Diagnoses of gastrointestinal cancers after gastrointestinal bleeding in patients receiving clopidogrel or warfarin.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The association between gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and subsequent detection of GI cancer in patients using antiplatelet/anticoagulant medications is unclear. We investigated the association between the occurrence of GI bleeding and the detection of GI cancer and assessed whether this association differs in patients treated with clopidogrel or warfarin compared to non-treated patients. METHODS: A claims analysis was conducted using the Truven Health MarketScan(®) Research databases. Patients were grouped into the treatment cohort if they received a prescription for clopidogrel or warfarin or into the non-treatment cohort if they did not receive these medications. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for GI cancer diagnosed after GI bleeding. RESULTS: Overall, in the treatment cohort, patients who experienced a GI bleed were 6 times (HR: 5.64, 95% CI, 5.12, 6.21) more likely to be diagnosed with GI cancer compared with those without bleeding. In the non-treatment cohort patients were 13 times (HR: 13.34, 95% CI, 12.21, 14.58) more likely to be diagnosed with GI cancer after GI bleeding. The HRs of GI cancer were higher within 6 months of the first GI bleed and decreased remarkably thereafter. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that an episode of GI bleeding increased the rates of detection of GI cancers.

Efficacy of Duloxetine in Patients with Chronic Pain Conditions.

The primary objective of this study is to review the efficacy of duloxetine in treating chronic pain using the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) recommendations for clinical significance across chronic pain states. These include pain intensity, patient ratings of overall improvement, physical functioning, and mental functioning. This review comprised the side-by-side analyses of 12 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of duloxetine in patients with chronic pain (diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, chronic pain due to osteoarthritis, and chronic low back pain). Patients received duloxetine (60 to 120 mg/day) or placebo. Average pain reduction was assessed over 3 months as the primary efficacy outcome. Other measures used were physical function and Patient Global Impression of Improvement. In 10 of the 12 studies, statistically significant greater pain reduction was observed for duloxetine- compared with placebo-treated patients. The response rates based on average pain reduction, improvement of physical function, and global impression were comparable across all 4 chronic pain states. Compared with patients on placebo, significantly more patients treated with duloxetine reported a moderately important pain reduction (≥30% reduction) in 9 of the 12 studies, a minimally important improvement in physical function in 8 of the 12 studies, and a moderately important to substantial improvement in Patient Global Impression of Improvement rating in 11 of the 12 studies. The analyses reported here show that duloxetine is efficacious in treating chronic pain as demonstrated by significant improvement in pain intensity, physical functioning, and patient ratings of overall improvement.

Duloxetine treatment and glycemic controls in patients with diagnoses other than diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Mood disorders are often associated with poor glycemic control, and antidepressant treatments for mood and pain disorders can alter plasma glucose levels in patients with diabetes. A previous meta-analysis from three studies showed that duloxetine modestly increased fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and HbA(1c) levels in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). This meta-analysis examined whether there were any short- and long-term effects of duloxetine (20-120 mg/day) on glycemic control in patients with diagnoses other than DPNP. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Short-term data (9-27 weeks): seven studies of duloxetine in general anxiety disorder, fibromyalgia, and chronic lower back pain (CLBP). Long-term data: 41-week, uncontrolled extension of the short-term CLBP study and 52-week study in patients with recurrence of major depressive disorder. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Baseline-to-endpoint changes in FPG and HbA(1c) levels. RESULTS: In short-term studies, patients were randomly assigned to placebo (n = 1098) or duloxetine (n = 1563). Mean baseline-to-endpoint changes in FPG and HbA(1c) did not significantly differ in duloxetine-treated patients compared with placebo-treated patients. In the 41-week study (n = 181), duloxetine-treated patients experienced a small but significant within-group baseline-to-endpoint increase in HbA(1c) (mean change = 0.1%; p < 0.001). This result was in contrast to absence of effect on mean baseline-to-endpoint within-group changes in FPG (p = 0.326) in that study, and to absence of between-treatment changes in FPG (p = 0.744) and HbA(1c) (p = 0.180) in the 52-week placebo-controlled study. CONCLUSION: Duloxetine treatment did not significantly alter FPG and HbA(1c) levels compared with placebo treatment in the short-term studies. A small but statistically significant within-group increase in HbA(1c) was found in the 41-week study, but not in between-treatment group differences in the 52-week study. Neither of the long-term studies showed significant changes in the FPG levels. The small, non-reproducible HbA(1c) increase in one study of patients without DPNP may have resulted from patients with unrecognized diabetes in these trials.

The placebo response in pain and depression: in search of a common pathway.

The placebo effect has been extensively studied in many disease states, some of the most notable being pain and depression. Utilizing a Medline search, studies were identified that reported on areas of the brain shown to be involved in either placebo analgesia or mood response. This paper presents a distillation of this research, in an effort to identify a common "placebo pathway" between mood and pain. Placebo-related responses to both analgesia and relief from depression were reported to be associated with an increase in activity in the frontal cortex and a decrease in activity in the thalamus.

Safety and efficacy of duloxetine in the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain in older patients.

OBJECTIVE: We present a post-hoc analysis of the safety and efficacy of duloxetine, a selective serotonin/norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, for treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) in older patients. METHODS: Data from three double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in adult patients with DPNP were pooled and stratified by age (<65, >or=65 years). Patients were randomized to duloxetine (DLX) 60 mg once-daily, 60 mg twice-daily, or placebo for 12 weeks, followed by a 52-week extension phase (re-randomization to routine care or DLX 120 mg/day). Intent-to-treat analyses were used for safety and efficacy assessment. RESULTS: In the acute phase, overall TEAE rates did not differ significantly by age. A greater percentage of older patients discontinued due to TEAEs (P<0.001), regardless of treatment group. Duloxetine improved weekly mean 24-hour average pain scores versus placebo in both age groups (P<0.01). In the extension phase, a significant therapy-by-age interaction (P<0.05) was observed in overall TEAE rate; with routine care, 86.6% of older patients had >or=1 TEAE versus 74.6% of younger patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although TEAEs more frequently lead to discontinuation in older patients, duloxetine was well tolerated and efficacious for treatment of DPNP regardless of age. These data suggest duloxetine may be beneficial for treatment of DPNP in patients>or=65.

Safety and tolerability of duloxetine treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain between patients with and without cardiovascular conditions.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic patients are predisposed to cardiovascular (CV) disease and other chronic medical conditions. We compared the safety of duloxetine in patients with (CV-positive) and without (CV-negative) historical/comorbid cardiovascular conditions at study entry. METHODS: Data were pooled from three double-blind studies in which patients (age > or =18 years) with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) were randomized to 12 weeks of duloxetine (DLX) 60 mg qd (n=344), 60 mg bid (n=341), or placebo (PBO, n=339). Safety assessments included discontinuation rates, spontaneously reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), changes in vital signs, and changes in lab analytes. RESULTS: Mean age of CV-positive patients (n=762) vs. CV-negative patients (n=262) was 61.1 vs. 56.1 years. The most common historical or comorbid CV conditions were hypertension, coronary artery disease, and myocardial infarction. Discontinuation due to adverse events was higher for DLX than for PBO in both CV-positive and CV-negative patients (13.5% DLX, 6.0% PBO, and 14.3% DLX, 3.4% PBO, respectively). Rates of CV-related TEAEs in CV-positive (8.4% DLX; 9.9% PBO) and CV-negative (8.6% DLX; 5.7% PBO) patients were similar (P>.1). Mean changes in blood pressure for each DLX dose vs. PBO between CV-positive and CV-negative patients were not statistically significant (P>.1), nor were sustained hypertension rates between CV-positive (2.4% DLX; 2.8% PBO) and CV-negative (2.9% DLX; 4.7% PBO) patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, the safety of duloxetine in patients with DPNP was not found to be significantly different between patients with and without historical or comorbid CV conditions.

The relationship between antidepressant and analgesic responses: findings from six placebo-controlled trials assessing the efficacy of duloxetine in patients with major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Debate continues regarding whether onset of analgesia is faster than antidepressant effect in antidepressants with both properties. Duloxetine hydrochloride (from here on referred to as duloxetine) is effective in both major depressive disorder and diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain. This post-hoc analysis of six placebo-controlled duloxetine trials in patients with major depressive disorder was designed to compare onset of antidepressant activity to pain relief. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Duloxetine was administered at 40-120 mg/day versus placebo for up to 9 weeks in outpatient clinic settings. The primary depression measure was the HAMD(17) and pain severity was measured using visual analog scale (VAS) measuring overall pain, headache, back and shoulder pain, and pain while awake. The time course of improvement was profiled using repeated measures modeling and Kaplan-Meier product limit estimation. RESULTS: In all but one case, significant reductions in HAMD(17) and VAS scores were seen within 2 weeks of treatment. Median time to VAS response was consistently shorter across all VAS measures than that to HAMD(17) response in both placebo- and duloxetine-treated patients with at least modest levels of pain at study entry. Regression analyses consistently demonstrated little association between analgesic and antidepressant responses. Limitations of these findings include that the studies used in these analyses did not require the patients to enroll with any specific level of pain. Moreover, the type of pain exhibiting at presentation was not routinely identified; therefore, the impact of different pain types on these findings is unknown. CONCLUSIONS: Duloxetine's analgesic effect is independent of the drug's antidepressant effect. Additionally, faster onset of the analgesic effect appears to be a population-specific phenomenon that is unmodified in the presence of active agents.

Hepatic effects of duloxetine-II: spontaneous reports and epidemiology of hepatic events.

OBJECTIVE: Review spontaneous reports and epidemiology of hepatic events associated with duloxetine. METHODS: Spontaneous reports of adverse events potentially associated with hepatic injury were identified. Classification schemes were Clinical Significance and Etiologic Category relative to likelihood of being related to duloxetine. RESULTS: Duloxetine has been taken by an estimated 5,083,000 patients, representing approximately 1,551,000 person-years (PY) of worldwide exposure. In the Etiologic categorization of the 406 cases containing event terms potentially related to the liver that have been reported to the manufacturer, 26 were deemed Probable and 127 Possible. Because of scantly-reported information, 182 cases were considered Indeterminate. For Severe Hepatic Injury, the observed spontaneous reporting rate was 0.7/100,000 persons exposed. Of the 406 cases, 225 experienced enzyme elevations to values <500 U/L, most with concentrations well below this level. The calculated cumulative spontaneous reporting rate of all duloxetine hepatic-related events combined was 0.00799%, in the context of other drug-induced hepatic injury rates reported in the literature of 0.7 to 40.6 per 100,000 PY of observation. CONCLUSIONS: There were few cases of true hepatic injury possibly or probably related to duloxetine. The calculated cumulative reporting rate is consistent with very rarely reported per the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences.

Hepatic effects of duloxetine-III: analysis of hepatic events using external data sources.

OBJECTIVE: Present results from two hepatic safety studies conducted within 20 months after duloxetine launch. METHODS: Signal detection based on spontaneous reports to the FDA adverse event reporting system (AERS) and on a comparison of duloxetine and venlafaxine in the i3 Drug Safety Aperio claims database, using measures of disproportionality and incidence rate ratio, respectively. RESULTS: In AERS all antidepressants had some degree of association with hepatic injury, in that at least one hepatic event was disproportionately represented for each drug. Signals were detected for duloxetine cases analyzed against full and antidepressant-only backgrounds. These signals corresponded to labeled events or events investigated during ongoing surveillance. Using a duloxetine fatal-case series, disproportional representation of clinically serious events was detected relative to both backgrounds, but the signals were refuted upon independent expert panel case review. The Aperio study showed no difference in hepatic injury between duloxetine and venlafaxine initiators after proper control for baseline risks, suggesting differential prescribing of duloxetine, perhaps preferentially as second-line therapy in some initiators. CONCLUSIONS: No new signals were identified in Aperio. New signals detected through AERS were refuted upon independently conducted case-level investigation. Hepatic signals arising from spontaneously reported data must be clarified through subsequent systematic investigation.

Hepatic effects of duloxetine-I: non-clinical and clinical trial data.

OBJECTIVE: Review nonclinical and clinical trial data for hepatic effects of duloxetine. METHODS: Review studies of toxicology, metabolism, mitochondrial effects, and clinical trials. RESULTS: Nonclinical studies revealed no treatment-related transaminase elevations and no effects of duloxetine on mitochondrial beta-oxidation in rat hepatocytes. In patients with a normal baseline alanine transaminase (ALT), duloxetine was associated with elevated transaminases >3X ULN in about 1% of patients. ALT and aspartate transaminase values peaked at 8 weeks, alkaline phosphatase steadily increased to maximum value at Week 52 and mean total bilirubin values were not increased. Hepatic-related treatment-emergent adverse events were uncommon. Seven of 23,000 duloxetine- and 2/6000 placebo-treated patients met criteria for modified Hy's rule (significant elevation of both ALT and total bilirubin) but were complicated by contributing factors such as excessive alcohol consumption (n=3), gall stones, common bile duct calculus, hepatitis C, and liver adenocarcinoma (n=1 each). CONCLUSIONS: Duloxetine has an effect on the liver, manifested by transient, self-limiting transaminase elevations. Rare events characterized as hepatocellular injury, cholestatic injury, or mixed type of hepatic injury have been reported. The pattern of liver effects was different from that in laboratory animals.

Answers to the most common questions about the hepatic safety profile of duloxetine.

Since its first FDA approval in 2004, duloxetine has been taken by more than 5 million patients. A small fraction of patients treated with duloxetine develop elevations in liver enzymes, which generally resolve spontaneously without any change in treatment. Very rare cases (estimated 1-2 per 100,000 exposures) of idiosyncratic hepatic toxicity have been reported in patients taking duloxetine, particularly in those with substantial alcohol use and/or preexisting liver disease. In the context of more than 23,000 patients exposed during clinical trials, and more than 1.5 million patient years of exposure subsequent to product launch, the hepatic risk after exposure to duloxetine appears to be within the range identified for other therapeutic agents. Therefore, it does not warrant hepatic enzyme monitoring. As with any medication, physicians should follow prescribing guidelines and educate patients on the risks and benefits of duloxetine.

Hepatic events associated with atomoxetine treatment for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.

OBJECTIVE: This study describes and assesses potential hepatobiliary events related to atomoxetine therapy, as reported in clinical trials and as spontaneous adverse event reports post-launch in 2002. METHODS: Case reports that contained potential hepatobiliary events were identified by a computerized search of the Eli Lilly and Company atomoxetine spontaneous adverse events and clinical trials databases. All cases were reviewed by at least two company physicians, one with expertise in hepatology, to determine the relevance of the information in respect of potential liver toxicity. RESULTS: Of 7961 paediatric and adult patients treated with atomoxetine in clinical trials, 41 were identified as having hepatobiliary events requiring additional analysis. Most of these events were mild increases in ALT and AST levels. None of these cases met Hy's rule criteria or progressed to liver failure. During the 4 years after market launch, 351 spontaneous reports of adverse events were related to the liver, of which 69 had other explanations unrelated to atomoxetine. Of the remaining 282 cases, 133 contained possible confounding factors (and were deemed to be possibly related), 146 presented too little information to assess, and three suggested atomoxetine as a probable cause of liver injuries. One of the three had a positive rechallenge. All three patients recovered after discontinuation of the drug. CONCLUSIONS: Since the launch of atomoxetine therapy, three spontaneously reported cases of reversible drug-induced liver injury were deemed probably related to it. Atomoxetine should be discontinued in patients with jaundice or laboratory evidence of liver injury and should not be restarted.

Duloxetine for the treatment of fibromyalgia in women: pooled results from two randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: To assess the efficacy (in particular, in pain, functional impairment, and quality of life) and safety and tolerability (incidence of adverse events, discontinuation rates, changes in laboratory findings, and vital signs) of duloxetine in female patients with fibromyalgia. METHODS: Data were pooled from two placebo-controlled clinical trials of similar design (randomized, 12-week, and double-blind), comparing duloxetine 60 mg a day (q.d.) or 60 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) (n = 326) with placebo (n = 212), in women who met the American College of Rheumatology criteria for primary fibromyalgia. RESULTS: Compared with the patients receiving placebo, duloxetine-treated female patients demonstrated a significantly greater improvement in the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) average pain severity score and in the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) total score, beginning at week 1 and continuing through week 12 (p < 0.001). Duloxetine was superior to placebo on all efficacy measures, including mean tender point threshold, Clinical Global Impression of Severity, Patient Global Impression of Improvement, and average interference from pain scores. The duloxetine-treated group was superior to placebo on all quality of life and functional measures, including each domain of the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36). A direct treatment effect of duloxetine on pain reduction was demonstrated and shown to be independent of secondary improvement in mood (based on BPI average pain score). Significantly more duloxetine-treated patients reported treatment-emergent adverse events (296 [90.8%] duloxetine-treated and 165 [77.8%] placebo-treated, p < 0.001). Rates of serious adverse events were similar between duloxetine-treated and placebo-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: The pooled results of these studies demonstrate that duloxetine is a safe and efficacious treatment for both the pain and functional impairment associated with fibromyalgia in female patients, while significantly improving quality of life.

An open-label 52-week clinical extension comparing duloxetine with routine care in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of duloxetine at a fixed-dose of 60 mg twice daily (BID) for up to 52 weeks, and compare duloxetine with routine care in the management of patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). DESIGN AND INTERVENTIONS: Patients who completed a 13-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled acute therapy period were randomly reassigned in a 2:1 ratio to therapy with duloxetine 60 mg BID (N = 197) or routine care (N = 96) for an additional 52 weeks. PATIENTS: The trial included outpatients > or =18 years of age diagnosed with moderate to severe DPNP caused by type 1 or type 2 diabetes. RESULTS: Fourteen patients discontinued due to adverse events or death (11 [5.6%] duloxetine- and 3 [3.1%] routine care-treated patients). There were no significant therapy-group differences observed for patients with >/=1 serious adverse event. In total, 110 (55.8%) duloxetine- and 47 (49%) routine care-treated patients had > or =1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). The TEAE with a significant therapy-group difference, with patients in the duloxetine therapy group experiencing a higher percentage of events, was asthenia (11 [5.6%] duloxetine- vs no routine care-treated patients). Duloxetine did not appear to adversely affect lipid profiles, or nerve or eye function. There were no significant therapy-group differences observed in mean change in systolic blood pressure, weight, or electrocardiogram parameters. Significant therapy-group differences were observed in favor of duloxetine in the SF-36 physical component summary score, and subscale scores of physical functioning, bodily pain, mental health, and vitality. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study provide support for the use of duloxetine in the long-term management of DPNP.

Seizure risk in patients with attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder treated with atomoxetine.

The comorbidity of seizures, epilepsy, and attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) prompted the examination of whether atomoxetine use for ADHD is associated with an increased risk of seizures. Seizures and seizure-related symptoms were reviewed from two independent Eli Lilly and Company databases: the atomoxetine clinical trials database and the atomoxetine postmarketing spontaneous adverse event database. Review of clinical trial data indicated that the crude incidence rates of seizure adverse events were between 0.1 and 0.2%, and were not significantly different between atomoxetine, placebo, and methylphenidate. Only 2% of the postmarketing spontaneous reports of seizure events were classified as having no clear contributing or confounding factors, and the reporting rate (8 per 100 000 patients exposed) was within the expected range of population-based incidence. Although children with ADHD are increasingly recognized as being at an elevated risk for seizures, treatment of ADHD symptoms with atomoxetine does not appear to elevate this risk further. The shared vulnerability between ADHD and seizure activity should be taken into account when making treatment decisions for populations of children with epilepsy and children with ADHD.

An evaluation of the cardiovascular safety profile of duloxetine: findings from 42 placebo-controlled studies.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In recent years, new classes of medication, such as the serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), have been developed for use in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). For many years, treatment options were largely limited to the use of monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). However, there have been published reports of orthostatic hypotension, arrhythmias and corrected QT (QTc) interval changes in patients treated with TCAs. As new medications become available, it is important to understand how their cardiovascular safety profile compares with that of more established agents to aid clinicians and patients in choosing the best treatment options. This study was designed to evaluate the cardiovascular safety profile of the SNRI duloxetine through evaluation of cardiovascular-related parameters and adverse events (AEs). METHODS: The cardiovascular safety of duloxetine was assessed using all placebo-controlled duloxetine clinical trial data as of December 2005. This consisted of data from 42 placebo-controlled clinical trials of 8504 patients who were treated with duloxetine. Additional information from a high-dose clinical pharmacology study and postmarketing safety surveillance are also presented. Of the placebo-controlled trials included in this analysis, clinical indications under investigation included MDD (15 studies), diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (3 studies), fibromyalgia (2 studies), generalised anxiety disorder (3 studies) and lower urinary tract disorders (19 studies, all related to incontinence). Cardiovascular safety was evaluated based on vital signs, ECGs and the incidence of treatment-emergent AEs potentially related to cardiovascular safety. These safety parameters were analysed across all indications. To identify both serious and non-serious cardiovascular-related AEs, as well as AEs reported as the reason for discontinuation, a comprehensive list of terms derived from the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (version 8.0) was generated and used to search the duloxetine databases for cardiovascular-related events. RESULTS: Calculation of change from baseline to maximum in ECG parameters showed significant differences between treatment groups for all parameters, with decreases from baseline in RR, QRS and QT intervals for patients receiving duloxetine and increases from baseline for patients treated with placebo. These shifts were related to small heart rate changes, but the mean differences were not considered clinically relevant. Categorical analyses of shifts from normal to abnormal (or abnormal to normal) for heart rate and QT corrected for heart rate using Fridericia's formula (QTcF) values showed that most patients did not shift from their baseline category. Patients with MDD who were treated for up to 1 year with duloxetine had blood pressure changes early in treatment that then stabilised. Even in patients with elevated blood pressure at baseline in these clinical trials, no increased risk of sustained blood pressure elevation with duloxetine treatment was found. CONCLUSION: Overall, the findings presented here support our conclusions that use of duloxetine does not appear to be associated with significant cardiovascular risks in patients with conditions for which the drug has been approved or studied.

A retrospective pooled analysis of duloxetine safety in 23,983 subjects.

OBJECTIVE: The safety and tolerability of duloxetine for major depressive disorder (MDD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP), fibromyalgia, and lower urinary tract disorders (LUTD) (including female stress urinary incontinence [SUI] and other LUTDs) has been established in individual clinical studies. The objective of this manuscript is to characterize the overall safety profile of duloxetine, regardless of indication, based on data from the duloxetine exposures integrated safety database. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The duloxetine exposures integrated safety database was examined using pooled data from 23,983 patients randomized to receive duloxetine in 64 studies for MDD, GAD, DPNP, fibromyalgia, or LUTDs. Evaluated aspects of drug safety included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), adverse events leading to discontinuation, serious adverse events (SAEs), clinical laboratory tests, vital signs, and electrocardiograms. RESULTS: Common TEAEs included nausea, headache, dry mouth, insomnia, constipation, dizziness, fatigue, somnolence, diarrhea, and hyperhidrosis. Most TEAEs emerged early; the majority were mild to moderate in severity, and did not worsen. Overall, discontinuation rates due to AEs were 20.0%. SAEs occurred at a rate of 3.5% and no single event was predominant. Mean pulse increased by < 2 beats per minute. Mean increases in systolic and diastolic blood pressure were < 1 mmHg. Mean alanine transaminase and aspartate transaminase values increased by < 2 U/L. CONCLUSIONS: The safety profile for the molecule from the overall duloxetine exposures integrated safety database suggests that benign and common pharmacologic side effects occur with duloxetine treatment. Because these pooled analyses do not allow for statistical comparison to placebo or active comparator, and include data from five different studied indications, these data do not suggest causality for AEs, nor are they necessarily generalizable to each disease stated studied.

Duloxetine in the long-term management of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain: An open-label, 52-week extension of a randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Duloxetine hydrochloride, a selective serotonin (5-HT) and norepinephrine (NE) reuptake inhibitor, is relatively balanced in its affinity for both 5-HT and NE reuptake inhibition and is the first US Food and Drug Administration-approved prescription drug for the management of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether management of DPNP with duloxetine interferes with the treatment of diabetes. It also examined the tolerability of long-term exposure to duloxetine with regard to the progression of diabetic complications, and assessed the impact of DPNP management with duloxetine versus routine care. METHODS: This was a 52-week, multicenter, re-randomized, open-label extension of a parallel, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, acute (12-week) study. Patients who completed the duloxetine or placebo acute treatment period were randomly reassigned in a 2:1 ratio to treatment with duloxetine 60 mg BID or routine care for an additional 52 weeks. The study included male and female outpatients aged ≥18 years with a diagnosis of DPNP caused by type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Over the course of the 52-week study, visits were scheduled on the following weeks (of the extension phase of the study): 1 (via phone only), 2, 4, 8, 12, 20, 28, 40, and 52. Tolerability was assessed by review and analyses of discontinuation rates, adverse events (AEs), laboratory data, vital signs, electrocardiographic results, concomitant medications, and diabetic complications. Treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) were defined as AEs that appeared during therapy (were not present at baseline) or were exacerbated during treatment. Data on AEs and concomitant medications were collected at every visit. Data on blood pressure, heart rate, and significant hypoglycemic events were collected at every visit starting from week 2. Fasting clinical chemistry and electrolyte group laboratory assessments were done at every visit, starting from week 4. Electrocardiographic data was collected at weeks 4 and 52, and glycosylated hemoglobin and lipid profile data were collected at weeks 20 and 52. Hematology and urinalysis laboratory assessments and diabetic complication assessments were done at week 52. All safety data was assessed in cases of early discontinuation. Treatment differences on quality of life (QOL) were compared using the Short Form-36 Health Status Survey (SF-36) and the EQ-5D instrument of the European Health-Related Quality of Life Measures. This was assessed at the last visit or at early discontinuation. RESULTS: The open-label extension-phase study included 337 patients (duloxetine, n = 222; routine care, n = 115). For the duloxetine group, mean age was 60.2 years, 61.3% were male, and 78.4% were white. For the routine-care group, mean age was 58.9 years, 60.0% were male, and 74.8% were white. Mean weight was 95.3 kg for both groups. None of the TEAEs occurred significantly more often in the duloxetine-treated group than in the routine-care-treated group. No TEAEs were reported by >10% of patients in the duloxetine group. The TEAEs reported by >10% of patients in the routine-care group included dizziness (11.3%), somnolence (13.0%), headache (10.4%), and vomiting (10.4%). No significant differences were found between treatment groups in the occurrence of serious AEs or in the number of patients discontinuing because of AEs. Duloxetine was significantly better than routine care on the bodily pain subscale of the SF-36 (mean change: 1.5 vs -4.1; P= 0.021) and on the EQ-5D (mean change: -0.00 vs -0.09; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Over 52 weeks of follow-up, treatment of these diabetic patients with duloxetine for peripheral neuropathic pain was associated with outcomes similar to, or significantly better than, that of routine care on most measures of tolerability, diabetic complications, and QOL.

A double-blind, randomized multicenter trial comparing duloxetine with placebo in the management of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVE: Assess efficacy and safety of duloxetine, a selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, on the reduction of pain severity, in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). METHODS: This was a multicenter, parallel, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial that enrolled 348 patients with pain due to peripheral neuropathy caused by type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus. Patients (N = 116 per group) were randomly assigned to receive duloxetine 60 mg once daily (QD), duloxetine 60 mg twice daily (BID), or placebo, for 12 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the weekly mean score of 24-hour average pain severity evaluated on an 11-point Likert scale. Secondary outcome measures and safety were evaluated. RESULTS: Compared with placebo-treated patients, both duloxetine-treated groups improved significantly more (P < 0.001) on the 24-hour average pain score. Duloxetine demonstrated superiority to placebo in all secondary analyses of the primary efficacy measure. A significant treatment effect for duloxetine was observed in most secondary measures for pain. Discontinuations due to adverse events were more frequent in the duloxetine 60 mg BID- (12.1%) versus the placebo- (2.6%) treated group. Duloxetine showed no adverse effects on diabetic control, and both doses were safely administered and well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: In this clinical trial, duloxetine 60 mg QD and duloxetine 60 mg BID were effective and safe in the management of DPNP.