Safety and efficacy of mirikizumab versus secukinumab and placebo in the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (OASIS-2): a phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind study.

BACKGROUND: Risankizumab and guselkumab, inhibitors of the interleukin (IL)-23 p19 subunit, are approved for treatment of adult patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, and both have shown superiority over placebo in randomised clinical trials. Both agents have also shown superiority to the IL-17 inhibitor secukinumab at different timepoints. We investigated the efficacy and safety of the IL-23 p19 inhibitor mirikizumab versus placebo and secukinumab for patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. METHODS: OASIS-2 was a phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind trial. We recruited participants aged at least 18 years who had a confirmed diagnosis of chronic plaque psoriasis for at least 6 months before baseline that involved at least 10% of body surface area (BSA), an absolute Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score of at least 12, and a Static Physician's Global Assessment (sPGA) score of at least 3 at both the screening and baseline visits. We excluded patients who had an uncontrolled or unstable health condition at screening. We randomly assigned patients (4:4:4:1) to receive 250 mg mirikizumab every 4 weeks for 16 weeks (induction) then every 8 weeks from week 16 to week 52 (maintenance); 250 mg mirikizumab every 4 weeks for 16 weeks, then 125 mg mirikizumab every 8 weeks from week 16 to 52; 300 mg secukinumab once weekly up to week 4, then every 4 weeks thereafter; or placebo every 4 weeks for 16 weeks, followed by 250 mg mirikizumab every 4 weeks from week 16 to 32 and then every 8 weeks from week 32 to 52. The primary outcome was superiority of mirikizumab (250 mg induction dose) versus placebo at week 16, assessed as the proportion of patients with an sPGA score of 0 or 1 with an improvement from baseline of at least 2 points, and the proportion of patients with at least 90% improvement from baseline in PASI score (PASI 90), in the intention-to-treat-population. We assessed safety in all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of mirikizumab until week 16 (induction safety population) and all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of mirikizumab or secukinumab until week 52 (active treatment safety population). This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03535194, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between June 26, 2018, and April 2, 2019, we screened 1738 participants, of whom 1465 (84·3%) were enrolled. The mean age of participants was 46·0 years (SD 13·8), 1000 (68·3%) were men, 465 (31·7%) were women, and 1195 (81·6%) were White. Participants were randomly assigned to receive mirikizumab 250 mg for induction and maintenance (n=454 [31·0%]), mirikizumab 250 mg for induction and 125 mg for maintenance (n=451 [30·8%]), secukinumab 300 mg (n=448 [30·6%]), or placebo followed by mirikizumab (n=112 [7·6%]). Baseline characteristics were similar across treatment groups. At week 16, 721 (79·7% [95% CI 77·0-82·3]) of 905 participants in the mirikizumab 250 mg induction groups had an sPGA score of 0 or 1 versus seven (6·3% [1·8-10·7]) of 112 participants in the placebo group (p<0·0001 for superiority). At week 16, 673 (74·4% [71·5-77·2]) of 905 participants in the mirikizumab groups had PASI 90 compared with seven (6·3% [1.8-10.7]) in the placebo group (p<0·0001 for superiority). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported with similar frequency across treatment groups during weeks 0-52. Four major adverse cardiovascular events were reported in the mirikizumab groups versus none in the placebo and secukinumab groups up to week 16, with one fatal acute myocardial infarction in a patient treated with mirikizumab, which the investigator considered to be related to the study drug. INTERPRETATION: This trial showed superiority of mirikizumab at a dose of 250 mg over placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, with a safety profile consistent with that of the IL-23 class. The study sponsor is not pursuing licensing of mirikizumab in this patient population because of a reprioritised development strategy with a focus on gastrointestinal-related indications. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Efficacy and safety of mirikizumab in psoriasis: results from a 52-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized withdrawal, phase III trial (OASIS-1).

BACKGROUND: Interleukin-23 inhibitors are effective and safe for treating moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of mirikizumab in adult patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis through 52 weeks in a phase III randomized controlled trial. METHODS: OASIS-1 (NCT03482011) was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized withdrawal, phase III trial. Patients (n = 530, randomized 4 : 1) received subcutaneous mirikizumab 250 mg or placebo every 4 weeks (Q4W) through week 16. Coprimary endpoints were superiority of mirikizumab vs. placebo on static Physician's Global Assessment (sPGA; score of 0 or 1 with ≥ 2-point improvement) and ≥ 90% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 90, responders) at week 16. Mirikizumab responders were rerandomized (1 : 1 : 1) to mirikizumab 250 mg every 8 weeks (Q8W), mirikizumab 125 mg Q8W, or placebo Q8W through week 52. Secondary endpoints were evaluated at weeks 16 and 52. Safety was monitored in all patients. RESULTS: All primary and key secondary endpoints were met. At week 16, sPGA(0,1) responses were significantly greater with mirikizumab (293 of 423, 69·3%) than placebo (seven of 107, 6·5%) (P < 0·001). PASI 90 response was also greater with mirikizumab (272 of 423, 64·3%) than placebo (seven of 107, 6·5%) (P < 0·001). Significantly more patients in the mirikizumab arms achieved PASI 75 and PASI 100 (mirikizumab 349, 82·5% and 137, 32·4%; placebo 10, 9·3% and 1, 0·9%, respectively; all P < 0·001). At week 52, PASI 90, PASI 100 and sPGA(0,1) responses were mirikizumab 250Q4W/placeboQ8W (N = 91; 19%, 10%, 18%), mirikizumab 250Q4W/125Q8W (N = 90; 86%, 59%, 86%) and mirikizumab 250Q4W/250Q8W (N = 91; 86%, 60%, 82%; all P < 0·001), respectively. Rates of serious adverse events were similar across treatments (induction: mirikizumab 1·2% vs. placebo 1·9%; maintenance: mirikizumab 250Q4W/125Q8W 1%, mirikizumab 250Q4W/250Q8W 3% vs. placebo 3%). No deaths occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Mirikizumab was superior to placebo at week 16 and maintained efficacy through week 52, with no new safety signals. What is already known about this topic? Interleukin (IL)-23 is a key cytokine in the pathogenesis of psoriasis. Drugs targeting the p19 subunit of IL-23 have recently been approved for the treatment of adult patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis achieved significantly greater improvements in skin measures and patient-reported quality-of-life measures after 16 weeks when treated every 8 weeks with mirikizumab compared with placebo in a phase II clinical trial. What does this study add? Compared with placebo, mirikizumab demonstrated high levels of efficacy at week 16 in a large phase III trial; safety profiles were similar between the mirikizumab and placebo arms. After week 16, patients maintained on doses of mirikizumab 250 mg every 8 weeks (Q8W) or 125 mg Q8W showed similar efficacy and favourable safety profiles over 52 weeks, whereas patients switched to placebo gradually lost efficacy over time.

Efficacy and safety of ixekizumab treatment for Japanese patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, erythrodermic psoriasis and generalized pustular psoriasis: Results from a 52-week, open-label, phase 3 study (UNCOVER-J).

Psoriasis, a chronic, immune-mediated skin disease characterized by red, scaly plaques, affects approximately 0.3% of the population in Japan. The aim of this open-label study was to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of ixekizumab, a humanized, anti-interleukin-17A monoclonal antibody, in Japanese patients with plaque psoriasis (n = 78, including 11 psoriatic arthritis), erythrodermic psoriasis (n = 8) and generalized pustular psoriasis (n = 5). Ixekizumab was administrated s.c. at baseline (week 0, 160 mg), from weeks 2 to 12 (80 mg every 2 weeks), and from weeks 16 to 52 (80 mg every 4 weeks). At week 52, 92.3% of patients with plaque psoriasis achieved Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75, 80.8% achieved PASI 90, 48.7% achieved PASI 100, and 52.6% had remission of plaques (by static Physician Global Assessment, sPGA [0]). Difficult to treat areas of psoriasis (nail or scalp) also responded to ixekizumab. All patients with psoriatic arthritis who were assessed (5/5) achieved an American College of Rheumatology 20 response. Most patients with erythrodermic psoriasis or generalized pustular psoriasis responded to ixekizumab and the clinical outcome was maintained over 52 weeks (75% and 60% of patients achieved sPGA [0, 1] at week 52, respectively). Mostly mild or moderate treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 79 of 91 patients; the most common were nasopharyngitis, eczema, seborrheic dermatitis, urticaria and injection site reactions. In conclusion, 52-week ixekizumab treatment was efficacious and well tolerated in Japanese patients with plaque psoriasis. Efficacy was also observed in patients with erythrodermic psoriasis, generalized pustular psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.

Phase 3 Trials of Ixekizumab in Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis.

BACKGROUND: Two phase 3 trials (UNCOVER-2 and UNCOVER-3) showed that at 12 weeks of treatment, ixekizumab, a monoclonal antibody against interleukin-17A, was superior to placebo and etanercept in the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis. We report the 60-week data from the UNCOVER-2 and UNCOVER-3 trials, as well as 12-week and 60-week data from a third phase 3 trial, UNCOVER-1. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1296 patients in the UNCOVER-1 trial, 1224 patients in the UNCOVER-2 trial, and 1346 patients in the UNCOVER-3 trial to receive subcutaneous injections of placebo (placebo group), 80 mg of ixekizumab every 2 weeks after a starting dose of 160 mg (2-wk dosing group), or 80 mg of ixekizumab every 4 weeks after a starting dose of 160 mg (4-wk dosing group). Additional cohorts in the UNCOVER-2 and UNCOVER-3 trials were randomly assigned to receive 50 mg of etanercept twice weekly. At week 12 in the UNCOVER-3 trial, the patients entered a long-term extension period during which they received 80 mg of ixekizumab every 4 weeks through week 60; at week 12 in the UNCOVER-1 and UNCOVER-2 trials, the patients who had a response to ixekizumab (defined as a static Physicians Global Assessment [sPGA] score of 0 [clear] or 1 [minimal psoriasis]) were randomly reassigned to receive placebo, 80 mg of ixekizumab every 4 weeks, or 80 mg of ixekizumab every 12 weeks through week 60. Coprimary end points were the percentage of patients who had a score on the sPGA of 0 or 1 and a 75% or greater reduction from baseline in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75) at week 12. RESULTS: In the UNCOVER-1 trial, at week 12, the patients had better responses to ixekizumab than to placebo; in the 2-wk dosing group, 81.8% had an sPGA score of 0 or 1 and 89.1% had a PASI 75 response; in the 4-wk dosing group, the respective rates were 76.4% and 82.6%; and in the placebo group, the rates were 3.2% and 3.9% (P<0.001 for all comparisons of ixekizumab with placebo). In the UNCOVER-1 and UNCOVER-2 trials, among the patients who were randomly reassigned at week 12 to receive 80 mg of ixekizumab every 4 weeks, 80 mg of ixekizumab every 12 weeks, or placebo, an sPGA score of 0 or 1 was maintained by 73.8%, 39.0%, and 7.0% of the patients, respectively. Patients in the UNCOVER-3 trial received continuous treatment of ixekizumab from weeks 0 through 60, and at week 60, at least 73% had an sPGA score of 0 or 1 and at least 80% had a PASI 75 response. Adverse events reported during ixekizumab use included neutropenia, candidal infections, and inflammatory bowel disease. CONCLUSIONS: In three phase 3 trials involving patients with psoriasis, ixekizumab was effective through 60 weeks of treatment. As with any treatment, the benefits need to be weighed against the risks of adverse events. The efficacy and safety of ixekizumab beyond 60 weeks of treatment are not yet known. (Funded by Eli Lilly; UNCOVER-1, UNCOVER-2, and UNCOVER-3 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers NCT01474512, NCT01597245, and NCT01646177, respectively.).

Comparison of ixekizumab with etanercept or placebo in moderate-to-severe psoriasis (UNCOVER-2 and UNCOVER-3): results from two phase 3 randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Ixekizumab is a humanised monoclonal antibody against the proinflammatory cytokine interleukin 17A. We report two studies of ixekizumab compared with placebo or etanercept to assess the safety and efficacy of specifically targeting interleukin 17A in patients with widespread moderate-to-severe psoriasis. METHODS: In two prospective, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 studies (UNCOVER-2 and UNCOVER-3), eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had a confirmed diagnosis of chronic plaque psoriasis at least 6 months before baseline (randomisation), 10% or greater body-surface area involvement at both screening and baseline visits, at least a moderate clinical severity as measured by a static physician global assessment (sPGA) score of 3 or more, and a psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) score of 12. Participants were randomly assigned (1:2:2:2) by computer-generated random sequence with an interactive voice response system to receive subcutaneous placebo, etanercept (50 mg twice weekly), or one injection of 80 mg ixekizumab every 2 weeks, or every 4 weeks after a 160 mg starting dose. Blinding was maintained with a double-dummy design. Coprimary efficacy endpoints were proportions of patients achieving sPGA score 0 or 1 and 75% or greater improvement in PASI at week 12. Analysis was by intention to treat. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01597245 and NCT01646177. FINDINGS: Between May 30, 2012, and Dec 30, 2013, 1224 patients in UNCOVER-2 were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous placebo (n=168), etanercept (n=358), or ixekizumab every 2 weeks (n=351) or every 4 weeks (n=347); between Aug 11, 2012, and Feb 27, 2014, 1346 patients in UNCOVER-3 were randomly assigned to receive placebo (n=193), etanercept (n=382), ixekizumab every 2 weeks (n=385), or ixekizumab every 4 weeks (n=386). At week 12, both primary endpoints were met in both studies. For UNCOVER-2 and UNCOVER-3 respectively, in the ixekizumab every 2 weeks group, PASI 75 was achieved by 315 (response rate 89·7%; [effect size 87·4% (97·5% CI 82·9-91·8) vs placebo; 48·1% (41·2-55·0) vs etanercept]) and 336 (87·3%; [80·0% (74·4-85·7) vs placebo; 33·9% (27·0-40·7) vs etanercept]) patients; in the ixekizumab every 4 weeks group, by 269 (77·5%; [75·1% (69·5-80·8) vs placebo; 35·9% (28·2-43·6) vs etanercept]) and 325 (84·2%; [76·9% (71·0-82·8) vs placebo; 30·8% (23·7-37·9) vs etanercept]) patients; in the placebo group, by four (2·4%) and 14 (7·3%) patients; and in the etanercept group by 149 (41·6%) and 204 (53·4%) patients (all p<0·0001 vs placebo or etanercept). In the ixekizumab every 2 weeks group, sPGA 0/1 was achieved by 292 (response rate 83·2%; [effect size 80·8% (97·5% CI 75·6-86·0) vs placebo; 47·2% (39·9-54·4) vs etanercept]) and 310 (80·5%; [73·8% (67·7-79·9) vs placebo; 38·9% (31·7-46·1) vs etanercept]) patients; in the ixekizumab every 4 weeks group by 253 (72·9%; [70·5% (64·6-76·5) vs placebo; 36·9% (29·1-44·7) vs etanercept]) and 291 (75·4%; [68·7% (62·3-75·0) vs placebo; 33·8% (26·3-41·3) vs etanercept]) patients; in the placebo group by four (2·4%) and 13 (6·7%) patients; and in the etanercept group by 129 (36·0%) and 159 (41·6%) patients (all p<0·0001 vs placebo or etanercept). In combined studies, serious adverse events were reported in 14 (1·9%) of 734 patients given ixekizumab every 2 weeks, 14 (1·9%) of 729 given ixekizumab every 4 weeks, seven (1·9%) of 360 given placebo, and 14 (1·9%) of 739 given etanercept; no deaths were noted. INTERPRETATION: Both ixekizumab dose regimens had greater efficacy than placebo and etanercept over 12 weeks in two independent studies. These studies show that selectively neutralising interleukin 17A with a high affinity antibody potentially gives patients with psoriasis a new and effective biological therapy option. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Co.

Efficacy and safety of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination vs fluoxetine monotherapy following successful combination therapy of treatment-resistant major depressive disorder.

This study assessed prevention of relapse in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) taking olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC). Patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who failed to satisfactorily respond to ≥ 2 different antidepressants for ≥ 6 weeks within the current MDD episode were acutely treated for 6-8 weeks, followed by stabilization (12 weeks) on OFC. Those who remained stable were randomized to OFC or fluoxetine for up to 27 weeks. Time-to-relapse was the primary efficacy outcome defined as 50% increase in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score with Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Depression score of ≥ 4; hospitalization for depression or suicidality; or discontinuation for lack of efficacy or worsening of depression or suicidality. A total of 444 patients were randomized 1:1 to OFC (N=221) or fluoxetine (N=223). Time-to-relapse was significantly longer in OFC-treated patients compared with fluoxetine-treated patients (p<0.001). Treatment-emergent weight gain and some mean and categorical fasting metabolic changes were significantly greater in OFC-treated patients. Clinically significant weight gain (≥ 7%) was observed in 55.7% of patients who remained on OFC throughout the study, including the relapse-prevention phase (up to 47 weeks). There were no significant differences between patients treated with OFC and fluoxetine in extrapyramidal symptoms or serious adverse events. We believe this is the first controlled relapse-prevention study in subjects with TRD that supports continued use of a second-generation antipsychotic beyond stabilization. A thorough assessment of benefits and risks (in particular metabolic changes) associated with continuing treatment with OFC or fluoxetine must be done based on individual patient needs.

Comparison of long-term (at least 24 weeks) weight gain and metabolic changes between adolescents and adults treated with olanzapine.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of these analyses was to compare the weight and other metabolic changes between adolescents and adults during long-term (at least 24 weeks) olanzapine treatment. METHOD: The adult database included 86 studies with 12,425 patients with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, depression, borderline personality disorder, or bipolar I disorder; the adolescent database comprised six studies with 489 patients with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, borderline personality disorder, bipolar I disorder, or prodromal psychosis. Patients who had at least 24 weeks of olanzapine exposure (N=4,280 from adult database and N=179 from adolescent database) were analyzed in this study. Weight data were collected for all patients, fasting glucose and lipids data were collected in some patients. For weight gain, data in 34.5% adults (4,280/12,425) and 36.6% adolescents (179/489) were analyzed while for glucose and lipids, data in 8.4% (1,038/12,425) adults and 24.9% adolescents (122/489) were analyzed. Adult patients were treated with oral (5-20 mg/day) or depot formulations (doses equivalent to oral doses of 5-20 mg/day) of olanzapine and adolescent patients were treated with oral olanzapine (2.5-20 mg/day). The incidences of potentially clinically significant categorical changes in weight and metabolic parameters were calculated with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Nonoverlapping 95% CIs were considered as indicating a statistically significant difference. Weight, lipid, and glucose change comparisons are summarized. RESULTS: The mean age for adolescents and adults was 15.8 and 38.8, respectively. The percentage of the male population was similar for both adults (58.5%) and adolescents (62.8%). The median duration of the follow-up period was 201 days for adolescent database and 280 days for adult database. The mean weight gain from baseline to endpoint in adolescents was 11.24 kg when compared with 4.81 kg in adults. The 95% CI for adolescents (10.1, 12.4) and adults (4.57, 5.04) are not overlapping, which indicates that the difference between adolescents and adults is statistically significant. The percentage of olanzapine-treated adolescents with ≥ 7% mean weight gain was 89.4% compared with 55.4% in adults (Number need to harm [NNH]=3). Mean changes from baseline to endpoint were also greater for adolescents than for adults in fasting total cholesterol (5.49 mg/dL vs. 2.06 mg/dL), LDL (5.41 mg/dL vs. 0.49 mg/dL), and triglycerides (20.49 mg/dL vs. 16.72 mg/dL), but overlapping 95% CIs were observed for all lipid parameters. Mean changes from baseline to endpoint in fasting glucose values were similar between adolescents and adults (3.13 mg/dL vs. 3.95 mg/dL). However, the incidence of treatment-emergent significant glucose changes was greater in adults. Among olanzapine-treated adults and adolescents, 8.9% and 0.9% experienced a shift from normal to high and 12.5% and 3.3% experienced a shift from normal/impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) to high fasting glucose, respectively. The incidence of IGT to high elevations in glucose was greater in adolescents, but overlapping 95% CI was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The types of metabolic changes during the long-term olanzapine treatment in adolescents were similar to those observed in adults. However, the magnitude of changes in weight and lipid parameters was greater in adolescents. Patients should receive regular monitoring of weight, fasting blood glucose, and lipid profile at the beginning of, and periodically during, treatment with olanzapine.

Factors associated with adherence to treatment with olanzapine and other atypical antipsychotic medications in patients with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES: Poor treatment response is an important factor contributing to lack of treatment adherence. The goals of this research were to determine whether improvements in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) symptom domains predict the likelihood of staying on treatment and whether differential responses to treatment with various atypical antipsychotics in specific symptom domains account for differences in discontinuation rates or treatment adherence. METHODS: We conducted a post-hoc analysis of pooled data from 5 randomized, double-blind, 24- to 28-week clinical trials in 1103 olanzapine-treated and 1090 risperidone-, quetiapine-, ziprasidone-, or aripiprazole-treated adult patients with schizophrenia. The 5 PANSS factors were tested as potential predictors of treatment adherence for all treatment groups combined. Treatment differences in the 5 PANSS factors and individual items were assessed between olanzapine and the other atypical antipsychotics combined. Secondary analyses repeated for the 21 Heinrichs Quality of Life Scale (QLS) items. RESULTS: Improvement in PANSS positive factor was the strongest predictor of treatment adherence, irrespective of medication (based on standardized scores, hazard ratio [HR], 1.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], +1.40 to +1.79; P < .001). Improvement in PANSS hostility (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, +1.11 to +1.37; P < .001) and depressive (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, +1.05 to +1.27; P = .002) factors was also a significant predictor; negative and disorganized thoughts factors were not. All QLS items had significant predictive effects. Olanzapine-treated patients showed significantly greater improvements than all other groups at week 24 on all 5 PANSS factors (P = .028 for negative; P < .001 for all others) and on 3 QLS items. CONCLUSION: Significant improvement in positive symptoms, regardless of treatment, followed by significant improvement in hostility and depressive symptoms, may best predict treatment adherence. Olanzapine-treated patients experienced significantly greater improvements in these specific symptoms than patients treated with the other atypical antipsychotics examined. These findings may further explain why olanzapine-treated patients continue treatment more often.

Change in level of productivity in the treatment of schizophrenia with olanzapine or other antipsychotics.

BACKGROUND: When treating schizophrenia, improving patients' productivity level is a major goal considering schizophrenia is a leading cause of functional disability. Productivity level has been identified as the most preferred treatment outcome by patients with schizophrenia. However, little has been done to systematically investigate productivity levels in schizophrenia. We set out to better understand the change in productivity level among chronically ill patients with schizophrenia treated with olanzapine compared with other antipsychotic medications. We also assessed the links between productivity level and other clinical outcomes. METHODS: This post hoc analysis used data from 6 randomized, double-blind clinical trials of patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, with each trial being of approximately 6 months duration. Change in productivity level was compared between olanzapine-treated patients (HGBG, n = 172; HGHJ, n = 277; HGJB, n = 171; HGLB, n = 281; HGGN, n = 159; HGDH, n = 131) and patients treated with other antipsychotic medications (separately vs. haloperidol [HGGN, n = 97; HGDH, n = 132], risperidone [HGBG, n = 167; HGGN, n = 158], quetiapine [HGJB, n = 175], ziprasidone [HGHJ, n = 271] and aripiprazole [HGLB, n = 285]). Productivity was defined as functional activities/work including working for pay, studying, housekeeping and volunteer work. Productivity level in the prior 3 months was assessed on a 5-point scale ranging from no useful functioning to functional activity/work 75% to 100% of the time. RESULTS: Chronically ill patients treated with olanzapine (OLZ) experienced significantly greater improvement in productivity when compared to patients treated with risperidone (RISP) (OLZ = 0.22 ± 1.19, RISP = -0.03 ± 1.17, p = 0.033) or ziprasidone (ZIP) (OLZ = 0.50 ± 1.38, ZIP = 0.25 ± 1.27, p = 0.026), but did not significantly differ from the quetiapine, aripiprazole or haloperidol treatment groups. Among first episode patients, OLZ therapy was associated with greater improvements in productivity levels compared to haloperidol (HAL), during the acute phase (OLZ = -0.31 ± 1.59, HAL = -0.69 ± 1.56, p = 0.011) and over the long-term (OLZ = 0.10 ± 1.50, HAL = -0.32 ± 1.91, p = 0.008). Significantly more chronically ill and first episode patients treated with olanzapine showed moderately high (>50%-75% of the time) and high levels of productivity (>75%-100% of the time) at endpoint, when compared to risperidone or haloperidol-treated patients (p < .05), respectively. Higher productivity level was associated with significantly higher study completion rates and better scores on the positive, negative, disorganized thoughts, hostility and depression subscales of the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS). CONCLUSIONS: Some antipsychotic medications significantly differed in beneficial impact on productivity level in the long-term treatment of patients with schizophrenia. Findings further highlight the link between clinical and functional outcomes, showing significant associations between higher productivity, lower symptom severity and better persistence on therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00088049; NCT00036088.

A multicenter, inpatient, phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled dose-ranging study of LY2140023 monohydrate in patients with DSM-IV schizophrenia.

The primary objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that 1 or more dose levels of LY2140023 monohydrate, an oral prodrug of the potent metabotropic glutamate (mGlu) 2/3 receptor agonist LY404039, given to patients with schizophrenia for 4 weeks would demonstrate significantly greater efficacy than placebo. The HBBI study was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel, placebo- and active-controlled trial. Male and female patients aged 18 to 65 years who met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) criteria for schizophrenia were randomized in a 2:2:2:2:2:1 ratio to receive 5-, 20-, 40-, or 80-mg LY2140023 monohydrate twice daily, placebo twice daily, or placebo (am) and 15 mg of olanzapine (pm) daily. Efficacy was defined as the change from baseline on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score assessed at 4 weeks. The primary analysis did not show that any of the 4 LY2140023 monohydrate doses were more efficacious than placebo as measured by the PANSS total score. Similarly, olanzapine did not significantly separate from placebo. A higher-than-anticipated treatment effect (14.6-point improvement) in the placebo group was observed on PANSS total score. LY2140023 monohydrate was generally well tolerated, although 4 patients reported the serious adverse event of convulsion. LY2140023 monohydrate-treated patients showed little change in dopamine-related adverse events and weight. The results of the HBBI study are considered to be inconclusive because LY2140023 monohydrate and the active control olanzapine did not separate from placebo in the treatment of patients with acutely exacerbated schizophrenia. Additional efficacy, safety, and tolerability testing are needed.

Metabolic parameters in patients treated with olanzapine or other atypical antipsychotics.

The relative risk of changes in metabolic parameters during treatment with atypical antipsychotics has not been fully investigated. Baseline-to-endpoint mean and anytime-categorical changes in metabolic parameters were evaluated in Lilly active comparator-controlled clinical trials. Olanzapine-treated patients gained significantly more baseline-to-endpoint weight versus risperidone- (3.3 kg [N = 713; median exposure [ME, days] = 68] versus 1.8 kg [N = 697; ME = 65], p < 0.001), ziprasidone-(2.8 kg [N = 463; ME = 168] versus -1.3 kg [N = 443; ME = 89], p < 0.001), and aripiprazole-treated patients (3.7 kg [N = 273; ME = 104] versus 0.5 kg [N = 275; ME = 187], p < 0.001). Significantly more olanzapine-treated patients gained ≥ 7% of their baseline weight versus risperidone-(30.6% [N = 713; ME = 169] versus 20.2% [N = 697; ME = 140], p < 0.001), ziprasidone-(30.0% [N = 463; ME = 147] versus 6.5% [N = 443; ME = 165], p < 0.001), and aripiprazole-treated patients (40.3% [N = 273; ME = 170] versus 16.4% [N = 275; ME = 154], p < 0.001). Olanzapine-treated patients had significantly greater baseline-to-endpoint changes in fasting triglycerides compared with ziprasidone- (0.24 mmol/L [N = 365; ME = 168] versus -0.24 mmol/L [N = 316; ME = 140], p < 0.001) and aripiprazole-treated patients (0.28 mmol/L [N = 215; ME = 195] versus -0.19 mmol/L [N = 210; ME = 194], p < 0.001). Olanzapine-treated patients had significantly greater baseline-to-endpoint changes in fasting glucose than ziprasidone-(0.25 mmol/L [N = 379; ME = 168] versus -0.04 mmol/L [N = 333; ME = 133], p = 0.016) and aripiprazole-treated patients (0.27 mmol/L [N = 227; ME = 195] versus 0.04 mmol/L [N = 220; ME = 194], p = 0.048). The study concluded that there are changes with varying frequencies and magnitude in some metabolic parameters in patients treated with olanzapine compared with other atypical antipsychotics.

Cost-effectiveness of olanzapine vs. aripiprazole in the treatment of schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: Information about the cost-effectiveness of aripiprazole relative to other atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia is limited. This information is needed to better inform drug formulary managers and population-based health care decision makers. The objective of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of olanzapine to aripiprazole in the treatment of schizophrenia from the perspective of public payers in the United States. METHODS: Data for this post-hoc analysis came from a 28-week double-blind, randomized trial of individuals with schizophrenia who were treated with olanzapine or aripiprazole (clinicaltrial.gov identifier NCT00088049). Two-thirds (67.7%) of the patients were male and the patients' mean age was 37.6 years. Utilities were calculated based on previously published methods using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and treatment-emergent adverse events. Treatment costs were calculated based on previously published methods and were inflated to 2008 US dollars. A mixed model was used to compare outcomes on utilities. Propensity score-adjusted analysis of covariance was used for the cost analysis. RESULTS: Olanzapine treatment was associated with statistically significantly greater total utility scores relative to aripiprazole (0.78 vs. 0.76; p = 0.024) and lower total treatment costs ($22,831 vs. $24,749; p = 0.013), although medication acquisition cost was significantly higher for olanzapine than aripiprazole ($3524 vs. $2637; p < 0.001). An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was not calculated because olanzapine was found to be the dominant choice (i.e., greater effectiveness and lower total costs). CONCLUSIONS: This cost-effectiveness analysis is the first to use patient-level data from a randomized, double-blind study comparing olanzapine and aripiprazole in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia. Olanzapine was found to be a dominant cost-effective choice, as it was associated with greater effectiveness at lower total costs relative to aripiprazole.

Patient perspectives on antipsychotic treatments and their association with clinical outcomes.

This analysis examined patient-reported attitudes toward antipsychotic medication and the relationship of these attitudes with clinical outcomes and pharmacotherapy adherence. The analysis included three randomized, double-blind studies in patients with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or schizophreniform disorder diagnosed according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th Edition and randomly assigned to treatment with olanzapine 5-20 mg/day or another antipsychotic (haloperidol 2-20 mg/day, risperidone 2-10 mg/day, or ziprasidone 80-160 mg/day). Patient-reported improvements were significantly greater for olanzapine (n = 488) versus other treatments (haloperidol n = 145, risperidone n = 158, or ziprasidone n = 271) on multiple Drug Attitude Inventory items. A positive attitude toward medication reported by patients was significantly associated with greater clinical improvement on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and lower discontinuation rates. These results suggest that patients' perceptions of treatment benefits are associated with objective clinical measures, including reduction of symptom severity and lower discontinuation rates. Furthermore, olanzapine may be associated with more positive treatment attitudes. These findings may contribute to a better understanding of reasons for treatment adherence from patients' own perspectives.

Therapeutic options for treatment-resistant depression.

Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) presents major challenges for both patients and clinicians. There is no universally accepted definition of TRD, but results from the US National Institute of Mental Health's (NIMH) STAR*D (Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression) programme indicate that after the failure of two treatment trials, the chances of remission decrease significantly. Several pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments for TRD may be considered when optimized (adequate dose and duration) therapy has not produced a successful outcome and a patient is classified as resistant to treatment. Nonpharmacological strategies include psychotherapy (often in conjunction with pharmacotherapy), electroconvulsive therapy and vagus nerve stimulation. The US FDA recently approved vagus nerve stimulation as adjunctive therapy (after four prior treatment failures); however, its benefits are seen only after prolonged (up to 1 year) use. Other nonpharmacological options, such as repetitive transcranial stimulation, deep brain stimulation or psychosurgery, remain experimental and are not widely available. Pharmacological treatments of TRD can be grouped in two main categories: 'switching' or 'combining'. In the first, treatment is switched within and between classes of compounds. The benefits of switching include avoidance of polypharmacy, a narrower range of treatment-emergent adverse events and lower costs. An inherent disadvantage of any switching strategy is that partial treatment responses resulting from the initial treatment might be lost by its discontinuation in favour of another medication trial. Monotherapy switches have also been shown to have limited effectiveness in achieving remission. The advantage of combination strategies is the potential to build upon achieved improvements; they are generally recommended if partial response was achieved with the current treatment trial. Various non-antidepressant augmenting agents, such as lithium and thyroid hormones, are well studied, although not commonly used. There is also evidence of efficacy and increasing use of atypical antipsychotics in combination with antidepressants, for example, olanzapine in combination with fluoxetine (OFC) or augmentation with aripiprazole. The disadvantages of a combination strategy include multiple medications, a broader range of treatment-emergent adverse events and higher costs. Several experimental pharmaceutical treatment alternatives for TRD are also being explored in combination with antidepressants or as monotherapy. These less studied alternative compounds include pindolol, inositol, CNS stimulants, hormones, herbal supplements, omega-3 fatty acids, S-adenosyl-L-methionine, folic acid, lamotrigine, modafinil, riluzole and topiramate. In summary, despite an increasing variety of choices for the treatment of TRD, this condition remains universally undefined and represents an area of unmet medical need. There are few known approved pharmacological agents for TRD (aripiprazole and OFC) and overall outcomes remain poor. This might be an indication that depression itself is a heterogeneous condition with a great diversity of pathologies, highlighting the need for careful evaluation of individuals with depressive symptoms who are unresponsive to treatment. Clearly, more research is needed to provide clinicians with better guidance in making those treatment decisions--especially in light of accumulating evidence that the longer patients are unsuccessfully treated, the worse their long-term prognosis tends to be.

An integrated analysis of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination in clinical trials of treatment-resistant depression.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC) versus olanzapine or fluoxetine monotherapy across all clinical trials of treatment-resistant depression sponsored by Eli Lilly and Company. METHOD: Efficacy and safety data from 1146 patients with a history of nonresponse during the current depressive episode who subsequently exhibited nonresponse during a 6- to 8-week antidepressant open-label lead-in phase and were randomly assigned to OFC (N = 462), fluoxetine (N = 342), or olanzapine (N = 342) for double-blind treatment were analyzed. All patients had a diagnosis of major depressive disorder as defined by DSM-III or DSM-IV criteria. The dates in which the trials were conducted ranged from May 1997 to July 2005. RESULTS: After 8 weeks, OFC patients demonstrated significantly greater Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale improvement (mean change = -13.0) than fluoxetine (-8.6, p < .001) or olanzapine (-8.2, p < .001) patients, via a mixed-effects model repeated-measures analysis. Remission rates were 25.5% for OFC, 17.3% (p = .006) for fluoxetine, and 14.0% (p < .001) for olanzapine. Adverse events in >or= 10% of OFC patients were weight gain, increased appetite, dry mouth, somnolence, fatigue, headache, and peripheral edema. Random glucose mean change (mg/dL) was +7.92 for the OFC group, +1.62 for the fluoxetine group (p = .020), and +9.91 for the olanzapine group (p = .485). Random cholesterol mean change (mg/dL) was +12.4 for OFC, +2.3 for fluoxetine (p < .001), and +3.1 for olanzapine (p < .001); incidence of treatment-emergent increase from normal to high cholesterol (baseline < 200 mg/dL and >or= 240 subsequently) was significantly higher for the OFC group (10.2%) than for the fluoxetine group (3.1%, p = .017) but not the olanzapine group (8.0%, p = .569). Mean weight change (kg) was +4.42 for OFC, -0.15 for fluoxetine (p < .001), and +4.63 for olanzapine (p = .381), with 40.4% of OFC patients gaining >or= 7% body weight (vs. olanzapine: 42.9%, p = .515; fluoxetine: 2.3%, p < .001). CONCLUSION: Results of this analysis showed that OFC-treated patients experienced significantly improved depressive symptoms compared with olanzapine- or fluoxetine-treated patients following failure of 2 or more antidepressants within the current depressive episode. Safety results for OFC were generally consistent with those for its component monotherapies. The total cholesterol increase associated with OFC was more pronounced than with olanzapine alone.

A 28-week, randomized, double-blind study of olanzapine versus aripiprazole in the treatment of schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of olanzapine versus aripiprazole in patients with schizophrenia. METHOD: Patients aged 18 to 65 years with schizophrenia (diagnosed according to DSM-IV-TR criteria) were randomly assigned to either olanzapine (n = 281) or aripiprazole (n = 285) for 28 weeks of double-blind treatment. The primary outcome was time to all-cause discontinuation. Efficacy was measured by Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total change from baseline. Time-to-event data were analyzed via the Kaplan-Meier method. The study was conducted from October 2003 to July 2007. RESULTS: Treatment groups did not differ significantly in time to all-cause discontinuation (p = .067) or all-cause discontinuation rate (olanzapine, 42.7% vs. aripiprazole, 50.2%; p = .053). Olanzapine-treated patients had significantly longer time to efficacy-related discontinuation (p < .001) and a significantly lower efficacy-related discontinuation rate (olanzapine, 8.9% vs. aripiprazole, 16.8%; p = .006). Olanzapine-treated patients had a significantly greater mean decrease (last observation carried forward) in PANSS total score (-30.2) than did aripiprazole-treated patients (-25.9, p = .014). Olanzapine-treated patients had a mean weight change of +3.4 kg (vs. +0.3 kg for aripiprazole-treated patients; p < .001) and a significantly greater incidence of >or= 7% body weight gain at any time (40.3% vs. 16.4%; p < .001). Fasting mean glucose change was +4.87 mg/dL for olanzapine and +0.90 mg/dL for aripiprazole (p = .045). Incidence of baseline glucose < 100 mg/dL and >or= 126 mg/dL at any time was 1.7% for olanzapine and 0.6% for aripiprazole (p = .623). Fasting mean total cholesterol change was +4.09 mg/dL for olanzapine and -9.85 mg/dL for aripiprazole (p < .001). Incidence of baseline total cholesterol < 200 mg/dL and >or= 240 mg/dL at any time was 9.2% for olanzapine and 1.5% for aripiprazole (p = .008). Fasting mean triglycerides change was +25.66 mg/dL for olanzapine and -17.52 mg/dL for aripiprazole (p < .001). Treatment groups did not significantly differ on measures of extrapyramidal symptoms. CONCLUSION: Treatment groups did not differ significantly on the primary outcome. Olanzapine-treated patients had significantly greater improvement in symptom efficacy at 28 weeks as well as significantly greater mean increases in weight and glucose and significantly greater worsening on lipids parameters. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00088049.

Olanzapine plus carbamazepine v. carbamazepine alone in treating manic episodes.

BACKGROUND: Combinations of olanzapine and carbamazepine are often used in clinical practice in the management of mania. AIMS: To assess the efficacy and safety of olanzapine plus carbamazepine in mixed and manic bipolar episodes. METHOD: Randomised, double-blind, 6-week trial of olanzapine (10-30 mg/day) plus carbamazepine (400-1200 mg/day; n=58) v. placebo plus carbamazepine (n=60) followed by open-label, 20-week olanzapine (10-30 mg/day) plus carbamazepine (400-1200 mg/day, n=86), with change in manic symptoms as main outcome measure. Safety and pharmacokinetics were also evaluated. RESULTS: There were no significant differences (baseline to endpoint) in efficacy measures between treatment groups, but at 6 weeks triglyceride levels were significantly higher (P=0.008) and potentially clinically significant weight gain (>or=7%) occurred more frequently (24.6% v. 3.4%, P=0.002) in the combined olanzapine and carbamazepine group. Carbamazepine reduced olanzapine concentrations but olanzapine had no effect on carbamazepine concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of olanzapine and carbamazepine did not have superior efficacy to carbamazepine alone. The increases in weight and triglycerides observed during combination treatment are a matter of concern.

A randomized, double-blind comparison of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, olanzapine, and fluoxetine in treatment-resistant major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Two parallel, 8-week double-blind studies compared olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, olanzapine, and fluoxetine in outpatients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). METHOD: Treatment-resistant depression was defined as a documented history of current-episode antidepressant failure plus a prospective failure on fluoxetine. Following an 8-week fluoxetine lead-in, 605 nonresponders with DSM-IV major depressive disorder were randomly assigned to olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, olanzapine, or fluoxetine. The primary outcome measure was baseline-to-endpoint mean change on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). The study was conducted from April 2002 to May 2005. RESULTS: After 8 weeks of double-blind treatment, Study 1 revealed no statistically significant therapy differences in MADRS mean change (olanzapine/fluoxetine combination: -11.0, fluoxetine: -9.4, olanzapine: -10.5). In Study 2, olanzapine/fluoxetine combination demonstrated significantly greater MADRS improvement (-14.5) than fluoxetine (-8.6, p < .001) and olanzapine (-7.0, p < .001). Pooled study results revealed significant differences for olanzapine/ fluoxetine combination (-12.7) versus fluoxetine (-9.0, p < .001) and olanzapine (-8.8, p < .001). Pooled remission rates were 27% for olanzapine/ fluoxetine combination, 17% for fluoxetine, and 15% for olanzapine. Adverse events were consistent with previous studies. Cholesterol mean change (mg/dL) was +15.1 for olanzapine/ fluoxetine combination, +0.8 for fluoxetine, and +2.7 for olanzapine. Mean weight change (kg) was +4.9 for olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, +0.4 for fluoxetine, and +5.5 for olanzapine. Nonfasting glucose mean change (mg/dL) was +11.4 for olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, +4.9 for fluoxetine, and +9.9 for olanzapine. CONCLUSION: Patients with TRD (defined as treatment failure on 2 antidepressants) taking olanzapine/fluoxetine combination demonstrated significantly greater improvement in depressive symptoms than patients taking olanzapine or fluoxetine in 1 of 2 studies and in the pooled analysis. When considered within the context of all available evidence, olanzapine/fluoxetine combination is an efficacious therapy for patients with TRD. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00035321.