Two 6-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of ziprasidone in outpatients with bipolar I depression: did baseline characteristics impact trial outcome?

Two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 6-week studies comparing ziprasidone versus placebo for treatment of bipolar depression (BPD) failed to meet their primary study objectives, indicating that either ziprasidone is ineffective in the treatment of BPD or the study failed. Adult outpatients with bipolar I depression with 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression total score more than 20 at screening and baseline received either ziprasidone 40 to 80 mg/d, 120 to 160 mg/d, or placebo (study 1), or ziprasidone 40 to 160 mg/d or placebo (study 2). Primary efficacy measure in both studies was change from baseline in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total scores at week 6 (end of the study). Mixed-model repeated-measures methodology was used to analyze the primary efficacy measure in both studies. Secondary efficacy measures in both studies included Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression total score and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement score. Post hoc analyses were conducted for both studies to examine potential reasons for study failure. In both, ziprasidone treatment groups failed to separate statistically from placebo for change from baseline Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score at week 6. Response rates were 49%, 53%, and 46% for placebo, ziprasidone 40 to 80 mg/d, and ziprasidone 120 to 160 mg/d, respectively (study 1), and 51% and 53% for placebo and ziprasidone 40 to 160 mg/d, respectively (study 2). Ziprasidone 40 to 160 mg/d did not show superiority over placebo at week 6 in the treatment of BPD. Post hoc analyses revealed serious inconsistencies in subject rating that may have limited the ability to detect a difference between drug and placebo response. Rating reliability warrants further investigation to improve clinical trial methodology in psychiatry.

Methodological challenges in the coding and adjudication of sudden deaths in a large simple trial with observational follow-up: the ziprasidone observational study of cardiac outcomes (ZODIAC).

PURPOSE: The Ziprasidone Observational study of car DIAC Outcomes (ZODIAC), a large simple trial comparing ziprasidone versus olanzapine in real-world use, showed no difference in risk of sudden death. Upon the request of the US Food and Drug Administration, 205 fatal events were readjudicated applying ICD-10 coding rules for sudden death. METHODS: A readjudication committee coded three domains (witness to death, time of symptom onset to death, and most likely cause of death) for use within algorithms consistent with ICD-10 rules. Relative risks (RR) and corresponding 95%CI were calculated for persons randomized to ziprasidone versus olanzapine, comparing 1-year incidence of sudden death, using multiple definitions. RESULTS: Data on symptom onset to death and diagnosis of specific cardiac arrhythmias required by the ICD-10 rules were often lacking. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of cases suggestive of cardiac origin but missing data required by ICD-10 sudden death codes. Overall, the readjudicated data matched the study's initial findings, with no significant difference in 1-year mortality between ziprasidone and olanzapine for sudden death not otherwise specified and sudden cardiac death (R96.0 or R96.1 or I46.1; RR = 1.11, 95%CI 0.45- 2.77). CONCLUSIONS: After outcome readjudication, ZODIAC found no difference in the risk of sudden death among those randomized to ziprasidone versus olanzapine. However, unlike hospital-based studies, fatal events in general population studies often occur outside hospital and often lack the clinical detail needed for the exact determination of symptom onset and event. Epidemiological evaluations of sudden death need to consider the limitations of the available data.

A pooled analysis of suicidality in double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of sertraline in adults.

OBJECTIVE: The analyses were conducted to identify possibly suicide-related adverse events in Pfizer-sponsored, phases 2 through 4, placebo-controlled, completed studies of sertraline in adult patients and evaluate the risk of suicidality with sertraline versus placebo. METHOD: U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-defined search methodology was used to identify possibly suicide-related adverse events in short-term, all-duration/all-indication, and psychiatric studies of sertraline. Categorization of possibly suicide-related adverse events was based on the approach developed by the Columbia group for the FDA's analysis of pediatric suicide risk with antidepressants. The incidences of possibly suicide-related adverse events were calculated for individual classifications and for the predefined combined category of suicidality along with the sertraline versus placebo relative risks and corresponding 95% CI limits. Exact binomial CI limits were calculated for the individual treatment group incidences. Age group analyses were also performed using the age limits defined by the FDA. RESULTS: Ninety-nine suicidality events were identified among 19,923 sertraline- and placebo-treated subjects participating in 126 studies conducted between the mid-1980s and the mid-2000s. Four cases of completed suicides among 10,917 sertraline-treated subjects yielded an incidence of 0.04% (95% CI = 0.01 to 0.09) and 3 cases among 9,006 placebo treated subjects yielded an incidence of 0.03% (95% CI = 0.01 to 0.10). There were no statistically significant differences between sertraline and placebo in any of the individual categories or combined suicidality risk category across all performed analyses. CONCLUSION: Results of short-term, all-duration, and psychiatric studies analyses, as well as age-group analyses, performed in accordance with the FDA-specified search strategy, show no significant increase in suicidality risk in adult sertraline- versus placebo-treated patients.

Reduction of functional disability with atypical antipsychotic treatment: a randomized long term comparison of ziprasidone and haloperidol.

BACKGROUND: Recent interest has focused on the definition and measurement of clinical remission in people with schizophrenia. This study examined the process of development of "functional remission" in a long-term comparative double-blind study of haloperidol and the atypical antipsychotic medication ziprasidone. METHODS: Community dwelling patients with schizophrenia were randomized to treatment with haloperidol (n=47) or ziprasidone dosed either once or twice daily (n=139). They were re-examined at follow-up intervals that ranged up to 196 weeks. Their community functioning was examined with the Heinrichs-Carpenter Quality of Life Scale (QLS). Total scores for occupational and interpersonal functioning and achievement of improvement milestones across the individual items were both analyzed. RESULTS: Mixed model repeated measures analyses detected a significant (p<.05) treatment effect over time favoring ziprasidone for interpersonal functioning. While the mixed model was not significant for role functioning, the mean change at endpoint was significantly greater than 0 for the ziprasidone group but not the haloperidol group. Analyses of the distributions of change scores across the items showed that the number of items where endpoint scores were 5 or 6 (reflecting minimal to no impairment) was significantly higher in ziprasidone treated patients, (p=.03). IMPLICATIONS: Long term treatment with ziprasidone was associated with greater functional gains than treatment with haloperidol, even when the time course of dropout was controlled. Both treatment retention and functional gains favored the atypical treatment in this long-term study. Future long-term studies will be needed to clarify the determinants of these functional changes.

AACAP 2005 Research Forum: speeding the adoption of evidence-based practice in pediatric psychiatry.

OBJECTIVES: At the 2005 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), the Academy's Workgroup on Research conducted a Research Forum entitled "Increasing Research Literacy Through the Adoption of Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) in Pediatric Psychiatry." METHOD: Forum participants focused on speeding the adoption of EBP across five areas: EBP as the preferred heuristic for teaching research literacy, use of EBP in training programs, dissemination of EBP in clinical practice, EBP in partnership with industry, and EBP as a framework for developing practice guidelines. RESULTS: EBP provides an easy-to-understand method for accessing and evaluating the research literature and then applying this information to decisions about patient care. Although EBP has been gaining greater visibility in pediatric psychiatry, it is far from the preferred heuristic. To move the field toward fully embracing EBP will require greater understanding of what EBP is (and is not), educating mental health professionals in EBP skills, access to EBP resources, and a commitment to apply EBP to the conceptualization and design of research protocols and practice guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric psychiatry would benefit from a principled commitment to follow other areas of medicine in adopting EBP.

Treatment benefit and the risk of suicidality in multicenter, randomized, controlled trials of sertraline in children and adolescents.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the balance between the benefits of treatment and the risk of suicidality in children and adolescents in multicenter, randomized, controlled trials of sertraline versus placebo. METHOD: The published literature was searched for multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of sertraline for pediatric mental disorders. Four trials were identified: Two (pooled) in pediatric major depressive disorder (MDD; Wagner 2003) and two in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD; March et al. 1998; POTS Team 2004). Using intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis populations, the authors calculated the number needed to treat (NNT) for response and remission and the number needed to harm (NNH) for suicidality, and their ratio, for each clinical trial. RESULTS: NNTs ranged from 2 to 10, indicating clinically meaningful benefits. Benefit was greater for OCD than for MDD, and for adolescents as compared with children in MDD. No age effect was apparent for OCD. Suicidality was reported in 8 patients (5 assigned to sertraline and 3 assigned to placebo). All but 1 (a placebo-treated patient in the Pfizer OCD trial) were enrolled in the sertraline MDD trial. The NNH for suicidality in MDD was 64. Treatment emergent suicidality was more common in children (NNH 28.7) than in adolescents (NNH 706.3). Because no patient developed suicidality in sertraline-treated OCD patients, the NNH for sertraline in OCD approaches infinity. CONCLUSIONS: With the stipulation that doctor and patient preferences necessarily play a critical role in the choice of treatment, NNT to NNH ratios indicate a positive benefit-to-risk ratio for sertraline in adolescents with MDD and in patients of all ages with OCD.

Effects of the serotonin transporter gene promoter polymorphism on mirtazapine and paroxetine efficacy and adverse events in geriatric major depression.

BACKGROUND: The "long/short"polymorphism (5HTTLPR) in the promoter of the serotonin transporter gene (SLC6A4) has been proposed as a pharmacogenetic marker for antidepressant efficacy. Some but not all studies have found that the short form of 5HTTLPR (S allele) results in decreased efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. OBJECTIVE: To determine if the 5HTTLPR polymorphism influences the efficacy and tolerability of mirtazapine and paroxetine hydrochloride, 2 frequently prescribed antidepressants with differing pharmacologic profiles, in geriatric depression. DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized 8-week study. SETTING: Eighteen academic and private outpatient clinics. PATIENTS: We evaluated 246 cognitively intact patients 65 years or older with major depression. INTERVENTIONS: Antidepressant therapy with 15 to 45 mg/d of mirtazapine (n = 124) or 20 to 40 mg/d of paroxetine (n = 122). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-17 and Geriatric Depression Scale, severity of adverse events and dosing compliance indexes, and discontinuations due to adverse events. Outcome measures were stratified according to 5HTTLPR genotypes. RESULTS: Geriatric Depression Scale scores indicated that S allele carriers treated with paroxetine showed a small impairment in antidepressant response. Among mirtazapine-treated patients, there was little indication that the 5HTTLPR genotype affected antidepressant efficacy. However, the 5HTTLPR polymorphism had a dramatic effect on adverse events. Among paroxetine-treated subjects, S allele carriers experienced more severe adverse events during the course of the study, achieved significantly lower final daily doses, and had more discontinuations at days 14, 21, 28, 42, and 49. Surprisingly, among mirtazapine-treated subjects, S allele carriers had fewer discontinuations due to adverse events, experienced less severe adverse events, and achieved higher final daily doses. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the hypothesis that the S allele of 5HTTLPR at the SLC6A4 locus is associated with a poor outcome after treatment with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. However, the major effect was on the tolerability of these drugs rather than efficacy. Results from mirtazapine-treated patients indicate that the effect of this polymorphism on outcome may depend on the mechanism of antidepressant action.

Placebo-controlled continuation treatment with mirtazapine: acute pattern of response predicts relapse.

Pattern of response to antidepressants has been proposed as a method to identify patients whose improvement is more likely due to drug vs those whose improvement on drug is more likely to be a placebo effect. It is hypothesized that those with 'true-drug initial response pattern' are most likely to benefit from continuation treatment. The relationship between acute patterns of response and subsequent placebo-controlled continuation treatment with the antidepressant mirtazapine is examined. A total of 410 outpatients were treated openly with mirtazapine for 8-12 weeks. Patients who remitted in the acute phase were randomized to continue the same dose of mirtazapine or switched to placebo. Acute phase responders were classified as 'placebo initial response pattern' (early responders and nonpersistent responders) and 'true-drug initial response pattern' (delayed and persistent responders). Of those with a 'true-drug initial response pattern,' 10/40 (25.0%) relapsed with continuation mirtazapine, and 23/41 (56.1%) relapsed when switched to placebo. The difference (31.1%) is significant. Of those with a 'placebo initial response pattern,' 5/36 (13.9%) relapsed with continuation mirtazapine, and 12/39 (30.8%) relapsed with placebo substitution. This difference (16.9%) is not statistically significant. Moreover, the relapse rate for 'true-drug initial response pattern' patients switched to placebo (56.1%) was also significantly greater than for 'placebo initial response pattern' patients switched to placebo (30.8%). It has been suggested that patients with late onset and persistence are more likely to have improved because of drug. This hypothesis gains support from this study because of the different relapse rates of 'true-drug' responders on drug and placebo. The low relapse rate for patients with an acute placebo pattern switched to placebo suggests specific drug effect played a smaller role in their initial improvement.

The apolipoprotein E epsilon4 allele and antidepressant efficacy in cognitively intact elderly depressed patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients vary in response to antidepressant medications. Apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype affects vulnerability to stress and risk for cognitive impairment. We sought to determine if the APOE epsilon4 allele influences response in geriatric depression to mirtazapine and paroxetine, two frequently prescribed antidepressants. We hypothesized that epsilon4 carriers would show impaired antidepressant response. METHODS: The study was a double-blind, randomized, 8-week trial with a 16-week extension phase involving 246 cognitively intact patients aged 65 years or older with major depression. Patients were treated with mirtazapine 15-45 mg (n = 124) or paroxetine 20-40 mg (n = 122). The outcome measures were the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the Geriatric Depression Scale, and the Clinical Global Impression Scale. APOE genotype was determined by restriction isotyping. RESULTS: Patients carrying the epsilon4 allele showed a rapid onset of mirtazapine action, whereas paroxetine-treated patients with the epsilon4 allele were slow to respond. This difference could not be attributed to dosage, compliance, severity of adverse events, ethnicity, baseline depression or cognition, gender, or age. CONCLUSIONS: The APOE epsilon4 allele may affect antidepressant treatment outcome, but the effect depends on the medication. Further studies should determine if this result applies to other samples and medications.

Pharmacogenetics of antidepressant medication intolerance.

OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to identify genetic markers for antidepressant medication intolerance. Genetic variation in drug metabolizing enzymes such as cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6) has been postulated to underlie antidepressant intolerance (pharmacokinetic effect). However, variation in genes encoding serotonin receptors could also explain antidepressant side effects (pharmacodynamic effect). METHOD: An 8-week, double-blind, randomized pharmacogenetic study compared the widely prescribed antidepressants paroxetine (a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor [SSRI]) and mirtazapine (not an SSRI) in 246 elderly patients with major depression. Genotypes were determined for the 102 T/C single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in the serotonin 2A (5-HT(2A)) locus (HTR2A), previously associated with psychotropic medication treatment outcome. Oligonucleotide microarrays were used to extensively characterize variation in the CYP2D6 gene. Clinical outcomes included treatment discontinuations, adverse events, medication compliance, and change in mood. RESULTS: Survival analysis showed discontinuations due to paroxetine-induced side effects were strongly associated with the HTR2A C/C genotype. There was a significant linear relationship between the number of C alleles and the probability of discontinuation. Side effect severity in paroxetine-treated patients with the C/C genotype was also greater. In contrast, HTR2A 102 T/C genotype had no effect on mirtazapine side effects. CYP2D6 genotype did not predict treatment outcome for either medication. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacodynamic differences among patients due to variant 5-HT(2A) receptors appear to be more important than pharmacokinetic variation in determining paroxetine intolerance. Pharmacogenetic markers may be useful in predicting antidepressant treatment outcome.

Double-blind, randomized comparison of mirtazapine and paroxetine in elderly depressed patients.

OBJECTIVE: Authors studied the efficacy and tolerability of mirtazapine and paroxetine in elderly patients with major depression during an acute phase (8 weeks) and an extension phase (16 weeks). METHODS: Patients with major depression and without dementia, at least 65 years old, were eligible; they were randomized to mirtazapine or paroxetine once daily, with doses increasing over 42 days. Efficacy was assessed with the Ham-D and Clinical Global Impressions Scale, and tolerability was assessed from adverse events. RESULTS: Of 255 patients randomized, 126 on mirtazapine and 120 on paroxetine were included in the efficacy analysis. Differences favoring mirtazapine were observed for the mean change from baseline in Ham-D-17 score. Other significant differences were in the proportion of patients classified as responders (50% decrease from baseline Ham-D-17 scores) at Day 14 and in remission (Ham-D-17 score of 7 or less) at Day 42. The median time to response was 26 days in the mirtazapine group and 40 days in the paroxetine group. The mirtazapine group also showed more reduction in Ham-D Factor I (Anxiety/Somatization) and Factor VI (Sleep Disturbance) scores. Efficacy of both drugs was maintained during the extension phase. Patients on paroxetine were more likely to discontinue therapy in the acute phase because of adverse events. CONCLUSION: During the first weeks of treatment, antidepressant effects were more pronounced in the mirtazapine group, suggesting that mirtazapine has an earlier onset of action. Mirtazapine also demonstrated a better tolerability profile and represents a valuable option for the treatment of depression in elderly patients.