Alemtuzumab CARE-MS I 5-year follow-up: Durable efficacy in the absence of continuous MS therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate 5-year efficacy and safety of alemtuzumab in treatment-naive patients with active relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) (CARE-MS I; NCT00530348). METHODS: Alemtuzumab-treated patients received treatment courses at baseline and 12 months later; after the core study, they could enter an extension (NCT00930553) with as-needed alemtuzumab retreatment for relapse or MRI activity. Assessments included annualized relapse rate (ARR), 6-month confirmed disability worsening (CDW; ≥1-point Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] score increase [≥1.5 if baseline EDSS = 0]), 6-month confirmed disability improvement (CDI; ≥1-point EDSS decrease [baseline score ≥2.0]), no evidence of disease activity (NEDA), brain volume loss (BVL), and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Most alemtuzumab-treated patients (95.1%) completing CARE-MS I enrolled in the extension; 68.5% received no additional alemtuzumab treatment. ARR remained low in years 3, 4, and 5 (0.19, 0.14, and 0.15). Over years 0-5, 79.7% were free of 6-month CDW; 33.4% achieved 6-month CDI. Most patients (61.7%, 60.2%, and 62.4%) had NEDA in years 3, 4, and 5. Median yearly BVL improved over years 2-4, remaining low in year 5 (years 1-5: -0.59%, -0.25%, -0.19%, -0.15%, and -0.20%). Exposure-adjusted incidence rates of most AEs declined in the extension relative to the core study. Thyroid disorder incidences peaked at year 3 and subsequently declined. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these data, alemtuzumab provides durable efficacy through 5 years in the absence of continuous treatment, with most patients not receiving additional courses. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT00530348; NCT00930553. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class III evidence that alemtuzumab durably improves efficacy outcomes and slows BVL in patients with RRMS.

Alemtuzumab CARE-MS II 5-year follow-up: Efficacy and safety findings.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate 5-year efficacy and safety of alemtuzumab in patients with active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis and inadequate response to prior therapy. METHODS: In the 2-year Comparison of Alemtuzumab and Rebif Efficacy in Multiple Sclerosis (CARE-MS) II study (NCT00548405), alemtuzumab-treated patients received 2 courses (baseline and 12 months later). Patients could enter an extension (NCT00930553), with as-needed alemtuzumab retreatment for relapse or MRI activity. Annualized relapse rate (ARR), 6-month confirmed disability worsening (CDW; ≥1-point Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] score increase [≥1.5 if baseline EDSS = 0]), 6-month confirmed disability improvement (CDI; ≥1-point EDSS decrease [baseline score ≥2.0]), no evidence of disease activity (NEDA), brain volume loss (BVL), and adverse events (AEs) were assessed. RESULTS: Most alemtuzumab-treated patients (92.9%) who completed CARE-MS II entered the extension; 59.8% received no alemtuzumab retreatment. ARR was low in each extension year (years 3-5: 0.22, 0.23, 0.18). Through 5 years, 75.1% of patients were free of 6-month CDW; 42.9% achieved 6-month CDI. In years 3, 4, and 5, proportions with NEDA were 52.9%, 54.2%, and 58.2%, respectively. Median yearly BVL remained low in the extension (years 1-5: -0.48%, -0.22%, -0.10%, -0.19%, -0.07%). AE exposure-adjusted incidence rates in the extension were lower than in the core study. Thyroid disorders peaked at year 3, declining thereafter. CONCLUSIONS: Alemtuzumab provides durable efficacy through 5 years in patients with an inadequate response to prior therapy in the absence of continuous treatment. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class III evidence that alemtuzumab provides efficacy and slowing of brain atrophy through 5 years.

Validation of the Investigator's Assessment Questionnaire, a new clinical tool for relative assessment of response to antipsychotics in patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder.

The success of long-term therapy in schizophrenia is contingent upon real-world effectiveness or improvements in several domains, including efficacy, safety and tolerability. This report describes the Investigator's Assessment Questionnaire (IAQ), a new 10-item instrument designed to assess relative effectiveness (efficacy, safety and tolerability) of antipsychotic medications in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. To measure content validity, 300 psychiatrists rated the importance of the IAQ items. Efficacy (i.e., positive and negative symptoms) was considered most important, but importance scores relative to the mean ranged only from 0.87 to 1.18, suggesting similar importance of the items. Cronbach's coefficient alpha values showed that the items were internally consistent. Factor analyses indicated that all IAQ items belong to a single domain. Data from the US Broad Effectiveness Trial of Aripiprazole were used for construct validation. Total IAQ score correlated significantly with time to treatment discontinuation (r=-0.50), Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) score (r=0.76) and medication preference of patients (r=0.71) or caregivers (r=0.70). A one-unit decrease in IAQ score corresponded to an additional 1.35 days in the study and a decrease in CGI-I of 0.21 units. These results provide initial validation of the IAQ as a tool for evaluating antipsychotic response in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.

Self-reported depressive symptom measures: sensitivity to detecting change in a randomized, controlled trial of chronically depressed, nonpsychotic outpatients.

This study evaluated and compared the performance of three self-report measures: (1) 30-item Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report (IDS-SR30); (2) 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report (QIDS-SR16); and (3) Patient Global Impression-Improvement (PGI-I) in assessing clinical outcomes in depressed patients during a 12-week, acute phase, randomized, controlled trial comparing nefazodone, cognitive-behavioral analysis system of psychotherapy (CBASP), and the combination in the treatment of chronic depression. The IDS-SR30, QIDS-SR16, PGI-I, and the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS24) ratings were collected at baseline and at weeks 1-4, 6, 8, 10, and 12. Response was defined a priori as a > or =50% reduction in baseline total score for the IDS-SR30 or for the QIDS-SR16 or as a PGI-I score of 1 or 2 at exit. Overall response rates (LOCF) to nefazodone were 41% (IDS-SR30), 45% (QIDS-SR16), 53% (PCI-I), and 47% (HDRS17). For CBASP, response rates were 41% (IDS-SR30), 45% (QIDS-SR16), 48% (PGI-I), and 46% (HDRS17). For the combination, response rates were 68% (IDS-SR30 and QIDS-SR16), 73% (PGI-I), and 76% (HDRS17). Similarly, remission rates were comparable for nefazodone (IDS-SR30=32%, QIDS-SR16=28%, PGI-I=22%, HDRS17=30%), for CBASP (IDS-SR30=32%, QIDS-SR16=30%, PGI-I=21%, HDRS17=32%), and for the combination (IDS-SR30=52%, QIDS-SR16=50%, PGI-I=25%, HDRS17=49%). Both the IDS-SR30 and QIDS-SR16 closely mirrored and confirmed findings based on the HDRS24. These findings raise the possibility that these two self-reports could provide cost- and time-efficient substitutes for clinician ratings in treatment trials of outpatients with nonpsychotic MDD without cognitive impairment. Global patient ratings such as the PGI-I, as opposed to specific item-based ratings, provide less valid findings.

A comparison of weight change during treatment with olanzapine or aripiprazole: results from a randomized, double-blind study.

BACKGROUND: Weight gain is a side effect of therapy with many atypical antipsychotics and may have important clinical repercussions with respect to long-term health and treatment compliance. The primary objective of this double-blind study was to compare the safety and tolerability of aripiprazole and olanzapine in patients with schizophrenia as evidenced by the percentage of patients exhibiting significant weight gain. METHOD: This was a 26-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trial in patients with DSM-IV schizophrenia who were in acute relapse and required hospitalization. Significant weight gain was defined as a > or = 7% increase in body weight from baseline. Body weight, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, and Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale (CGI-I) assessments were performed at baseline and at regular intervals during the study. The study period was from April 2000 through June 2001. RESULTS: 317 patients were randomly assigned to aripiprazole (N = 156) or olanzapine (N = 161). Compared with those treated with aripiprazole, a greater proportion of patients treated with olanzapine exhibited clinically significant weight gain during the trial. By week 26, 37% of olanzapine-treated patients had experienced significant weight gain compared with 14% of aripiprazole-treated patients (p < .001). Statistically significant differences in mean weight change were observed between treatments beginning at week 1 and sustained throughout the study. At week 26, there was a mean weight loss of 1.37 kg (3.04 lb) with aripiprazole compared with a mean increase of 4.23 kg (9.40 lb) with olanzapine among patients who remained on therapy (p < .001). Changes in fasting plasma levels of total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides were significantly different in the 2 treatment groups, with worsening of the lipid profile among patients treated with olanzapine. There was a consistent and sustained improvement in symptoms in patients who remained on therapy with either olanzapine or aripiprazole as assessed by CGI-I scores and responder rates throughout the study. CONCLUSION: Olanzapine had a greater impact on patients' weight than aripiprazole. Significant differences in favor of aripiprazole were also observed in the effects of therapy on plasma lipid profile. Both treatment groups achieved comparable clinically meaningful improvements on efficacy measures. The observed effects on weight and lipids indicate a potentially lower metabolic and cardiovascular risk in patients treated with aripiprazole compared with those treated with olanzapine.

Switching patients to aripiprazole from other antipsychotic agents: a multicenter randomized study.

RATIONALE: Switching patients from one antipsychotic to another can lead to tolerability problems or transient symptom exacerbations. It is important to compare switching strategies to determine which methods produce the best possible patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of three dosing strategies for switching chronic, stable patients with schizophrenia from current oral antipsychotic monotherapy to once-daily oral aripiprazole monotherapy. METHOD: Patients in this 8-week, open-label, outpatient study were randomized to: 1). immediate initiation of 30 mg/day aripiprazole with simultaneous immediate discontinuation of current antipsychotic; 2). immediate initiation of 30 mg/day aripiprazole while tapering off current antipsychotic over 2 weeks; or 3). up-titrating aripiprazole to 30 mg/day over 2 weeks, while simultaneously tapering off current antipsychotic. Efficacy assessments included PANSS, CGI-S, and CGI-I scores. Safety assessments included: adverse events (AEs) recording, evaluation of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), vital signs, ECG, and clinical laboratory tests. RESULTS: Efficacy with aripiprazole was maintained during the study with numerical improvements compared with baseline in all three groups. The overall incidence of AEs was broadly comparable across all groups, and AEs were generally mild to moderate in severity and time-limited. Discontinuations due to AEs were comparable across the groups. No deterioration in EPS occurred in any group. The reduction in body weight and plasma prolactin levels following switch to aripiprazole were comparable across the three groups. CONCLUSION: Any of the three strategies evaluated can be used safely for switching patients to aripiprazole from antipsychotic monotherapy. Furthermore, patients' symptoms may continue to improve after switching to aripiprazole.