Effects of asenapine on depressive symptoms in patients with bipolar I disorder experiencing acute manic or mixed episodes: a post hoc analysis of two 3-week clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Asenapine demonstrated superiority over placebo for mania in bipolar I disorder patients experiencing acute current manic or mixed episodes in 2 randomized, placebo-and olanzapine-controlled trials. We report the results of exploratory pooled post hoc analyses from these trials evaluating asenapine's effects on depressive symptoms in patients from these trials with significant baseline depressive symptoms. METHODS: In the original trials (A7501004 [NCT00159744], A7501005 [NCT00159796]), 977 patients were randomized to flexible-dose sublingual asenapine (10 mg twice daily on day 1; 5 or 10 mg twice daily thereafter), placebo, or oral olanzapine 5-20 mg once daily for 3 weeks. Three populations were defined using baseline depressive symptoms: (1) Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score ≥20 (n = 132); (2) Clinical Global Impression for Bipolar Disorder-Depression (CGI-BP-D) scale severity score ≥4 (n = 170); (3) diagnosis of mixed episodes (n = 302) by investigative site screening. For each population, asenapine and olanzapine were independently compared with placebo using least squares mean change from baseline on depressive symptom measures. RESULTS: Decreases in MADRS total score were statistically greater with asenapine versus placebo at days 7 and 21 in all populations; differences between olanzapine and placebo were not significant. Decreases in CGI-BP-D score were significantly greater with asenapine versus placebo at day 7 in all categories and day 21 in population 1; CGI-BP-D score reductions were significantly greater with olanzapine versus placebo at day 21 in population 1 and day 7 in populations 2 and 3. CONCLUSIONS: These post hoc analyses show that asenapine reduced depressive symptoms in bipolar I disorder patients experiencing acute manic or mixed episodes with clinically relevant depressive symptoms at baseline; olanzapine results appeared to be less consistent. Controlled studies of asenapine in patients with acute bipolar depression are necessary to confirm the generalizability of these findings.

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

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

The 4-Item Negative Symptom Assessment (NSA-4) Instrument: A Simple Tool for Evaluating Negative Symptoms in Schizophrenia Following Brief Training.

Objective. To assess the ability of mental health professionals to use the 4-item Negative Symptom Assessment instrument, derived from the Negative Symptom Assessment-16, to rapidly determine the severity of negative symptoms of schizophrenia.Design. Open participation.Setting. Medical education conferences.Participants. Attendees at two international psychiatry conferences.Measurements. Participants read a brief set of the 4-item Negative Symptom Assessment instructions and viewed a videotape of a patient with schizophrenia. Using the 1 to 6 4-item Negative Symptom Assessment severity rating scale, they rated four negative symptom items and the overall global negative symptoms. These ratings were compared with a consensus rating determination using frequency distributions and Chi-square tests for the proportion of participant ratings that were within one point of the expert rating.Results. More than 400 medical professionals (293 physicians, 50% with a European practice, and 55% who reported past utilization of schizophrenia ratings scales) participated. Between 82.1 and 91.1 percent of the 4-items and the global rating determinations by the participants were within one rating point of the consensus expert ratings. The differences between the percentage of participant rating scores that were within one point versus the percentage that were greater than one point different from those by the consensus experts was significant (p<0.0001). Participants rating of negative symptoms using the 4-item Negative Symptom Assessment did not generally differ among the geographic regions of practice, the professional credentialing, or their familiarity with the use of schizophrenia symptom rating instruments.Conclusion. These findings suggest that clinicians from a variety of geographic practices can, after brief training, use the 4-item Negative Symptom Assessment effectively to rapidly assess negative symptoms in patients with schizophrenia.

Early improvement in the first 2 weeks as a predictor of treatment outcome in patients with major depressive disorder: a meta-analysis including 6562 patients.

OBJECTIVE: New evidence indicates that treatment response can be predicted with high sensitivity after 2 weeks of treatment. Here, we assess whether early improvement with antidepressant treatment predicts treatment outcome in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). DATA SOURCES: Forty-one clinical trials comparing mirtazapine with active comparators or placebo in inpatients and outpatients (all-treated population, N = 6907; intent-to-treat population, N = 6562) with MDD (DSM-III-R or DSM-IV Criteria) were examined for early improvement (>or= 20% score reduction from baseline on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAM-D-17] within 2 weeks of treatment) and its relationship to treatment outcome. STUDY SELECTION: Data were obtained from a systematic search of single- or double-blind clinical trials (clinical trials database, Organon, a part of Schering-Plough Corporation, Oss, The Netherlands). All included trials (a total of 41) employed antidepressant treatment for more than 4 weeks and a maximum of 8 weeks. The studies ranged from March 1982 to December 2003. Trials were excluded if there were no HAM-D-17 ratings available, no diagnosis of MDD, or if the study was not blinded. Trials were also excluded if HAM-D-17 assessments were not available at week 2, week 4, and at least once beyond week 4. DATA SYNTHESIS: Early improvement predicted stable response and stable remission with high sensitivity (>or= 81% and >or= 87%, respectively). Studies utilizing rapid titration vs. slow titration of mirtazapine demonstrated improved sensitivity for stable responders (98%, [95% CI = 93% to 100%] vs. 91% [95% CI = 89% to 93%]) and stable remitters (100%, [95% CI = 92% to 100%] vs. 93% [95% CI = 91% to 95%]). Negative predictive values for stable responders and stable remitters were much higher (range = 82%-100%) than positive predictive values (range = 19%-60%). CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that early improvement with antidepressant medication can predict subsequent treatment outcome with high sensitivity in patients with major depressive disorder. The high negative predictive values indicate little chance of stable response or stable remission in the absence of improvement within 2 weeks. A lack of improvement during the first 2 weeks of therapy may indicate that changes in depression management should be considered earlier than conventionally thought.

Treating depression with different galenical drug formulations: Does it make a difference? The comparison of mirtazapine fast dissolving formulation (FDT) with conventional mirtazapine tablets (CT).

Objective. To assess clinical advantages of fast dissolving tablet (FDT) formulation of mirtazapine by comparison to conventional (CT) mirtazapine tablets in the treatment of depressed patients. Methods. A posteriori analyses of pooled data of a total of 30 studies (of at least 6 weeks duration, total N=3510) with CT and FDT in depressed patients was performed. Weight changes were recorded at baseline and regular intervals until the end of the study. Patient preferences for the one or the other formulation, as well as the appraisal of the FDT qualities, were assessed by means of a global internet-based survey including 5,428 patients. Results. Compared with mirtazapine CT, the FDT was associated with an average 0.3 kg less weight increase (P=0.0015) during the 6 weeks of treatment. The qualities and preference for FDT (global survey) were positively evaluated by the majority of patients. Particular advantages of FDT over CT were: better compliance (47.3% of raters), taste, ease and overall convenience of use (>75% of raters). Conclusions. The FDT mirtazapine differed from conventional tablets (CT) not only regarding somewhat less weight increase and overall use preference, but more importantly, regarding better compliance with treatment.