Search

The objective of this research was to compute reference limits using reference values from patients entering pharmaceutical development clinical trials by the nonparametric method and the robust method of Horn and Pesce, with and without outlier exclusion, and compare the methods with respect to influence on the limits. Reference limits were computed for 38 analytes with over 130,000 subjects contributing reference values. Subjects were partitioned into 10 demographic strata for limit computation. Limits were computed for both 95- and 98-percentile reference intervals by both methods. For each reference interval and method, the limits were calculated with and without outliers. Outliers were excluded by the Horn algorithm. Irrespective of method, reference limits were expanded with the 98-percentile interval, but some expansions were small. Outlier exclusion contracted limits with more influence on the upper limit. The robust method contracted the upper limit to a meaningful degree and slightly expanded the lower limit for many analytes. Outlier exclusion and computation by the robust method have an increasing influence on analytes with right-skewed distributions of reference values from large populations not screened to exclude common, stable diseases and environmental factors that might affect analyte variability. The method has advantages for computation of reference limits used in clinical trial analyses.

Aim The effects of atomoxetine (20 and 60 mg twice daily), 400 mg moxifloxacin and placebo on QTc in 131 healthy CYP2D6 poor metabolizer males were compared.

ObjectivesThis study was designed to evaluate effects of tadalafil, a phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor used for the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED), on the QT interval.BackgroundCardiovascular disease is common in men with ED. Men with cardiovascular disease and ED may have decreased cardiac repolarization reserve.MethodsEffects of tadalafil (100 mg by mouth), ibutilide (0.002 mg/kg intravenously), and placebo on the QT interval in healthy men were compared (placebo and tadalafil [n = 90], with a subset [n = 61] receiving all treatments; mean age 30 years, range 18 to 53 years). Electrocardiographic sampling was done for two days before treatment and on treatment days. The QT was corrected for RR interval with five correction methods, including an individual correction (QTcI). Plasma concentrations of tadalafil were measured to evaluate concentration-QT effect relationships.ResultsAt the time corresponding to maximum plasma concentration of tadalafil, the mean difference in the change in QTcI between tadalafil and placebo was 2.8 ms; tadalafil was equivalent to placebo (a priori, upper limit of 90% confidence interval

In a previous study assessing tadalafil for the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED), tadalafil 20 mg was shown to improve erectile function for up to 36 hours vs placebo. This study sought to demonstrate the effectiveness of both 10- and 20-mg tadalafil vs placebo at 2 prespecified assigned times of 24 and 36 hours postdosing. This double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study randomized 483 men with ED into 6 groups according to a combination of treatment (placebo, tadalafil 10 or 20 mg) and assigned time (24 or 36 hours) for intercourse attempts. Patients were stratified by baseline ED severity based on Erectile Function Domain scores. The study had 4 phases: a 4-week run-in (no ED medication taken); a 2- to 4-week equilibration (dosing as needed); a 4- to 6-week assessment; and a 6-month open-label extension. During the assessment phase, men took a total of 4 doses of study medication, each dose separated by more than or equal to 7 days. Efficacy was measured as the mean per-patient percentage of successful intercourse attempts (Sexual Encounter Profile Diary Question 3: SEP3) during the assessment phase. Men taking either 10- or 20-mg tadalafil had a significant increase in SEP3 from baseline scores vs placebo at both 24 hours (P = .038 and

A gradual decline in estrogen levels after the age of 40 may contribute to a higher rate of depression in women over 45 years of age. Estrogen replacement therapy (ERT) has been shown to produce cognitive and mood-enhancing effects in women and may facilitate antidepressant activity.We examined the efficacy rates in women on ERTor = 45 years (n = 40) compared to womenor = 45 years not on ERT (n = 132) and to women45 years (n = 396) and to men (n = 262) with major depression during fluoxetine 20 mg daily up to 8 weeks. Remitters with a HAM-D17 scoreor = 7 from week 9 to 12 were then treated up to 1-year in a placebo-controlled, relapse-prevention trial.Efficacy rates were similar in womenor = 45 years on ERT when compared to womenor = 45 years taking fluoxetine alone, and when compared to women45 years and men taking fluoxetine. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis in fluoxetine responders treated up to 26 weeks showed a somewhat greater relapse rate in womenor = 45 years taking ERT compared to other treatment groups (P0.06).This study was retrospective nature and ERT was given in an uncontrolled fashion: 63% of women received estrogen alone while 37% also took intermittent progesterone. Other variables include the absence of hormonal documentation of menopausal status, no direct assessment of ERT compliance and the use of fixed-dose fluoxetine 20 mg daily.In contrast to prior reports suggesting that ERT may facilitate antidepressant activity, we observed similar efficacy in depressed womenor = 45 years taking fluoxetine plus ERT compared to those taking fluoxetine alone.

Background: Little information is available on the impact of the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine on quality of life (QOL). A 6-week, double-blind randomized multicenter trial, with a long-term extension, was conducted to evaluate the clinical efficacy and QOL of olanzapine and haloperidol in treating schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders. Methods: A total of 828 outpatients provided QOL data. Study patients were aged greater than 18 years with a DSM-III-R diagnosis of schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, or schizoaffective disorder and baseline BPRS (items scored on 0–6 scale) total scores, ≥18 were randomized to 6 weeks of treatment with olanzapine 5 to 20 mg/day or haloperidol 5 to 20 mg/day. Patients entered a 46-week double-blind extension if they demonstrated minimal clinical response and were tolerant to study medication. The Quality of Life Scale (QLS) and SF-36 Health Survey were used to evaluate QOL. Results: During the 6-week acute phase, olanzapine treatment significantly improved BPRS total (p = 0.004), PANSS total scores (p = 0.043), QLS total (p = 0.005), intrapsychic foundations (p < 0.001) and interpersonal relations scores (p = 0.036), and SF-36 mental component summary scores (p < 0.001) compared with haloperidol. During the extension phase, olanzapine treatment significantly improved PANSS negative scores (p = 0.035) and improved QLS total (p = 0.001), intrapsychic foundations (p < 0.001), and instrumental role category scores (p = 0.015) versus haloperidol treatment. Significantly more haloperidol patients discontinued treatment due to adverse events during the acute and extension phases (p = 0.041 and p = 0.014, respectively). Changes in QLS total and MCS scores were associated with changes in clinical symptoms, depression scores and extrapyramidal symptoms. Conclusions: Olanzapine was more effective than haloperidol in reducing severity of psychopathology and in improving QOL in patients with schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders. The QOL benefits of olanzapine, although modest, may be important for long-term treatment.

Objective Two studies compared the efficacy of standard-dose oral olanzapine (5 to 15 mg a day) with placebo and with ineffective-dose olanzapine (1 mg a day) in maintenance therapy of schizophrenia. Methods The studies were 46-week double-blind extensions of multicenter studies that assessed the efficacy of olanzapine in the acute treatment of schizophrenia. Subjects were 120 adults who met DSM-III-R criteria for schizophrenia with an acute exacerbation and who had a minimum score of 24 on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, who had responded to acute therapy (defined as at least a 40 percent reduction in the BPRS score from baseline or a score of 18 or less during up to six weeks of treatment), and who were outpatients at their last acute-phase visit. Relapse was defined as hospitalization for psychopathology. Relapse risk was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and life table analysis. Patients who relapsed were discontinued from the studies. Results In the first study (N = 58), patients in the standard-dose olanzapine group experienced a significantly lower relapse risk (p = .002) over one year than patients treated with placebo. The estimated one-year risk of relapse with olanzapine was 28.6 percent, compared with 69.9 percent with placebo. Results were similar in the second study (N = 62); patients treated with standard-dose olanzapine had a significantly reduced risk of relapse (p = .018) over one year compared with patients treated with ineffective-dose olanzapine. The estimated one-year risks of relapse were 19.6 percent for standard-dose olanzapine and 45.5 percent for ineffective-dose olanzapine. Conclusions Olanzapine is superior to placebo and ineffective-dose olanzapine in the maintenance therapy of schizophrenia.

Olanzapine is a potential new "atypical" antipsychotic agent. The double-blind acute phase of this study compared three dosage ranges of olanzapine (5 +/- 2.5 mg/day [Olz-L], 10 +/- 2.5 mg/day [Olz-M], 15 +/- 2.5 mg/day [Olz-H]) to a dosage range of haloperidol (15 +/- 5 mg/day [Hal]) and to placebo in the treatment of 335 patients who met the DSM-III-R criteria for schizophrenia. In overall symptomatology improvement (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale [BPRS]-total), Olz-M, Olz-H, and Hal were significantly superior to placebo. In positive symptom improvement (BPRS-positive), Olz-M, Olz-H, and Hal were comparable and significantly superior to placebo. In negative symptom improvement (Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms [SANS]-composite), Olz-L and Olz-H were significantly superior to placebo and Olz-H was also significantly superior to Hal. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events included somnolence, agitation, asthenia, and nervousness. No acute dystonia was observed with olanzapine. Treatment-emergent parkinsonism occurred with Olz-H at approximately one-third the rate of Hal, and akathisia occurred with Olz-H at approximately one-half the rate of Hal. Prolactin elevations associated with olanzapine were not significantly greater than those observed with placebo and were also significantly less than those seen with haloperidol.

The effects of atomoxetine (20 and 60 mg twice daily), 400 mg moxifloxacin and placebo on QT(c) in 131 healthy CYP2D6 poor metabolizer males were compared.Atomoxetine doses were selected to result in plasma concentrations that approximated expected plasma concentrations at both the maximum recommended dose and at a supratherapeutic dose in CYP2D6 extensive metabolizers. Ten second electrocardiograms were obtained for time-matched baseline on days -2 and -1, three time points after dosing on day 1 for moxifloxacin and five time points on day 7 for atomoxetine and placebo. Maximum mean placebo-subtracted change from baseline model-corrected QT (QT(c)M) on day 7 was the primary endpoint.QT(c)M differences for atomoxetine 20 and 60 mg twice daily were 0.5 ms (upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval 2.2 ms) and 4.2 ms (upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval 6.0 ms), respectively. As plasma concentration of atomoxetine increased, a statistically significant increase in QT(c) was observed. The moxifloxacin difference from placebo met the a priori definition of non-inferiority. Maximum mean placebo-subtracted change from baseline QT(c)M for moxifloxacin was 4.8 ms and this difference was statistically significant. Moxifloxacin plasma concentrations were below the concentrations expected from the literature. However, the slope of the plasma concentration-QT(c) change observed was consistent with the literature.Atomoxetine was not associated with a clinically significant change in QT(c). However, a statistically significant increase in QT(c) was associated with increasing plasma concentrations.

OBJECTIVE--A comprehensive meta-analysis of clinical trial data was performed to assess the possible association of fluoxetine and suicidality (suicidal acts and ideation). DESIGN--Retrospective analysis of pooled data from 17 double blind clinical trials in patients with major depressive disorder comparing fluoxetine (n = 1765) with a tricyclic antidepressant (n = 731) or placebo (n = 569), or both. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Multiple data sources were searched to identify patients with suicidal acts. Suicidal ideation was assessed with item 3 of the Hamilton depression rating scale, which systematically rates suicidality. Emergence of substantial suicidal ideation was defined as a change in the rating of this item from 0 or 1 at baseline to 3 or 4 during double blind treatment; worsening was defined as any increase from baseline; improvement was defined as a decrease from baseline at the last visit during the treatment. RESULTS--Suicidal acts did not differ significantly in comparisons of fluoxetine with placebo (0.2% v 0.2%, p = 0.494, Mantel-Haenszel adjusted incidence difference) and with tricyclic antidepressants (0.7% v 0.4%, p = 0.419). The pooled incidence of suicidal acts was 0.3% for fluoxetine, 0.2% for placebo, and 0.4% for tricyclic antidepressants, and fluoxetine did not differ significantly from either placebo (p = 0.533, Pearson's chi 2) or tricyclic antidepressants (p = 0.789). Suicidal ideation emerged marginally significantly less often with fluoxetine than with placebo (0.9% v 2.6%, p = 0.094) and numerically less often than with tricyclic antidepressants (1.7% v 3.6%, p = 0.102). The pooled incidence of emergence of substantial suicidal ideation was 1.2% for fluoxetine, 2.6% for placebo, and 3.6% for tricyclic antidepressants. The incidence was significantly lower with fluoxetine than with placebo (p = 0.042) and tricyclic antidepressants (p = 0.001). Any degree of worsening of suicidal ideation was similar with fluoxetine and placebo (15.4% v 17.9%, p = 0.196) and with fluoxetine and tricyclic antidepressants (15.6% v 16.3%, p = 0.793). The pooled incidence of worsening of suicidal ideation was 15.3% for fluoxetine, 17.9% for placebo, and 16.3% for tricyclic antidepressants. The incidence did not differ significantly with fluoxetine and placebo (p = 0.141) or tricyclic antidepressants (p = 0.542). Suicidal ideation improved significantly more with fluoxetine than with placebo (72.0% v 54.8%, p less than 0.001) and was similar to the improvement with tricyclic antidepressants (72.5% v 69.8%, p = 0.294). The pooled incidence of improvement of suicidal ideation was 72.2% for fluoxetine, 54.8% for placebo, and 69.8% for tricyclic antidepressants. The incidence with fluoxetine was significantly greater than with placebo (p less than 0.001) and did not differ from that with tricyclic antidepressants (p = 0.296). CONCLUSIONS--Data from these trials do not show that fluoxetine is associated with an increased risk of suicidal acts or emergence of substantial suicidal thoughts among depressed patients.

The goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of olanzapine or risperidone treatment on beta-cell function in healthy volunteers. Subjects were randomly assigned to single-blind therapy with olanzapine (10 mg/d; n = 17), risperidone (4 mg/d; n = 13), or placebo (n = 18) for 15-17 d. Insulin secretion was quantitatively assessed at baseline and the end of the study period using the hyperglycemic clamp. Weight increased significantly (P0.01) in the olanzapine (2.8 +/- 1.7 kg) and risperidone (3.1 +/- 2.1 kg) treatment groups. An increase ( approximately 25%) in the insulin response to hyperglycemia and a decrease ( approximately 18%) in the insulin sensitivity index were observed after treatment with olanzapine and risperidone. The change in insulin response was correlated (r = 0.5576; P = 0.019) with a change in body mass index. When the impact of weight change was accounted for by multivariate regression analyses, no significant change in insulin response or insulin sensitivity was detected after treatment with olanzapine or risperidone. We found no evidence that treatment of healthy volunteers with olanzapine or risperidone decreased the insulin secretory response to a prolonged hyperglycemic challenge. The results of this study do not support the hypothesis that olanzapine or risperidone directly impair pancreatic beta-cell function.

This double-blind study investigated the efficacy and safety of rapid-acting intramuscular olanzapine in treating agitation associated with Alzheimer's disease and/or vascular dementia. At 2 h, olanzapine (5.0 mg, 2.5 mg) and lorazepam (1.0 mg) showed significant improvement over placebo on the PANSS Excited Component (PANSS-EC) and Agitation-Calmness Evaluation Scale (ACES), and both 5.0 mg olanzapine and lorazepam showed superiority to placebo on the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory. At 24 h, both olanzapine groups maintained superiority over placebo on the PANSS-EC; lorazepam did not. Olanzapine (5.0 mg) and lorazepam improved ACES scores more than placebo. Simpson-Angus and Mini-Mental State Examination scores did not change significantly from baseline. Sedation (ACESor =8), adverse events, and laboratory analytes were not significantly different from placebo for any treatment. No significant differences among treatment groups were seen in extrapyramidal symptoms or in corrected QT interval at either 2 h or 24 h, and no significant differences among treatment groups were seen in vital signs, including orthostasis. Intramuscular injection of olanzapine may therefore provide substantial benefit in rapidly treating inpatients with acute dementia-related agitation.

Delayed and persistent ("true drug") improvement characterizes the response to antidepressant medication. Early or nonpersistent ("placebo") benefit is typical of a placebo response. The prediction was that patients with a true drug response would sustain their benefit best if they continued to receive the drug and that patients with a placebo response would have an equivalent prognosis whether they continued to receive the drug or were switched to placebo.Patients with major depression who met the study's response criteria (a modified Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scoreor =7 and failure to meet major depression criteria after each of the last 3 weeks following 12 to 14 weeks of treatment with fluoxetine hydrochloride, 20 mg/d) were enrolled in a 50-week randomized placebo substitution trial during which the return of depressive symptoms defined relapse. The timing and persistency of response during initial treatment defined true drug or placebo response patterns.Patients with a true drug response pattern relapsed significantly more frequently if they were switched to placebo than if they continued to receive fluoxetine (P.001 for weeks 12-26, P.005 for weeks 26-50, and P.41 for weeks 50-62). Patients with a placebo response pattern had an equivalent outcome whether maintained on fluoxetine therapy or placebo (P.20 for weeks 12-26, test invalid for weeks 26-50, and P.67 for weeks 50-62). Patients with a placebo response pattern relapsed more often when they continued to receive fluoxetine than patients with a true drug response pattern (P.01 for weeks 12-26, P.10 for weeks 26-50, and P.36 for weeks 50-62).These findings confirm that pattern analysis validly differentiates true drug from nonspecific initial responses and extend its use to the continuation and maintenance phases of treatment for depression. Investigations into the mechanisms of antidepressant activity might best be limited to those that can account for delayed efficacy. Fluoxetine's efficacy during the continuation and maintenance phases of treatment may be limited to patients with a true drug pattern of initial response.

This double-blind study evaluated the impact of treatment with olanzapine compared with haloperidol, and placebo on improvements in symptomatology and quality of life in patients with a DSM-III-R diagnosis of schizophrenia. A total of 335 patients was randomized to five treatment groups; olanzapine 5 +/- 2.5 mg/day, olanzapine 10 +/- 2.5 mg/day, olanzapine 15 +/- 2.5 mg/day, haloperidol 15 +/- 5 mg/day, and placebo. Patients responding to treatment during the 6-week acute phase were eligible to enter a 46-week extension. Efficacy measures included the brief psychiatric rating scale total, scale for assessment of negative symptoms summary, and clinical global impressions severity scores. Quality of life was evaluated using the quality of life scale. Data analyzed after 24 weeks of therapy showed that olanzapine was significantly superior to placebo in reducing clinical severity and significantly superior to haloperidol in reducing negative symptoms in patients responding to acute treatment. Furthermore, improvement in quality of life was observed in olanzapine-treated responders.