desvenlafaxine for Major Depressive Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate relapse rates and predictors of relapse in 2 randomized, placebo-controlled trials of desvenlafaxine for major depressive disorder (MDD). METHOD: Study 1: week 8 responders to open-label desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d entered a 12-week open-label stability phase. Patients with a continuing, stable response at week 20 were randomly assigned to 6-month, double-blind treatment (desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d or placebo). Study 1 was conducted between June 2009 and March 2011 at 87 sites worldwide. Study 2: week 12 responders to open-label desvenlafaxine 200 or 400 mg/d were randomly assigned to 6-month, double-blind treatment (desvenlafaxine 200 mg/d, 400 mg/d, or placebo). Study 2 was conducted between June 2003 and August 2005 at 49 sites in Europe, the United States, and Taiwan. Relapse was assessed separately by study with log-rank test using protocol definitions of relapse and with 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) score ≥ 16 at any time during the double-blind phase. Kaplan-Meier estimates evaluated time to relapse, censoring data at months 1, 2, and 3 and overall; treatments were compared using hazard ratios. Cox proportional hazards models assessed relapse predictors. RESULTS: Overall relapse rates for all definitions were significantly lower for desvenlafaxine versus placebo for both studies (all P ≤ .002). In study 1, rates were significantly lower for desvenlafaxine versus placebo at month 2 (P = .016) and month 3 (P = .007) using the protocol definition. In study 2, relapse rates were significantly lower for desvenlafaxine versus placebo at months 1, 2, and 3 for both definitions (P < .0001-.002). Hazard ratios were similar at months 1, 2, and 3 and overall for both studies (0.382-0.639). CONCLUSIONS: Desvenlafaxine 50 to 400 mg/d effectively prevented relapse at 6 months. Desvenlafaxine significantly prevented relapse early (month 1) versus placebo only in study 2. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers:NCT00887224 and NCT00075257.

The effect of desvenlafaxine 50 mg/day on a subpopulation of anxious/depressed patients: a pooled analysis of seven randomized, placebo-controlled studies.

BACKGROUND: Desvenlafaxine (administered as desvenlafaxine succinate) for anxious depression was assessed in a post hoc analysis. METHODS: Data were pooled from patients randomly assigned to desvenlafaxine 50 mg/day or placebo in seven double-blind, fixed-dose studies in adults with major depressive disorder. Patients with "anxious depression" had baseline 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, anxiety-somatization factor (HAM-D17 A/S) scores ≥7. Primary end point was change in HAM-D17 scores from baseline at week 8 (last observation carried forward), evaluated using analysis of covariance with treatment, study, and baseline value as covariates. RESULTS: A total of 1873/2706 (69%) patients were identified as "anxious depressed". Desvenlafaxine significantly improved HAM-D17 total scores versus placebo in anxious (adjusted mean [95% CI] -1.72 [-2.35, -1.09]; p < 0.001) and nonanxious (-1.48 [-2.40, -0.57]; p = 0.002) populations, with no significant treatment-by-anxiety interaction. Response and remission rates (HAM-D17 ) were significantly higher with desvenlafaxine compared with placebo in both populations. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 78% and 69% (desvenlafaxine versus placebo, respectively) of anxious depressed patients and by 77% and 68% of nonanxious patients. CONCLUSION: Desvenlafaxine 50 mg/day significantly improved depressive symptoms compared with placebo in major depressive disorder patients with clinically relevant anxiety symptoms. Improvement in the HAM-D17 total score was similar for anxious/nonanxious groups.

Predictors of functional response and remission with desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d in patients with major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: The predictive value of early functional improvement for treatment success at week 8 was assessed in a pooled analysis in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: Data were pooled from 7 double-blind studies in adult patients with MDD randomly assigned to desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d or placebo. Four levels of treatment success were determined at week 8 for patients with baseline Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) score > 12 (N = 2156): functional response (SDS ≤12 and ≥50% improvement in SDS), functional/depression response (SDS ≤12 and ≥50% improvement in both SDS and 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAM-D17] score), functional remission (SDS < 7), and functional/depression remission (SDS < 7 and HAM-D17 ≤7). Week 2 improvement in SDS was evaluated as a predictor of later functional response/remission using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Odds ratios (ORs) of the predictability of improvement thresholds were computed from a logistic regression model. RESULTS: The proportion of patients achieving each level of treatment success was significantly greater for patients treated with desvenlafaxine (40%, 32%, 23%, 15%, respectively) vs placebo (31%, 22%, 17%, 10%; all P ≤ 0.002). Early change in SDS was a highly significant predictor of functional response/remission (ORs, 0.958-0.970; all P < 0.0001). Discussion Patients' early functional response to desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d is predictive of treatment success.

Early improvement in depressive symptoms with desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d as a predictor of treatment success in patients with major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis assessed the predictive value of improvement in depressive scores at early time points for treatment outcomes at week 8 in patients with major depressive disorder treated with desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d or placebo. METHODS: Pooled data from 6 double-blind, fixed-dose studies in adult patients with major depressive disorder. Patients were randomly assigned to desvenlafaxine or placebo. Primary end point was change in 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D17) scores from baseline to week 8 (or last observation carried forward). Optimal thresholds of improvement (percent change from baseline HAM-D17) at weeks 2 and 3 for predicting 4 levels of treatment success (≥ 45%, ≥ 50%, and ≥ 65% decrease from baseline HAM-D17, HAM-D17 ≤ 7) at week 8 (last observation carried forward) were determined using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Odds ratios of the predictability of improvement thresholds were computed from a logistic regression model adjusting for significant baseline predictors. RESULTS: Desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d (n = 1207) had significantly greater rates of treatment success for each level of treatment success at 8 weeks compared with placebo (n = 1067). Optimal early improvement thresholds for weeks 2 (20%-30%) and 3 (28%-41%) were highly predictive of all 4 levels of treatment success after adjusting for significant baseline predictors (odds ratios, 0.951-0.960; all P < 0.0001). Negative predictive value of early improvement increased, and positive predictive value decreased, for increasingly stringent definitions of treatment success at week 8. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical observations of patients' early response to desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d may have clinical value in predicting treatment success and guiding patient management.

Efficacy of desvenlafaxine 50 mg compared with placebo in patients with moderate or severe major depressive disorder: a pooled analysis of six randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies.

This study assessed the efficacy of desvenlafaxine 50 mg/day compared with placebo for treating moderate or severe major depressive disorder (MDD). Data were pooled from six double-blind, placebo-controlled, desvenlafaxine 50 mg/day fixed-dose studies in adults with MDD. The primary endpoint was improvement in 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D17) scores from baseline at week 8. HAM-D17 changes were evaluated in patients with moderate (18

Assessing the relationship between functional impairment/recovery and depression severity: a pooled analysis.

The objective of this study was to explore the relationship between assessments of functional impairment, emotional well-being, and depression symptoms. Data were pooled from 3530 outpatients with major depressive disorder enrolled in 10 desvenlafaxine clinical trials. The primary outcome measures included (a) the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D17) as a measure of depressive symptom severity and (b) the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) and five-item World Health Organization Well-Being Index (WHO-5) as measures of functional impairment and well-being. A linear regression model was used to identify the SDS and WHO-5 values that equate to the predetermined clinically relevant three-point difference between active treatment and placebo on the HAM-D17. A receiver operating characteristic analysis was conducted to determine the SDS score that equates to a remission of depression symptoms (i.e. HAM-D17≤7). An approximate three-point difference between active treatment and placebo on the SDS (2.8) and WHO-5 (2.5) was determined to be clinically relevant in relation to improvements in depressive symptoms. An SDS of less than or equal to 7 was equivalent to a remission of depression symptoms, providing a definition of functional remission. A better understanding of the relationship between depressive symptoms and functional impairment and well-being may provide clinicians with a more comprehensive means of assessing treatment effects in major depressive disorder.

Focused atorvastatin therapy in managed-care patients with coronary heart disease and CKD.

BACKGROUND: This post hoc analysis of the Aggressive Lipid-Lowering Initiation Abates New Cardiac Events (ALLIANCE) Study investigates the effect of focused atorvastatin therapy versus usual care on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) with and without chronic kidney disease (CKD). STUDY DESIGN: Prospective randomized open-label; median follow-up, 54.3 months. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Managed care or Veterans Affairs facilities; 2,442 patients with CHD with dyslipidemia; mean age, 61.6 years. INTERVENTION: Focused atorvastatin therapy to a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal of less than 80 mg/dL or maximum dose of 80 mg/d versus usual care as deemed appropriate by patients' regular physicians. PREDICTOR: Baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) calculated using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study equation of less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) (patients with CKD) and 60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) or greater (patients without CKD). OUTCOMES & MEASUREMENTS: The primary end point was time to first cardiovascular event. Change from baseline eGFR was assessed in 1,768 patients with follow-up renal data. RESULTS: At baseline, 579 patients (23.7%) had CKD: 31.6% of these patients experienced a primary cardiovascular event during the study versus 23.6% of patients without CKD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18 to 1.68; P < 0.001). Compared with usual care, atorvastatin therapy reduced the relative risk of a primary outcome by 28% in patients with CKD (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.97; P = 0.02) and 11% in patients without CKD (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.07; P = 0.3) (P for treatment by CKD interaction = 0.2). There was no decrease in eGFR in atorvastatin-treated patients during the course of the study. LIMITATIONS: Follow-up of atorvastatin patients was restricted to every 6 months; interim data were unavailable for usual-care patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CHD and CKD are at increased risk of cardiovascular events. Compared with usual care, focused atorvastatin treatment decreased cardiovascular risk for established patients in real-world settings, with no significant difference in treatment effects observed between patients with and without CKD.