Challenges and proposed solutions to conducting Alzheimer's disease psychosis trials.

Alzheimer's disease psychosis (ADP) produces a significant burden for patients and their care partners, but at present there are no approved treatments for ADP. The lack of approved treatments may be due to the challenges of conducting clinical trials for this disease. This perspective article discusses distinct challenges and proposed solutions of conducting ADP trials involving seven key areas: (1) methods to reduce the variable and sometimes high rates of placebo response that occur for treatments of neuropsychiatric symptoms; (2) the use of combined or updated criteria that provide a precise, consensus definition of ADP; (3) the use of eligibility criteria to help recruit individuals representative of the larger ADP population and overcome the difficulty of recruiting patients with moderate-to-severe ADP; (4) consideration of multiple perspectives and implementation of technology to reduce the variability in the administration and scoring of neuropsychiatric symptom assessments; (5) the use of clinically appropriate, a priori-defined severity thresholds and responder cutoffs; (6) the use of statistical approaches that address absolute effect sizes and a three-tier approach to address the fluctuation of neuropsychiatric symptoms; and (7) the implementation of feasible diagnostic and target-engagement biomarkers as they become available. The goal of these proposed solutions is to improve the evaluation of potential ADP therapies, within the context of randomized, placebo-controlled trials with clinically meaningful endpoints and sustained treatment responses.

Safety Profile of Pimavanserin Therapy in Elderly Patients with Neurodegenerative Disease-Related Neuropsychiatric Symptoms: A Phase 3B Study.

Background: Pimavanserin, a 5-HT2A receptor inverse agonist/antagonist, is the only medication approved by the FDA for the treatment of hallucinations and delusions associated with Parkinson's disease psychosis (PDP). Further expanding knowledge of the safety profile of pimavanserin in PDP and neurodegenerative diseases (NDD) such as Alzheimer's disease is of great interest for informing its use in patients with PDP (with or without dementia), given this population is highly sensitive to adverse effects following antipsychotic use. Objective: This trial evaluated the effects of pimavanserin compared to placebo in frail older adults and elderly patients with neuropsychiatric symptoms related to NDD, such as hallucinations and delusions, to better understand the safety of pimavanserin in this population. Methods: This was a phase 3b, 8-week treatment (study duration of up to 16 weeks), multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-arm parallel-group trial (NCT03575052). The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability, measured by treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Secondary safety endpoints were change from baseline in motor and cognitive function; exploratory endpoints included suicidality, sleep quality, and neuropsychiatric symptoms. Results: Incidences of TEAEs were similar between treatment groups; 29.8% reported ≥1 TEAE (pimavanserin: 30.4%; placebo: 29.3%), and 1.8% reported serious TEAEs (pimavanserin: 2.0%; placebo: 1.5%). Pimavanserin did not impact motor- or cognitive-related function. Conclusions: Pimavanserin was well tolerated and not associated with motor or cognitive impairment. Together, these findings highlight the manageable and generally favorable safety profile of pimavanserin in patients with NDD, contributing to our knowledge on the safety of pimavanserin as it generalizes to patients with PDP.

Pimavanserin for psychosis in Parkinson's disease dementia: Subgroup analysis of the HARMONY Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Pimavanserin is FDA-approved to treat Parkinson's disease (PD) psychosis. We analyzed the effect of pimavanserin on psychosis in the PD dementia (PDD) subgroup from the phase 3 HARMONY trial. METHODS: This subgroup analysis included PDD patients enrolled in an international, multicenter, randomized discontinuation study of pimavanserin for dementia-related psychosis. PDD patients with moderate-to-severe psychosis, age 50-90 years, received pimavanserin 34 mg/day for 12 weeks (open-label period). Those with a sustained psychosis response to pimavanserin at weeks 8 and 12 were randomized during the double-blind period to continue pimavanserin or receive placebo. Primary efficacy endpoint was time to psychosis relapse as measured by the SAPS-H + D and CGI-I. Safety was assessed, as were effects on motor symptoms and cognitive abilities using the ESRS-A and MMSE. RESULTS: 392 patients were enrolled in HARMONY (mean age: 72.6 years; 38.8 % female): 59 had PDD; 49/59 remained on pimavanserin during the open-label period (safety analysis set), and 36/49 were randomized to pimavanserin (n = 16) or placebo (n = 20) in the double-blind phase (intent-to-treat analysis set). Risk of psychosis relapse was lower with pimavanserin 34 mg compared with placebo in the double-blind phase (HR = 0.052; 95 % CI 0.016-0.166; 1-sided nominal p < 0.001). During the open-label period, 46.9 % experienced a treatment-emergent adverse event; event incidence was similar across arms in the double-blind period. Pimavanserin did not adversely affect motor or cognitive function in either treatment phase. CONCLUSIONS: Pimavanserin significantly reduced risk of psychosis relapse in patients with PDD, was well tolerated, and did not worsen motor or cognitive function.

Acute haemorrhage from a large renal epithelioid angiomyolipoma: diagnostic and management considerations in a teenage patient with a rare cancer.

Acute renal haemorrhage is a life-threatening condition that is complicated in the context of renal malignancy. Here, we present the case of a teenage male presenting acutely with a large, bleeding renal epithelioid angiomyolipoma (EAML) of the kidney-a rare cancer, which is part of the perivascular epithelioid cell tumour family. The patient was managed acutely with prompt resuscitation, transfer to a centre of expertise and haemorrhagic control using radiologically guided endovascular techniques; this subsequently permitted an oncologically sound procedure (radical nephrectomy, inferior vena cava thrombectomy and lymphadenectomy) to be performed within 24 hours. The description and discussion around this unique case summarises the patient's clinical journey, while exploring the current literature surrounding diagnosis and outcomes of patients with renal EAMLs.

Course of Psychosis in Schizophrenia With Alcohol Use Disorder: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness in Schizophrenia Phase 1 Study.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with schizophrenia and comorbid alcohol use disorder remain understudied. This post hoc analysis evaluated data from Phase 1 of the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness in Schizophrenia study (January 2001-December 2004). METHODS: Patients without substance abuse (except marijuana use) in the month before study entry were categorized into those with a history of alcohol use disorder (SZ + AUD) within 5 years before study entry and those without alcohol use disorder (SZ-only) per DSM-IV criteria. Time to first and recurrent exacerbations and hospitalizations were compared between disease states and between olanzapine and perphenazine, quetiapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone. RESULTS: A total of 1,338 patients (SZ + AUD = 22.6%; SZ-only = 77.4%) were included. Time to first exacerbation of SZ was significantly shorter in the SZ + AUD versus SZ-only population (median = 5.4 vs 6.4 months; hazard ratio [HR] = 1.20 [95% CI, 1.01-1.42]; P = .039). Similar findings were observed for first hospitalization (HR = 1.63 [95% CI, 1.20-2.22]; P = .002) and recurrent hospitalizations (HR = 1.60 [95% CI, 1.18-2.15]; P = .002). The most common reasons leading to exacerbation in both groups were an increase in symptom severity and lack of efficacy. In patients with SZ + AUD related or unrelated to marijuana, perphenazine, quetiapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone were associated with significantly shorter time to first exacerbation versus olanzapine. CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc analysis confirmed that patients with SZ + AUD had a worse illness course than patients with SZ-only and suggests that olanzapine may be associated with a longer time to first and recurrent exacerbations versus other antipsychotics in this difficult-to-treat population. Further research is needed to identify effective treatments for this important yet understudied patient population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00014001.

Opioid system modulation with buprenorphine/samidorphan combination for major depressive disorder: two randomized controlled studies.

The endogenous opioid system is thought to play an important role in the regulation of mood. Buprenorphine/samidorphan (BUP/SAM) combination is an investigational opioid system modulator for adjunctive treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). To confirm results from early studies, we report the efficacy and safety of BUP/SAM as adjunctive treatment in patients with MDD and an inadequate response to antidepressant therapy (ADT) in FORWARD-4 and FORWARD-5: two phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies that utilized the same sequential parallel-comparison design. Efficacy was measured using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). FORWARD-5 achieved the primary endpoint and demonstrated that adjunctive BUP/SAM 2 mg/2 mg was superior to placebo (average difference change from baseline to week 3 through end of treatment [EOT] in MADRS-6 and -10 versus placebo: -1.5, P = 0.018; -1.9, P = 0.026, respectively). FORWARD-4 did not achieve the primary endpoint (change from baseline in MADRS-10 at week 5 versus placebo: -1.8, P = 0.109), although separate analyses showed significant treatment differences at other timepoints using traditional, regulatory-accepted endpoints such as reduction in MADRS-10 at EOT. The pooled analysis of the two studies demonstrated consistently greater reduction in MADRS-10 scores from baseline for BUP/SAM 2 mg/2 mg versus placebo at multiple timepoints including EOT and average change from baseline to week 3 through EOT (-1.8, P = 0.010; -1.8, P = 0.004, respectively). The overall effect size (Hedges' g) in the pooled analyses for MADRS-10 change from baseline to EOT was 0.22. Overall, BUP/SAM was generally well tolerated, with most adverse events (AEs) being mild or moderate in severity. The most common AEs, occurring in ≥5% of patients in the BUP/SAM 2 mg/2 mg treatment group, which was more frequently than the placebo group, included nausea, constipation, dizziness, vomiting, somnolence, fatigue, and sedation. There was minimal evidence of abuse, and no evidence of dependence or opioid withdrawal by AEs or objective measures. This report describes adjunctive BUP/SAM 2 mg/2 mg combination, a therapy with a novel opioidergic mechanism of action, as a potential new treatment option for patients with MDD who have an inadequate response to currently available ADT.

Results from a long-term open-label extension study of adjunctive buprenorphine/samidorphan combination in patients with major depressive disorder.

Buprenorphine/samidorphan (BUP/SAM; ALKS 5461) is an investigational opioid system modulator for the adjunctive treatment of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), who did not respond adequately to prior antidepressant therapy (ADT). FORWARD-2, an open-label extension study, assessed long-term safety and tolerability of adjunctive BUP/SAM treatment in these patients. Patients from four short-term trials and de novo patients were enrolled; all had confirmed MDD and a current major depressive episode lasting 2-24 months. Patients were treated with an established ADT for ≥8 weeks before receiving sublingual, adjunctive BUP/SAM 2 mg/2 mg for up to 52 weeks. Safety (primary objective) was assessed via adverse events (AEs), the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale, and the Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS). Exploratory evaluation of efficacy was done using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Of 1485 patients, 50% completed the study and 11% discontinued due to AEs. AEs of nausea, headache, constipation, dizziness, and somnolence, each occurred in ≥10% of patients. There was no evidence of increased suicidal ideation or behavior. Euphoria-related AEs were uncommon (1.2%). Following abrupt BUP/SAM discontinuation, "drug withdrawal" AEs were infrequent (0.4%), and the incidence of COWS categorical worsening after abrupt drug discontinuation was low (6.5%). Improvements in mean MADRS scores were maintained until study end, suggesting durability of antidepressant effect in patients continuing treatment. BUP/SAM was generally well tolerated, with a low risk of abuse and an AE profile consistent with those seen in placebo-controlled studies. Withdrawal reports were uncommon and of limited clinical impact.

Buprenorphine/samidorphan combination for the adjunctive treatment of major depressive disorder: results of a phase III clinical trial (FORWARD-3).

BACKGROUND: The endogenous opioid system is a fundamental regulator of mood in humans. Previously reported clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of the investigational agent buprenorphine/samidorphan (BUP/SAM) combination, an opioid-system modulator, for the adjunctive treatment of major depressive disorder. We present here a third phase III study of different design. METHODS: Adult patients with major depressive disorder and inadequate response to antidepressant therapy were enrolled in this double-blind, placebo-controlled, placebo run-in study to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of adjunctive BUP/SAM 2 mg/2 mg. Patients with baseline Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score $20 received double-blind placebo in addition to background antidepressant therapy for 4 weeks. Nonresponders were randomized to receive adjunctive BUP/SAM 2 mg/2 mg or placebo for 6 weeks. The primary end point was change in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS)-10 total score from randomization at baseline to the end of the 6-week treatment period. RESULTS: Least-squares mean change in MADRS-10 score at end of treatment was -4.8 (SE 0.67) in the BUP/SAM 2 mg/2 mg group and -4.6 (SE 0.66) in the placebo group (mean difference -0.3 [SE 0.95], P=0.782). There were no differences in MADRS-based response or remission rates. Overall, 42.9% of the BUP/SAM 2 mg/2 mg group and 34.5% of the placebo group experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event during the 6-week treatment period, most of which were mild or moderate in severity. There were no clinically important changes in laboratory parameters, weight, or vital signs and no evidence of abuse potential during treatment or opiate-withdrawal symptoms post treatment. CONCLUSION: Efficacy results in FORWARD-3 measured by change in MADRS-10 score did not meet the primary end point, but postbaseline improvement in MADRS-10 in the BUP/SAM 2 mg/2 mg group was consistent with that seen in previously reported trials. BUP/SAM 2 mg/2 mg was well tolerated.

Mitigation of Olanzapine-Induced Weight Gain With Samidorphan, an Opioid Antagonist: A Randomized Double-Blind Phase 2 Study in Patients With Schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: Preclinical evidence and data from a proof-of-concept study in healthy volunteers suggest that samidorphan, an opioid antagonist, mitigates weight gain associated with olanzapine. This study prospectively compared combination therapy of olanzapine plus either samidorphan or placebo for the treatment of schizophrenia. METHODS: This was an international, multicenter, randomized phase 2 study of olanzapine plus samidorphan in patients with schizophrenia. The study had a 1-week open-label olanzapine lead-in period followed by a 12-week double-blind treatment phase in which patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive olanzapine plus placebo (N=75) or olanzapine plus 5 mg (N=80), 10 mg (N=86), or 20 mg (N=68) of samidorphan. The primary aims were to confirm that the antipsychotic efficacy of olanzapine plus samidorphan was comparable to olanzapine plus placebo, to assess the effect of combining olanzapine with samidorphan on olanzapine-induced weight gain, and to assess the overall safety and tolerability of olanzapine plus samidorphan. RESULTS: Antipsychotic efficacy, as assessed by total score on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), was equivalent across all treatment groups. Treatment with olanzapine plus samidorphan resulted in a statistically significant lower weight gain (37% lower weight gain compared with olanzapine plus placebo). The least square mean percent change from baseline in body weight was 4.1% (2.9 kg) for the olanzapine plus placebo group and 2.6% (1.9 kg) for the olanzapine plus samidorphan group (2.8% [2.1 kg] for the 5 mg group, 2.1% [1.5 kg] for the 10 mg group, and 2.9% [2.2 kg] for the 20 mg group). Adverse events reported at a frequency ≥5% in any of the olanzapine plus samidorphan groups and occurring at a rate ≥2 times greater than in the olanzapine plus placebo group were somnolence, sedation, dizziness, and constipation. Other safety measures were comparable between the olanzapine plus samidorphan groups and the olanzapine plus placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: The antipsychotic efficacy of olanzapine plus samidorphan was equivalent to that of olanzapine plus placebo, and olanzapine plus samidorphan was associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant mitigation of weight gain compared with olanzapine plus placebo. Olanzapine plus samidorphan was generally well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to olanzapine plus placebo.

Integration of sugarcane production technologies for enhanced cane and sugar productivity targeting to increase farmers' income: strategies and prospects.

The idea of doubling the farmers' income in next 5 years has been slated by the Government of India. The specific target of increasing sugarcane farmers' income could be achieved by developing cost-effective technologies, transferring them from laboratory to land, educating the farmers and creating a linkage between all stakeholders. Consistent efforts shall be required to harness all possible sources for increasing farmer's income in and outside the agriculture sector with respect to improvement in sugarcane and sugar productivity, enhancement in resource use efficiency and adopting various other ways and means including intercropping, management of pests and diseases, use of biotechnological tools and minimizing post-harvest deterioration. The advances in sugarcane biotechnology could become remarkable in the coming years, both in terms of improving productivity as well as increasing the value and utility of this crop substantially. In future, genetically modified sugarcane varieties with increased resistance to different biotic and abiotic stresses would serve more towards sugarcane crop improvement. Any possibility of enhancement in the income of sugarcane farmers shall also be dependent upon the profitability and sustainability of the sugar industry. Integration of sugarcane production technologies for improvement in farm productivity, diversified sugarcane production system, reduced cost of cultivation along with increased processing plant efficiency and diversification to produce value added products shall ensure smooth and higher payment to the farmers. Development of low-cost technologies to convert "waste to resource" on a smaller scale shall also help the farmers to increase their income further. This paper focuses on possible measures to be taken up in each aspects of sugarcane cultivation including biotechnological approaches to achieve the goal of enhancing the income of sugarcane farmers substantially, particularly in the sub-tropical region of India.

Abuse Potential of Buprenorphine/Samidorphan Combination Compared to Buprenorphine and Placebo: A Phase 1 Randomized Controlled Trial.

Buprenorphine/samidorphan combination (BUP/SAM) is an opioid system modulator being investigated as adjunctive treatment for major depressive disorder. BUP/SAM is a fixed-dose combination of buprenorphine, a partial µ-opioid receptor agonist and κ-opioid receptor antagonist, and samidorphan, a µ-opioid receptor antagonist added to address the abuse and dependence potential of buprenorphine. In this study, we assessed the effect of samidorphan on the abuse potential of buprenorphine in the BUP/SAM combination in nondependent, recreational, adult opioid users (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02413281). Participants were randomized to 6 treatments in a blinded, Williams crossover design: placebo, BUP/SAM at the intended therapeutic dose (2 mg/2 mg), at 4-fold (8 mg/8 mg) and 8-fold (16 mg/16 mg) the therapeutic dose, and buprenorphine alone (8 mg and 16 mg). The primary end point was maximum effect (Emax ) on the visual analog scale for "at the moment" Drug Liking. Emax of Drug Liking for the BUP/SAM 2 mg/2 mg dose was similar to that for placebo (median within-subject difference [90% confidence interval]: 2.5 [0.0-9.0]). The supratherapeutic doses of BUP/SAM showed differences of small magnitude on Drug Liking Emax compared to placebo. Drug Liking Emax for all BUP/SAM doses were significantly lower than those observed for either buprenorphine dose alone. Fewer participants reported adverse events associated with abuse potential with BUP/SAM than with buprenorphine alone, and the overall safety profile of BUP/SAM was consistent with prior reports in healthy volunteers. These findings indicate that samidorphan substantially reduces the abuse potential of buprenorphine in the BUP/SAM combination.

Abuse Potential of Samidorphan: A Phase I, Oxycodone-, Pentazocine-, Naltrexone-, and Placebo-Controlled Study.

Samidorphan is a µ-opioid receptor antagonist in development for the treatment of schizophrenia, in combination with olanzapine, and major depressive disorder, in combination with buprenorphine, at proposed therapeutic doses of samidorphan 10 mg and 2 mg, respectively. A double-blind, double-dummy, active- and placebo-controlled, crossover study evaluated the abuse potential of samidorphan in healthy, nondependent, recreational opioid users. Following a qualification phase, participants were randomized to 1 of 6 treatment sequences of study drugs: placebo, samidorphan (10 or 30 mg), oxycodone (40 mg), pentazocine (30 mg), and naltrexone (100 mg) in a 6 × 6 Williams design. The primary end point was maximum effect (Emax ) for "at-the-moment" Drug Liking visual analog scale scores. Secondary end points included Emax visual analog scale scores for Take Drug Again and Overall Drug Liking and safety assessments. Among 47 participants, at-the-moment Emax Drug Liking scores for positive study controls oxycodone and pentazocine were significantly higher than placebo (P < .001) and samidorphan (both doses; P < .001). Both samidorphan doses had Emax Drug Liking scores similar to placebo and naltrexone (median within-subject differences of 0.0). Emax Take Drug Again scores for samidorphan (both doses) were higher than placebo, but similar to naltrexone, an unscheduled µ-opioid receptor antagonist. Adverse events to evaluate abuse potential occurred less frequently with samidorphan, naltrexone, and placebo than with oxycodone and pentazocine. Findings from this study support a lack of abuse potential with samidorphan at doses up to 30 mg and a safety profile consistent with previous samidorphan clinical studies.

Adjunctive Lanicemine (AZD6765) in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder and History of Inadequate Response to Antidepressants: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study.

The objective of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of adjunctive lanicemine (NMDA channel blocker) in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) over 12 weeks. This phase IIb, randomized, parallel-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted at 49 centers in four countries between December 2011 and August 2013 in 302 patients aged 18-70 years, meeting criteria for single episode or recurrent MDD and with a history of inadequate treatment response. Patients were required to be taking an allowed antidepressant for at least four weeks prior to screening. Patients were randomized equally to receive 15 double-blind intravenous infusions of adjunctive lanicemine 50 mg, lanicemine 100 mg, or saline over a 12-week course, in addition to ongoing antidepressant. The primary efficacy end point was change in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score from baseline to week 6. Secondary efficacy outcome variables included change in MADRS score from baseline to week 12, response and remission rates, and changes in Clinical Global Impression scale, Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomology Self-Report score, and Sheehan Disability Scale score. Of 302 randomized patients, 240 (79.5%) completed treatment. Although lanicemine was generally well tolerated, neither dose was superior to placebo in reducing depressive symptoms on the primary end point or any secondary measures. There was no significant difference between lanicemine and placebo treatment on any outcome measures related to MDD. Post hoc analyses were performed to explore the possible effects of trial design and patient characteristics in accounting for the contrasting results with a previously reported trial.

Cataractogenic potential of quetiapine versus risperidone in the long-term treatment of patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder: a randomized, open-label, ophthalmologist-masked, flexible-dose, non-inferiority trial.

Clinical observations indicate no cataractogenic potential for quetiapine, in contrast to studies in laboratory animals. This randomized, non-inferiority study compared changes in lens opacity during long-term treatment with quetiapine versus risperidone. Patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder participated in the 2-year, randomized, multicentre, open-label, ophthalmologist-masked, flexible-dose, parallel-group study. Two ophthalmologists examined each patient 6-monthly for presence of nuclear opalescence (N) and cortical (C) or posterior subcapsular opacification (P), according to the lens opacities classification system II. 1098 patients were randomized to treatment. Mean doses were 386.3 mg/day quetiapine and 3.2 mg/day risperidone. Estimated absolute risk differences in cataractogenic events for quetiapine versus risperidone over 2 years were -0.035 (C), -0.012 (N) and -0.017 (P), with upper margins of confidence intervals within the non-inferiority margin of 10%. In post hoc analysis, risk of any lens opacification event was significantly lower for quetiapine than risperidone (6 and 16 events, respectively; risk difference: -0.058; P = 0.035). Efficacy and other safety assessments were in agreement with known profiles of these medications. Quetiapine was non-inferior to risperidone for changes in lens opacity grade in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, indicating that quetiapine does not have clinically significant cataractogenic potential during long-term treatment.

Efficacy and safety of extended-release quetiapine fumarate in youth with bipolar depression: an 8 week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Quetiapine is an atypical antipsychotic with demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of adolescent schizophrenia and pediatric bipolar mania. Large, placebo-controlled studies of interventions in pediatric bipolar depression are lacking. The current study investigated the efficacy and safety of quetiapine extended-release (XR) in patients 10-17 years of age, with acute bipolar depression. METHODS: This multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study investigated quetiapine XR (dose range, 150-300 mg/day) in pediatric outpatients with an American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed., Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) diagnosis of bipolar I or bipolar II disorder (current or most recent episode depressed) treated for up to 8 weeks (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00811473). The primary study outcome was mean change in Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R) total score. Secondary efficacy outcomes included CDRS-R-based response and remission rates. RESULTS: Of 193 patients randomized to treatment, 144 patients completed the study (75.3% of quetiapine XR group [n=70]; 74.0% of placebo group [n=74]). Least squares mean changes in CDRS-R total score at week 8 were: -29.6 (SE, 1.65) with quetiapine XR and -27.3 (SE, 1.60) with placebo, a between-treatment group difference of -2.29 (SE, 1.99; 95% CI, -6.22, 1.65; p=0.25; mixed-model for repeated measures analysis). Rates of response and remission did not differ significantly between treatment groups. The safety profile of quetiapine XR was broadly consistent with the profile reported previously in adult studies of quetiapine XR and pediatric studies of quetiapine immediate-release (IR). Potentially clinically significant elevations in clinical chemistry values included triglycerides (9.3%, quetiapine XR; 1.4%, placebo group) and thyroid stimulating hormone (4.7%, quetiapine XR; 0%, placebo group). An adverse event potentially related to diabetes mellitus occurred in 3.3% of the quetiapine XR versus no adverse events in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Quetiapine XR did not demonstrate efficacy relative to placebo in this 8 week study of pediatric bipolar depression. Quetiapine XR was generally safe and well tolerated.

Extended-release quetiapine fumarate (quetiapine XR) as adjunctive therapy in patients with generalized anxiety disorder and a history of inadequate treatment response: a randomized, double-blind study.

BACKGROUND: For many patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), first-line treatment does not lead to remission. This study investigated the efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive extended-release quetiapine fumarate (quetiapine XR) in patients with GAD and an inadequate response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). METHODS: Patients were randomized to quetiapine XR or placebo adjunctive to SSRI/SNRIs in an 11-week study. The primary endpoint was change from randomization to week 8 in Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) total score. Secondary variables were HAM-A psychic/somatic clusters, response, and remission, and Clinical Global Impression­Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score. RESULTS: A total of 409 patients received quetiapine XR (n=209) or placebo (n=200). The week 8 mean change in HAM-A total score was not statistically significant for quetiapine XR (­10.74; P=.079) vs placebo (­9.61). Secondary variables were generally consistent with the primary analysis, except for a significant reduction in HAM-A total score (week 1) and significant improvements in HAM-A psychic cluster and CGI-S total scores (week 8). Adverse events included dry mouth, somnolence, sedation, headache, and dizziness. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with GAD and an inadequate response to SSRI/SNRIs, adjunctive quetiapine XR did not show a statistically significant effect for the primary endpoint at week 8, although some secondary endpoints were statistically significant vs placebo. Quetiapine XR was generally well tolerated.

Extended-release quetiapine fumarate (quetiapine XR) as adjunctive therapy in patients with generalized anxiety disorder and a history of inadequate treatment response: a randomized, double-blind study.

BACKGROUND: For many patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), first-line treatment does not lead to remission. This study investigated the efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive extended-release quetiapine fumarate (quetiapine XR) in patients with GAD and an inadequate response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). METHODS: Patients were randomized to quetiapine XR or placebo adjunctive to SSRI/SNRIs in an 11-week study. The primary endpoint was change from randomization to week 8 in Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) total score. Secondary variables were HAM-A psychic/somatic clusters, response, and remission, and Clinical Global Impression­Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score. RESULTS: A total of 409 patients received quetiapine XR (n = 209) or placebo (n = 200). The week 8 mean change in HAM-A total score was not statistically significant for quetiapine XR (­10.74; P = .079) vs placebo (­9.61). Secondary variables were generally consistent with the primary analysis, except for a significant reduction in HAM-A total score (week 1) and significant improvements in HAM-A psychic cluster and CGI-S total scores (week 8). Adverse events included dry mouth, somnolence, sedation, headache, and dizziness. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with GAD and an inadequate response to SSRI/ SNRIs, adjunctive quetiapine XR did not show a statistically significant effect for the primary endpoint at week 8, although some secondary endpoints were statistically significant vs placebo. Quetiapine XR was generally well tolerated.

Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of quetiapine in youth with schizophrenia or bipolar I disorder: a 26-week, open-label, continuation study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of quetiapine monotherapy continued for up to 26-weeks in youth with schizophrenia or bipolar I disorder. METHODS: Medically healthy boys and girls with a baseline Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. (DSM-IV-TR) diagnosis of schizophrenia (ages 13-17 years) or a manic episode of bipolar I disorder (ages 10-17 years) who participated in one of two acute, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of immediate-release quetiapine were potentially eligible to enroll in a 26-week, open-label study. During the open-label study, quetiapine was flexibly dosed at 400-800 mg/day, with options to reduce dosing to 200 mg/day based on tolerability. Safety and tolerability outcomes assessed from open-label baseline to week 26 included adverse events (AEs), metabolic/laboratory parameters, extrapyramidal symptoms, suicidality, and vital signs. RESULTS: Of 381 patients enrolled in the open-label study (n=176, schizophrenia; n=205, bipolar disorder diagnosis), 237 patients (62.2%) completed the 26-week study period (71.0%, schizophrenia; 54.6%, bipolar disorder). The most common AEs reported during the study included somnolence, headache, sedation, weight increase, and vomiting. A total of 14.9% of patients experienced a shift to potentially clinically significant low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and 10.2% of patients experienced a shift to potentially clinically significant high triglyceride levels. Weight gain ≥ 7% was reported in 35.6% of patients between open-label baseline and final visit. After adjustment for normal growth, 18.3% of study participants experienced clinically significant weight gain (i.e., increase in body mass index ≥ 0.5 standard deviations from baseline). CONCLUSIONS: In this 26-week study, quetiapine flexibly dosed at 400-800 mg/day, with options to reduce dosing based on tolerability, was generally safe and well tolerated in youth. Clinicians should monitor lipid profiles and weight gain in youth with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder during treatment with quetiapine.

Efficacy and safety of quetiapine in children and adolescents with mania associated with bipolar I disorder: a 3-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of quetiapine monotherapy in children and adolescents with mania associated with bipolar I disorder. METHOD: Patients aged 10 to 17 years, with a DSM-IV-TR diagnosis of a manic episode associated with bipolar I disorder and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score ≥ 20 were randomized to 3 weeks of quetiapine (400 or 600 mg/d) or placebo. The primary efficacy measure was change in YMRS total score. The study was conducted at 34 centers in the United States between August 2004 and July 2006. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population included 277 patients. Least squares mean change in YMRS score from baseline to end point by mixed-model, repeated-measures analysis was -14.25, -15.60, and -9.04 for quetiapine 400 mg/d, quetiapine 600 mg/d, and placebo, respectively (P < .001, each quetiapine dose vs placebo). Significant improvement in YMRS score versus placebo was first observed at day 4 (P = .015) with quetiapine 400 mg/d and day 7 (P < .001) with quetiapine 600 mg/d. Mean changes in body weight at day 21 (observed cases) were 1.7 kg for both quetiapine doses and 0.4 kg for placebo. Numerically larger mean increases in total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides were observed with quetiapine than placebo. Adverse events associated with quetiapine were mostly mild to moderate in intensity. CONCLUSIONS: In this 3-week study, quetiapine was significantly more effective than placebo in improving manic symptoms in youth with mania associated with bipolar disorder. Treatment was generally well tolerated and adverse events were broadly consistent with the known profile of quetiapine in adults with bipolar disorder. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00090311.

Efficacy and safety of quetiapine in adolescents with schizophrenia investigated in a 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of acute quetiapine monotherapy in adolescents with schizophrenia. METHODS: Patients ages 13-17 years with an American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed., Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) diagnosis of schizophrenia and a Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score ≥60 were randomized to 6 weeks of quetiapine (400 or 800 mg/day) or placebo treatment. The primary efficacy measure was change in PANSS total score from baseline to day 42. Safety endpoints included adverse events and assessments of clinical chemistry values, suicidality, and extrapyramidal symptoms. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population included 220 patients. Least-squares mean change in PANSS total score from baseline to endpoint was -27.31 with quetiapine 400 mg/day, -28.44 with quetiapine 800 mg/day, and -19.15 with placebo (p=0.043 and 0.009 for quetiapine 400 and 800 mg/day, respectively, vs. placebo; mixed-model, repeated-measures analysis). Several secondary efficacy outcomes, including Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement score, supported the primary outcome measure in demonstrating significantly greater improvement in quetiapine groups than in the placebo group. Mean changes in body weight at day 42 were 2.2 kg and 1.8 kg for quetiapine 400 and 800 mg/day, respectively, and -0.4 kg for placebo. Mean changes in certain clinical chemistry parameters, including total cholesterol and triglycerides, were numerically greater in the quetiapine groups than in the placebo group. Adverse events associated with quetiapine were mostly mild to moderate in intensity and were consistent with its known profile in adults with schizophrenia. CONCLUSIONS: In this 6-week study of adolescent patients, quetiapine at doses of 400 and 800 mg/day provided significant improvements in symptoms associated with schizophrenia in adolescent patients, including the primary efficacy measure of PANSS total score change. Quetiapine was generally well tolerated with a profile broadly similar to that reported in adult and adolescent populations. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: Quetiapine Fumarate (SEROQUEL(™)) Compared to Placebo in the Treatment of Adolescent Patients With Schizophrenia (ANCHOR 112). Available at: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00090324?term=quetiapine+112&rank=1.