Search

Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of citalopram in the acute and maintenance phases of bipolar depression in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Methods Between 2007 and 2014, 119 subjects with acute major depressive episodes diagnosed with DSM-IV bipolar disorder, type I or type II, were randomized blindly to citalopram or placebo, added to standard mood stabilizers. They were followed for 6 weeks for acute efficacy (primary outcome) and up to 1 year for maintenance efficacy (secondary outcome) using scores on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the Mania Rating Scale of the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (MRS-SADS). The study was powered for a clinically meaningful effect size. Results Mean ± SD MADRS scores changed from a baseline value of 27.4 ± 9.1 to 13.1 ± 8.4 at the end of the acute phase for citalopram versus a change from 27.4 ± 7.3 to 15.2 ± 9.9 for placebo, a clinically and statistically nonsignificant difference. Maintenance efficacy also was not better with citalopram than with placebo. Acute manic/hypomanic episodes were similar in both groups, and subjects with type II illness did not have better outcomes than subjects with type I illness. In maintenance treatment, MRS-SADS scores were greater overall, especially in subjects with a rapid-cycling illness course, with citalopram versus placebo. Conclusions Citalopram, added to standard mood stabilizers, did not have clinically meaningful benefit versus placebo for either acute or maintenance treatment of bipolar depression. Acute mania did not worsen with citalopram, but maintenance treatment led to worsened manic symptoms, especially in subjects with a rapid-cycling course. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00562861.

Objective The objective of this analysis is to present the safety profile of selegiline transdermal system (STS) in clinical practice after US Food and Drug Administration approval by analyzing reported postmarketing adverse events (AEs). Method Deidentified data were obtained on AEs, regardless of causality, as collected and compiled in the pharmaceutical company's adverse event collection systems/databases after the launch of STS in the United States. All reports of hypertensive crisis, suicide attempts, and STS overdoses were carefully examined to independently determine relation of the AE to STS. Results From April 2006 to October 2010, a total of 3,155 AEs in 1,516 patients were reported (5.2% of the total exposures; N = 29,141), regardless of causality. The most frequently reported categories of AEs were general disorders (no. of AEs = 1,037, 3.6%) and central nervous system (CNS) disorders (no. of AEs = 574, 2.0%). A total of 266 reports (0.9%) were classified as serious AEs; CNS disorders (no. of AEs = 71, 26.7%) and cardiac and vascular disorders (no. of AEs = 44, 16.5%) were most common. There were 13 self-reports of possible hypertensive events or hypertension, although objective clinical data were not submitted in any of these cases. Thirteen drug-drug interactions (0.04%) were reported, and 5 were classified as serious. Conclusions The most commonly reported AEs were application site reactions and insomnia. Very few patients reported a hypertensive event, and there were no objectively confirmed reports of hypertensive crisis with food at any STS dose. Therapeutic doses of STS appear to have a safety profile in clinical practice that is consistent with that observed in clinical trials. However, given the relatively modest exposure numbers, continued safety monitoring is recommended.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of armodafinil, the longer-lasting isomer of modafinil, as adjunctive therapy in patients with schizophrenia. METHOD This 4-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, proof-of-concept study was conducted between July and December 2007. Patients had a history of stable schizophrenia (DSM-IV-TR criteria) for ≥ 8 weeks and were treated with oral risperidone, olanzapine, or paliperidone for ≥ 6 weeks at stable doses for ≥ 4 weeks. Patients were randomly assigned to once-daily placebo or armodafinil 50, 100, or 200 mg. The primary efficacy measure was the Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia (MATRICS) Consensus Cognitive Battery. Secondary outcome measures included the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and the Scale for Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS). RESULTS Sixty patients were randomly assigned (15 in each group). No apparent differences between groups in the MATRICS composite score were observed (mean ± SD change from baseline to final visit: armodafinil 50 mg, 1.9 ± 6.22; 100 mg, 2.8 ± 7.98; 200 mg, 2.9 ± 4.72; placebo, 2.2 ± 5.06). The mean ± SD changes in PANSS total scores were -6.3 ± 7.25 for armodafinil 200 mg and -1.7 ± 4.89 for placebo at final visit (effect size=0.73; 95% CI, -0.08 to 1.54) and PANSS negative symptoms scores were -3.4 ± 2.07 and 0.1 ± 1.93 (effect size=1.69; 95% CI, 0.78 to 2.60), respectively. Although reductions in SANS total score were observed with both armodafinil and placebo at final visit, no between-group difference was shown. Armodafinil was generally well tolerated, with diarrhea and headache the most commonly reported adverse events. There was no evidence of worsening of psychosis with adjunctive armodafinil. CONCLUSIONS In this 4-week study, adjunctive armodafinil was not associated with an improvement in cognitive measures, but armodafinil 200 mg/d appeared to mitigate the negative symptoms of schizophrenia. Treatment was generally well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00487942.

Objectives: The primary objective of this study was to compare the safety and tolerability of a rapid initiation of quetiapine with the conventional initiation approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The secondary objectives included assessment of the efficacy of a rapid initiation of quetiapine compared with a conventional initiation approved by the FDA. Method: Patients with acute schizophrenia were randomly assigned in a 3:1 ratio to the rapid-initiation group (200 mg on day 1, 400 mg on day 2, 600 mg on day 3, and 800 mg on day 4) or to the conventional-initiation group (50 mg on day 1, 100 mg on day 2, and increased in 100 mg/day increments to reach 400 mg on day 5). The tolerability measures were Barnes Akathisia Scale (BAS) and Simpson-Angus Scale (SAS) as well as all adverse events at day 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 and at day 14. Standard efficacy measures were administered at baseline, day 1, day 4, day 5, day 7, and day 14. These measures consisted of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), PANSS-Excited Component (EC), and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) scale. Results: Forty patients were randomly assigned to treatment. The mean (SD) dose of quetiapine at study end point was 763.3 (106.6) and 600.0 (249.4) mg/day in the rapid-initiation group and conventional-initiation group, respectively. The most common side effects were sedation and dizziness, with no significant differences in frequency between groups. Only 2/30 patients from the rapid-initiation group discontinued treatment due to an adverse event (both for sedation), and 1/10 patients from the conventional-initiation group discontinued before receiving quetiapine. Neither serious adverse events nor differences between groups in vital signs, laboratory assessments, ECG measures, or weight changes were reported. Rapid initiation of quetiapine was generally well-tolerated and was associated with a faster onset of action than conventional initiation as measured by improvement in psychotic symptoms at days 4 and 5. Conclusion: This study may offer preliminary evidence for tolerability and effectiveness in rapid dose initiation of quetiapine in the treatment of schizophrenia.

Objective: The purpose of this article is to review the prevalence of somatic pain with and without depression or anxiety and the pharmacologic effects of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor paroxetine on pain in physical conditions with and without comorbid depression or anxiety. Data Sources: MEDLINE and PsychLIT/PsycINFO database. Keywords included depression, anxiety, pain, somatic, antidepressants, and paroxetine. Only English-language publications and abstracts were considered. Study Selection: More than 100 articles that reflected the prevalence of somatic pain in patients with physical illness with and without comorbid depression or anxiety and that evaluated the efficacy of antidepressants in this population were identified and reviewed. Data Synthesis: Nearly two thirds of patients with major depressive disorder suffer from a physical illness, and about one fifth of patients with chronic physical illness are depressed. Both of these comorbidities pose diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. Therapeutic effects of antidepressants on pain improvement in patients with chronic physical illnesses and comorbid depression/anxiety have been attributed to the antidepressant or anxiolytic properties of these drugs. However, tricyclic antidepressants have demonstrated analgesic properties in patients with physical illness both with and without depression. The review looks at evidence for the efficacy of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor paroxetine on pain in physical illness with and without depression and the mechanisms for the relief of pain and depression. Conclusions: The efficacy of paroxetine for depression and anxiety comorbid with physical illness looks promising. Studies also allude to evidence linking the analgesic properties of paroxetine with its serotonergic and noradrenergic activity. Large randomized controlled trials within specific antidepressant classes and also comparing dualaction antidepressants are warranted that could shed some light on the unique advantage of paroxetine over other antidepressants.

Background: About 30% to 46% of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) fail to fully respond to initial antidepressants. While treatment-resistant depression commonly refers to nonresponse or partial response to at least 2 adequate trials with antidepressants from different classes, due to variability in terminology, a staging system based on prior treatment response has been suggested. Aripiprazole is a novel atypical antipsychotic with partial agonism at dopamine D2 and serotonin 5-HT1A receptors and antagonism at the 5-HT2 receptors. The present study evaluated whether augmentation with aripiprazole would be beneficial and tolerable in patients with treatment-resistant MDD who had failed 1 or more trials of antidepressants. Method: In an open-label, rater-blinded study conducted from March 2003 through December 2003, 10 patients with DSM-IV MDD without psychotic features who had failed to respond to an adequate trial of at least 1 antidepressant were prescribed aripiprazole (10–30 mg/day) for 6 weeks. The dose of preexisting antidepressants remained unchanged. Treatment response was defined as a 50% or greater reduction in score on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) from baseline to end of treatment. Secondary efficacy measures included scores on the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) and -Severity (CGI-S) scales. Results: Eight of 10 patients had failed 2 or more antidepressant trials. The mean daily dose of aripiprazole was 13.21 mg. Intent-to-treat analysis showed that mean ± SD HAM-D scores reduced significantly from baseline (23.0 ± 8.1) to end of treatment (8.1 ± 6.0) (p < .001). There was a significant reduction in CGI-I (p < .05) and a trend toward decrease in CGI-S (p = .06) score. Seventy percent of the subjects were responders and 30% achieved remission. Common adverse effects were akathisia (20%), nausea (20%), and restlessness (20%). Conclusions: The study indicates the potential utility of aripiprazole as an augmenting agent in treatment-resistant depression, particularly in those who had failed 2 or more antidepressant trials. Adequately powered, randomized controlled trials are necessary to evaluate the role of aripiprazole in treatment-resistant depression.