Search

Background: While some literature on clinical outcomes in persons with dementia-related psychosis exists, little is known regarding Alzheimer's disease–related psychosis (ADP). Objective: Describe demographic/clinical characteristics of adults with ADP and estimate incidence of clinical events by antipsychotic treatment status. Methods: This cohort study identified adults ≥65 years with Alzheimer's disease and incident psychosis (US Medicare database [2013–2018]) and no prior exposure to antipsychotics. Two nonmutually exclusive ADP subcohorts included: patients who initiated treatment with antipsychotic medications (antipsychotic users) and those who remained untreated (antipsychotic nonusers). Baseline characteristics were evaluated before psychosis diagnosis in untreated patients and before antipsychotic initiation in treated patients. Incidence rates were estimated for falls and fractures (composite and separately), seizure/epilepsy (new onset and any), and mortality. Results: 145,333 ADP antipsychotic nonusers and 49,452 antipsychotic users were identified. Both cohorts had similar baseline demographics; however, antipsychotic users versus nonusers had higher baseline skilled nursing facility use (40.3% and 27.8%), mood (72.7% and 62.1%) and anxiety (70.9% and 57.3%) disorders, falls/fractures (39.5% and 33.8%), urinary tract infections (55.1% and 47.0%), and frailty index scores (76.0% and 69.7%). Crude incidence rates (95% confidence interval)/100 person-years in antipsychotic users and nonusers were 70.0 (68.9–71.2) and 55.8 (55.4–56.1) (falls/fractures composite), 69.0 (67.9–70.1) and 54.9 (54.5–55.2) (falls), 38.6 (38.1–39.0) and 33.0 (32.7–33.2) (mortality), and 45.8 (44.9–46.7) and 54.2 (53.9–54.6) (any seizure/epilepsy). Conclusions: Antipsychotic initiators with ADP had a higher burden of some baseline comorbidities; experienced higher incidence of falls, fractures, and mortality; and had lower incidence of seizure/epilepsy than antipsychotic nonusers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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-tosevere 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The psychometric properties and factor structure of the Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale were examined in a sample of 422 male and female adolescents (ages 12-17) with current major depressive disorder. The scale demonstrated high internal consistency ([alpha] = 0.93) and correlated significantly with self-report and interview-based measures of depression. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that a correlated 2-factor model, with scales corresponding to perfectionism and need for social approval, provided a satisfactory fit to the data. The goodness-of-fit was equivalent across sexes and age groups. The findings support the use of the Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale and its subscales in the assessment of clinically depressed adolescents. (Contains 4 tables and 1 footnote.)

Background: Patients with neurodegenerative diseases including Parkinson's disease often experience neuropsychiatric symptoms, including hallucinations and delusions, apathy, and agitation.1,2 These symptoms can greatly impair daily function and lead to reduced quality of life and significant caregiver burden. These patients are generally elderly and often frail. Treatment options are limited, representing a substantial unmet need. Pimavanserin, a 5‐HT2A receptor inverse agonist/antagonist, is FDA‐approved to treat hallucinations and delusions associated with Parkinson's disease psychosis.3 Method: This Phase 3b, multicenter, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group study evaluated the safety of pimavanserin (34 mg) versus placebo in frail adults and elderly patients with neuropsychiatric symptoms related to neurodegenerative disease. The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability as measured by treatment‐emergent adverse events. Secondary safety endpoints included change from baseline in motor (Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale‐Abbreviated [ESRS‐A]) and cognitive function (Mini‐Mental State Examination [MMSE]) at Week 8. Suicidality was assessed using the Columbia‐Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C‐SSRS) or Global Clinician Assessment of Suicidality (GCAS). Exploratory efficacy endpoints included Clinical Global Impression‐Severity (CGI‐S) and ‐Improvement (CGI‐I), 5‐level version of EQ‐5D (EQ‐5D‐5L), and Sleep Disorders Inventory (SDI). Result: Overall, incidence of TEAEs were similar between pimavanserin (n = 392) and placebo (n = 392); 29.8% reported ≥1 TEAE (pimavanserin: 30.4%; placebo: 29.3%) and 1.8% reported serious TEAEs (pimavanserin: 2.0%; placebo: 1.5%) (Table 1). TEAEs leading to discontinuation or study termination were reported in 2.6% and 2.3% of patients on pimavanserin and placebo, respectively. The most frequently reported TEAEs included urinary tract infection (pimavanserin: 6.4%; placebo: 4.1%) and headache (pimavanserin: 2.0%; placebo: 3.8%). Mortality due to TEAEs was similar between groups (0.5% each). Pimavanserin did not impact motor‐ or cognition‐related function (ESRS‐A and MMSE, respectively); an improvement was seen in CGI‐I (MMRM LSM [SE]: ‐0.2 [0.07], p = 0.0140] and sleep function (SDI) at Week 8 (MMRM LSM [SE]: ‐0.3 [0.06], p<0.0001] compared to placebo (Figures 1, 2); no differences were observed across other measures. Conclusion: Pimavanserin was well tolerated in patients with neuropsychiatric symptoms related to neurodegenerative disease, consistent with the known safety profile of pimavanserin, informing its use in Parkinson's disease psychosis. Pimavanserin was not associated with cognitive decline or motor dysfunction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A study examines the effectiveness of fluoxetine, pill placebo and Social Effectiveness Therapy for Children (SET-C) for children and adolescents with social phobia. The results conclude that both fluoxetine and SET-C are effective for social phobia but SET-C is better for enhancing social skills.

A study examined the extent to which parents and adolescents participating in the Treatment for Adolescents With Depression Study (TADS) understood the study. The results concluded that most were well-informed, and also parents were overall better informed than adolescents.

Abstract Background Although many symptoms of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) are assessed through patient-report, there are currently no patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments that incorporate documented evidence of patient input in PRO instrument development. A review of existing PROs used in MDD suggested the need to conduct qualitative research with patients with MDD to better understand their experience of MDD and develop an evaluative instrument with content validity. The aim of this study was to develop a disease-specific questionnaire to assess symptoms important and relevant to adult MDD patients. Methods The questionnaire development involved qualitative interviews for concept elicitation, instrument development, and cognitive interviews to support content validity. For concept elicitation, ten MDD severity-specific focus group interviews with thirty-eight patients having clinician-confirmed diagnoses of MDD were conducted in January 2009. A semi-structured discussion guide was used to elicit patients' spontaneous descriptions of MDD symptoms. Verbatim transcripts of focus groups were coded and analyzed to develop a conceptual framework to describe MDD. A PRO instrument was developed by operationalizing concepts elicited in the conceptual framework. Cognitive interviews were carried out in patients (n = 20) to refine and test the content validity of the instrument in terms of item relevance and comprehension, instructions, recall period, and response categories. Results Concept elicitation focus groups identified thirty-five unique concepts falling into several domains: i) emotional, ii) cognitive, iii) motivation, iv) work, v) sleep, vi) appetite, vii) social, viii) activities of daily living, ix) tired/fatigue, x) body pain, and xi) suicidality. Concept saturation, the point at which no new relevant information emerges in later interviews, was achieved for each of the concepts. Based on the qualitative findings, the PRO instrument developed had 15 daily and 20 weekly items. The cognitive interviews confirmed that the instructions, item content, and response scales were understood by the patients. Conclusions Rigorous qualitative research resulted in the development of a PRO measure for MDD with supported content validity. The MDD PRO can assist in understanding and assessing MDD symptoms from patients' perspectives as well as evaluating treatment benefit of new targeted therapies.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pimavanserin was investigated for the treatment of dementia‐related psychosis (DRP) in HARMONY (NCT03325556), a phase 3 randomized discontinuation study. As the study met the primary endpoint (one‐sided P = 0.0023), we evaluated the consistency of the efficacy for reducing the risk of relapse in the largest dementia patient subgroup (ie, Alzheimer's dementia psychosis [ADP] patients) treated with pimavanserin 34mg. Method: Enrolled DRP patients (N = 392) entered the 12‐week open‐label (OL) period and received pimavanserin 34mg daily. During weeks 1‐4, dose could be adjusted to 20mg at investigator discretion. Patients meeting prespecified response criteria at weeks 8 and 12 were randomized to continue pimavanserin or receive placebo for up to 26 weeks in the double‐blind (DB) period. The primary endpoint was time from randomization to adjudicated relapse. Efficacy analyses included patients at the interim analysis (IA); safety analyses included all dosed patients. Result: Of 260 ADP patients, 243 stayed on pimavanserin 34mg throughout the OL period; 17 patients received pimavanserin 20mg beyond OL week 4. At baseline, mean age in the pimavanserin 34mg group was 75.7 years; mean MMSE score was 16.0. Twenty‐nine patients were terminated with sponsor termination of the study; of the remaining 214 patients, 130 (60.7%) met response criteria at weeks 8 and 12 and were randomized. At the IA, 116 ADP patients were randomized to pimavanserin 34mg (N = 57) or placebo (N = 59). Hazard ratio for psychosis relapse risk with pimavanserin 34mg versus placebo was 0.466 (95% CI: 0.179, 1.214); 6/57 (10.5%) pimavanserin‐treated and 14/59 (23.7%) placebo‐treated patients met relapse criteria. Treatment‐emergent adverse events incidence rates were: OL, 29.6% (72/243); DB‐pimavanserin 34mg, 39.7% (25/63); DB‐placebo, 34.3% (23/67). Pimavanserin did not have a negative effect on Mini‐Mental State Examination or Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale‐Abbreviated score change from baseline versus placebo in the DB period. Conclusion: In a study that met its primary endpoint, a post‐hoc subgroup analysis in ADP, although not statistically significant, demonstrated a clinically meaningful reduction in the risk of relapse was observed in patients treated with pimavanserin 34mg versus placebo. Pimavanserin was not associated with an adverse impact on cognition or motor function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. Clinical trial registration information: Quetiapine Fumarate (Seroquel) in the Treatment of Adolescent Patients With Schizophrenia and Bipolar I Disorder (ANCHOR 150). Available at: [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]