Incidence Of Individual Adverse Events Research Articles

Serotonin 3 receptor antagonists for obsessive-compulsive disorder: A systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis

The benefits of serotonin 3 receptor antagonists (5-HT3R-As) in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) treatment remain unclear. Thus, this study aimed to perform a systematic review and a random-effects meta-analysis, including double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials (DBRPCTs). The outcomes include the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) total score (primary), Y-BOCS obsession subscale score, Y-BOCS compulsive subscale score, treatment response, remission rate, all-cause discontinuation, and incidence of individual adverse events (nervousness/restlessness/anxiety, insomnia, headache, dizziness/lightheadedness, decreased appetite, constipation, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, dry mouth, sweating/increased perspiration, itching/pruritus, tremor, and sexual dysfunction/decreased libido). The mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Our study included 10 DBRPCTs (n = 628). Pooled 5-HT3R-As outperformed placebo regarding Y-BOCS total score (MD = −5.08, 95% CI = −7.04, −3.12, N = 9, n = 560), Y-BOCS obsession subscale score, Y-BOCS compulsive subscale score, treatment response, and remission rate. Individually, all 5-HT3R-As outperformed placebo regarding Y-BOCS total score (granisetron: MD = −5.59, 95% CI = −8.79, −2.39, N = 3, n = 178, ondansetron: MD = −5.72, 95% CI = −8.06, −3.37, N = 6, n = 331, tropisetron: MD = −2.87, 95% CI = −5.19, −0.550, N = 1, n = 96). However, all-cause discontinuation and incidence of individual adverse events between pooled 5-HT3R-As and placebo were not significantly different. In conclusion, our meta-analysis suggested 5-HT3R-As as efficacious for symptom improvement in individuals with OCD. However, the number of individuals included in each study was small; thus, a replication randomized trial of 5-HT3R-As should be conducted using a larger sample size.

Paliperidone palmitate vs. paliperidone extended-release for the acute treatment of adults with schizophrenia: a systematic review and pairwise and network meta-analysis

Is paliperidone palmitate (PP) a useful treatment option for adults with acute symptoms of schizophrenia? We conducted a systematic review and a random-effects pairwise and network meta-analysis that compared PP (25−150 mg equivalent) with paliperidone extended-release (PAL-ER, 3−12 mg/d) regarding their efficacy and safety in adults with acute symptoms of schizophrenia. The outcomes were the total score of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS-T) at week 6 (the primary outcome for efficacy) and all-cause discontinuation(the primary outcome for acceptability), discontinuation due to inefficacy, discontinuation due to adverse events, discontinuation due to the withdrawal of consent, and the incidence of individual adverse events. Five studies on PP and seven studies on PAL-ER, which involved 4970 individuals in total, were included in this study. For the primary outcomes, we only included data from the treatment arms that used 100 or 150 mg equivalent as an initial dose of PP and data from the treatment arms that used 6, 9, or 12 mg as an initial dose of PAL-ER. The pairwise meta-analyses showed that both PP and PAL-ER outperformed placebo regarding PANSS-T at week 6 and all-cause discontinuation. However, there were no statistically significant differences in these outcomes between the effect sizes of PP and that of PAL-ER. Both PP and PAL-ER increased blood prolactin levels in both females and males compared with placebo. PAL-ER significantly increased blood prolactin in both females and males compared with PP. There were no statistically significant differences in other outcomes between the effect sizes of PP and that of PAL-ER. Similar results in all outcomes were observed in the network meta-analyses. In conclusion, PP might be a useful treatment option for adults with acute symptoms of schizophrenia. A noninferiority study that directly compares PP with PAL-ER for acute schizophrenia, conducted according to the recommended regimen, is required to provide solid evidence.

Depicting Risperidone Safety Profiles in Clinical Trials Across Different Diagnoses Using a Dopamine D2-Based Pharmacological Class Effect Query Defined by FAERS.

Current methods are not designed to relate the incidence of individual adverse events reported in clinical trials to the plurality of adverse events accumulated in spontaneous reporting databases during real-world use. We have previously reported on a pharmacological class-effect query of clinical trial data defined by a disproportionality analysis of the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) post-marketing data. The aim of the current analysis was to apply a dopamine D2-based pharmacological class-effect query to clinical trial safety data of an atypical antipsychotic tested across different patient populations. Patient-level adverse event data (n = 4400) from controlled clinical trials of the antipsychotic risperidone in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, Alzheimer's disease psychosis, and autism were obtained through the Yale University Open Data Access (YODA) project. An Empirical Bayes Geometric Mean analysis was performed, and a three-fold threshold incidence level was applied to determine if a preferred term met criteria for being an antipsychotic class-related adverse event. In pooled data from seven trials of adult schizophrenia, class-specific adverse events were identified in 49% of patients treated with risperidone; in 49% of risperidone-treated patients in two trials in adolescent schizophrenia; in 65% of risperidone-treated patients in four trials in adult bipolar disorder; in 50% of risperidone-treated patients in two trials in adolescent schizophrenia; in 36% of risperidone-treated patients in one trial in Alzheimer's disease; and in 94% of risperidone-treated patients in one trial in autism. The cumulative curves of class-specific adverse events in risperidone clinical trials of schizophrenia were similar to those first reported for other atypical antipsychotic drugs. However, the class-specific adverse event curves were notably lower for Alzheimer's disease and higher for autism, suggesting that the diagnostic indication may have an important effect on the cumulative class-specific side-effect burden.

Safety of an inactivated, whole-virion COVID-19 vaccine (CoronaVac) in people aged 60 years or older in Hong Kong: a modified self-controlled case series

BackgroundBecause evidence on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in older adults is scarce, we aimed to evaluate the incidence and risk of adverse events after CoronaVac (Sinovac Biotech) vaccination in adults aged 60 years or older.MethodsIn this modified self-controlled case series, we enrolled adults aged 60 years or older who had received at least one dose of CoronaVac in Hong Kong between Feb 23, 2021, and Jan 31, 2022. We extracted population-based, electronic health record data from the clinical management system of the Hospital Authority on adverse events of special interest (from Jan 1, 2005, to Feb 23, 2022) and patients' demographic information (from Jan 1, 2018, to Jan 31, 2022), previous diagnoses (from Jan 1, 2018, to Jan 31, 2022), medication history (from Jan 1, 2018, to Jan 31, 2022), and laboratory tests, including those for SARS-CoV-2 infection (from Jan 1, 2018, to Jan 31, 2022). Details of vaccination status were provided by the Department of Health of the Hong Kong Government and were linked to data from the Hospital Authority with identity card numbers or passport numbers. Our outcomes were the overall incidence of any adverse event of special interest and the incidence rates of 30 adverse events of special interest, as suggested by the WHO Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety, in the inpatient setting within 21 days (2 days for anaphylaxis) of either the first, second, or third CoronaVac dose compared with a baseline period. Individuals who had a history of a particular event between Jan 1, 2005, and Feb 23, 2021, were excluded from the corresponding analysis. We evaluated the risk of an adverse event of special interest using conditional Poisson regression, adjusting for seasonal effects.FindingsOf 1 253 497 individuals who received at least one dose of CoronaVac during the study period, 622 317 (49·6%) were aged at least 60 years and were included in the analysis. Our analysis sample received 1 229 423 doses of CoronaVac and had a mean age of 70·40 years (SD 8·10). 293 086 (47·1%) of 622 317 participants were men and 329 231 (52·9%) were women. The incidence of individual adverse events of interest ranged from 0·00 per 100 000 people to 57·49 per 100 000 people (thromboembolism). The first and third doses of CoronaVac were not associated with a significant excess risk of an adverse event of special interest within 21 days (or 2 days for anaphylaxis) of vaccination. After the second dose, the only significantly increased risk was for anaphylaxis (adjusted incidence rate ratio 2·61, 95% CI 1·08–6·31; risk difference per 100 000 people 0·61, 95% CI 0·03–1·81).InterpretationBecause older age is associated with poor outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 infection, the benefits of CoronaVac vaccination in older adults outweigh the risks in regions where COVID-19 is prevalent. Ongoing monitoring of vaccine safety is warranted.FundingThe Food and Health Bureau of the Government, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China and AIR@InnoHK, administered by the Innovation and Technology Commission.TranslationFor the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Mitochondrial modulators for obsessive–compulsive and related disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis

It remains unclear whether mitochondrial modulators (MMs) are beneficial in the treatment of obsessive–compulsive and related disorders. Thus, in an attempt to answer this clinical question, we performed a systematic review and a random-effects meta-analysis of double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. The primary outcome was change in overall symptoms as measured using standardized rating scales. Other outcomes were response to treatment; improvement in anxiety-related scales scores, depression-related scale scores, Clinical Global Impression Severity Scale (CGI-S) scores, and Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) scores; all-cause discontinuation; and individual adverse events. We calculated the standardized mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. We reviewed 17 studies (n = 629, 72.62% female; duration = 2–20 weeks; mean age = 30.47 years) of MMs: eicosapentaenoic acid (K = 1), folic acid (K = 1), lithium (K = 1), N-acetylcysteine (K = 10), inositol (K = 3), and silymarin (K = 1). MMs outperformed placebo in overall improvement in symptoms (p < 0.01) and in improving anxiety-related scale scores (p = 0.05). Subgroup analysis of individual MMs revealed that although overall symptoms were better improved by N-acetylcysteine (p < 0.01) and lithium (p = 0.04), no MMs outperformed placebo in terms of improving anxiety-related scale scores. Neither pooled nor individual MMs outperformed placebo in improving response to treatment, depression-related scale scores, CGI-S scores, SDS scores, or all-cause discontinuation. N-acetylcysteine was no more associated with a higher incidence of individual adverse events including gastrointestinal symptoms, than placebo. In conclusion, N-acetylcysteine was beneficial in the treatment of obsessive–compulsive and related disorders. However, further study with larger samples is necessary to confirm this finding.

Lurasidone, olanzapine, and quetiapine extended‐release for bipolar depression: A systematic review and network meta‐analysis of phase 3 trials in Japan

AimThis systematic review and random‐effect model, network meta‐analysis of the phase 3 trials in Japan assessed the efficacy and safety profile of lurasidone compared with olanzapine and quetiapine extended‐release (QUE‐XR) for the treatment of bipolar depression.MethodsThe study included double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled, phase 3 trials in Japan that included patients with bipolar depression. Outcomes included response rate (primary), remission rate (secondary), improvement of Montgomery‐Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score, discontinuation rates, and incidence of individual adverse events.ResultsThree studies were included (n = 1223). Lurasidone and olanzapine but not QUE‐XR were superior to placebo in response rate [risk ratio (95% credible interval): lurasidone = 0.78 (0.66, 0.92); olanzapine = 0.84 (0.71, 0.99); QUE‐XR = 0.87 (0.73, 1.03)]. Lurasidone, olanzapine and QUE‐XR were superior to placebo in remission rate [lurasidone = 0.90 (0.83, 0.98); olanzapine = 0.87 (0.77, 0.99); QUE‐XR = 0.84 (0.73, 0.98)] and the improvement of MADRS total score. There were not differences in discontinuation rates between each antipsychotic and placebo. Compared with placebo, lurasidone was higher incidence of akathisia, and increased body weight and blood prolactin level; olanzapine was higher incidence of somnolence and ≥7% weight gain, and increased body weight, blood total cholesterol level, blood LDL cholesterol level, and blood triglyceride levels; QUE‐XR was higher incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms, akathisia, somnolence, dry mouth, constipation and ≥7% weight gain, and increased body weight, blood total cholesterol level, blood LDL cholesterol level, and blood triglyceride levels.ConclusionsOur results suggested although the efficacy of three SGAs was similar, there were the differences in the safety profile among the SGAs.

Quetiapine extended-release vs olanzapine for Japanese patients with bipolar depression: A Bayesian analysis.

ObjectiveIt is unknown whether there are differences in efficacy and safety between quetiapine extended‐release, 300 mg/d (QUEXR300), and olanzapine, 5‐20 mg/d (OLA), for Japanese patients with bipolar depression.MethodsWe conducted a Bayesian analysis of data from phase 3 studies in Japan of QUEXR300 and OLA. Outcomes were remission rate (primary), response rate, improvement on the Montgomery‐Åsberg Depression Rating Scale and 17‐item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores, discontinuation rate, and incidence of individual adverse events. We calculated the standardized mean difference (SMD) and the risk ratio (RR) and 95% credible interval (95% CrI) for continuous and dichotomous data, respectively.ResultsThere were no significant differences between QUEXR300 and OLA for any of the efficacy outcomes. QUEXR300 was associated with a higher incidence of somnolence than OLA (RR = 5.517; 95% CrI = 1.563, 19.787), while OLA was associated with greater increase body weight (SMD = −0.488; 95% CrI = −0.881, −0.089) and blood prolactin levels (SMD = −0.642; 95% CrI = −1.073, −0.213) than QUEXR300, and a greater decrease in high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (SMD = −0.408; 95% CrI = −0.785, −0.030) than QUEXR300.ConclusionAlthough the two drugs’ efficacy did not differ, OLA increased the risk of metabolic syndrome and QUEXR300 the risk of somnolence. A large scale, long‐term, head‐to‐head comparison study of QUEXR300 vs OLA for Japanese patients with bipolar depression is needed to confirm the results of the current study.

Comparison of quetiapine immediate- and extended-release formulations for bipolar depression: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trials

This study evaluated the efficacy and safety/tolerability of quetiapine extended-release 300 mg/day (QUEXR300), quetiapine immediate-release 600 mg/day (QUEIR600), and quetiapine immediate-release 300 mg/day (QUEIR300) formulations for treating bipolar depression. A random-effect network meta-analysis of 8-week, double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trials was used to determine the most optimal agent for intervention. Remission rate was set as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were response rate, improvement in the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score, discontinuation rate, and the incidence of individual adverse events. Seven eligible studies including 3267 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The QUEIR600, QUEIR300, and QUEXR300 groups were superior to the placebo group in every efficacy outcome; however, there were no significant differences in the efficacy outcomes among the treatment groups. All treatment groups exhibited higher incidences of extrapyramidal symptoms, dry mouth, somnolence, constipation, and increase in body weight than the placebo group. The QUEIR600 and QUEIR300 groups had higher incidences of dizziness than the placebo group. The QUEIR600 group had a higher discontinuation rate due to adverse events than the placebo group, and the QUEIR300 group had higher blood HbA1c levels than the placebo group. The QUEIR600 and QUEXR300 groups had higher incidences of ≥7% weight gain than the placebo group. The QUEXR300 group had a higher incidence of fatigue than the QURIR300 and placebo groups. In conclusion, there were no significant differences in the efficacies of QUEIR600, QUEIR300, and QUEXR300 in treating bipolar depression; moreover, tolerance to QUEIR600 might be worse than the other treatments.

Melatonin receptor agonists-ramelteon and melatonin-for bipolar disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis of double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials.

Objective: This study was a systematic review and meta-analysis of double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials, investigating the efficacy and tolerability/safety of melatonin receptor agonists, such as ramelteon and melatonin, for patients with bipolar disorder.Methods: We carried out a literature search through PubMed and the Cochrane Library from the date of inception to January 6, 2019. The risk ratio (RR), number needed to treat (NNT), and standardized mean difference (SMD) ±95% CI were calculated. The primary outcome was all-cause discontinuation.Results: We identified three ramelteon (n=746) and two melatonin (n=53) studies. One of these two melatonin studies reported only data on all-cause discontinuation, whereas the other study did not report data relevant for a meta-analysis. We found no significant differences between the treatment and placebo groups regarding all-cause discontinuation, neither individually (p: ramelteon=0.86, melatonin=1.00) nor pooled together (p=0.85). Although we found no significant differences between ramelteon and placebo regarding the relapse due to mania/hypomania or mixed episode; Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index scores; depression scales scores; Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire – Short Form scores; and the incidence of individual adverse events, such as headaches, insomnia, somnolence, anxiety, and dizziness, ramelteon was associated with a lower incidence of relapse due to depression than placebo (RR=0.67, 95% CI=0.48–0.94, p=0.02, NNT=14).Conclusion: Ramelteon might prevent relapse due to depression in patients with bipolar disorder. However, because of the small number of studies included in the present systematic review and meta-analysis, further studies comparing ramelteon and placebo with larger samples of patients with bipolar disorder are warranted. We also did not evaluate the efficacy and safety of melatonin for patients with bipolar disorder in detail.

Comparative efficacy and safety of antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia: a network meta-analysis in a Japanese population.

BackgroundThe relative efficacy and tolerability of antipsychotics for schizophrenia are considerably well studied. This study aimed to examine whether previous findings could be replicated in a genetically distinct and homogenous group (ie, Japanese patients with schizophrenia) and whether previous findings could be extended to a broader range of antipsychotics with previously unclear relative efficacy and tolerability.MethodsBayesian network meta-analysis was performed in which randomized trials comparing any of the following interventions were included: second-generation antipsychotics, haloperidol, or placebo. The primary outcomes for efficacy and acceptability were the response rate and all-cause discontinuation. The secondary outcomes included the improvement of Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale scores, discontinuation because of adverse events, and individual adverse events.ResultsEighteen relevant studies were identified (total n=3,446; aripiprazole =267, blonanserin =285, clozapine =47, clocapramine =295, haloperidol =857, mosapramine =493, olanzapine =179, paliperidone =136, perospirone =146, placebo =138, quetiapine =212, and risperidone =338; mean study duration =8.33±1.41 weeks). In primary outcomes, olanzapine and paliperidone showed efficacy than placebo, and olanzapine and paliperidone showed superior acceptability compared with placebo. There were differences in the incidences of individual adverse events (the best antipsychotic: extrapyramidal symptoms = olanzapine, hyperprolactinemia- related symptoms = quetiapine, sedation = paliperidone, and weight change = blonanserin) among antipsychotics.ConclusionAlthough the current analysis exclusively included Japanese patients with schizophrenia, no remarkable differences were observed in efficacy and safety compared with previous meta-analyses. Diverse hierarchies in safety outcomes also support the implication that individual risk expectations for adverse events can guide clinical decisions. However, the sample size was relatively limited. Additional efficacy and safety data are required to fully obtain a conclusive understanding.

A Meta-Analysis of Memantine forDepression.

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on whether memantine was beneficial for the treatment of depressive symptoms in major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar disorder (BD). The analysis included double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of memantine in MDD and BD. The primary outcome measures for efficacy and safety were response rate and all-cause discontinuation, respectively. Risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated. We identified six trials including 451 patients: MDD, four trials (n = 189), three of which studied memantine augmentation for antidepressants; BD, two trials (n = 262), both on memantine augmentation for mood stabilizers. The mean study duration was 8.33 weeks, and the mean age of patients was 39.9 years. Memantine was not superior to placebo with regard to response rate (RR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.70-1.20, I2 = 72%), remission rate, improvement of depressive symptoms scale score, all-cause discontinuation (RR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.60-1.18, I2 = 0%), discontinuation due to inefficacy and adverse events, or incidence of individual adverse events including decreased appetite, dizziness, nausea, and sedation. Although we conducted sensitivity analyses of the response rate to determine the reasons for the heterogeneity (diagnosis, age of patients, memantine dose, memantine augmentation, geographical region, and statistical population), we did not seek confounding factors. Memantine did not improve the treatment efficacy for depressive symptoms in MDD and BD patients. Long-term study of memantine for depression is required.

Serotonin 2A Receptor Inverse Agonist as a Treatment for Parkinson's Disease Psychosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Serotonin 2A Receptor Negative Modulators.

There is uncertainty about the efficacy and tolerability of serotonin 2A (5-HT2A) receptor negative modulators for Parkinson's disease psychosis (PDP). This is the first meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) testing negative modulators of the 5-HT2A receptor as a treatment for PDP. The primary outcome was the Scale for Assessment of Positive Symptoms (SAPS)-hallucinations (H) and -delusions (D) scores (SAPS-H+D). Other outcome measures were SAPS-H, SAPS-D, the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Part II and III (UPDRS-II+III), discontinuation rates, and individual adverse events. Four RCTs were identified that met inclusion criteria, all assessing the 5-HT2A inverse agonist pimavanserin (including 417 drug-treated and 263 placebo-treated PDP patients). Pimavanserin significantly decreased SAPS-H+D scores compared to placebo [weighted mean differences (WMD) = -2.26, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = -3.86 to -0.67, p = 0.005, I2 = 30% , N = 4 studies, n = 502 patients]. Moreover, pimavanserin was superior to placebo for reducing SAPS-H (WMD = -2.15, 95% CI = -3.45 to -0.86, p = 0.001, I2 = 0% , N = 2, n = 237) and SAPS-D scores (WMD = -1.32, 95% CI = -2.32 to -0.32, p = 0.010, I2 = 0% , N = 2, n = 237). Pimavanserin was associated with less orthostatic hypotension than placebo (risk ratio = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.15-0.75, p = 0.008, I2 = 0% , number needed to harm = 17, p = 0.01, N = 3, n = 476). There were no significant differences in rates of all-cause discontinuation, adverse events, and death, UPDRS-II+III scores, and incidences of individual adverse events (other than orthostatic hypotension) between pimavanserin and placebo groups. Pooled RCT results suggest that pimavanserin is beneficial for the treatment of PDP and is well tolerated. We did not identify other negative modulators of the 5-HT2A receptor for the treatment of PDP.

Alogliptin as a third oral antidiabetic drug in patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control on metformin and pioglitazone: a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group study

To assess the efficacy and safety of adding alogliptin versus uptitrating pioglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control on metformin and pioglitazone. In this randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group study, patients with type 2 diabetes and A1c ≥7.0 and ≤10.0% on metformin (≥1500 mg or maximum tolerated dose; Met) and pioglitazone 30 mg (Pio30) received alogliptin 25 mg (Alo25; n = 404) or pioglitazone 15 mg (n = 399) added to Met+Pio30 for 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline (CFB) in A1c at weeks 26 and 52, with sequential testing for non-inferiority of Met+Pio30+Alo25 at weeks 26 and 52 and then for superiority at week 52. Met+Pio30+Alo25 showed superior glycaemic control versus Met+Pio45 at week 52 [least squares (LS) mean CFB in A1c, -0.70 vs. -0.29%; p < 0.001]. At week 52, Met+Pio30+Alo25 resulted in greater CFB in A1c regardless of baseline A1c (p < 0.001); higher proportions of patients achieving A1c ≤7.0 (33.2 vs. 21.3%) and ≤6.5% (8.7 vs. 4.3%; p < 0.001); greater CFB in fasting plasma glucose (FPG; LS mean CFB, -0.8 vs. -0.2 mmol/L; p < 0.001); and greater improvements in measures of β-cell function (p < 0.001). Hypoglycaemia incidence was low (Met+Pio30+Alo25, 4.5%; Met+Pio45, 1.5%), mostly mild to moderate, but with two severe events in the Met+Pio30+Alo25 group. No meaningful differences in incidences of individual adverse events were observed between treatments. Adding alogliptin to an existing metformin-pioglitazone regimen provided superior glycaemic control and potentially improved β-cell function versus uptitrating pioglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes, with no clinically important differences in safety.

Safety and Subjective Sleep Effects of Ramelteon Administration in Adults and Older Adults With Chronic Primary Insomnia

To evaluate the long-term safety and subjective sleep effects of ramelteon in adults with chronic insomnia. Subjects with primary insomnia (DSM-IV-TR criteria) for >or= 3 months received ramelteon nightly for 1 year; a 3-day placebo run out followed. Subjects aged >or=65 years received open-label ramelteon 8 mg (N = 248); those aged 18 to 64 years received ramelteon 16 mg (N = 965). Subjects completed sleep diaries and returned to the clinic at week 1 and at months 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 for safety assessments and investigator-performed Clinical Global Impressions. The study was conducted from February 2003 through September 2004. There were no noteworthy changes in vital signs, physical examinations, clinical chemistry, hematology, or urinalysis values and no electrocardiogram changes to suggest adverse cardiac effects. Endocrine values remained within normal range throughout treatment. Consistent statistically significant (p <or= .05) decreases in free thyroxine (in adults) and free testosterone (in older men) were detected. Duration of menses increased by approximately 1 day. A total of 40.8% of subjects reported at least 1 adverse event possibly associated with ramelteon use. The adverse events reported varied considerably, the incidence of individual adverse events was low, and the frequencies of adverse events were similar at months 6 and 12. In both groups, subjective sleep latency and total sleep time improved by month 1 and was sustained during the 1-year period. At 6 months and 1 year, Clinical Global Impressions indices were improved. During placebo run out, subjective sleep latency did increase but did not return to baseline. Year-long administration of ramelteon was well tolerated. Ramelteon was associated with sustained improvements in subjective sleep latency, subjective total sleep time, and Clinical Global Impressions. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00671086.

Clodronic Acid in the Treatment of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis

Clodronic acid, a first-generation bisphosphonate, has been successfully used in the treatment of high bone turnover states, Paget's disease and osteolytic bone metastases. However, controversies remain over its optimal dosage and method of administration in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. In this study we aimed to evaluate the effect of clodronic acid treatment for 3 years on bone mineral density (BMD) in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. This was a prospective, open-label, randomised, controlled study that was conducted in an outpatient clinic at the Bone Metabolism Unit of a tertiary referral centre university hospital. Thirty postmenopausal women (age range 48-73 years) with osteoporosis and a control group of 49 osteoporotic women (age range 47-74 years) received randomised therapy. The clodronic acid group of participants received oral doses of clodronic acid 800 mg plus elemental calcium 500 mg and 400 IU of vitamin D daily, while the control group was treated with calcium and vitamin D only. BMD was measured by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry at yearly intervals. Biochemical markers of bone turnover were also measured. In this clinical study of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, 36 months of clodronic acid treatment significantly increased average femoral neck BMD by 3.2 +/- 2.9%, trochanter BMD by 2.2 +/- 2.9% and lumbar spine BMD by 3.1 +/- 3%. In the control group, femoral neck, trochanter and lumbar spine BMD decreased by -6 +/- 2.7%, -7.3 +/- 2.5% and -5.4 +/- 2%, respectively (p<0.01, p<0.05 and p<0.05 for clodronic acid vs control, respectively). There was a significant decrease in urinary hydroxyproline (-38.3%) over 3 years in the clodronic acid group compared with baseline (p<0.05), while no significant change occurred in the control group. Clodronic acid was well tolerated and compliance was good. There were no clinically meaningful differences in the incidence of individual adverse events between the groups. These results indicate that daily oral administration of clodronic acid 800 mg provides benefits to skeletal bone density in osteoporotic postmenopausal women. Calcium and vitamin D supplementation alone did not prevent further bone loss.

A comparative study of the efficacy of long-term treatment with escitalopram and paroxetine in severely depressed patients

ABSTRACTObjective: This randomised, double-blind, fixed-dose study evaluated the efficacy of escitalopram and paroxetine in the long-term treatment of severely depressed patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).Research design and methods: Patients with a primary diagnosis of MDD and baseline Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) ≥ 30 were randomised to 24 weeks of double-blind treatment with fixed doses of either escitalopram (20 mg) (n = 232) or paroxetine (40 mg) (n = 227). The primary analysis of efficacy was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) of change from baseline to endpoint (Week 24) in MADRS total score (last observation carried forward, LOCF).Main outcome measures; results: At endpoint (24 weeks), the mean change from baseline in MADRS total score was –25.2 for patients treated with escitalopram (n = 228) and –23.1 for patients with paroxetine (n = 223), resulting in a difference of 2.1 points ( p < 0.05). The difference in the change in the MADRS total score (LOCF) was significantly in favour of escitalopram from Week 8 onwards. The proportion of remitters (MADRS ≤ 12) after 24 weeks was 75% for escitalopram and 67% for paroxetine ( p < 0.05). The results on the primary efficacy scale were supported by significantly greater differences in favour of escitalopram on the Hamilton Anxiety, Hamilton Depression and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement and -Severity scales. For very severely depressed patients (baseline MADRS ≥ 35), there was a difference of 3.4 points at endpoint in the MADRS total score in favour of escitalopram ( p < 0.05). The overall withdrawal rate for patients treated with escitalopram (19%) was significantly lower than with paroxetine (32%) ( p < 0.01). The withdrawal rate due to adverse events was significantly lower for escitalopram (8%) compared to paroxetine (16%) ( p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the incidence of individual adverse events during treatment.Conclusion: Escitalopram is significantly more effective than paroxetine in the long-term treatment of severely depressed patients.

A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of Venlafaxine and Fluoxetine in Geriatric Outpatients With Major Depression

Despite the high prevalence of depression in elderly patients, few well-designed, placebo-controlled studies of antidepressants have been conducted in this population. This masked, placebo-controlled trial assessed the efficacy and safety of venlafaxine and fluoxetine in depressed patients older than 65 years. Three hundred patients were randomly assigned to treatment with venlafaxine immediate release ([IR]; N = 104), fluoxetine (N = 100), or placebo (N = 96) in an eight-week trial. Venlafaxine doses were titrated from 37.5 to 225 mg per day and fluoxetine doses were titrated from 20 to 60 mg per day, as necessary, over 29 days. Efficacy variables included the 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D21) total score, HAM-D21 depressed mood item score, scores on the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) and Improvement (CGI-I) scales, and rates of response (based on change from baseline HAM-D or MADRS score or CGI-I score) and remission (HAM-D17 < or =7). For the purposes of this report, efficacy analyses are focused on the HAM-D21 total score. Safety assessments included monitoring of adverse events (AEs), physical examinations, vital signs assessments, laboratory determinations, and electrocardiograms. In all three of the treatment groups, there was a significant reduction at week 8 compared with the baseline HAM-D21 total score. However, there were no significant differences among the three treatment groups on the change in HAM-D21, MADRS, or CGI scores from baseline to week 8. There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of remitters at the last on-therapy visit. The incidence of individual AEs was higher in the venlafaxine group (27%) compared with patients taking fluoxetine (19%) or placebo (9%). In this study, there was no significant difference in efficacy among placebo, venlafaxine, and fluoxetine for the treatment of depression.

Early intervention in migraine with sumatriptan tablets50 mg versus 100 mg: A pooled analysis of data from six clinical trials

Background: In clinical trials evaluating sumatriptanin the treatment of moderate or severe migraine pain, the 50- and 100-mg doses have been comparably effective and well tolerated. Objective: To assess the dose-efficacy relationshipof sumatriptan tablets given early for mild pain, data from 6 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, early-intervention studies of sumatriptan tablets 50 mg and 100 mg (5 of which have been published) were pooled for analysis. These constitute all the studies conducted to date of sumatriptan tablets prospectively given early for mild pain. Methods: The primary efficacy end point in all the studies was the proportion of patients reporting a pain-free result (ie, mild, moderate, or severe pain reduced to none) 2 hours postdose. Other efficacy end points included the proportion of patients who were migraine free (ie, no pain and no associated symptoms of nausea, vomiting, photophobia, or phonophobia) 2 hours postdose; the proportion reporting worsening of pain (ie, moderate or severe pain) 2 hours postdose; and the proportion with a sustained pain-free result (ie, pain free from 2–24 hours postdose with no use of a second dose of study medication or of rescue medication). Tolerability was assessed by evaluating the incidence of individual adverse events. The investigators assessed each adverse event's relationship to study medication. Results: The number of patients in the intent-to-treat population was 2297 (771 sumatriptan 50 mg, 759 sumatriptan 100 mg, 767 placebo). Patients' mean age ranged from 39.4 to 39.8 years across groups, and most patients were female (90%–92%) and white (89%–90%). A pain-free result 2 hours post dose was reported by significantly more patients who took either dose of sumatriptan tablets compared with placebo and by significantly more patients who took the 100-mg dose compared with the 50-mg dose (50 mg, 49%; 100 mg, 58%; placebo, 24%; P < 0.001, both sumatriptan doses vs placebo, and 100 mg vs 50 mg). A similar pattern was observed for migraine-free results 2 hours postdose (50 mg, 42%; 100 mg, 47%; placebo, 20%; P < 0.05, both sumatriptan doses vs placebo, and 100 mg vs 50 mg), worsening of pain 2 hours postdose (50 mg, 26%; 100 mg, 21%; placebo, 46%; P < 0.05, both sumatriptan doses vs placebo, and 100 mg vs 50 mg), and sustained pain-free results from 2 through 24 hours postdose (50 mg, 30%; 100 mg, 35%; placebo, 12%; P < 0.05, both sumatriptan doses vs placebo, and 100 mg vs 50 mg). Both doses of sumatriptan were well tolerated, and no dose-related trends in the incidence of individual drug-related adverse events were observed. Conclusions: In this analysis of pooled data from6 clinical trials, sumatriptan tablets 50 mg and 100 mg administered early in a migraine attack while the pain was mild were well tolerated and significantly more effective than placebo. The 100-mg dose of sumatriptan was significantly more effective than the 50-mg dose.

P.3.008 Treatment of trichotillomania with atypicalantipsychotics: A case series

Despite the high prevalence of depression in elderly patients, few well-designed, placebo-controlled studies of antidepressants have been conducted in this population. This masked, placebo-controlled trial assessed the efficacy and safety of venlafaxine and fluoxetine in depressed patients older than 65 years.Three hundred patients were randomly assigned to treatment with venlafaxine immediate release ([IR]; N = 104), fluoxetine (N = 100), or placebo (N = 96) in an eight-week trial. Venlafaxine doses were titrated from 37.5 to 225 mg per day and fluoxetine doses were titrated from 20 to 60 mg per day, as necessary, over 29 days. Efficacy variables included the 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D21) total score, HAM-D21 depressed mood item score, scores on the Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Clinical Global Impression–Severity of Illness (CGI-S) and Improvement (CGI-I) scales, and rates of response (based on change from baseline HAM-D or MADRS score or CGI-I score) and remission (HAM-D17 ≤7). For the purposes of this report, efficacy analyses are focused on the HAM-D21 total score. Safety assessments included monitoring of adverse events (AEs), physical examinations, vital signs assessments, laboratory determinations, and electrocardiograms.In all three of the treatment groups, there was a significant reduction at week 8 compared with the baseline HAM-D21 total score. However, there were no significant differences among the three treatment groups on the change in HAM-D21, MADRS, or CGI scores from baseline to week 8. There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of remitters at the last on-therapy visit. The incidence of individual AEs was higher in the venlafaxine group (27%) compared with patients taking fluoxetine (19%) or placebo (9%).In this study, there was no significant difference in efficacy among placebo, venlafaxine, and fluoxetine for the treatment of depression.

One-Year Evaluation of the Safety and Efficacy of Ipratropium Bromide HFA and CFC Inhalation Aerosols in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Ipratropium bromide (IB) is an established and effective first-line maintenance treatment for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A new IB metered-dose inhaler (MDI) using hydrofluoroalkane 134a propellant (IB HFA) has been developed as an alternative to the MDI containing chlorofluorocarbon (IB CFC). To compare the long-term safety and efficacy of IB HFA and IB CFC in patients with COPD. This was a randomised, open-label, parallel-group, 1-year, multi-centre trial. Primary endpoints included adverse events (AEs) and vital signs. Secondary endpoints included therapeutic response (>15% increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV(1)] peak change from baseline), FEV(1) area under the response-time curve (AUC). Patients (n = 456) with moderate-to-severe COPD, who received either IB HFA (n = 305) or IB CFC (n = 151 ), both 42µg four times daily. There were no significant differences in the incidences of individual AEs between groups over the short and long term; respiratory disorders were the most common. The incidence of anticholinergic AEs possibly related to treatment was low (1.3% IB HFA, 0.7% IB CFC). Serious AEs occurred in 19.0% and 20.5%, and discontinuations due to AEs in 7.2% and 7.3%, of patients receiving IB HFA and IB CFC, respectively. Therapeutic bronchodilatory responses were achieved in 76-81% and 72-84% of patients, and AUC ranged from 0.117-0.148L and 0.117-0.174L, in patients receiving IB HFA and IB CFC, respectively. IB HFA had similar efficacy and tolerability to IB CFC over 1 year, supporting a seamless transition from the CFC MDI to the HFA MDI in both short- and long-term treatment.