Efficacy and safety of ritlecitinib in adolescents with alopecia areata: Results from the ALLEGRO phase 2b/3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: This subgroup analysis of the ALLEGRO phase 2b/3 trial (NCT03732807) evaluated the efficacy and safety of ritlecitinib, an oral, selective dual JAK3/TEC family kinase inhibitor, for the treatment of alopecia areata (AA) in patients aged 12-17 years. METHODS: In ALLEGRO-2b/3, patients aged ≥12 years with AA and ≥50% scalp hair loss received once-daily ritlecitinib 50 or 30 mg (±4-week 200-mg loading dose) or 10 mg or placebo for 24 weeks. In a subsequent 24-week extension period, ritlecitinib groups continued their doses, and patients initially assigned to placebo switched to 200/50 or 50 mg daily. Clinician- and patient-reported hair regrowth outcomes and safety were assessed. RESULTS: In total, 105 adolescents were randomized. At Week 24, 17%-28% of adolescents achieved a Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score ≤20 (≤20% scalp without hair) in the ritlecitinib 30 mg and higher treatment groups versus 0% for placebo. At Week 48, 25%-50% of patients had a SALT score ≤20 across ritlecitinib treatment groups (30 mg and higher). Adolescents reporting that their AA "moderately" or "greatly" improved were 45%-61% in the ritlecitinib groups (30 mg and higher) (vs. 10%-22% for placebo) at Week 24 and 44%-80% at Week 48. The most common adverse events in adolescents were headache, acne, and nasopharyngitis. No deaths, major adverse cardiovascular events, malignancies, pulmonary embolisms, opportunistic infections, or herpes zoster infections were reported. CONCLUSION: Ritlecitinib treatment demonstrated clinician-reported efficacy, patient-reported improvement, and an acceptable safety profile through Week 48 in adolescents with AA with ≥50% scalp hair loss.

A plain language summary on ritlecitinib treatment for adults and adolescents with alopecia areata.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of the results of the ALLEGRO phase 2b/3 clinical trial, originally published in The Lancet. ALLEGRO-2b/3 looked at how well and safely the study medicine, ritlecitinib, works in treating people with alopecia areata ('AA' for short). The immune system protects your body from outside invaders such as bacteria and viruses. AA is an autoimmune disease, meaning a disease in which one's immune system attacks healthy cells of the body by mistake. In AA, the immune system attacks hair follicles, causing hair to fall out. AA causes hair loss ranging from small bald patches to complete hair loss on the scalp, face, and/or body. Ritlecitinib is a medicine taken as a pill every day, by mouth, that is approved for the treatment of severe AA. It blocks processes that are known to play a role in causing hair loss in patients with AA. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY?: Adults and adolescents (12 years and older) took part in the ALLEGRO-2b/3 study. They either took ritlecitinib for 48 weeks or took a placebo (a pill with no medicine) for 24 weeks. Participants taking placebo later switched to taking ritlecitinib for 24 weeks. The study showed that participants taking ritlecitinib had more hair regrowth on their scalp after 24 weeks than those taking the placebo. Hair regrowth was also seen on the eyebrows and eyelashes in participants taking ritlecitinib. Hair regrowth continued to improve to week 48 with continued ritlecitinib treatment. In addition, more participants taking ritlecitinib reported that their AA had 'moderately' or 'greatly' improved after 24 weeks than those taking the placebo. Similar numbers of participants taking ritlecitinib or placebo had side effects after 24 weeks. Most side effects were mild or moderate. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: Ritlecitinib was an effective and well-tolerated treatment over 48 weeks for people with AA. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03732807 (phase 2b/3 ALLEGRO study).

Efficacy and safety of ritlecitinib in adults and adolescents with alopecia areata: a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 2b-3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Alopecia areata is characterised by non-scarring loss of scalp, face, or body hair. We investigated the efficacy and safety of ritlecitinib, an oral, selective dual JAK3/TEC family kinase inhibitor, in patients with alopecia areata. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 2b-3 trial done at 118 sites in 18 countries, patients aged 12 years and older with alopecia areata and at least 50% scalp hair loss were randomly assigned to oral ritlecitinib or placebo once-daily for 24 weeks, with or without a 4-week loading dose (50 mg, 30 mg, 10 mg, 200 mg loading dose followed by 50 mg, or 200 mg loading dose followed by 30 mg), followed by a 24-week extension period during which ritlecitinib groups continued their assigned doses and patients initially assigned to placebo switched to ritlecitinib 50 mg or 200 mg loading dose followed by 50 mg. Randomisation was done by use of an interactive response system and was stratified by baseline disease severity and age. The sponsor, patients, and investigators were masked to treatment, and all patients received the same number of tablets to maintain masking. The primary endpoint was Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score 20 or less at week 24. The primary endpoint was assessed in all assigned patients, regardless of whether they received treatment. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03732807. FINDINGS: Between Dec 3, 2018, and June 24, 2021, 1097 patients were screened and 718 were randomly assigned to receive ritlecitinib 200 mg + 50 mg (n=132), 200 mg + 30 mg (n=130), 50 mg (n=130), 30 mg (n=132), 10 mg (n=63), placebo to 50 mg (n=66), or placebo to 200 mg + 50 mg (n=65). 446 (62%) of 718 patients were female and 272 (38%) were male. 488 (68%) were White, 186 (26%) were Asian, and 27 (4%) were Black or African American. Of 718 patients randomly assigned, 104 patients discontinued treatment (34 withdrew, 19 adverse events [AEs], 12 physician decision, 12 lack of efficacy, 13 lost to follow up, five rolled over to long-term study transfer, four pregnancies, two protocol deviations, one declined to attend follow-up due to COVID-19, one attended last visit very late due to COVID-19, and one non-compliance). At week 24, 38 (31%) of 124 patients in the ritlecitinib 200 mg + 50 mg group, 27 (22%) of 121 patients in the 200 mg + 30 mg group, 29 (23%) of 124 patients in the 50 mg group, 17 (14%) of 119 patients in the 30 mg group, and two (2%) of 130 patients in the placebo group had a response based on SALT score 20 or less. The difference in response rate based on SALT score 20 or less between the placebo and the ritlecitinib 200 mg + 50 mg group was 29·1% (95% CI 21·2-37·9; p<0·0001), 20·8% (13·7-29·2; p<0·0001) for the 200 mg + 30 mg group, 21·9% (14·7-30·2; p<0·0001) for the 50 mg group, and 12·8% (6·7-20·4; p=0·0002) for the 30 mg group. Up to week 48 and including the follow-up period, AEs had been reported in 108 (82%) of 131 patients in the ritlecitinib 200 mg + 50 mg group, 105 (81%) of 129 patients in the 200 mg + 30 mg group, 110 (85%) of 130 patients in the 50 mg group, 106 (80%) of 132 patients in the 30 mg group, 47 (76%) of 62 patients in the 10 mg group, 54 (83%) of 65 patients placebo to ritlecitinib 200 mg + 50 mg in the extension period, and 57 (86%) of 66 patients in the placebo to 50 mg group. The incidence of each AE was similar between groups, and there were no deaths. INTERPRETATION: Ritlecitinib was effective and well tolerated in patients aged 12 years and older with alopecia areata. Ritlecitinib might be a suitable treatment option for alopecia areata in patients who are candidates for systemic therapy. FUNDING: Pfizer.

Analysis and reporting of pediatric growth and development assessment from clinical trials: overview and challenges.

Pediatric drug development has many unique challenges, one of which is the evaluation of growth and development changes in children that are expected and are not due to the study intervention. Children grow and mature at different pace. The potential impact of the drug could vary with the developmental age of the participants receiving the treatment. For example, sexual maturation is a critical consideration in children of age 10 and above, but not in younger age groups. How the investigational drug impacts children is ultimately a risk-benefit consideration. In this paper, practical considerations and recommendations are provided on how to assess growth and development based on data collected from clinical trials in pediatric patients. The endpoints and measures related to growth, sexual maturation and neurocognitive development are discussed. Basic analysis approaches are recommended.

Clinical and Microbiological Outcomes of Ceftazidime-Avibactam Treatment in Adults with Gram-Negative Bacteremia: A Subset Analysis from the Phase 3 Clinical Trial Program.

INTRODUCTION: This exploratory analysis assessed efficacy and safety outcomes in patients with Gram-negative bacteremia treated with ceftazidime-avibactam or comparator across five phase 3, randomized, controlled, multi-center trials in adults with complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI), complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI)/pyelonephritis, hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). METHODS: In each trial, RECLAIM and RECLAIM 3 (cIAI; NCT01499290/NCT01726023), REPRISE (cIAI/cUTI; NCT01644643), RECAPTURE (cUTI; NCT01595438/NCT01599806), and REPROVE (HAP/VAP; NCT01808092), patients were randomized 1:1 to intravenous ceftazidime-avibactam (plus metronidazole for those with cIAI) or comparators (carbapenems in > 97% patients) for 5-21 days. Efficacy assessments included clinical and microbiological responses at the test-of-cure visit in the pooled Gram-negative extended microbiologically evaluable (GNeME) population (bacteremia subset). Safety outcomes were summarized for patients with positive bacterial blood culture(s) at baseline who received ≥ 1 dose of study treatment. RESULTS: The overall safety population included 4050 patients (ceftazidime-avibactam, n = 2024; comparator, n = 2026). The GNeME population (bacteremia subset) comprised 101 patients (ceftazidime-avibactam, n = 54; comparator, n = 47). Clinical cure rates (all indications combined) were 47/54 (87.0%) for ceftazidime-avibactam and 39/47 (83.0%) for comparators; favorable microbiological response rates were 43/54 (79.6%) and 32/47 (68.1%), respectively. Clinical and microbiological responses in the bacteremia subset were generally similar to those in the overall set. The pattern of adverse events in patients with bacteremia was similar between treatment groups and was consistent with the known safety profile of ceftazidime-avibactam. CONCLUSION: This analysis provides supportive evidence of the efficacy and safety of ceftazidime-avibactam in patients with Gram-negative bacteremia associated with cIAI, cUTI/pyelonephritis, or HAP/VAP.

Trajectories of Function and Symptom Change in Desvenlafaxine Clinical Trials: Toward Personalized Treatment for Depression.

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND: Heterogeneity has been documented in trajectories of symptom change during antidepressant treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD). It is unclear whether distinct trajectories of change exist for functioning during antidepressant treatment. METHODS/PROCEDURES: This analysis explored distinct trajectories of functioning in MDD and tested whether they corresponded to trajectories of symptom change. Data were from 4317 patients and were pooled from 9 randomized placebo-controlled trials. Growth mixture modeling was used to identify trajectories of Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) and Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) for placebo- and desvenlafaxine-treated patients. FINDINGS/RESULTS: Three trajectories were identified for symptoms (HRSD) in patients receiving placebo (mean reduction baseline to week 8, -18.4 [most favorable] to -2.6 points [least favorable]). Four HRSD trajectories were identified for patients receiving desvenlafaxine (mean reduction from baseline to week 8, -17.2 [most favorable] to -2.6 points [least favorable]). Four trajectories were identified for functioning (SDS) in patients receiving placebo (mean reduction baseline to week 8, -13.6 [most favorable] to -0.8 points [least favorable]), and 3 for desvenlafaxine (-12.8 to -1.4 points, respectively). Percentages of agreement between most favorable HRSD and SDS trajectories were 75% (placebo) and 85% (desvenlafaxine), and for least favorable trajectories were 88% (placebo) and 80% (desvenlafaxine). IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS: Distinct trajectories of change based on symptoms and functioning were identified among patients with MDD receiving desvenlafaxine and among patients with MDD receiving placebo. Differentiating subpopulations of patients has the potential to provide a more personalized treatment of patients with MDD.ClinicalTrials.govIdentifiers: NCT00072774; NCT00277823; NCT00300378; NCT00384033; NCT00798707; NCT00863798; NCT01121484; NCT00824291; NCT01432457.

Clustering patients by depression symptoms to predict venlafaxine ER antidepressant efficacy: Individual patient data analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To identify clusters of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) based on the baseline 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D17) items and to evaluate the efficacy of venlafaxine extended release (VEN) vs placebo, and the potential effect of dose on efficacy, in each cluster. METHODS: Cluster analysis was performed to identify clusters based on standardized HAM-D17 item scores of individual patient data at baseline from 9 double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of VEN for MDD. Change from baseline in HAM-D17 total score was analyzed using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures for each cluster; response and remission rates at week 8 were analyzed using logistic regression. Discontinuation rates were also evaluated in each cluster. RESULTS: In 2599 patients, 3 patient clusters were identified, characterized as High modified Core (mCore) Symptoms/High Anxiety (cluster 1), High mCore Symptoms/Medium Anxiety (cluster 2), and Medium mCore Symptoms/Medium Anxiety (cluster 3). Significant effects of VEN vs placebo were observed on change from baseline in HAM-D17 total score at week 8 for both clusters 1 and 2 (both P < 0.001), but not for cluster 3. In cluster 3, a significant treatment effect of VEN was observed at week 8 in the lower-dose subgroup but not in the higher-dose subgroup. All-cause discontinuation rates were significantly higher in placebo than VEN in each cluster. CONCLUSIONS: Three unique clusters of patients were identified differing in baseline mCore symptoms and anxiety. Cluster membership may predict efficacy outcomes and contribute to dose effects in patients treated with VEN. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01441440; other studies included in this analysis were conducted before the requirement to register clinical studies took effect.

Effects of desvenlafaxine versus placebo on MDD symptom clusters: A pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder is characterized by the presence of at least five of nine specific symptoms that contribute to clinically significant functional impairment. This analysis examined the effect of desvenlafaxine (50 or 100 mg) versus placebo on symptom cluster scores and the association between early improvement in symptom clusters and symptomatic or functional remission at week 8. METHODS: Using data from nine double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of desvenlafaxine for the treatment of major depressive disorder (N=4317), the effect of desvenlafaxine 50 or 100 mg versus placebo on scores for symptom clusters based on 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression items was assessed using analysis of covariance. Association between early improvement in symptom clusters (⩾20% improvement from baseline at week 2) and symptomatic and functional remission (17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression total score ⩽7; Sheehan Disability Scale score <7) at week 8 was analyzed using logistic regression. Symptom clusters based on Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale were also examined. RESULTS: Desvenlafaxine 50 or 100 mg was associated with significant improvement from baseline compared to placebo for all symptom clusters (p<0.001), except a sleep cluster for desvenlafaxine 100 mg. For all symptom clusters, early improvement was significantly associated with achievement of symptomatic and functional remission at week 8 for all treatment groups (p⩽0.0254). CONCLUSION: Early improvement in symptom clusters significantly predicts symptomatic or functional remission at week 8 in patients with depression receiving desvenlafaxine (50 or 100 mg) or placebo. Importantly, patients without early improvement were less likely to remit.

Predictors of functional response and remission with desvenlafaxine 50 mg and 100 mg: a pooled analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled studies in patients with major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVE: The value of early functional improvement at week 2 for predicting subsequent functional outcomes at week 8 was assessed in a pooled analysis of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) treated with desvenlafaxine (50 or 100 mg/d) or placebo. METHODS: Data were pooled from eight double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d or 100 mg/d for the treatment of MDD. Optimal week-2 improvement thresholds in Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) score, which best predicted week-8 treatment success, were determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Four definitions of treatment success were established: (1) functional response, (2) functional/depression response, (3) functional remission, and (4) functional/depression remission. Odds ratios (ORs) of early improvement for prediction (based on thresholds determined in the ROC analysis) of week-8 treatment success were computed using logistic regression models. RESULTS: Functional early improvement thresholds of 17%-32% were predictive of week-8 treatment success across treatment groups and definitions of treatment success. Optimal thresholds were higher for more stringent definitions. Negative predictive value exceeded positive predictive value, indicating that failure to achieve early functional improvement was more informative about later treatment success than was the achievement of early functional improvement. Early change in SDS was a highly significant predictor of functional response/remission (ORs, 4.981-8.737; all p < 0.0001); the interaction between treatment and early functional improvement was not significant. CONCLUSION: Early improvement in SDS total score was predictive of functional outcomes for patients treated with desvenlafaxine 50 mg, desvenlafaxine 100 mg, or placebo.

Safety and Efficacy of Ceftazidime-Avibactam Plus Metronidazole in the Treatment of Children ≥3 Months to <18 Years With Complicated Intra-Abdominal Infection: Results From a Phase 2, Randomized, Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole is effective in the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI) in adults. This single-blind, randomized, multicenter, phase 2 study (NCT02475733) evaluated the safety, efficacy and pharmacokinetics of ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole in children with cIAI. METHODS: Hospitalized children (≥3 months to <18 years) with cIAI were randomized 3:1 to receive intravenous ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole, or meropenem, for a minimum of 72 hours (9 doses), with optional switch to oral therapy thereafter for a total treatment duration of 7-15 days. Safety and tolerability were assessed throughout the study, along with clinical and microbiologic outcomes, and pharmacokinetics. A blinded observer determined adverse event (AE) causality, and clinical outcomes up to the late follow-up visit. RESULTS: Eighty-three children were randomized and received study drug (61 ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole and 22 meropenem); most (90.4%) had a diagnosis of appendicitis. Predominant Gram-negative baseline pathogens were Escherichia coli (79.7%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (33.3%); 2 E. coli isolates were ceftazidime-non-susceptible. AEs occurred in 52.5% and 59.1% of patients in the ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole and meropenem groups, respectively. Serious AEs occurred in 8.2% and 4.5% of patients, respectively; none was considered drug related. No deaths occurred. Favorable clinical/microbiologic responses were observed in ≥90% of patients in both treatment groups at end-of-intravenous treatment and test-of-cure visits. CONCLUSIONS: Ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to ceftazidime alone, and appeared effective in pediatric patients with cIAI due to Gram-negative pathogens, including ceftazidime-non-susceptible strains.

Safety and Efficacy of Ceftazidime-Avibactam in the Treatment of Children ≥3 Months to <18 Years With Complicated Urinary Tract Infection: Results from a Phase 2 Randomized, Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Ceftazidime-avibactam is effective and well tolerated in adults with complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI), but has not been evaluated in children with cUTI. METHODS: This single-blind, multicenter, active-controlled, phase 2 study (NCT02497781) randomized children ≥3 months to <18 years with cUTI (3:1) to receive intravenous (IV) ceftazidime-avibactam or cefepime for ≥72 hours, with subsequent optional oral switch. Total treatment duration was 7-14 days. Primary objective was assessment of safety. Secondary objectives included descriptive efficacy and pharmacokinetics. A blinded observer determined adverse event (AE) causality and clinical outcomes up to the late follow-up visit (20-36 days after the last dose of IV/oral therapy). RESULTS: In total, 95 children received ≥1 dose of IV study drug (ceftazidime-avibactam, n = 67; cefepime, n = 28). The predominant baseline Gram-negative uropathogen was Escherichia coli (92.2%). AEs occurred in 53.7% and 53.6% patients in the ceftazidime-avibactam and cefepime groups, respectively. Serious AEs occurred in 11.9% (ceftazidime-avibactam) and 7.1% (cefepime) patients. One serious AE (ceftazidime-avibactam group) was considered drug related. In the microbiologic intent-to-treat analysis set, favorable clinical response rates >95% were observed for both groups at end-of-IV and remained 88.9% (ceftazidime-avibactam) and 82.6% (cefepime) at test-of-cure. Favorable per-patient microbiologic response at test-of-cure was 79.6% (ceftazidime-avibactam) and 60.9% (cefepime). CONCLUSIONS: Ceftazidime-avibactam was well tolerated in children with cUTI, with a safety profile consistent with that of adults with cUTI and of ceftazidime alone, and appeared effective in children with cUTI due to Gram-negative pathogens.

Efficacy of venlafaxine extended release in major depressive disorder patients: effect of baseline anxiety symptom severity.

Effects of baseline anxiety on the efficacy of venlafaxine extended release versus placebo were examined in a post hoc pooled subgroup analysis of 1573 patients enrolled in eight short-term studies of major depressive disorder. Anxiety subgroups were defined based on baseline 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression Item 10 score <3 (low) versus ≥3 (high). Change from baseline to final visit in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale response and remission rates were analyzed. Change from baseline in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score and response and remission rates was significantly greater for venlafaxine extended release versus placebo in both low and high anxiety subgroups (all P < 0.0001). A statistically significant baseline anxiety by treatment interaction was observed for Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score only (P = 0.0152). The adjusted mean change from baseline in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score was significantly greater in the high anxiety subgroup versus low anxiety subgroup for patients treated with venlafaxine extended release (-6.27 versus -3.89; P = 0.0440) but not placebo. These results support the efficacy of venlafaxine extended release for major depressive disorder treatment in patients with anxiety symptoms.

Safety, Tolerability, and Efficacy of Desvenlafaxine in Children and Adolescents with Major Depressive Disorder: Results from Two Open-Label Extension Trials.

OBJECTIVE: Two similarly designed extension studies evaluated the long-term safety and tolerability of desvenlafaxine for the treatment of children and adolescents with major depressive disorder (MDD). Efficacy was evaluated as a secondary objective. METHODS: Both 6-month, open-label, flexible-dose extension studies enrolled children and adolescents who had completed one of two double-blind, placebo-controlled, lead-in studies. One lead-in study included a 1-week transition period prior to the extension study. Patients received 26-week treatment with flexible-dose desvenlafaxine (20-50 mg/d). Safety assessments included comprehensive psychiatric evaluations, vital sign assessments, laboratory evaluations, 12-lead electrocardiogram, physical examination with Tanner assessment, and Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale. Adverse events (AEs) were collected throughout the studies. Efficacy was assessed using the Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R). RESULTS: A total of 552 patients enrolled (completion rates: 66.4 and 69.1%). AEs were reported by 79.4 and 79.1% of patients in the two studies; 8.9 and 5.2% discontinued due to AEs. Treatment-emergent suicidal ideation or behavior was reported for 16.6 and 14.1% of patients in the two studies. Mean (SD) CDRS-R total score decreased from 33.83 (11.93) and 30.92 (10.20) at the extension study baseline to 24.31 (7.48) and 24.92 (8.45), respectively, at week 26. CONCLUSION: Desvenlafaxine 20 to 50 mg/d was generally safe and well tolerated with no new safety signals identified in children and adolescents with MDD who received up to 6 months of treatment in these studies. Patients maintained the reduction in severity of depressive symptoms observed in all treatment groups at the end of the lead-in study.

Relationship of Inter-Individual Blood Pressure Variability and the Risk for Recurrent Stroke.

Background Evidence suggests that patients with higher blood pressure variability ( BPV ) have a higher risk for stroke, but any link between BPV and stroke recurrence is unknown among those who had a stroke or transient ischemic attack ( TIA ). Methods and Results Data for patients with a history of stroke or TIA at enrollment were extracted from the ASCOT (Anglo Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial) and the ALLHAT (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial). BPV was defined as the within-subject standard deviation or coefficient of variation of systolic blood pressure across visits from 12 weeks poststroke or TIA onward. BPV was significantly higher in patients with a history of stroke or TIA than those without. BPV was a predictor of recurrent stroke in the pooled analysis. In the ASCOT study, 252 patients (12.3%) had a recurrent stroke among 2046 with a history of stroke. Incidence of recurrent stroke was significantly higher in the highest BPV quartile (17.8%) compared with the lowest quartile (10.5%); by treatment arm, this reached significance for the amlodipine-arm only (high- BPV : 18.7% versus low- BPV : 12.9%; P=0.029). Of the 2173 patients from the ALLHAT with a history of stroke or TIA , patients with the highest quartile of BPV had a higher incidence of recurrent stroke (9.6%) compared with the lowest quartile BPV (5.5%); by treatment arm, this reached significance for the chlorthalidone-arm only (high- BPV : 12.1% versus low- BPV : 5.4%; P=0.007). Conclusions Visit-to-visit BPV is a predictor of recurrent stroke in patients with a history of stroke or TIA on antihypertensive treatment. Considering BPV following a stroke may be important to reduce the risk for a recurrent stroke.

Optimization of Methylphenidate Extended-Release Chewable Tablet Dose in Children with ADHD: Open-Label Dose Optimization in a Laboratory Classroom Study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine methylphenidate extended-release chewable tablets (MPH ERCT) dose patterns, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptom scores, and safety during the 6-week, open-label (OL) dose-optimization period of a phase 3, laboratory classroom study. METHODS: Boys and girls (6-12 years) diagnosed with ADHD were enrolled. MPH ERCT was initiated at 20 mg/day; participants were titrated in 10-20 mg/day increments weekly based on efficacy and tolerability (maximum dose, 60 mg/day). Dose-optimization period efficacy assessments included the ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS-IV), analyzed by week in a post hoc analysis using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures with final optimized dose (20, 30/40, or 50/60 mg), visit, final optimized dose and visit interaction, and baseline score as terms. Adverse events (AEs) and concomitant medications were collected throughout the study. RESULTS: Mean MPH ERCT daily dose increased weekly from 29.4 mg/day after the first dose adjustment at week 1 (n = 90) to 42.8 mg/day after the final adjustment at week 5 (n = 86). Final optimized MPH ERCT dose ranged from 20 to 60 mg/day. Mean final optimized MPH ERCT dose ranged from 40.0 mg/day in 6-8 year-old participants to 44.8 mg/day for 11-12 year-old participants. There was a progressive decrease in mean (standard deviation) ADHD-RS-IV total score from 40.1 (8.72) at baseline to 12.4 (7.88) at OL week 5, with similar improvement patterns for hyperactivity/impulsivity and inattentiveness subscale scores. Participants optimized to MPH ERCT 50/60 mg/day had a significantly higher mean (standard error) ADHD-RS-IV score at baseline compared with participants optimized to MPH ERCT 20 mg/day (42.4 [1.34] vs. 35.1 [2.55]; p = 0.013). Treatment-emergent AEs were reported by 65/90 (72.2%) participants in the dose-optimization period. CONCLUSIONS: Dose-optimization period results describing relationships between change in ADHD symptom scores and final optimized MPH ERCT dose will be valuable for clinicians optimizing MPH ERCT dose.

Desvenlafaxine Versus Placebo in the Treatment of Children and Adolescents with Major Depressive Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the short-term efficacy and safety of desvenlafaxine versus placebo in the treatment of children and adolescents with major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: Outpatient children (7-11 years) and adolescents (12-17 years) who met DSM-IV-TR criteria for MDD and had screening and baseline Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R) total scores >40 were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of treatment with placebo, low exposure desvenlafaxine (20, 30, or 35 mg/day based on baseline weight), or higher exposure desvenlafaxine (25, 35, or 50 mg/day based on baseline weight). The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in CDRS-R total score at week 8, analyzed using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures. Secondary efficacy assessments included Clinical Global Impressions-Severity and Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scales. Safety assessments included adverse events and the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale. RESULTS: The safety population included 363 patients (children, n = 109; adolescents, n = 254). No statistical separation from placebo was observed for either desvenlafaxine group for CDRS-R total score or for any secondary efficacy endpoint. At week 8, adjusted mean (standard error) changes from baseline in CDRS-R total score for the desvenlafaxine low exposure, desvenlafaxine high exposure, and placebo groups were -23.7 (1.1), -24.4 (1.1), and -22.9 (1.1), respectively. The incidence of adverse events was similar among groups. CONCLUSION: Low and high exposure desvenlafaxine groups did not demonstrate efficacy for the treatment of MDD in children and adolescents in this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Desvenlafaxine (20-50 mg/day) was generally safe and well tolerated with no new safety signals identified in pediatric patients with MDD in this study.

Desvenlafaxine Versus Placebo in a Fluoxetine-Referenced Study of Children and Adolescents with Major Depressive Disorder.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the short-term efficacy and safety of desvenlafaxine (25-50 mg/d) compared with placebo in children and adolescents with major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: Outpatient children (7-11 years) and adolescents (12-17 years) who met DSM-IV-TR criteria for MDD and had screening and baseline Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R) total scores >40 were randomly assigned to 8-week treatment with placebo, desvenlafaxine (25, 35, or 50 mg/d based on baseline weight), or fluoxetine (20 mg/d). The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in CDRS-R total score at week 8, analyzed using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures. Secondary efficacy endpoints included week 8 Clinical Global Impressions-Severity, Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I), and response (CGI-I ≤ 2). Safety assessments included adverse events, physical and vital sign measurements, laboratory evaluations, electrocardiogram, and the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale. RESULTS: The safety population included 339 patients (children, n = 130; adolescents, n = 209). The primary endpoint, change from baseline in CDRS-R total score at week 8, did not statistically separate from placebo, for either desvenlafaxine (adjusted mean [standard error] change, -22.6 [1.17]) or fluoxetine (-24.8 [1.17]; placebo, -23.1 [1.18]). Week 8 CGI-I response rates were significantly greater for fluoxetine (78.2%; p = 0.017) than for placebo (62.6%); desvenlafaxine (68.7%) did not differ from placebo. Other secondary outcomes were consistent with those obtained with CDRS-R. Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were comparable among treatment groups (desvenlafaxine, 60.0%; placebo, 70.5%; and fluoxetine, 64.3%). CONCLUSION: Desvenlafaxine did not demonstrate efficacy for treating MDD in children and adolescents in this trial. Because neither desvenlafaxine nor the reference medication, fluoxetine, demonstrated a statistically significant difference from placebo on the primary endpoint, this was considered a failed trial and no efficacy conclusions can be drawn. Desvenlafaxine 25-50 mg/d was generally safe and well tolerated in children and adolescents in this study.

Speed of Improvement in Symptoms of Depression With Desvenlafaxine 50 mg and 100 mg Compared With Placebo in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder.

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND: This post hoc analysis examined the time point at which clinically significant improvement in major depressive disorder (MDD) symptoms occurs with desvenlafaxine versus placebo. METHODS: Data were pooled from 9 short-term, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in adults with MDD randomly assigned to desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d, 100 mg/d, or placebo. A mixed-effects model for repeated-measures analysis of change from baseline score was used to determine the time point at which desvenlafaxine treatment groups separated from placebo on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and psychosocial outcomes. The association between early improvement and week 8 outcomes was examined using logistic regression analyses. Time to remission for patients with early improvement versus without early improvement was assessed using Kaplan-Meier techniques. Comparisons between groups were performed with log-rank tests. RESULTS: In the intent-to-treat population (N = 4279 patients: desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d, n = 1714; desvenlafaxine 100 mg/d, n = 870; placebo, n = 1695), a statistically significant improvement on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression was observed with desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d at week 1 (P = 0.0129) and with desvenlafaxine 100 mg/d at week 2 (P = 0.0002) versus placebo. Early improvement was a significant predictor of later remission. Treatment assignment, baseline depression scale scores, and race were significantly associated with probability of early improvement. On several measures of depressive symptoms and function, desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d and 100 mg/d separated from placebo as early as week 1 and no later than week 4 in patients with MDD. IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that clinicians may be able to use depression rating scale scores early in treatment as a guide to inform treatment optimization.

Effect of desvenlafaxine 50 mg and 100 mg on energy and lassitude in patients with major depressive disorder: A pooled analysis.

Nine randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of major depressive disorder were pooled to evaluate the effects of desvenlafaxine 50- and 100-mg/d on energy and lassitude in adults with major depressive disorder ( n=4279). Changes from baseline to endpoint in 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D17) Work and Activities, Retardation, and Somatic Symptoms General items, HAM-D17 psychomotor retardation factor, and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale Lassitude item were analyzed with a mixed model for repeated measures analysis of variance. Associations between residual energy measures and functional impairment, based on the Sheehan Disability Scale, were modeled using stepwise multiple linear regression. Improvement from baseline was significantly greater for both desvenlafaxine doses versus placebo on all energy symptom outcomes at week 8 (all p⩽0.005). Both early improvement in HAM-D17 psychomotor retardation at week 2 and residual energy symptoms at week 8 were associated with Sheehan Disability Scale total score at week 8 (all p⩽0.001). Among Sheehan Disability Scale remitters and responders, the HAM-D17 psychomotor retardation score at week 8 was significantly lower with desvenlafaxine (both doses) than placebo. Desvenlafaxine 50 and 100 mg/d significantly improved energy and lassitude symptoms in patients with major depressive disorder. Both early improvement in energy and fewer residual energy symptoms were associated with functional improvement.