Relationship Between Peak Troponin Values and Long-Term Ischemic Events Among Medically Managed Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between troponin level and outcomes among patients with non-ST-segment elevation ACS is established, but the relationship of troponin level with long-term outcomes among medically managed non-ST-segment elevation ACS patients receiving contemporary antiplatelet therapy is inadequately defined. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 6763 medically managed non-ST-segment elevation ACS patients randomized in TRILOGY ACS (Targeted Platelet Inhibition to Clarify the Optimal Strategy to Medically Manage Acute Coronary Syndromes) (prasugrel versus clopidogrel), we examined relationships between categories of peak troponin/upper limit of normal (ULN) ratio within 48 hours of the index ACS event (≈4.5 days before randomization) and 30-month outcomes (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction; and all-cause death). Patients with peak troponin levels <1×ULN were younger, were more often women, and had lower GRACE risk scores than those in other troponin groups. Those with ratios ≥5×ULN were more frequently smokers but less often had prior myocardial infarction or percutaneous coronary intervention. Diabetes mellitus prevalence, body mass index, serum creatinine, and hemoglobin were similar across groups. For all end points, statistically significant differences in 30-month event rates were observed between peak troponin categories. The relationship was linear for 30-month mortality (<1×ULN, n=1849 [6.2%]; 1 to <3×ULN, n=1203 [9.6%]; 3 to <5×ULN, n=581 [10.8%]; and ≥5×ULN, n=3405 [12.8%]) but plateaued for composite end points beyond peak troponin values ≥3×ULN. There was no statistically significant heterogeneity in treatment effect by peak troponin ratio for any end point. CONCLUSIONS: Among medically managed non-ST-segment elevation ACS patients selected for medical management, there was a graded relationship between increasing peak troponin and long-term ischemic events but no heterogeneity of treatment effect for prasugrel versus clopidogrel according to peak troponin. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00699998.

Applying novel methods to assess clinical outcomes: insights from the TRILOGY ACS trial.

AIMS: Several methods provide new insights into understanding clinical trial composite endpoints, using both conventional and novel methods. The TRILOGY ACS trial is used as a contemporary example to prospectively compare these methods side by side. METHODS AND RESULTS: The traditional time-to-first-event, Andersen-Gill recurrent events method, win ratio, and a weighted composite endpoint (WCE) are compared using the randomized, active-control TRILOGY ACS trial. This trial had a neutral result and randomized 9326 patients managed without coronary revascularization within 10 days of their acute coronary syndrome to receive either prasugrel or clopidogrel and followed them for up to 30 months. The traditional composite, win ratio, and WCE demonstrated no significant survival advantage for prasugrel, whereas the Andersen-Gill method demonstrated a statistical advantage for prasugrel [hazard ratio (HR), 0.86 (95% CI, 0.72-0.97)]. The traditional composite used 73% of total patient events; 40% of these were derived from the death events. The win ratio used 66% of total events; deaths comprised 57% of these. Both Andersen-Gill and WCE methods used all events in all participants; however, with the Andersen-Gill method, death comprised 41% of the proportion of events, whereas with the WCE method, death comprised 64% of events. CONCLUSION: This study addresses the relative efficiency of various methods for assessing clinical trial events comprising the composite endpoint. The methods accounting for all events, in particular those incorporating their clinical relevance, appear most advantageous, and may be useful in interpreting future trials. This clinical and statistical advantage is especially evident with long-term follow-up where multiple non-fatal events are more common. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00699998.

Prasugrel versus clopidogrel for acute coronary syndromes without revascularization.

BACKGROUND: The effect of intensified platelet inhibition for patients with unstable angina or myocardial infarction without ST-segment elevation who do not undergo revascularization has not been delineated. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized trial, in a primary analysis involving 7243 patients under the age of 75 years receiving aspirin, we evaluated up to 30 months of treatment with prasugrel (10 mg daily) versus clopidogrel (75 mg daily). In a secondary analysis involving 2083 patients 75 years of age or older, we evaluated 5 mg of prasugrel versus 75 mg of clopidogrel. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 17 months, the primary end point of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke among patients under the age of 75 years occurred in 13.9% of the prasugrel group and 16.0% of the clopidogrel group (hazard ratio in the prasugrel group, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.05; P=0.21). Similar results were observed in the overall population. The prespecified analysis of multiple recurrent ischemic events (all components of the primary end point) suggested a lower risk for prasugrel among patients under the age of 75 years (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.00; P=0.04). Rates of severe and intracranial bleeding were similar in the two groups in all age groups. There was no significant between-group difference in the frequency of nonhemorrhagic serious adverse events, except for a higher frequency of heart failure in the clopidogrel group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with unstable angina or myocardial infarction without ST-segment elevation, prasugrel did not significantly reduce the frequency of the primary end point, as compared with clopidogrel, and similar risks of bleeding were observed. (Funded by Eli Lilly and Daiichi Sankyo; TRILOGY ACS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00699998.).

Failed efficacy of fluoxetine in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder: results of a fixed-dose, placebo-controlled study.

A multicenter, double-blind, 12-week, placebo-controlled trial of 411 randomized patients, predominantly women diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder, failed to show a difference between either dose of fluoxetine treatment and placebo. The mean changes from baseline (SD) measured by the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale scores were -42.9 (23.1), -42.8 (27.9), and -36.6 (25.7) in the 20-mg fluoxetine, 40-mg fluoxetine, and placebo arms, respectively. Placebo response rate was substantially higher in this study than in a previously published fluoxetine trial of posttraumatic stress disorder.

A 7-week, randomized, double-blind trial of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination versus lamotrigine in the treatment of bipolar I depression.

OBJECTIVE: Determine the efficacy and tolerability of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC) for treatment of acute bipolar I depression compared with lamotrigine. METHOD: The 7-week, acute phase of a randomized, double-blind study compared OFC (6/25, 6/50, 12/25, or 12/50 mg/day; N = 205) with lamotrigine ([LMG] titrated to 200 mg/day; N = 205) in patients with DSM-IV-diagnosed bipolar I disorder, depressed. The study was conducted from November 2003 to August 2004. RESULTS: Completion rates were similar between treatments (OFC, 66.8% vs. LMG, 65.4%; p = .835). OFC-treated patients had significantly greater improvement than lamotrigine-treated patients in change from baseline across the 7-week treatment period on the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale (primary outcome) (p = .002, effect size = 0.26), Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) (p = .002, effect size = 0.24), and Young Mania Rating Scale total scores (p = .001, effect size = 0.24). Response rates did not significantly differ between groups when defined as > or = 50% reduction in MADRS score (OFC, 68.8% vs. LMG, 59.7%; p = .073). Time to response was significantly shorter for OFC-treated patients (median days [95% CI] = OFC, 17 [14 to 22] vs. LMG, 23 [21 to 34]; p = .010). There was a significant difference in incidence of "suicidal and self-injurious behavior" adverse events (OFC, 0.5% vs. LMG, 3.4%; p = .037). Somnolence, increased appetite, dry mouth, sedation, weight gain, and tremor occurred more frequently (p < .05) in OFC-treated patients than lamotrigine-treated patients. Weight, total cholesterol, and triglyceride levels were significantly elevated in OFC-treated patients compared with lamotrigine-treated patients (all p < or = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with acute bipolar I depression had statistically significantly greater improvement in depressive and manic symptoms, more treatment-emergent adverse events, greater weight gain, and some elevated metabolic factors with OFC than lamotrigine. Treatment differences were of modest size.

Fluoxetine 40-60 mg versus fluoxetine 20 mg in the treatment of children and adolescents with a less-than-complete response to nine-week treatment with fluoxetine 10-20 mg: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare fluoxetine dosage titration to 40-60 mg/day with fixed fluoxetine 20-mg/day treatment for an additional 10 weeks in pediatric outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who had not met protocol-defined response criteria after 9-week acute fluoxetine treatment. METHODS: Patients unresponsive (less than or equal to 30% decrease in Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised [CDRS-R] score) after 9-week fluoxetine treatment were randomly reassigned to continue at 20 mg/day or to increase to 40 mg/day. After 4 weeks, patients unresponsive to 40 mg/day could receive 60 mg/day. RESULTS: Twenty-nine (29) patients, 9-17 years of age, received fluoxetine 40-60 mg/day (n = 14) or 20 mg/day (n = 15). At the conclusion of this study phase, 10 patients (71%) on 40-60 mg/day met the response criteria, versus 5 patients (36%) on 20 mg/day (p = 0.128). Mean CDRS-R scores improved in both treatment groups (fluoxetine 40-60 mg/day, -9.4; fluoxetine 20 mg/day, -1.5; p = 0.099). Adverse events were similar in both groups. However, this study phase was statistically underpowered for detecting differences between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: More than two thirds of patients whose dosage was increased responded within 10 weeks, suggesting dose escalation may benefit some patients. Approximately one third of patients unresponsive to initial treatment with fluoxetine 20 mg responded to this fixed dosage within another 10 weeks. Fluoxetine 20-60 mg/day was well tolerated.

Olanzapine versus risperidone in the treatment of manic or mixed States in bipolar I disorder: a randomized, double-blind trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare olanzapine and risperidone in the treatment of nonpsychotic acute manic or mixed episodes. METHOD: This 3-week, randomized, controlled, double-blind, parallel multicenter study compared olanzapine (5-20 mg/day; N = 165) and risperidone (1-6 mg/day; N = 164) among hospital inpatients who met DSM-IV criteria for bipolar I disorder, manic or mixed episode, without psychotic features. The study was conducted at 30 sites in the United States between July 2001 and June 2002. The primary outcome measure was the mean change in the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score. Secondary measures included the 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-21), the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), the Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar Version (CGI-BP) severity of illness scale, and the Cognitive Test for Delirium (CTD). Quality of life (Short Form Health Survey [SF-12]), psychological well-being (Psychological General Well-Being [PGWB] inventory), and sexual functioning were also compared. RESULTS: Mean modal doses for olanzapine and risperidone were 14.7 mg/day and 3.9 mg/day, respectively. Between treatments, there was no difference in mean change in the YMRS, MADRS, CTD, PGWB, or SF-12 measures or in remission or response rates. Significantly more olanzapine-treated patients completed the study compared with risperidone patients (78.7% vs. 67.0%; p = .019). Olanzapine-treated patients had greater HAM-D-21 (p = .040) and CGI-BP (p = .026) score improvement across the study. Olanzapine-treated patients experienced greater elevations in liver function enzymes (p < .05) and increase in weight (2.5 kg vs. 1.6 kg; p = .004), while risperidone-treated patients were more likely to experience prolactin elevation (51.73 ng/mL vs. 8.23 ng/mL; p < .001) and sexual dysfunction (total score increase of 1.75 vs. 0.64; p = .049). CONCLUSION: Both olanzapine and risperidone treatment yielded similar improvements in mania. The olanzapine group had significantly greater improvements in secondary measures of severity and depressive symptoms and better study completion rates but experienced more weight gain.

Duloxetine 60 mg once-daily in the treatment of painful physical symptoms in patients with major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: While emotional symptoms such as depressed mood and loss of interest have traditionally been considered to constitute the core symptoms of major depressive disorder (MDD), the prevalence and importance of painful physical symptoms such as back pain, abdominal pain, and musculoskeletal pain is becoming increasingly appreciated. Antidepressants possessing dual serotonin/norepinephrine (5-HT/NE) reuptake inhibition may demonstrate greater efficacy in the alleviation of pain. The efficacy of duloxetine, a balanced and potent dual reuptake inhibitor of 5-HT and NE, was evaluated within a cohort of depressed patients with associated painful physical symptoms. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients meeting DSM-IV criteria for MDD were randomized to receive placebo (N=141) or duloxetine 60 mg QD (N=141). Patients were required to have a 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD17) total score 15, a Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S) score 4, and a Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Average Pain score 2 at baseline. The primary efficacy measure was the BPI Average Pain score, while secondary measures included other BPI items, the HAMD17 total score, CGI-S, the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scale, Visual Analog Scales (VAS) for pain, and the Symptom Questionnaire, Somatic Subscale (SQSS). Safety was evaluated by recording treatment-emergent adverse events (spontaneously reported), vital signs, and laboratory analytes. RESULTS: Mean changes in BPI Average Pain for duloxetine- and placebo-treated patients differed significantly at most visits, but only approached significance at endpoint p=0.066. For the main effect of treatment (pooling all visits), significant advantages for duloxetine-treated patients were found in 10 of 11 assessed BPI pain severity and pain interference items, in addition to VAS overall pain and back pain. Mean changes in pain measures for duloxetine-treated patients corresponded to improvements of 25-50%, compared with 19-39% for placebo. Mean changes at endpoint in depression rating scales (HAMD17, CGI-S, PGI-I) did not differ significantly between duloxetine and placebo treatment groups due to unusually high placebo response. The magnitude of placebo treatment effects (as measured by HAMD17 total score and Maier subscale) was significantly smaller in patients with 1 previous depressive episode, compared to those patients with no previous episodes. In patients with 1 previous depressive episode the advantage of duloxetine over placebo was similar to previous studies. Rates of discontinuation due to adverse events were 14.2% vs. 2.1% for duloxetine and placebo, respectively p<0.001. Treatment-emergent adverse events reported at a significantly higher rate by duloxetine-treated patients included nausea, dry mouth, fatigue, and decreased appetite. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, duloxetine (60 mg QD) was shown to be an effective treatment for the painful physical symptoms which are frequently associated with depression. Improvements in pain severity occurred independently of changes in depressive symptom severity.

Safety of subchronic treatment with fluoxetine for major depressive disorder in children and adolescents.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the safety of subchronic fluoxetine treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD) in children and adolescents. METHODS: Patients received up to 19 weeks of treatment with fluoxetine, 10 mg-60 mg daily. Safety was evaluated through the reporting of concomitant medications, vital signs, routine laboratory testing, electrocardiograms (ECGs), and adverse event data. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients, aged 9-17 years, completed 19 weeks of treatment with fluoxetine (n = 49) or placebo (n = 47). There were statistically significant differences between the fluoxetine and placebo groups in mean change from baseline for alkaline phosphatase and total cholesterol levels (p < 0.001, and p < 0.014, respectively), but there were no statistically significant differences between the incidence of abnormal laboratory values for these 2 analytes. Fluoxetine-treated patients gained statistically significantly less height (fluoxetine: 1.0 cm +/- 2.4; placebo: 2.1 cm +/- 2.6; p = 0.004) and weight (fluoxetine: 1.2 kg +/- 2.7; placebo: 2.3 kg +/- 2.6; p = 0.008) than placebo-treated patients during the 19 weeks of treatment. There was no difference in the rate of reported suicide-related events between fluoxetine and placebo. CONCLUSION: Fluoxetine was found to be safe and well tolerated in this study of children and adolescents with MDD. Clarification and determination of the clinical significance of the growth-rate reduction seen during fluoxetine treatment requires further investigation. During treatment with fluoxetine, the growth of child and adolescent patients should be monitored.

Recurrence of symptoms of premenstrual dysphoric disorder after the cessation of luteal-phase fluoxetine treatment.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to use the data from two clinical trials to evaluate premenstrual dysphoric disorder symptom severity after the discontinuation of fluoxetine treatment. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of two clinical trials was performed. Patients were treated with fluoxetine or placebo for three cycles, with the use of several different dosing regimens, followed by single blind placebo treatment for one cycle. Assessments of relapse included the daily record of severity of problems, the Sheehan disability scale, the premenstrual tension scale-clinician rated, and the clinical global impressions-severity. RESULTS: Premenstrual dysphoric disorder symptoms significantly increased after fluoxetine discontinuation. The scores did not return to baseline; however, the fluoxetine group was no longer significantly superior to placebo. CONCLUSION: The two trials demonstrate that, after three cycles of treatment, premenstrual dysphoric disorder symptoms recur within the first cycle after treatment discontinuation. The rapid recurrence of symptoms further supports the view of premenstrual dysphoric disorder as a clinical entity distinct from depression.

Fluoxetine v. placebo in prevention of relapse in post-traumatic stress disorder.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the effect of pharmacotherapy in the prevention of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) relapse. AIMS: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of fluoxetine in preventing PTSD relapse. METHOD: This was a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study. Following 12 weeks of acute treatment, patients who responded were rerandomised and continued in a 24-week relapse prevention phase with fluoxetine (n=69) or placebo (n=62). The primary efficacy assessment was the prevention of PTSD relapse, based on the time to relapse. RESULTS: Patients in the fluoxetine/fluoxetine group were less likely to relapse than patients in the fluoxetine/placebo group (P=0.027). There were no clinically significant differences in treatment-emergent adverse events between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Fluoxetine is effective and well tolerated in the prevention of PTSD relapse for up to 6 months.

Safety and efficacy of fluoxetine in patients who receive oral contraceptive therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Because many women who receive pharmacologic therapy with antidepressants are also prescribed oral contraceptives, it is important to assess the risk of clinically significant drug interactions. We reviewed the United States fluoxetine clinical trial database, specifically analyzing women ages 18 to 45 years, for differences in safety, antidepressant efficacy, and unplanned pregnancies that were associated with oral contraceptive use. STUDY DESIGN: Data from 17 double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials in 1698 women were analyzed retrospectively. A subgroup of women with oral contraceptive use was compared with a subgroup of women with no oral contraceptive use. Differences in treatment-emergent adverse events, unplanned pregnancies, and 17-item Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD-17) scores were analyzed. RESULTS: The only treatment-emergent adverse events that showed a statistically significantly different odds ratio for oral contraceptive use versus no oral contraceptive use were headache, asthenia, and pain. There was not a statistically significant interaction in the incidence of unintended pregnancies (P =.111) or in the changes from baseline in HAMDD-17 scores. CONCLUSION: There is no clinical evidence that concomitant use of oral contraceptives and fluoxetine affects the safety or efficacy of either agent.

Fluoxetine versus placebo in posttraumatic stress disorder.

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to address the efficacy and tolerability of fluoxetine in patients with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as diagnosed using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders and the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS). The patient population included both civilians and combat veterans. METHOD: This was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study conducted in Europe, Israel, and South Africa, primarily in war-torn countries. Patients were predominantly male (81%) and white (91%), with 48% exposed to a combat-related traumatic episode. Patients were randomly assigned to 12 weeks of acute treatment with fluoxetine, 20 to 80 mg/day (N = 226), or placebo (N = 75). The primary efficacy measurement was the mean change from baseline in the Treatment Outcome PTSD rating scale (TOP-8) total score, which was analyzed using a repeated-measures analysis of variance. Secondary assessments included the CAPS, the Davidson Trauma Scale, the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale (CGI-S), the CGI-Improvement scale (CGI-I), the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A), and the Hopkins 90-Item Symptom Checklist-Revised. RESULTS: Fluoxetine was associated with a greater improvement from baseline in total TOP-8 score than was placebo. This difference was statistically significant by week 6 of treatment (p < .001) through the end of the acute phase of the study (week 12; p = .006). Compared with placebo, fluoxetine was also associated with significantly greater improvement in CAPS total score as well as intrusive and hyperarousal subscores and in CGI-S, CGI-I, HAM-A, and MADRS scores (p < .05). The presence of dissociative symptoms at baseline appeared to be a predictor of high placebo response. The mean fluoxetine dose at endpoint was 57 mg. There were no clinically significant safety differences. CONCLUSION: Fluoxetine is effective and well tolerated in the treatment of PTSD. Most PTSD patients will respond satisfactorily at doses in the upper normal range for the usual antidepressant doses of fluoxetine.

Switching patients from daily citalopram, paroxetine, or sertraline to once-weekly fluoxetine in the maintenance of response for depression.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder is frequently a chronic, recurrent condition necessitating maintenance treatment. For some patients, compliance with daily pharmacotherapy is difficult over time. As an alternative approach, a once-weekly administered formulation of fluoxetine has recently been made available. This raises the important question of whether once-weekly enteric-coated fluoxetine, 90 mg, is effective for maintenance of response in patients whose depressive symptoms have responded to daily dosing with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) such as citalopram, paroxetine, or sertraline. METHOD: Patients had met DSM-IV criteria for major depressive disorder prior to beginning treatment for their current episode, had received 6 to 52 weeks of treatment with citalopram (20-40 mg/day [N = 83]), paroxetine (20 mg/day [N = 77]), or sertraline (50-100 mg/day [N = 86]), and had responded to that treatment (Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness [CGI-S] score < or = 2, modified 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAM-D-17] score < or = 10). Patients meeting these criteria (N = 246) continued treatment with their current SSRI for 1 week, then were switched to open-label enteric-coated fluoxetine, 90 mg, taken once weekly for 12 weeks. Safety measures were comparisons of spontaneously reported and solicited treatment-emergent adverse events. Efficacy measures were percentages of patients who discontinued the study for relapse and lack of efficacy and comparison of change from baseline to endpoint in scores on the modified HAM-D-17, subscales of the HAM-D-28, and the CGI-S. Quality of life measures were assessed with the MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). We hypothesized that the once-weekly administration of fluoxetine could be safely and effectively initiated among subjects who had been stabilized on daily SSRI treatment. RESULTS: Seventy-nine percent of patients successfully completed a switch to enteric-coated fluoxetine, 90 mg, with 9.3% discontinuing due to relapse or lack of efficacy. Enteric-coated fluoxetine at a once-weekly dose of 90 mg was well tolerated in all groups. No significant increases were found in the HAM-D-17 total, HAM-D-28 subscores, or CGI-S score. Patients showed improvement from baseline to endpoint in most of the SF-36 health concepts. CONCLUSION: Enteric-coated fluoxetine taken once weekly appears to be well tolerated and efficacious in patients who responded to acute therapy with other SSRIs and were subsequently switched to fluoxetine once weekly for continuation/maintenance therapy.