The efficacy of duloxetine: A comprehensive summary of results from MMRM and LOCF_ANCOVA in eight clinical trials

BACKGROUND: A mixed-effects model repeated measures approach (MMRM) was specified as the primary analysis in the Phase III clinical trials of duloxetine for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). Analysis of covariance using the last observation carried forward approach to impute missing values (LOCF_ANCOVA) was specified as a secondary analysis. Previous research has shown that MMRM and LOCF_ANCOVA yield identical endpoint results when no data are missing, while MMRM is more robust to biases from missing data and thereby provides superior control of Type I and Type II error compared with LOCF_ANCOVA. We compared results from MMRM and LOCF_ANCOVA analyses across eight clinical trials of duloxetine in order to investigate how the choice of primary analysis may influence interpretations of efficacy. METHODS: Results were obtained from the eight acute-phase clinical trials that formed the basis of duloxetine's New Drug Application for the treatment of MDD. All 202 mean change analyses from the 20 rating scale total scores and subscales specified a priori in the various protocols were included in the comparisons. RESULTS: In 166/202 comparisons (82.2%), MMRM and LOCF_ANCOVA agreed with regard to the statistical significance of the differences between duloxetine and placebo. In 25/202 cases (12.4%), MMRM yielded a significant difference when LOCF_ANCOVA did not, while in 11/202 cases (5.4%), LOCF_ANCOVA produced a significant difference when MMRM did not. In 110/202 comparisons (54.4%) the p-value from MMRM was lower than that from LOCF_ANCOVA, while in 69/202 comparisons (34.2%), the p-value from LOCF_ANCOVA was lower than that from MMRM. In the remaining 23 comparisons (11.4%), the p-values from LOCF_ANCOVA and MMRM were equal when rounded to the 3(rd )decimal place (usually as a result of both p-values being < .001). For the HAMD(17 )total score, the primary outcome in all studies, MMRM yielded 9/12 (75%) significant contrasts, compared with 6/12 (50%) for LOCF_ANCOVA. The expected success rate was 80%. CONCLUSIONS: Important differences exist between MMRM and LOCF_ANCOVA. Empirical research has clearly demonstrated the theoretical advantages of MMRM over LOCF_ANCOVA. However, interpretations regarding the efficacy of duloxetine in MDD were unaffected by the choice of analytical technique

Duloxetine in the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder: An Open-Label Study

Background: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a chronic and highly disabling condition. Existing pharmacotherapies produce full remission in only 30% to 40% of treated patients. Antidepressants exhibiting dual reuptake inhibition of both serotonin (5-HT) and norepinephrine (NE) may achieve higher rates of remission compared with those acting upon a single neurotransmitter. In this study, the safety and efficacy of duloxetine, a potent dual reuptake inhibitor of 5-HT and NE, were examined. Methods: Patients (N = 533) meeting DSM-IV criteria for MDD received open-label duloxetine (60 mg once a day [QD]) for 12 weeks during the initial phase of a relapse prevention trial. Patients were required to have a 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD17) total score ≥18 and a Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S) score ≥4 at baseline. Efficacy measures included the HAMD17 total score, HAMD17 subscales, the CGI-S, the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scale, Visual Analog Scales (VAS) for pain, and the Symptom Questionnaire, Somatic Subscale (SQ-SS). Quality of life was assessed using the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) and the Quality of Life in Depression Scale (QLDS). Safety was evaluated by recording spontaneously-reported treatment-emergent adverse events, changes in vital signs and laboratory analytes, and the Patient Global Impression of Sexual Function (PGI-SF) scale. Results: The rate of discontinuation due to adverse events was 11.3%. Treatment-emergent adverse events reported by ≥10% duloxetine-treated patients were nausea, headache, dry mouth, somnolence, insomnia, and dizziness. Following 12 weeks of open-label duloxetine therapy, significant improvements were observed in all assessed efficacy and quality of life measures. In assessments of depression severity (HAMD17, CGI-S) the magnitude of symptom improvement continued to increase at each study visit, while for painful physical symptoms the onset of improvement was rapid and reached a maximum after 2 to 3 weeks of treatment. Conclusion: In this open-label phase of a relapse prevention study, duloxetine (60 mg QD) was shown to be safe and effective in the treatment of MDD. Trial registration: NCT00036309

Duloxetine in the treatment of major depressive disorder: an open-label study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a chronic and highly disabling condition. Existing pharmacotherapies produce full remission in only 30% to 40% of treated patients. Antidepressants exhibiting dual reuptake inhibition of both serotonin (5-HT) and norepinephrine (NE) may achieve higher rates of remission compared with those acting upon a single neurotransmitter. In this study, the safety and efficacy of duloxetine, a potent dual reuptake inhibitor of 5-HT and NE, were examined.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Patients (N = 533) meeting DSM-IV criteria for MDD received open-label duloxetine (60 mg once a day [QD]) for 12 weeks during the initial phase of a relapse prevention trial. Patients were required to have a 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD₁₇) total score ≥18 and a Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S) score ≥4 at baseline. Efficacy measures included the HAMD₁₇total score, HAMD₁₇subscales, the CGI-S, the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scale, Visual Analog Scales (VAS) for pain, and the Symptom Questionnaire, Somatic Subscale (SQ-SS). Quality of life was assessed using the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) and the Quality of Life in Depression Scale (QLDS). Safety was evaluated by recording spontaneously-reported treatment-emergent adverse events, changes in vital signs and laboratory analytes, and the Patient Global Impression of Sexual Function (PGI-SF) scale.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The rate of discontinuation due to adverse events was 11.3%. Treatment-emergent adverse events reported by ≥10% duloxetine-treated patients were nausea, headache, dry mouth, somnolence, insomnia, and dizziness. Following 12 weeks of open-label duloxetine therapy, significant improvements were observed in all assessed efficacy and quality of life measures. In assessments of depression severity (HAMD₁₇, CGI-S) the magnitude of symptom improvement continued to increase at each study visit, while for painful physical symptoms the onset of improvement was rapid and reached a maximum after 2 to 3 weeks of treatment.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In this open-label phase of a relapse prevention study, duloxetine (60 mg QD) was shown to be safe and effective in the treatment of MDD.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>NCT00036309.</p

Measures of outcome for stimulant trials: ACTTION recommendations and research agenda

BACKGROUND: The development and approval of an efficacious pharmacotherapy for stimulant use disorders has been limited by the lack of a meaningful indicator of treatment success, other than sustained abstinence. METHODS: In March, 2015, a meeting sponsored by Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) was convened to discuss the current state of the evidence regarding meaningful outcome measures in clinical trials for stimulant use disorders. Attendees included members of academia, funding and regulatory agencies, pharmaceutical companies, and healthcare organizations. The goal was to establish a research agenda for the development of a meaningful outcome measure that may be used as an endpoint in clinical trials for stimulant use disorders. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Based on guidelines for the selection of clinical trial endpoints, the lessons learned from prior addiction clinical trials, and the process that led to identification of a meaningful indicator of treatment success for alcohol use disorders, several recommendations for future research were generated. These include a focus on the validation of patient reported outcome measures of functioning, the exploration of patterns of stimulant abstinence that may be associated with physical and/or psychosocial benefits, the role of urine testing for validating self-reported measures of stimulant abstinence, and the operational definitions for reduction-based measures in terms of frequency rather than quantity of stimulant use. These recommendations may be useful for secondary analyses of clinical trial data, and in the design of future clinical trials that may help establish a meaningful indicator of treatment success

Early response predicts subsequent response to olanzapine long-acting injection in a randomized, double-blind clinical trial of treatment for schizophrenia

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In patients with schizophrenia, early non-response to oral antipsychotic therapy robustly predicts subsequent non-response to continued treatment with the same medication. This study assessed whether early response predicted later response when using a long-acting injection (LAI) antipsychotic.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data were taken from an 8-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of olanzapine LAI in acutely ill patients with schizophrenia (n = 233). Early response was defined as ≥30% improvement from baseline to Week 4 in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS_0-6) Total score. Subsequent response was defined as ≥40% baseline-to-endpoint improvement in PANSS_0-6Total score. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and predictive accuracy were calculated. Clinical and functional outcomes were compared between Early Responders and Early Non-responders.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Early response/non-response to olanzapine LAI predicted later response/non-response with high sensitivity (85%), specificity (72%), PPV (78%), NPV (80%), and overall accuracy (79%). Compared to Early Non-responders, Early Responders had significantly greater improvement in PANSS_0-6Total scores at all time points and greater baseline-to-endpoint improvement in PANSS subscale scores, Quality of Life Scale scores, and Short Form-36 Health Survey scores (all p ≤ .01). Among Early Non-responders, 20% demonstrated response by Week 8. Patients who lacked early improvement (at Week 4) in Negative Symptoms and Disorganized Thoughts were more likely to continue being non-responders at Week 8.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Among acutely ill patients with schizophrenia, early response predicted subsequent response to olanzapine LAI. Early Responders experienced significantly better clinical and functional outcomes than Early Non-responders. Findings are consistent with previous research on oral antipsychotics.</p> <p>Clinical Trials Registry</p> <p>F1D-MC-HGJZ: Comparison of Intramuscular Olanzapine Depot With Placebo in the Treatment of Patients With Schizophrenia <url>http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00088478?term=olanzapine+depot&rank=3</url></p> <p>Registry identifier - <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00088478">NCT00088478</a></p