Immunological evaluation of urinary trypsin inhibitors in blood and urine: role of N- & O-linked glycoproteins.

Urinary trypsin inhibitors (uTi) suppress serine proteases during inflammation. After liberation from proinhibitors (P-alpha-I and I-alpha-I) by the white blood cell (WBC) response, uTi readily pass through the kidneys into urine. A key uTi, bikunin, is attached to O-linked and N-linked glycoconjugates. Recently, uTi inhibitors, called uristatins, were found to lack the O-linked glycoconjugates. Monoclonal antibodies were produced using purified uristatin and screened for binding differences to uristatin, bikunin, P-alpha-I, and I-alpha-I. Antibody-binding patterns were characterized using immunoaffinity binding onto protein-chip surfaces and analysis by Surface Enhanced Laser Desorption/Ionization mass spectrometry (SELDI), using specimens from patients and from purified uTi standards. Antibodies were developed and used in an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) method for uTi measurement in urine and plasma specimens. ELISA was performed on specimens from normal, presumed healthy, controls and from patients who had been screened for inflammation using a high sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP) test and a complete blood count (CBC). Polyclonal antibody against uTi showed cross-reactivity with the Tamm-Horsfall protein (THP) and with proinhibitors. Screening of anti-uTi monoclonal antibodies (Mab) revealed antibodies that did not cross-react with either of the above, thus providing a tool to measure both uristatin and bikunin in urine with Mab 3G5 and in plasma with Mab 5D11. The monoclonal antibody 5D11 cross-reacts with specific N-linked glycoconjugates of uristatin present in plasma. In ca 96% of healthy adults, uTi were present at <12 mg/l in urine and <4 mg/l in plasma. We also found that patients with an inflammation and a CRP of >2.0 mg/l had higher urinary concentrations of uTi than the control population in every subject. Free uristatin and bikunin pass readily into urine and are primarily bound to heavy chains that constitute the proinhibitor form in plasma.

A 24-week open-label extension study of olanzapine-fluoxetine combination and olanzapine monotherapy in the treatment of bipolar depression.

OBJECTIVE: Olanzapine-fluoxetine combination has shown efficacy in the acute treatment of depressive episodes in patients with bipolar I disorder. The present analyses examined the efficacy and safety of longer term treatment with olanzapine-fluoxetine combination or olanzapine monotherapy in a 6-month open-label extension study. METHOD: 376 patients with DSM-IV bipolar I disorder, depressed, who completed an acute trial entered the open-label study and received 1 week of olanzapine monotherapy (5-20 mg/day). At all subsequent visits, patients could choose between olanzapine monotherapy or olanzapine-fluoxetine combination (6/25, 6/50, or 12/50 mg/day). Three treatment groups were defined retrospectively according to the medication course taken from week 1: olanzapine, olanzapine-fluoxetine combination, or switched. The efficacy measures were the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar Version, and Young Mania Rating Scale. The study was conducted from July 2000 to May 2002. RESULTS: Among patients who started in remission, MADRS total scores did not change significantly from baseline to endpoint in the olanzapine-fluoxetine combination (0.8) or olanzapine (0.3) groups, but increased slightly in the switched (2.3, p = .02) group. For patients who started in nonremission, MADRS total scores decreased significantly in all groups (olanzapine-fluoxetine combination: -5.7, p = .001; olanzapine: -11.6, p = .004; switched: -6.4, p = .015). The majority of patients who entered the study in nonremission achieved remission (MADRS total score < or = 12) during the trial (olanzapine-fluoxetine combination: 66.7%, olanzapine: 64.7%, switched: 62.5%). The overall rate of depressive relapse was 27.4%, and the overall incidence of mania emergence was 5.9%. CONCLUSIONS: The present findings suggest that long-term treatment with olanzapine-fluoxetine combination may be a useful option for the management of depressive symptoms and carries a low risk of mania emergence.

A randomized, double-blind comparison of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, olanzapine, fluoxetine, and venlafaxine in treatment-resistant depression.

Based on preliminary evidence of its usefulness in treatment-resistant depression (TRD), an olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC) was examined in comparison with olanzapine, fluoxetine, and venlafaxine in a TRD population. In this 12-week double-blind study, 483 subjects with unipolar, nonpsychotic TRD, with historic failure on a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) and prospective failure on open-label venlafaxine, were randomized to an OFC or to an olanzapine, fluoxetine, or venlafaxine monotherapy group. Venlafaxine was continued randomly in the double-blind acute phase to explore the benefits of continuation versus switching therapy. The Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total change score at end point was the primary outcome measure. The OFC group had significantly greater improvement in depressive symptoms by week 1 of treatment (MADRS mean change =-7.2, baseline =29.6), in comparison to olanzapine (-4.8, P=.03), fluoxetine (-4.7, P=.03), or venlafaxine (-3.7, P=.002) groups and maintained its statistical separation from all three monotherapy groups through week 6. At end point, the OFC group was significantly different only from the olanzapine group (-14.1 vs. -7.7, P<.001). Analysis of a subgroup of subjects who had an SSRI failure in their current depressive episode (n=334) revealed statistical separation from both olanzapine and fluoxetine (but not venlafaxine) at end point: OFC (-14.6) versus olanzapine (-9.4, P<.001) versus fluoxetine (-10.7, P=.006) versus venlafaxine (-14.7, P=.98). The OFC had a safety profile comparable to its component monotherapies (i.e., olanzapine and fluoxetine), showed a rapid onset of antidepressant effect, and was effective in this TRD sample. At the study end point, OFC, fluoxetine, venlafaxine, and low-dose OFC all appeared to be similarly effective.

Clinical relevance of depressive symptom improvement in bipolar I depressed patients.

BACKGROUND: Gaps remain between rating scale changes obtained in a clinical trial and what those results mean in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To better understand the relevance of results from a clinical trial we examined the relationship between rating scale measures and the clinicians' assessment of illness severity. METHODS: Data from a randomized double-blind 8-week study of bipolar I depression were examined post hoc in patients who received placebo (PLA, n = 355), olanzapine (n = 351) (OLZ, 5 to 20 mg/d), or olanzapine-fluoxetine combination (n = 82) (OFC, 6 and 25, 6 and 50, or 12 and 50 mg/d). Principal components analysis identified related symptoms (factors) from Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) item scores. Regression analysis examined baseline to endpoint changes in factor scores and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scores. Mixed-effects model repeated measures analysis assessed differences between treatment groups. RESULTS: MADRS factors identified were: sadness, negative thoughts, detachment, and neurovegetative symptoms. Factor and CGI scores were significantly reduced from baseline to endpoint (LOCF) in the combination therapy group as compared with placebo (p < .01). Changes in factor scores were highly correlated (p < .001) with changes in the CGI. Over 80% of this treatment effect was attributable to indirect effects of improvements in the MADRS factors, the remaining difference could not be explained even when changes in the YMRS and HAMA scores were included in the analytical model. CONCLUSIONS: The changes in MADRS factors were closely aligned with the clinician's assessment of overall depression severity, which may suggest a high degree of clinical relevance for differences observed between treatments.