Search

Lasmiditan (LY573144/COL‐144) is a high‐affinity, centrally penetrant, selective 5‐HT1F receptor agonist currently under investigation for acute treatment of migraine. Although lasmiditan is not known to induce vasoconstriction, it remains important to understand its effect on cardiovascular parameters because it is likely to be coadministered with β‐adrenergic receptor antagonists used for migraine prophylaxis, such as propranolol. This phase 1, single‐center, open‐label, fixed‐sequence study evaluated the cardiovascular and pharmacokinetic effects of 200 mg lasmiditan in 44 healthy subjects receiving repeated oral doses of twice‐daily 80 mg propranolol under fasting conditions. Coadministration caused statistically significant decreases in mean hourly heart rate relative to propranolol alone, but the maximum magnitude of this effect was –6.5 bpm and recovered to predose levels by 3 to 4 hours before stabilizing. Additionally, short‐lived (≤2.5 hours) statistically significant increases in systolic blood pressure (8.3 mm Hg) and diastolic blood pressure (6.4 mm Hg) were observed following coadministration. Consistent with the largely nonoverlapping metabolic pathways of lasmiditan and propranolol, exposure to either drug was not affected by coadministration. Overall, compared with administration of either drug alone, coadministration was generally well tolerated.

This paper characterizes the actual science performance of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), as determined from the six month commissioning period. We summarize the performance of the spacecraft, telescope, science instruments, and ground system, with an emphasis on differences from pre-launch expectations. Commissioning has made clear that JWST is fully capable of achieving the discoveries for which it was built. Moreover, almost across the board, the science performance of JWST is better than expected; in most cases, JWST will go deeper faster than expected. The telescope and instrument suite have demonstrated the sensitivity, stability, image quality, and spectral range that are necessary to transform our understanding of the cosmos through observations spanning from near-earth asteroids to the most distant galaxies., Comment: 5th version as accepted to PASP; 31 pages, 18 figures; https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1538-3873/acb293

Objectives To address the need for long-term lasmiditan data, the GLADIATOR study evaluated the safety (primary) and efficacy (secondary) of lasmiditan for the intermittent, acute treatment of migraine attacks for up to 1 year. Methods In this prospective, randomized, open-label, Phase 3 study, patients who had completed either of two single-attack studies were offered the opportunity to be randomized 1:1 to lasmiditan 100 mg or 200 mg. Patients were asked to use lasmiditan as the first treatment for each new migraine attack of at least moderate severity. Assessments occurred at baseline and at prespecified time increments up to 48 hours after each dose of study drug using an electronic diary, and safety was assessed throughout the study. Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) was assessed at each visit. Results As of the cut-off date for this interim analysis (6 March 2018), 1978 patients had received ≥ 1 lasmiditan dose and treated 19,058 migraine attacks. Overall, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were similar to those in the single-attack studies and included dizziness (18.6%), somnolence (8.5%), and paresthesia (6.8%). The frequency of TEAEs generally decreased with subsequent attacks. No treatment-related serious adverse events and no cardiovascular TEAEs potentially due to vasoconstriction were observed. For both lasmiditan doses, efficacy measures were generally consistent over study quarters and treated attacks. Overall, across all treated attacks at 2 hours post-dose, pain freedom was observed in 26.9% of the attacks treated with lasmiditan 100 mg and 32.4% of the attacks treated with lasmiditan 200 mg. MIDAS total scores decreased over time. Conclusions The interim results of this long-term study showed intermittent lasmiditan (100 mg and 200 mg) to be generally well tolerated and efficacious for the acute treatment of migraine over a 1-year period. Trial registration number: NCT02565186; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02565186

We studied the efficacy and safety of a second dose of lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine. SAMURAI and SPARTAN were double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 studies in which individuals with migraine were randomized to oral lasmiditan 50 mg (SPARTAN only), 100 mg, 200 mg, or placebo. Study drug was to be taken within 4 h (h) of onset of a migraine attack (moderate or severe pain). A second dose of study drug was provided for rescue (patient not pain-free at 2 h and took a second dose 2-24 h post-first dose) or recurrence (patient pain-free at 2 h, but experienced recurrence of mild, moderate, or severe migraine pain and took a second dose 2-24 h after first dose). Randomization to second dose occurred at baseline; patients originally assigned lasmiditan were randomized to the same lasmiditan dose or placebo (2:1 ratio), and those originally assigned placebo received placebo. Data from SAMURAI and SPARTAN were pooled for efficacy and safety assessment of a second dose of lasmiditan. The proportion of patients taking a second dose was lower with lasmiditan versus placebo, and decreased with increasing lasmiditan dose; the majority who took a second dose did so for rescue. In patients taking lasmiditan as first dose, outcomes (pain free, most bothersome symptom [MBS] free) at 2 h after a second dose for rescue were similar whether the second dose was lasmiditan or placebo (p > 0.05 in all cases). In patients taking lasmiditan for first dose, outcomes at 2 h after a second dose for recurrence were as follows: lasmiditan pooled versus placebo - pain free, 50% vs 32% (p > 0.05); MBS free, 71% vs 41% (p = 0.02); pain relief, 77% vs 52% (p = 0.03). In patients whose first dose was lasmiditan, the incidence of treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) reported after the second dose was similar whether second dose was lasmiditan or placebo. A second dose of lasmiditan showed some evidence of efficacy when taken for headache recurrence. There was no clear benefit of a second dose of lasmiditan for rescue treatment. The incidences of TEAEs were similar whether the second dose was lasmiditan or placebo. SAMURAI ( NCT02439320 ) [April 2015]. SPARTAN ( NCT02605174 ) [May 2016].

Introduction Solanezumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that preferentially binds to soluble amyloid β and promotes its clearance from the brain in preclinical studies. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of solanezumab in slowing global and anatomically localized brain atrophy as measured by volumetric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Methods In the EXPEDITION3 phase 3 trial, participants with mild Alzheimer's disease were randomized to receive intravenous infusions of either 400 mg of solanezumab or placebo every 4 weeks for 76 weeks. Volumetric MRI scans were acquired at baseline and at 80 weeks from 275 MRI facilities using a standardized imaging protocol. A subset of 1462 patients who completed both MRI and 14-item Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale assessments at both time points were selected for analysis. Longitudinal MRI volume changes were analyzed centrally by tensor-based morphometry with a standard FreeSurfer brain parcellation. Prespecified volumetric measures, including whole brain and ventricles, along with anatomically localized regions in the temporal, parietal, and frontal lobes were evaluated in those participants. Results Group-mean differences in brain atrophy rates were directionally consistent across a number of brain regions but small in magnitude (1.3–6.9% slowing) and not statistically significant when corrected for multiple comparisons. The annualized rates of change of the volumetric measures and the correlation of these changes with cognitive changes in placebo-treated subjects were similar to those reported previously. Discussion In the EXPEDITION3 trial, solanezumab did not significantly slow down rates of global or anatomically localized brain atrophy. Brain volume changes and their relationship to cognition were consistent with previous reports.

Robotic manipulation of deformable objects is a difficult problem especially because of the complexity of the many different ways an object can deform. Searching such a high-dimensional state space makes it difficult to recognize, track, and manipulate deformable objects. In this paper, we introduce a predictive, model-driven approach to address this challenge, using a precomputed, simulated database of deformable object models. Mesh models of common deformable garments are simulated with the garments picked up in multiple different poses under gravity, and stored in a database for fast and efficient retrieval. To validate this approach, we developed a comprehensive pipeline for manipulating clothing as in a typical laundry task. First, the database is used for category and the pose estimation is used for a garment in an arbitrary position. A fully featured 3-D model of the garment is constructed in real time, and volumetric features are then used to obtain the most similar model in the database to predict the object category and pose. Second, the database can significantly benefit the manipulation of deformable objects via nonrigid registration, providing accurate correspondences between the reconstructed object model and the database models. Third, the accurate model simulation can also be used to optimize the trajectories for the manipulation of deformable objects, such as the folding of garments. Extensive experimental results are shown for the above tasks using a variety of different clothings. Note to Practitioners —This paper provides an open source, extensible, 3-D database for dissemination to the robotics and graphics communities. Model-driven methods are proliferating, and they need to be applied, tested, and validated in real environments. A key idea we have exploited is to have an innovative and novel use of simulation. This database will serve as infrastructure for developing advanced robotic machine learning algorithms. We want to address this machine learning idea ourselves, but we expect the dissemination of the database to other researchers with different agendas and task applications, which will bring wide progress in this area. Our proposed methods, as mentioned earlier, can be easily applied to interrelated areas. One example is that the 3-D shape-based matching algorithm can be used for other objects, such as bottles, papers, and food. After integrating with other robotic systems, the use of the robot can be easily extended to other tasks, such as making food, cleaning room, and fetching objects, to assist our daily life.

The sustainability science literature views the participation of local stakeholders as a necessary element for both conducting transdisciplinary research and implementing sustainable development projects. However, there is very little critical reflection on how power dynamics between researchers and local stakeholders affect the success of participatory processes. This article draws on the critical tradition of political science and sociology to examine how power dynamics are inherent to, and should always be a concern during, participatory processes. This also applies for sustainability science research and the implementation of sustainable development projects, especially in developing contexts such as those of Africa. While local participation enhances the voices of local stakeholders, power dynamics between them and the researchers driving these processes can dampen local voices or elide critical pieces of information. Using evidence from participatory workshops in Djibouti and Kenya, we demonstrate that these power dynamics can unintentionally exclude critical knowledge and perspectives from the formal proceedings of participatory workshops, despite an express focus on stakeholder inclusion and participatory methods. Using Steven Lukes’ tripartite conception of power, we elicit how the workshop structure and the actions of researchers as the designers and facilitators of the workshop may have prevented the emergence of this critical information. The central argument is that reflecting on power will help researchers and practitioners identify the power dynamics inherent in the participatory processes so they can work to overcome them. Such self-reflection can strengthen sustainability science and practice in African and other contexts.

This paper provides a systematic state of the art review on tracking the fine scale movements of fish with the use of autonomous maritime robotics. Knowledge of migration patterns and the localization of specific species of fish at a given time is vital to many aspects of conservation. This paper reviews these technologies and provides insight into what systems are being used and why. The review results show that a larger amount of complex systems that use a deep learning techniques are used over more simplistic approaches to the design. Most results found in the study involve Autonomous Underwater Vehicles, which generally require the most complex array of sensors. The results also provide insight into future research such as methods involving swarm intelligence, which has seen an increase in use in recent years. This synthesis of current and future research will be helpful to research teams working to create an autonomous vehicle with intentions to track, navigate or survey.

Little research has been conducted on the statistical properties of composite measures comprising linear combinations of continuous component scales. We assessed the quantitative relationship between the composites and their individual components regarding their abilities to detect treatment effects. In particular, we developed the mathematical derivation of the treatment effect size of a continuous composite in relation to the treatment effect sizes of its components and proved multiple properties of the composite. We demonstrated that the treatment effect size of a composite is greater than the minimum treatment effect size of its components and that above certain thresholds of correlations of components and ratios of component effect sizes, the composite may outperform its components. Examples from Alzheimer’s disease (AD) clinical studies of solanezumab and donepezil using the composite Integrated AD Rating Scale (iADRS) and its components, the AD Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) and AD Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living inventory, instrumental items (ADCS-iADL) were consistent with the theoretical statistical properties. The understanding of the quantitative relationships between continuous composites and their components will be useful in clinical trial design and the development of new scales and composites across therapeutic areas.

Background We studied the efficacy and safety of a second dose of lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine. Methods SAMURAI and SPARTAN were double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 studies in which individuals with migraine were randomized to oral lasmiditan 50mg (SPARTAN only), 100mg, 200mg, or placebo. Study drug was to be taken within 4 hours (h) of onset of a migraine attack (moderate or severe pain). A second dose of study drug was provided for rescue (patient not pain-free at 2h and took a second dose 2-24h post-first dose) or recurrence (patient pain-free at 2h, but experienced recurrence of mild, moderate, or severe migraine pain and took a second dose 2-24h after first dose). Randomization to second dose occurred at baseline; patients originally assigned lasmiditan were randomized to the same lasmiditan dose or placebo (2:1 ratio), and those originally assigned placebo received placebo. Data from SAMURAI and SPARTAN were pooled for efficacy and safety assessment of a second dose of lasmiditan. Results The proportion of patients taking a second dose was lower with lasmiditan versus placebo, and decreased with increasing lasmiditan dose; the majority who took a second dose did so for rescue. In patients taking lasmiditan as first dose, outcomes (pain free, most bothersome symptom [MBS] free) at 2h after a second dose for rescue were similar whether the second dose was lasmiditan or placebo (p>0.05 in all cases). In patients taking lasmiditan for first dose, outcomes at 2h after a second dose for recurrence were as follows: lasmiditan pooled versus placebo - pain free, 50% vs 32% (p>0.05); MBS free, 71% vs 41% (p=0.02); pain relief, 77% vs 52% (p=0.03). In patients whose first dose was lasmiditan, the incidence of treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) reported after the second dose was similar whether second dose was lasmiditan or placebo. Conclusions A second dose of lasmiditan showed some evidence of efficacy when taken for headache recurrence. There was no clear benefit of a second dose of lasmiditan for rescue treatment. The incidences of TEAEs were similar whether the second dose was lasmiditan or placebo.

Background Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer disease (AD) is challenging, with a 70.9%–87.3% sensitivity and 44.3%–70.8% specificity, compared with autopsy diagnosis. Florbetapir F18 positron emission tomography (FBP-PET) estimates beta-amyloid plaque density antemortem. Methods Of 2052 patients (≥55 years old) clinically diagnosed with mild or moderate AD dementia from 2 solanezumab clinical trials, 390 opted to participate in a FBP-PET study addendum. We analyzed baseline prerandomization characteristics. Results A total of 22.4% had negative FBP-PET scans, whereas 72.5% of mild and 86.9% of moderate AD patients had positive results. No baseline clinical variable reliably differentiated negative from positive FBP-PET scan groups. Conclusions These data confirm the challenges of correctly diagnosing AD without using biomarkers. FBP-PET can aid AD dementia differential diagnosis by detecting amyloid pathology antemortem, even when the diagnosis of AD is made by expert clinicians.

Background: Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is associated with variable cognitive and functional decline, and it is difficult to predict who will develop the disease and how they will progress. Objective: This exploratory study aimed to define latent classes from participants in the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) database who had similar growth patterns of both cognitive and functional change using Growth Mixture Modeling (GMM), identify characteristics associated with those trajectories, and develop a decision tree using clinical predictors to determine which trajectory, as determined by GMM, individuals will most likely follow. Methods: We used ADNI early mild cognitive impairment (EMCI), late MCI (LMCI), AD dementia, and healthy control (HC) participants with known amyloid-β status and follow-up assessments on the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive Subscale or the Functional Activities Questionnaire (FAQ) up to 24 months postbaseline. GMM defined trajectories. Classification and Regression Tree (CART) used certain baseline variables to predict likely trajectory path. Results: GMM identified three trajectory classes (C): C1 (n = 162, 13.6%) highest baseline impairment and steepest pattern of cognitive/functional decline; C3 (n = 819, 68.7%) lowest baseline impairment and minimal change on both; C2 (n = 211, 17.7%) intermediate pattern, worsening on both, but less steep than C1. C3 had fewer amyloid- or apolipoprotein-E ɛ4 (APOE4) positive and more healthy controls (HC) or EMCI cases. CART analysis identified two decision nodes using the FAQ to predict likely class with 82.3% estimated accuracy. Conclusions: Cognitive/functional change followed three trajectories with greater baseline impairment and amyloid and APOE4 positivity associated with greater progression. FAQ may predict trajectory class.

GLADIATOR was a prospective, randomized, open-label, phase 3 study of lasmiditan 100 mg or 200 mg dosed intermittently for up to 1 year in patients with episodic migraine. Most patients had completed one of two single-attack studies before participation. A total of 2030 patients received ≥1 lasmiditan dose and 19,879 migraine attacks were treated. Safety results were similar to the previously reported interim analysis. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) included dizziness (18.5%), somnolence (8.5%), and paresthesia (6.8%), with frequency of adverse events appearing to decrease with subsequently treated attacks. At 2 h post-dose, 26.7% and 32.2% of all attacks treated with lasmiditan 100 mg and 200 mg, respectively, were pain free. This pattern was generally consistent across study quarters and treated attacks. In conclusion, during a 1-year treatment period, intermittent lasmiditan for episodic migraine treatment was associated with generally decreasing TEAEs and consistent efficacy.

Lasmiditan is a selective 5-HT1F receptor agonist without vasoconstrictive activity. In this phase 3 double-blind placebo-controlled study, Goadsby et al. show that lasmiditan is efficacious and relatively well tolerated in the acute treatment of migraine in adults, including those with cardiovascular risk factors or a prior history of cardiovascular events., Lasmiditan, a serotonin 5-HT1F receptor agonist, was effective for acute treatment of patients with migraine in a phase 3 double-blind randomized controlled study. The current study was designed to replicate these findings in a generalizable population of patients with migraine, including those with a cardiovascular medical history. This prospective, double-blind, phase 3 multicentre study randomly assigned patients with migraine with and without aura (1:1:1:1 ratio) to oral lasmiditan 200 mg, 100 mg, 50 mg, or placebo. Patients were instructed to dose at home within 4 h of onset of migraine attack of at least moderate intensity and not improving. The primary objective was to assess the proportion of patients’ headache pain-free and most bothersome symptom-free at 2 h post-dose for each dose of lasmiditan versus placebo (NCT02605174). Patients (n = 3005) were assigned and treated (n = 2583, safety population): 1938 lasmiditan (200 mg n = 528, 100 mg n = 532, and 50 mg n = 556 included in primary analysis) and 645 placebo (540 included in primary analysis). Most patients (79.2%) had ≥1 cardiovascular risk factor at baseline, in addition to migraine. Lasmiditan was associated with significantly more pain freedom at 2 h (lasmiditan 200 mg: 38.8%, odds ratio 2.3, 95% confidence interval 1.8–3.1, P < 0.001; 100 mg: 31.4%, odds ratio 1.7, 1.3–2.2, P < 0.001; 50 mg: 28.6%, odds ratio 1.5, 1.1–1.9, P = 0.003 versus placebo 21.3%) and freedom from most bothersome symptom at 2 h (lasmiditan 200 mg: 48.7%, odds ratio 1.9, 95% confidence interval 1.4–2.4, P < 0.001; 100 mg: 44.2%, odds ratio 1.6, 1.2–2.0, P < 0.001; 50 mg: 40.8%, odds ratio 1.4, 1.1–1.8, P = 0.009 versus placebo 33.5%). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 253 of 649 (39.0%), 229 of 635 (36.1%), and 166 of 654 (25.4%) of patients on lasmiditan 200, 100, and 50 mg, respectively, versus 75 of 645 (11.6%) on placebo. Most adverse events were CNS-related and included dizziness, somnolence and paraesthesia. Lasmiditan was effective at 2 h post-dose for acute treatment of migraine at all oral doses tested. Efficacy and safety were consistent with the previous phase 3 study.

OBJECTIVE: A delayed-start design has been proposed to assess a potential disease-modifying effect in investigational drugs for Alzheimer’s disease that target the underlying disease process. We extended this methodology to recently obtained data from the EXPEDITION3. METHODS: EXPEDITION3 was a Phase 3, double-blind study with participants randomized to solanezumab (400 mg) or placebo every 4 weeks for 80 weeks, with an optional extension of active treatment. The delayed-start analysis was designed to determine if a statistically significant treatment difference established during the placebo-controlled period is maintained (at predefined level) during the delayed-start period, which would suggest the active drug has a disease-modifying effect. The delayed-start analysis was assessed across multiple efficacy measures, and includes data from baseline in the placebo-controlled period and up to 9 months in the delayed-start period. RESULTS: No significant difference was observed between the placebo and solanezumab treatment groups at the end of the placebo-controlled period for the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive 14-item subscale. A significant treatment difference was observed at the end of the placebo-controlled period for the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living instrumental items, an effect also seen at 6 months in the delayed-start period, and the noninferiority criterion was met. No other efficacy measures met these criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Delayed-start statistical methodology was used to understand the longitudinal outcomes in EXPEDITION3 and its extension. The small treatment differences observed at the end of the placebo-controlled phase prevented adequate assessment of any putative disease modifying effect.

Alzheimer's disease is characterized by amyloid-beta (Aβ) plaques and neurofibrillary tangles. The humanized monoclonal antibody solanezumab was designed to increase the clearance from the brain of soluble Aβ, peptides that may lead to toxic effects in the synapses and precede the deposition of fibrillary amyloid.We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial involving patients with mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease, defined as a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of 20 to 26 (on a scale from 0 to 30, with higher scores indicating better cognition) and with amyloid deposition shown by means of florbetapir positron-emission tomography or Aβ1-42 measurements in cerebrospinal fluid. Patients were randomly assigned to receive solanezumab at a dose of 400 mg or placebo intravenously every 4 weeks for 76 weeks. The primary outcome was the change from baseline to week 80 in the score on the 14-item cognitive subscale of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-cog14; scores range from 0 to 90, with higher scores indicating greater cognitive impairment).A total of 2129 patients were enrolled, of whom 1057 were assigned to receive solanezumab and 1072 to receive placebo. The mean change from baseline in the ADAS-cog14 score was 6.65 in the solanezumab group and 7.44 in the placebo group, with no significant between-group difference at week 80 (difference, -0.80; 95% confidence interval, -1.73 to 0.14; P=0.10). As a result of the failure to reach significance with regard to the primary outcome in the prespecified hierarchical analysis, the secondary outcomes were considered to be descriptive and are reported without significance testing. The change from baseline in the MMSE score was -3.17 in the solanezumab group and -3.66 in the placebo group. Adverse cerebral edema or effusion lesions that were observed on magnetic resonance imaging after randomization occurred in 1 patient in the solanezumab group and in 2 in the placebo group.Solanezumab at a dose of 400 mg administered every 4 weeks in patients with mild Alzheimer's disease did not significantly affect cognitive decline. (Funded by Eli Lilly; EXPEDITION3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01900665 .).

Background We evaluated the relationship between florbetapir-F18 positron emission tomography (FBP PET) and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers. Methods Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative-Grand Opportunity and Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative 2 (GO/2) healthy control (HC), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia subjects with clinical measures and CSF collected ±90 days of FBP PET data were analyzed using correlation and logistic regression. Results In HC and MCI subjects, FBP PET anterior and posterior cingulate and composite standard uptake value ratios correlated with CSF amyloid beta (Aβ 1–42 ) and tau/Aβ 1–42 ratios. Using logistic regression, Aβ 1–42 , total tau (t-tau), phosphorylated tau 181P (p-tau), and FBP PET composite each differentiated HC versus AD. Aβ 1–42 and t-tau distinguished MCI versus AD, without additional contribution by FBP PET. Total tau and p-tau added discriminative power to FBP PET when classifying HC versus AD. Conclusion Based on cross-sectional diagnostic groups, both amyloid and tau measures distinguish healthy from demented subjects. Longitudinal analyses are needed.

A delayed-start design has been proposed to assess a potential disease-modifying effect in investigational drugs for Alzheimer’s disease that target the underlying disease process. We extended this methodology to recently obtained data from the EXPEDITION3. EXPEDITION3 was a Phase 3, double-blind study with participants randomized to solanezumab (400 mg) or placebo every 4 weeks for 80 weeks, with an optional extension of active treatment. The delayed-start analysis was designed to determine if a statistically significant treatment difference established during the placebo-controlled period is maintained (at predefined level) during the delayed-start period, which would suggest the active drug has a disease-modifying effect. The delayed-start analysis was assessed across multiple efficacy measures, and includes data from baseline in the placebo-controlled period and up to 9 months in the delayed-start period. No significant difference was observed between the placebo and solanezumab treatment groups at the end of the placebo-controlled period for the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive 14-item subscale. A significant treatment difference was observed at the end of the placebo-controlled period for the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living instrumental items, an effect also seen at 6 months in the delayed-start period, and the noninferiority criterion was met. No other efficacy measures met these criteria. Delayed-start statistical methodology was used to understand the longitudinal outcomes in EXPEDITION3 and its extension. The small treatment differences observed at the end of the placebo-controlled phase prevented adequate assessment of any putative disease modifying effect.

Aim Safety and efficacy of long-term olanzapine treatment in Japanese patients with bipolar depression were assessed. Methods An integrated analysis of data from two studies was performed in olanzapine-treated patients (n = 165) with bipolar depression. Study 1 was a 6-week, double-blind, global study. Patients were randomly assigned to olanzapine or placebo followed by 18 weeks of open-label treatment. Study 2 was an open-label extension of Study 1 involving only Japanese patients. Patients assigned to Pre-olanzapine and Pre-placebo in Study 1 were treated for 24 weeks (total olanzapine exposure 42 or 48 weeks) and newly recruited patients (New-olanzapine) were treated for 48 weeks. Safety outcomes included treatment-emergent adverse events and changes in metabolic parameters. Efficacy outcome was assessed with Montgomery–Asberg Depression Rating Scale score. Results Forty-three percent of patients completed the 42- or 48-week olanzapine treatment period. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event was weight increased (47.9%). Significant increases were seen in weight (3.5 kg), and in fasting glucose (3.5 mg/dL), fasting total cholesterol (8.1 mg/dL), and fasting triglycerides (35.1 mg/dL). Remission rates (Montgomery–Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score ≤12 at any time) were 79.8% for the Pre-olanzapine group, 90.2% for the Pre-placebo group, and 85.0% for the New-olanzapine group. No patents developed mania during treatment. Conclusions Long-term use of olanzapine in a Japanese population with bipolar depression is associated with increases in weight and fasting metabolic measures, and also with improved depressive symptoms with avoidance of mania. Clinicians must carefully consider the benefits and risks of long-term therapy with olanzapine.

Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is challenging, with 20% or more of patients misdiagnosed, even by expert clinicians. The authors conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis comparing baseline neuropsychiatric and other clinical characteristics in 199 expert-diagnosed mild and moderate AD dementia patients participating in industry-sponsored clinical trials of an investigational therapy, where 18% lacked florbetapir positron emission tomography (PET) evidence of AD neuropathology. Significant differences were found only for cognition and ApoE ε4 status, but the large degree of score overlap would preclude using these measures to predict AD misdiagnosis. This study highlights the value of amyloid PET when evaluating patients with seemingly typical AD.

Recommended doses for olanzapine long-acting injection (olanzapine LAI) are 150 mg/2 weeks, 210 mg/2 weeks, 300 mg/2 or 4 weeks, and 405 mg/4 weeks. This analysis evaluated the dosing and interval patterns to compare the actual dosing patterns with the recommended dosing strategy.These data, from March 2010 through September 2011, were collected as part of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy mandatory patient registry that captures all post-approval olanzapine injections in the US. This registry includes both active and inactive (60 + days since last injection) patients.All patients with at least one olanzapine injection were included (n = 1694). The mean number of injections received was 6.6 (range of 1-40). The most frequent numbers of injections were one (26.3%) and two (12.9%). For the 11,228 olanzapine injections, the most common doses were 300 mg and 405 mg, accounting for 92.9% of injections. Although the most common time intervals between injections was about 14 days for 150 mg, 210 mg, and 300 mg, and about 28 days for 405 mg, the intervals ranged from less than 10 to more than 60 days for all doses. Among active patients (48.2% of registry), 68.2% had120 days of treatment with any dose, and the number of days since the last injection was around 2 weeks or less for 61.2% of patients, around 3 weeks for 16.5% of patients, and around 4 weeks for 7.1% of patients. Among inactive patients (51.8% of registry), 48.6% had30 days of treatment. For the pattern of the first five injections, most patients (70.9%) received four subsequent injections of the same dose as their initial injection.This registry will continue to change. There is a broad range in time between injections. Most patients continue to receive the same initial dose instead of switching to a maintenance dose. This may suggest that some clinicians are not reassessing the dose after the initial starting dose because the patient was stabilized on olanzapine oral before beginning olanzapine long-acting injection. The study is limited by a database that does not include reasons for dose and dosing interval decisions or reasons for delaying or discontinuing treatment.

The aim of this study was to determine what variables predict a 'combined treatment outcome' (COMBOUT) in patients with chronic schizophrenia.This analysis (n=522) was based on a randomized, double-blind, flexible-dose, 12-week study that enrolled chronically-ill patients diagnosed with schizophrenia or a related disorder. COMBOUT was assessed using the PANSS for symptoms, CGI-S for overall clinical status, MADRS for depressive symptoms, QLS for functioning/QOL, and SWN-K for subjective well-being. Possible predictors included demographics as well as baseline scores (Model I), and early change (week 2) scores (Model II).Model I: significantly better outcome (higher COMBOUT score) was observed in patients with lower MADRS (T= - 6.36; p0.001) or higher QLS (T=5.05; p0.001) scores at baseline. Model II: significantly better COMBOUT was observed in patients with early improvement of QLS (T=4.93; p0.001), SWN-K (T=3.88; p0.001), PANSS (T= - 2.32; p=0.021) and CGI-S scores (T= - 2.22; p=0.027). Changes in EPS were not predictors of COMBOUT in the models tested.COMBOUT at endpoint was predicted by lower depressive symptom score and higher QOL at baseline and by early improvement in psychopathology, quality of life and subjective well-being.

BackgroundAtypical antipsychotics are widely used in bipolar mania. However, the efficacy of atypical antipsychotics in bipolar depression has not been comprehensively explored.AimsTo evaluate olanzapine monotherapy in patients with bipolar depression.MethodPatients with bipolar depression received olanzapine (5–20mg/day, n = 343) or placebo (n = l71) for 6 weeks. The primary outcome was change from baseline to end-point in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. Secondary outcomes included: Clinical Global impression - Bipolar Version (CGI-BP) scale, 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-17) and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) scores, and the rate of response (≥50% reduction in MADRS at end-point), recovery (MADRS ≤12 for ≥4 weeks plus treatment completion) and remission (MADRS ≤8). The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00510146).ResultsOlanzapine demonstrated: significantly greater (Pv. -11.67), HRSD-17 and YMRS total scores and all CGI-BP subscale scores v. placebo; significantly (P≤0.05) more response and remission, but not recovery; significantly (PPConclusionsOlanzapine monotherapy appears to be efficacious in bipolar depression. Additional long-term studies are warranted to confirm these results. Safety findings were consistent with the known safety profile of olanzapine.

To assess the effects of olanzapine long-acting injection (olanzapine-LAI) on levels of functioning in acutely ill patients with schizophrenia.During this 8-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 404 inpatients were randomized to four treatment arms (olanzapine-LAI 210 mg/2 weeks = 106; olanzapine-LAI 300 mg/2 weeks = 100; olanzapine-LAI 405 mg/4 weeks = 100; placebo = 98). Also, data from the three active dosing arms were combined and compared to placebo data.NCT00088478.The treatment group comparison of mean change from baseline to endpoint in the total score and four subdomains of the Heinrichs-Carpenter Quality of Life Scale (QLS) and in the 2 summary scores and 8 subscale scores of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) were assessed using an ANOVA model.All three olanzapine-LAI treatment groups and the combined olanzapine-LAI group were superior to placebo on the QLS total score (all p-values 0.01) and the Intrapsychic Foundations subdomain (all p-values 0.02). Olanzapine-LAI 210 mg/2 weeks (p 0.001), 300 mg/2 weeks (p = 0.006), and the combined olanzapine-LAI group (p = 0.003) were superior to placebo on the Interpersonal Relations subdomain. The 300 mg/2 weeks group (p = 0.027) and the combined olanzapine-LAI group (p = 0.014) were also superior to placebo on the Instrumental Role subdomain. For the SF-36, the 300 mg/2 weeks and 405 mg/4 weeks olanzapine-LAI groups and the combined olanzapine-LAI group were superior to placebo on the Mental component score (all p-values 0.05). Each olanzapine-LAI group and the combined group were superior on the Mental Health scale (all p-values 0.05). Significant negative correlations between PANSS scores and measures of functioning indicate that as symptoms decreased, functioning increased.These results suggest that olanzapine-LAI may improve level of functioning in acutely ill patients with schizophrenia within 8 weeks of initiating treatment.

Research has identified distinct trajectories of antipsychotic response in patients with chronic schizophrenia in short-duration trials (~12 weeks). This post-hoc analysis identified trajectories in patients with chronic schizophrenia treated for ≤24 weeks. We pooled data from 1990 patients with chronic schizophrenia from 6 randomized, double-blind, olanzapine-comparator trials of atypical antipsychotics. Trajectory analysis identified homogeneous subpopulations within the larger heterogeneous population. Baseline demographics were compared between the identified latent classes. Five distinct response trajectories based on Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) Total score were identified: Dramatic Responders (n=47/1990, 2.4%), severely-ill patients (PANSS=124) with rapid and sustained improvement (51%) by Week 3; Partial Responders (n=1802/1990, 90.6%), moderately-ill (PANSS=90) with minimal improvement (21%) by Week 4, and little further improvement; Partial Responders-Unsustained (Late) (n=32/1990, 1.6%), markedly-ill (PANSS=95) with minimal initial improvement followed by worsening after Week 12; Partial Responders-Unsustained (Early) (n=28/1990, 1.4%), markedly-ill (PANSS=102) with minimal initial improvement followed by worsening after Week 8; and Delayed Responders (n=81/1990, 4.1%), markedly-to-severely-ill (PANSS=113) with minimal (11%) improvement at Week 8, but noticeable improvement thereafter (49%). Significant differences were noted for several baseline characteristics (p

Weight gain during olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC) therapy is very common. We examined early (at 2 weeks) weight gain as a predictor of later (at 26 weeks) substantial weight gain in patients with treatment-resistant depression during OFC pharmacotherapy. Data were analyzed from 2 studies (Study 1 and Study 2)-each with an acute, double-blind phase and an open-label phase-in patients who completed 26 weeks of open-label treatment (N = 306). Mean patient age was 46 years; the majority was female and white. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) were examined using early weight gain of 2 kg or more as a predictor of 10 kg or more substantial weight gain. Sensitivity (true positive rate) and specificity for Study 1 (n = 73) were 33% and 71%, respectively; PPV and NPV were 23% and 80%, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity for Study 2 (n = 233) were 52% and 70%, respectively; PPV and NPV were 31% and 85%, respectively. Overall, in the 2 trials analyzed, for patients who did not gain 2 kg or more (2.54 lb) in the first 2 weeks of OFC treatment, the observed frequency was 16.3% for gaining 10 kg or more at 26 weeks. Compared to those with early weight gain, patients without early weight gain were less likely to have substantial weight gain after OFC treatment. Additional research is needed to further explore the predictive power of early weight gain for subsequent substantial weight gain in patients with treatment-resistant depression treated with OFC.

Objective This 22-week, open-label study, conducted between November 2006 and September 2008 in a community setting, was designed to determine if weight gain during olanzapine treatment can be prevented or mitigated with adjunctive treatment algorithms that include amantadine, metformin, and zonisamide. Method Outpatients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder (DSM-IV-TR criteria) were randomly assigned to olanzapine alone (n = 50), olanzapine plus algorithm A (olanzapine + A [amantadine 200 mg/d with possible switches to metformin 1,000-1,500 mg/d and then to zonisamide 100-400 mg/d; n = 76]), or olanzapine plus algorithm B (olanzapine + B [metformin 1,000-1,500 mg/d with possible switches to amantadine 200 mg/d and then to zonisamide 100-400 mg/d; n = 73]). Brief weight management education was provided at baseline. The primary outcome measure was comparison of mean weight gain between olanzapine and pooled olanzapine + A and olanzapine + B results. Results Least squares mean ± SE weight gain was 2.76 ± 0.75 kg for olanzapine, 2.40 ± 0.65 kg for olanzapine + A, and 0.65 ± 0.63 kg for olanzapine + B. Mean weight gain during olanzapine treatment did not differ significantly from pooled results for olanzapine + A and olanzapine + B (P = .065). Participants treated with olanzapine + B experienced significantly less mean weight gain than olanzapine-treated participants (P = .036). Conclusions Pooled treatment algorithm results were not significantly different from olanzapine monotherapy in mitigating weight gain. However, participants who received treatment with metformin with possible progression to amantadine and then zonisamide had significantly less mean weight gain than participants treated with olanzapine alone. Progression of some participants through the algorithm indicated that a single therapy solution may not be adequate for every patient. Patients treated with olanzapine should receive regular weight monitoring. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00401973.

Early response to antipsychotic medication has been shown to accurately predict later response to continued use of the same treatment in patients with chronic schizophrenia. This study examines whether this predictive pattern exists for patients with first-episode psychosis. We used a data-driven threshold for early response of ≥ 26.2% improvement from baseline on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS(0-6)) Total score to determine whether response at Week 2 of treatment may predict response at Week 12 in a randomized, double-blind trial of olanzapine versus haloperidol for treatment of patients with first-episode psychosis (N=225). Later response was defined as a ≥ 40% and ≥ 50% improvement in PANSS Total(0-6) score and as remission. At Week 2, 43% (97/225) of patients were identified as early responders. At a threshold for later response of ≥ 50% improvement in PANSS(0-6) Total score, early non-response most strongly predicted later non-response, demonstrating high specificity (74%) and high negative predictive value (80%). As had been seen in the treatment of patients with chronic schizophrenia, early non-response was a robust predictor of subsequent non-response in the treatment of patients with first-episode psychosis.

Potential predictors of remission in mixed bipolar I disorder were identified using early Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) improvement criteria in divalproex-resistant patients randomized to olanzapine augmentation (olanzapine + divalproex; N = 101) in a 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. In a post-hoc analysis, receiver operating characteristics of 1-point decreases in the CGI-S total score after 2, 4, 7, and 14 days were examined as predictors of endpoint (Week 6 or last observation) remission of depression and/or mania as defined by 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-21) and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score ≤8. Based on a 1-point improvement in CGI-S as a predictor of remission, all odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were statistically significant for depression or mania remission criteria. ORs for mixed symptom remission with a decrease ≥1 in CGI-S scores at Day 2 for olanzapine augmentation were (6.727; CI: 2.382, 18.997; p < .001) with negative predictive value = 89.5% and positive predictive value = 44.2%. Changes in HDRS-21 and YMRS individual item scores after 2 days of augmentation as predictors of endpoint remission identified that decreases in HDRS-21 symptom item scores (early, middle, and/or late insomnia; paranoid; agitation; and somatic/gastrointestinal) predicted depressive symptom remission at endpoint, and decreases in YMRS item scores (language-thought disorder and irritability) were associated with manic symptom remission at endpoint. Because remission with augmentation therapy may occur in as few as one in ten individuals who lack very early symptom reduction, lack of early improvement may indicate a need to expediently reassess treatment strategy.

The objective of this study was to determine if early changes in triglycerides and weight may be useful in predicting longer-term changes in weight and other metabolic parameters. Data were from three 24- to 28-week randomized, controlled studies comparing olanzapine to ziprasidone or aripiprazole for treatment of schizophrenia. Analyses were restricted to completers with fasting laboratory data at all protocol specified time points. Analyses were primarily descriptive and included mean changes and categorical outcomes. In all treatment groups, participants who did not experience a 20 mg/dL or greater increase in triglycerides at early time points were unlikely to experience a change of 50 mg/dL or more in triglycerides after 6 months. Negative predictive values were 83% to 95%. However, early change in triglycerides was not useful for predicting later change in glucose, cholesterol, or weight. Similarly, early weight change gave robust negative predictive values for longer-term weight change (≥10 kg), but not for change in glucose or cholesterol. Lack of early elevation in triglyceride concentrations was predictive of later lack of substantial increase in triglycerides in olanzapine-, ziprasidone-, and aripiprazole-treated participants. Lack of early elevation in weight was predictive of later lack of substantial increase in weight in all 3 treatment groups. Early monitoring of triglyceride concentrations and weight may help clinicians assess risk that individuals will experience significant increase in triglycerides or weight gain, allowing assessments of potential risks and benefits earlier in treatment. Clinical monitoring is advised throughout treatment for all patients.

To evaluate the efficacy of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC) versus olanzapine or fluoxetine monotherapy across all clinical trials of treatment-resistant depression sponsored by Eli Lilly and Company.Efficacy and safety data from 1146 patients with a history of nonresponse during the current depressive episode who subsequently exhibited nonresponse during a 6- to 8-week antidepressant open-label lead-in phase and were randomly assigned to OFC (N = 462), fluoxetine (N = 342), or olanzapine (N = 342) for double-blind treatment were analyzed. All patients had a diagnosis of major depressive disorder as defined by DSM-III or DSM-IV criteria. The dates in which the trials were conducted ranged from May 1997 to July 2005.After 8 weeks, OFC patients demonstrated significantly greater Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale improvement (mean change = -13.0) than fluoxetine (-8.6, p.001) or olanzapine (-8.2, p.001) patients, via a mixed-effects model repeated-measures analysis. Remission rates were 25.5% for OFC, 17.3% (p = .006) for fluoxetine, and 14.0% (p.001) for olanzapine. Adverse events inor= 10% of OFC patients were weight gain, increased appetite, dry mouth, somnolence, fatigue, headache, and peripheral edema. Random glucose mean change (mg/dL) was +7.92 for the OFC group, +1.62 for the fluoxetine group (p = .020), and +9.91 for the olanzapine group (p = .485). Random cholesterol mean change (mg/dL) was +12.4 for OFC, +2.3 for fluoxetine (p.001), and +3.1 for olanzapine (p.001); incidence of treatment-emergent increase from normal to high cholesterol (baseline200 mg/dL andor= 240 subsequently) was significantly higher for the OFC group (10.2%) than for the fluoxetine group (3.1%, p = .017) but not the olanzapine group (8.0%, p = .569). Mean weight change (kg) was +4.42 for OFC, -0.15 for fluoxetine (p.001), and +4.63 for olanzapine (p = .381), with 40.4% of OFC patients gainingor= 7% body weight (vs. olanzapine: 42.9%, p = .515; fluoxetine: 2.3%, p.001).Results of this analysis showed that OFC-treated patients experienced significantly improved depressive symptoms compared with olanzapine- or fluoxetine-treated patients following failure of 2 or more antidepressants within the current depressive episode. Safety results for OFC were generally consistent with those for its component monotherapies. The total cholesterol increase associated with OFC was more pronounced than with olanzapine alone.

OBJECTIVE Two parallel, 8-week double-blind studies compared olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, olanzapine, and fluoxetine in outpatients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). METHOD Treatment-resistant depression was defined as a documented history of current-episode antidepressant failure plus a prospective failure on fluoxetine. Following an 8-week fluoxetine lead-in, 605 nonresponders with DSM-IV major depressive disorder were randomly assigned to olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, olanzapine, or fluoxetine. The primary outcome measure was baseline-to-endpoint mean change on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). The study was conducted from April 2002 to May 2005. RESULTS After 8 weeks of double-blind treatment, Study 1 revealed no statistically significant therapy differences in MADRS mean change (olanzapine/fluoxetine combination: -11.0, fluoxetine: -9.4, olanzapine: -10.5). In Study 2, olanzapine/fluoxetine combination demonstrated significantly greater MADRS improvement (-14.5) than fluoxetine (-8.6, p < .001) and olanzapine (-7.0, p < .001). Pooled study results revealed significant differences for olanzapine/ fluoxetine combination (-12.7) versus fluoxetine (-9.0, p < .001) and olanzapine (-8.8, p < .001). Pooled remission rates were 27% for olanzapine/ fluoxetine combination, 17% for fluoxetine, and 15% for olanzapine. Adverse events were consistent with previous studies. Cholesterol mean change (mg/dL) was +15.1 for olanzapine/ fluoxetine combination, +0.8 for fluoxetine, and +2.7 for olanzapine. Mean weight change (kg) was +4.9 for olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, +0.4 for fluoxetine, and +5.5 for olanzapine. Nonfasting glucose mean change (mg/dL) was +11.4 for olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, +4.9 for fluoxetine, and +9.9 for olanzapine. CONCLUSION Patients with TRD (defined as treatment failure on 2 antidepressants) taking olanzapine/fluoxetine combination demonstrated significantly greater improvement in depressive symptoms than patients taking olanzapine or fluoxetine in 1 of 2 studies and in the pooled analysis. When considered within the context of all available evidence, olanzapine/fluoxetine combination is an efficacious therapy for patients with TRD. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00035321.