The length and spacing of river tributaries.

River networks are composed of a mainstem and tributaries. These tributaries dissect landscapes, regulate water and habitat availability, and transport sediment and nutrients. Despite the importance of tributaries, we currently lack theory and data describing whether and how tributary length and spacing varies within watersheds, thereby limiting our ability to accurately describe river network geometry. We address this knowledge gap by analyzing 4,696 tributaries across six landscapes with varying climate, tectonic setting, and lithology. Our results show that both tributary length and spacing systematically increase with downstream distance along the mainstem river, following a power-law scaling. This power-law scaling can be modulated by basin shape, with tributaries becoming shorter and, in some cases, more closely spaced as basin elongate. Furthermore, the power-law scaling may break down in cases where river networks have been disturbed by pervasive faulting, raising the possibility that the scaling we observe is not unique to all branching networks, and instead may be universal across undisturbed fluvial networks. These findings can be used to improve predictions of river network geometry and potentially to distinguish fluvial river networks from other branching networks.

Intercostal Lung Hernia Following Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Reconstruction.

Acquired lung hernias typically result from trauma or intra-thoracic surgery is defined as the protrusion of lung parenchyma beyond the anatomic boundaries of the thoracic wall. A 40-year-old woman underwent deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) breast reconstruction following her mastectomies. Post-operatively, she returned to the emergency department with severe chest pain, shortness of breath, and localized chest swelling. CT angiography demonstrated intercostal right lung hernia with concern for incarceration. She returned emergently to the operating room. The lung was reduced, but the flap was ultimately determined to be nonviable and was removed. Post-operative course was uneventful and the patient recovered well. Intercostal lung hernia is an uncommon clinical entity that has not previously been described as a complication of DIEP breast reconstruction. Its development is associated with significant morbidity including flap loss in this case. Early recognition of this rare complication is essential to avoid more severe sequelae of tissue ischemia.

Through-Space Shielding Effects of Metal-Complexed Phenyl Rings.

Several naphthalene compounds containing a methyl group in a 1,8-relationship to a metal-complexed phenyl ring bearing various substituents have been synthesized. The through-space shielding effects of the phenyl ring, as a function of substituent and complexing metal species, were monitored by observing the 1H NMR signal of the methyl group located in the shielding zone of the ring. In all cases, the methyl signal was slightly more downfield in the complexes than in the uncomplexed analogues. A comparison of available crystal structures, however, shows that the phenyl ring is slightly closer to the naphthyl methyl group in the complexes than in their metal-free counterparts. X-ray structures and DFT calculations also reveal a slight elongation in the average length of the carbon-carbon bonds of the phenyl ring upon complexation. The effect of substituents on the signal of the naphthyl methyl group is small but discernible in the uncomplexed derivatives, and consistent with our previous report. A similar trend is absent in the corresponding metal complexes, as exemplified by the chromium series, and the effect of the metal appears to be more dominant than that of the substituents. These observations were found to be in line with NMR shift calculations.

Spectroscopic, structural and computational analysis of [Re(CO)3(dippM)Br](n+) (dippM = 1,1'-bis(diiso-propylphosphino)metallocene, M = Fe, n = 0 or 1; M = Co, n = 1).

While the redox active backbone of bis(phosphino)ferrocene ligands is often cited as an important feature of these ligands in catalytic studies, the structural parameters of oxidized bis(phosphino)ferrocene ligands have not been thoroughly studied. The reaction of [Re(CO)3(dippf)Br] (dippf = 1,1'-bis(diiso-propylphosphino)ferrocene) and [NO][BF4] in methylene chloride yields the oxidized compound, [Re(CO)3(dippf)Br][BF4]. The oxidized species, [Re(CO)3(dippf)Br][BF4], and the neutral species, [Re(CO)3(dippf)Br], are compared using X-ray crystallography, cyclic voltammetry, visible spectroscopy, IR spectroscopy and zero-field (57)Fe Mössbauer spectroscopy. In addition, the magnetic moment of the paramagnetic [Re(CO)3(dippf)Br][BF4] was measured in the solid state using SQUID magnetometry and in solution by the Evans method. The electron transfer reaction of [Re(CO)3(dippf)Br][BF4] with acetylferrocene was also examined. For additional comparison, the cationic compound, [Re(CO)3(dippc)Br][PF6] (dippc = 1,1'-bis(diiso-propylphosphino)cobaltocenium), was prepared and characterized by cyclic voltammetry, X-ray crystallography, and NMR, IR and visible spectroscopies. Finally, DFT was employed to examine the oxidized dippf ligand and the oxidized rhenium complex, [Re(CO)3(dippf)Br](+).

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of duloxetine for the treatment of pain in patients with multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) often report neuropathic pain (NP-MS). The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of duloxetine as treatment for NP-MS. METHODS: In this study, 239 adults with NP-MS (duloxetine = 118, placebo = 121) were randomized to duloxetine 60 mg (30 mg for 1 week, then 60 mg for 5 weeks) or placebo once daily for a 6-week acute therapy phase, followed by a 12-week open-label extension phase (duloxetine 30 to 120 mg/day). Eligible patients had MS for ≥ 1 year and a score ≥ 4 on daily average pain intensity (API) ratings for ≥ 4 of 7 days immediately before randomization. Patients rated API daily on an 11-point numeric scale (0 [no pain] to 10 [worst possible pain]) in an electronic diary. The primary efficacy measure, change in weekly API ratings, was analyzed longitudinally with a mixed-model repeated-measures analysis. Completion, reasons for discontinuation, and treatment-emergent adverse event incidence were compared by Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Duloxetine-treated patients had statistically greater mean improvement in API vs. placebo at Week 6 (-1.83 vs. -1.07, P = 0.001). Treatment completion did not significantly differ between groups. Discontinuation due to adverse events was statistically greater for duloxetine vs. placebo (13.6% vs. 4.1%, P = 0.012). Decreased appetite was reported significantly more often by duloxetine-treated patients (5.9% vs. 0%, P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: This study found analgesic efficacy of duloxetine for NP-MS. Duloxetine is not approved for treatment of this condition. The duloxetine safety profile of this study was consistent with the known profile in other patient populations.

Relationship between major depressive disorder and associated painful physical symptoms: analysis of data from two pooled placebo-controlled, randomized studies of duloxetine.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between painful physical symptoms (PPS) and outcomes in major depressive disorder (MDD). Post-hoc analysis of two identically designed 8-week trials compared the efficacy of 60 mg/day duloxetine (N=523) with that of placebo (N=532) in treating PPS associated with MDD. The Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score, the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) average pain score, and the Sheehan Disability Scale global functional impairment score assessed depression symptoms, pain, and functioning, respectively. Remission was defined as a MADRS score of 10 or less, and the BPI response subgroup was defined as a 50% or greater reduction from baseline. Path analyses assessed relationships among variables. Duloxetine-treated patients who had a 50% or greater reduction in BPI score at endpoint had higher rates of remission. Path analysis indicated that 16% of likelihood of remission in depression symptoms was because of the direct effect of treatment, 41% because of pain reduction, and 43% because of functional improvement. Path analysis also indicated that 51% of improvement in functioning was attributed to pain improvement and 43% to mood improvement. Results demonstrate that improvement in pain and mood contributes to functional improvement, and pain reduction and functional improvement increase the likelihood of remission of depressive symptoms with duloxetine treatment in patients with both MDD and PPS at baseline.

Assessment of falls in older patients treated with duloxetine: a secondary analysis of a 24-week randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess fall events in older depressed patients during treatment with duloxetine. METHOD: Post hoc analysis of solicited fall events collected at each study visit using a questionnaire during a 24-week, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 4 trial (November 2006 to November 2009). Older outpatients (≥ 65 years) with major depressive disorder (DSM-IV criteria) were randomly assigned to duloxetine 60 mg/d (n = 249) or placebo (n = 121) for the 12-week acute phase, after which the duloxetine dose could be increased to 120 mg/d and nonresponding placebo patients could be switched to duloxetine 60 mg/d. Between-treatment differences in percentages of patients with fall events were compared by Fisher exact test. Exposure-adjusted incidence rates (EAIRs) of falls per patient-year were also estimated. RESULTS: In the acute phase, 17.3% of patients treated with duloxetine 60 mg versus 11.6% treated with placebo (P = .170) experienced a fall event. Over 24 weeks, the percentage of patients with a fall while taking duloxetine 60 mg versus placebo was 24.0% versus 15.7% (P = .078), and the percentage was significantly higher in patients taking duloxetine regardless of dose (25.3%) than with placebo (15.7%, P = .045). Between-treatment differences in EAIRs over 12 weeks (0.26; 95% CI, -0.20 to 0.72) and over 24 weeks (0.27; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.65) were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Direct assessment of fall events greatly increases the number of falls reported by patients. Although the EAIR of falls per patient-year associated with duloxetine was not significant in this trial, clinicians should remain vigilant about the possibility of falls in older patients with duloxetine or any antidepressant treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00406848.

Attenuation of Slc27a5 gene expression followed by LC-MS measurement of bile acid reconjugation using metabolomics and a stable isotope tracer strategy.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of high resolution LC-MS together with metabolomics and D(4)-cholic acid (D(4)-CA) as a metabolic tracer to measure the metabolism and reconjugation of bile acids (BAs) in vitro and in vivo. Metabolic tracers are very important because they allow for the direct detection (substrate-to-product) of small and significant biological perturbations that may not be apparent when monitoring "static" endogenous levels of particular metabolites. Slc27a5, also known as fatty acid transport protein 5 (FATP5), is the hepatic BA-CoA ligase involved in reconjugating BAs during enterohepatic BA recycling. Using Slc27a5-cKD mice, silencing of ∼90% gene expression was achieved followed by reduction in the reconjugation of D(4)-CA to D(4)-taurocholic acid (D(4)-TCA), as well as other conjugated BA metabolites in plasma (p = 0.0031). The method described allowed a rapid measure of many D(4) and endogenous BA. Analysis of bile resulted in the detection of 39 BA metabolites from a 13 min analytical run. Finally, the utilization of a novel high resolution mass spectrometry method in combination with metabolomics and a stable isotope metabolic tracer allowed for the detection of targeted and untargeted BAs following silencing of the Slc27a5 gene in primary hepatocytes and in mice.

Duloxetine versus placebo in the treatment of major depressive disorder and associated painful physical symptoms: a replication study.

OBJECTIVE: Painful physical symptoms are common in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and can negatively affect patient outcomes. Duloxetine has demonstrated efficacy in treating MDD and other certain painful conditions; this study specifically evaluated patients with both MDD and MDD-associated pain. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind clinical trial enrolled adult outpatients with MDD (DSM-IV-TR criteria; Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] total score ≥20) and at least moderate pain (Brief Pain Inventory, Short Form [BPI] average pain rating ≥3). Patients received placebo (N = 266) or duloxetine (N = 261) 60 mg once daily (QD) (after starting dose of 30 mg QD for 1 week). This study replicated another study evaluating MDD and MDD-associated pain. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01070329). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Co-primary outcomes were the MADRS total score (change from baseline at 8 week endpoint) and BPI average pain rating (overall main effect over 8 weeks of treatment). The Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) global functional impairment score at week 8 assessed functioning as a secondary outcome. Changes were analyzed using mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), and the MADRS remission rate (total score ≤12 at 8-week endpoint) was analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. RESULTS: Both co-primary objectives and the first two gated secondary objectives were achieved: compared with placebo, duloxetine significantly improved the mean MADRS total score, BPI average pain rating, SDS global functional impairment score, and remission of depression at 8-week endpoint (all p < 0.01). The third gated secondary objective, evaluating remission of depression at the last two non-missing visits, was not achieved. The within-group MADRS remission rate was greater for duloxetine-treated patients with ≥50% (versus <50%) improvement in BPI average pain (p < 0.001). Safety outcomes were similar to previous reports. This study did not address the effects of duloxetine on MDD and comorbid pain of a known origin. CONCLUSIONS: These results replicated findings supporting the efficacy and tolerability of duloxetine compared to placebo as treatment for depression and pain in patients with MDD and at least moderate pain associated with MDD.

A randomized placebo-controlled trial of duloxetine in patients with major depressive disorder and associated painful physical symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: Painful physical symptoms are common in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and may predict poorer treatment outcomes. Duloxetine has demonstrated efficacy in treating both MDD and certain other painful conditions. This randomized, double-blind clinical trial assessed the effects of duloxetine in patients with both MDD and MDD-associated physical pain. METHODS: Participants were outpatient adults with current MDD (DSM-IV-TR criteria; Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] total score ≥20) and at least moderate pain (Brief Pain Inventory Short Form [BPI] average pain rating ≥3) and with at least one prior episode of MDD. Patients received placebo (N = 266) or duloxetine (N = 262) 60 mg once daily. This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01000805). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Coprimary outcomes were MADRS total score (change from baseline at 8 weeks) and BPI average pain rating (overall main effect over 8 weeks). The Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) global functional impairment score (change from baseline at 8 weeks) was used to assess functioning. Remission was defined as MADRS total score ≤12 at the 8-week endpoint. Changes were analyzed using mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM). RESULTS: Compared with placebo, duloxetine significantly improved the mean MADRS total score, BPI average pain rating, and SDS global functional impairment score (all p ≤ 0.05 for analyses described above). The remission rate was significantly greater with duloxetine compared with placebo (p = 0.001) and was greater for duloxetine-treated patients with ≥50% versus <50% improvement in BPI average pain score (p ≤ 0.001). Treatment emergent adverse events that occurred in at least 5% of duloxetine-treated patients and at twice the rate of placebo included nausea, somnolence, constipation, decreased appetite, and hyperhidrosis. Rates of discontinuation due to adverse events were greater for duloxetine than placebo (8.0% vs 3.4%, respectively; p = 0.024). This study did not address the effects of duloxetine on MDD and comorbid pain of a known origin. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the efficacy and tolerability of duloxetine in the treatment of depression and associated painful physical symptoms in patients with MDD and at least moderate MDD-associated pain.

The effect of propranolol and midazolam on the reconsolidation of a morphine place preference in chronically treated rats.

A stable memory can be disrupted if amnestic treatment is applied in conjunction with memory reactivation. Recent findings in the conditioned place preference (CPP) model suggest that blocking reconsolidation attenuates the ability of environmental cues to induce craving and relapse in drug addicts, but the impact of prior physical dependence has not been described. We examined the effect of post-reactivation amnestic treatment on reconsolidation of a CPP for morphine, in animals naïve to morphine, under chronic morphine experience or abstinent. Chronic morphine experience was induced by escalating doses of morphine from 10 mg/kg/day (s.c.), and maintained on 30 mg/kg/day during the course of conditioning and reactivation procedures, or conditioning alone. Naïve and morphine-experienced animals were trained in a three-compartment apparatus by four morphine (5 mg/kg, s.c.) and four saline experiences paired with either of two large conditioning compartments. The memory was then reactivated by a CPP test, and immediately afterward animals received an injection of the beta-adrenergic antagonist propranolol (10 mg/kg, s.c.), the GABAa agonist midazolam (1 mg/kg, i.p.), or saline. Morphine-naïve rats received only a single reconsolidation-blocking treatment (Experiment 1), while chronic morphine rats were given eight reactivation sessions each followed by amnestic treatment, either before (Experiment 2) or after 10 days of withdrawal (Experiment 3). Propranolol and midazolam disrupted reconsolidation in morphine-naïve rats, but failed to disrupt the CPP when rats were trained under chronic morphine treatment, even if they were recovered from chronic opiate exposure before reactivation. In fact, propranolol increased the preference for the drug-paired context in animals trained while maintained on chronic morphine. Midazolam had little effect. Morphine experience may produce neurochemical changes which alter memory storage processes and reduce the impact of amnestic treatments on reconsolidation.

Duloxetine, pregabalin, and duloxetine plus gabapentin for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain management in patients with inadequate pain response to gabapentin: an open-label, randomized, noninferiority comparison.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether duloxetine is noninferior to (as good as) pregabalin in the treatment of pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a 12-week, open-label study of patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain who had been treated with gabapentin (≥ 900 mg/d) and had an inadequate response (defined as a daily pain score of ≥ 4 on a numerical rating scale [0-10 points]). The first patient was enrolled on September 28, 2006, and the last patient visit occurred on August 26, 2009. Patients were randomized to duloxetine monotherapy (n=138), pregabalin monotherapy (n=134), or a combination of duloxetine and gabapentin (n=135). The primary objective was a noninferiority comparison between duloxetine and pregabalin on improvement in the weekly mean of the diary-based daily pain score (0- to 10-point scale) at end point. Noninferiority would be declared if the mean improvement for duloxetine was no worse than the mean improvement for pregabalin, within statistical variability, by a margin of -0.8 unit. RESULTS: The mean change in the pain rating at end point was -2.6 for duloxetine and -2.1 for pregabalin. The 97.5% lower confidence limit was a -0.05 difference in means, establishing noninferiority. As to adverse effects, nausea, insomnia, hyperhidrosis, and decreased appetite were more frequent with duloxetine than pregabalin; insomnia, more frequent with duloxetine than duloxetine plus gabapentin; peripheral edema, more frequent with pregabalin than with duloxetine; and nausea, hyperhidrosis, decreased appetite, and vomiting, more frequent with duloxetine plus gabapentin than with pregabalin. CONCLUSION: Duloxetine was noninferior to pregabalin for the treatment of pain in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy who had an inadequate pain response to gabapentin. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00385671.

Neonatal infections in England: the NeonIN surveillance network.

INTRODUCTION: Neonatal infection is an important cause of morbidity and mortality. Neonatal infection surveillance networks are necessary for defining the epidemiology of infections and monitoring changes over time. DESIGN: Prospective multicentre surveillance using a web-based database. SETTING: 12 English neonatal units. PARTICIPANTS: Newborns admitted in 2006-2008, with positive blood, cerebrospinal fluid or urine culture and treated with antibiotics for at least 5 days. OUTCOME MEASURE: Incidence, age at infection, pathogens and antibiotic resistance profiles. RESULTS: With the inclusion of coagulase negative Staphylococci (CoNS), the incidence of all neonatal infection was 8/1000 live births and 71/1000 neonatal admissions (2007-2008). The majority of infections occurred in premature (<37 weeks) and low birthweight (<2500 g) infants (82% and 81%, respectively). The incidence of early onset sepsis (EOS; ≤48 h of age) was 0.9/1000 live births and 9/1000 neonatal admissions, and group B Streptococcus (58%) and Escherichia coli (18%) were the most common organisms. The incidence of late onset sepsis (LOS; >48 h of age) was 3/1000 live births and 29/1000 neonatal admissions (7/1000 live births and 61/1000 admissions including CoNS) and the most common organisms were CoNS (54%), Enterobacteriaceae (21%) and Staphylococcus aureus (18%, 11% of which were methicillin resistant S aureus). Fungi accounted for 9% of LOS (72% Candida albicans). The majority of pathogens causing EOS (95%) and LOS (84%) were susceptible to commonly used empiric first line antibiotic combinations of penicillin/gentamicin and flucloxacillin/gentamicin, respectively (excluding CoNS). CONCLUSIONS: The authors have established NeonIN in England and defined the current epidemiology of neonatal infections. These data can be used for benchmarking among units, international comparisons and as a platform for interventional studies.

Efficacy of duloxetine on painful physical symptoms in major depressive disorder for patients with clinically significant painful physical symptoms at baseline: a meta-analysis of 11 double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: To review efficacy of duloxetine for physical symptoms and depressive illness in patients with at least mild to moderate major depressive disorder (MDD; DSM-IV) and clinically significant painful physical symptoms at baseline. DATA SOURCES: Global database of duloxetine clinical trials (Eli Lilly and Company). STUDY SELECTION: All 11 acute, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of duloxetine (7 with duloxetine 60-mg doses and 4 with non-60-mg doses) in the database that used a scale to measure painful physical symptoms and were completed before March 17, 2011. DATA EXTRACTION: For each study, patients with clinically significant pain levels at baseline (Visual Analog Scale overall pain rating ≥ 30, Numerical Rating Scale score ≥ 3, or Brief Pain Inventory 24-hour average pain rating ≥ 3) were selected in order to determine the effect sizes of duloxetine (compared with placebo for each trial) on the pain and depression measures. Overall effect sizes for both painful physical symptoms and MDD were obtained from the mean of individual-trial effect sizes, and each effect size was weighted relative to the number of patients within each study. DATA SYNTHESIS: The overall mean effect sizes were as follows: painful physical symptoms-60-mg trials, 0.29 (95% CI, 0.06 to 0.52); non-60-mg trials, 0.13 (95% CI, -0.19 to 0.45); MDD-60-mg trials, 0.29 (95% CI, 0.18 to 0.40); non-60-mg trials, 0.16 (95% CI, 0.00 to 0.32). Across the 11 studies, the weighted effect size for painful physical symptoms was 0.26 (95% CI, 0.00 to 0.51) and for MDD, 0.25 (95% CI, 0.16 to 0.34). CONCLUSIONS: According to this meta-analysis, duloxetine 60 mg once daily is as effective in improving painful physical symptoms as it is for depression in patients with MDD and clinically significant painful physical symptoms. The results of this meta-analysis indicate that duloxetine has small effect sizes in reducing painful physical symptoms and depressive symptoms in patients with MDD and clinically significant pain levels at baseline. Thus, the results of the study permit one to conclude that duloxetine has a clinically significant impact on painful physical symptoms and in reducing the severity of depressive symptoms. However, the results do not address its efficacy compared to other alternatives, as in all studies the comparator was placebo.

Pain response profile of patients with fibromyalgia treated with duloxetine.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined the time course for minimal clinically significant improvement in pain severity during the initial 12 weeks of treatment in patients with fibromyalgia taking duloxetine. METHODS: Four double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of duloxetine were pooled. Patients received duloxetine 60 mg/d, 120 mg/d, or placebo. Clinically significant treatment response (>or=30% reduction in pain severity on the 24-hour average pain severity of the Brief Pain Inventory scale) was assessed over 12 weeks. RESULTS: At endpoint, 46.9% of duloxetine 60-mg-, 48.6% of duloxetine 120-mg-, and 32.1% of placebo-treated patients (P<0.001 for both doses) had >or=30% improvement on average pain from baseline. The probabilities of achieving >or=30% response at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12 among duloxetine 60-mg-treated patients were 27%, 44%, 45%, 47%, and 49%, respectively, and among duloxetine 120-mg-treated patients were 35%, 43%, 53%, 53%, and 51%, respectively (P<0.01 vs. placebo at each week, for both doses). Among patients who did not respond by Weeks 1, 2, 4, and 8, the percentages of duloxetine 60-mg-treated patients who achieved a response by the endpoint of the study were 36.9%, 29.8%, 28.9%, and 26.9%, respectively. DISCUSSION: This article examines the time course for minimal clinically significant improvement in pain severity in duloxetine-treated patients with fibromyalgia. It provides information about continued treatment in patients who do not initially respond to duloxetine. This information could potentially help physicians facing clinical decisions about management of fibromyalgia with duloxetine.

Profile of adverse events with duloxetine treatment: a pooled analysis of placebo-controlled studies.

BACKGROUND: The serotonin and noradrenaline (norepinephrine) reuptake inhibitor duloxetine has been approved in the US and elsewhere for a number of indications, including psychiatric illnesses and chronic pain conditions. Because the patient populations are diverse within these approved indications, and duloxetine is not yet approved for treatment of other conditions, we wanted to determine if adverse event profiles would differ among patients being treated for these various conditions. OBJECTIVE: To provide detailed information on the adverse events associated with duloxetine and to identify differences in the adverse event profile between treatment indications and patient demographic subgroups. METHODS: Data were analysed from all placebo-controlled trials of duloxetine completed as of December 2008. The 52 studies included 17,822 patients (duloxetine n = 10,326; placebo n = 7496) with major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis knee pain (OAKP), chronic lower back pain and lower urinary tract disorders. The main outcome measures were rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and adverse events reported as the reason for discontinuation. RESULTS: The overall TEAE rate was 57.2% for placebo-treated patients and 72.4% for duloxetine-treated patients (p < or = 0.001). Patients with OAKP had the lowest TEAE rate (placebo 36.7% vs duloxetine 50.2%, p < or = 0.01), while patients with fibromyalgia had the highest rate (placebo 80.0% vs duloxetine 89.0%, p < or = 0.001). The most common TEAE for all indications was nausea (placebo 7.2% vs duloxetine 23.4%, p < or = 0.001), which was predominantly mild to moderate in severity. No statistically significant treatment-by-subgroup interactions for age were found between placebo and duloxetine treatment for the most common TEAEs. The rates of duloxetine-associated dry mouth and fatigue were greater in women than in men (13.1% vs 10.4%, interaction p = 0.004; and 9.4% vs 7.6%, interaction p = 0.03, respectively). Duloxetine-associated dry mouth incidence was higher in Caucasians than non-Caucasians (13.2%, 11.0%, interaction p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Duloxetine treatment is associated with significantly higher rates of common TEAEs versus placebo, regardless of indication or demographic subgroup. Differences across indications are likely to be attributable to the underlying condition rather than duloxetine, as suggested by the similar trends observed in placebo- and duloxetine-treated patients.

Current perspectives of the roles of the central norepinephrine system in anxiety and depression.

Norepinephrine (NE) is a major monoamine neurotransmitter that has widespread effects across multiple brain areas to regulate arousal and stress responses. The underlying function of the NE cortical system is to balance vigilance/scanning behavior with focused attention on novel environmental stimuli and the state of arousal. The central NE system is involved intrinsically with the stress response system, and dysregulation within the NE system has been implicated in the pathogenesis of anxiety and depressive disorders. Central NE activity paradoxically has either anxiogenic or anxiolytic effects, depending on whether the time course of the stress is acute or chronic, whether the stress is predictable or unpredictable, and which underlying brain regions are affected. Under conditions of chronic stress, NE system activity dysregulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal system may turn a homeostatic stress response into a pathological stress response. Data suggest that the NE interplay with the serotonin system may exert neurobiological normalization of the pathophysiological state of anxious depression. Accordingly, pharmacological interventions targeting the NE system can result in anxiolytic, rather than anxiogenic, outcomes when used to treat patients with anxiety and depression.

Depression and pain.

Depression and pain disorders are often diagnosed in the same patients. Here we summarize the shared pathophysiology between both disorders and the importance of addressing all symptoms in patients with comorbid pain and depression. We describe anatomical structures that are activated and/or altered in response to both depression and pain--examples include the insular cortex, the prefrontal cortex, the anterior cingulate cortex, the amygdala, and the hippocampus. Both disorders activate common neurocircuitries (e.g. the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, limbic and paralimbic structures, ascending and descending pain tracks), common neurochemicals (e.g. monoamines, cytokines, and neurotrophic factors), and are associated with common psychological alterations. One explanation for the interaction and potentiation of the disease burden experienced by patients affected by both pain and depression is provided by the concept of allostasis. In this model, patients accumulate allostatic load through internal and external stressors, which makes them more susceptible to disease. To break this cycle, it is important to treat all symptoms of a patient. Therapeutic approaches that address symptoms of both depression and pain include psychotherapy, exercise, and pharmacotherapy.

Safety and efficacy of duloxetine in the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain in older patients.

OBJECTIVE: We present a post-hoc analysis of the safety and efficacy of duloxetine, a selective serotonin/norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, for treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) in older patients. METHODS: Data from three double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in adult patients with DPNP were pooled and stratified by age (<65, >or=65 years). Patients were randomized to duloxetine (DLX) 60 mg once-daily, 60 mg twice-daily, or placebo for 12 weeks, followed by a 52-week extension phase (re-randomization to routine care or DLX 120 mg/day). Intent-to-treat analyses were used for safety and efficacy assessment. RESULTS: In the acute phase, overall TEAE rates did not differ significantly by age. A greater percentage of older patients discontinued due to TEAEs (P<0.001), regardless of treatment group. Duloxetine improved weekly mean 24-hour average pain scores versus placebo in both age groups (P<0.01). In the extension phase, a significant therapy-by-age interaction (P<0.05) was observed in overall TEAE rate; with routine care, 86.6% of older patients had >or=1 TEAE versus 74.6% of younger patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although TEAEs more frequently lead to discontinuation in older patients, duloxetine was well tolerated and efficacious for treatment of DPNP regardless of age. These data suggest duloxetine may be beneficial for treatment of DPNP in patients>or=65.

The significance of treating somatic symptoms on functional outcome improvement in patients with major depressive disorder: a post hoc analysis of 2 trials.

BACKGROUND: Functional impairment is associated with major depressive disorder (MDD), and patients with MDD often present with somatic symptoms. OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationships between improved global functioning and core depressive symptoms as well as painful and nonpainful somatic symptoms in patients with MDD. METHOD: This post hoc analysis of 2 identical trials compared the efficacy of duloxetine with that of paroxetine or placebo as treatment of MDD. In the trials, patients with DSM-IV-defined MDD received duloxetine 80 mg/day (N = 188), duloxetine 120 mg/day (N = 196), paroxetine 20 mg/day (N = 183), or placebo (N = 192) for 8 weeks. The Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), Maier subscale of the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, 21-item Somatic Symptom Inventory, and Visual Analog Scale for overall pain were used to measure functional impairment, core symptoms of depression, and nonpainful and painful somatic symptoms, respectively. Baseline-to-endpoint mean changes in SDS total and subdomains were measured using analysis of variance with last-observation-carried-forward Pearson partial correlations, and path analysis was used to assess the significance of associations and relative contributions of improvement in global functional impairment, depression, and somatic symptoms. The trials were conducted from November 2000 to July 2002. RESULTS: The difference between antidepressant treatment and placebo in SDS total and subdomains was significant (p < .001). At baseline and in change from baseline to endpoint, associations between global functional impairment and core depressive and somatic symptoms were all significant (p < .05). Path analysis demonstrated improvement of functional impairment attributed to treatment effect as 37.0% (core depressive symptoms), 13.0% (nonpainful somatic symptoms), and 11.0% (painful somatic symptoms). CONCLUSION: In patients with MDD, over a third of functional improvement associated with antidepressant therapy was mediated through improvement in core depressive symptoms. In addition, a significant proportion of functional improvement, although to a lesser degree, was associated with the treatment of both nonpainful and painful somatic symptoms.