Effects of adjunctive aripiprazole on sexual functioning in patients with major depressive disorder and an inadequate response to standard antidepressant monotherapy: a post hoc analysis of 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the specific effect of adjunctive aripiprazole on sexual function in patients with major depressive disorder and a history of an inadequate response to antidepressant medication by controlling for improvement in depressive symptoms as measured by improvement in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total scores.

METHOD

For this post hoc analysis, data were pooled from 3 multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled aripiprazole augmentation studies (CN138-139: June 2004-April 2006; CN138-163: September 2004-December 2006; and CN138-165: March 2005-April 2008). Outpatients who met DSM-IV-TR criteria for a major depressive episode that had lasted ≥8 weeks with an inadequate response to prospective antidepressant treatment were randomized to adjunctive aripiprazole or placebo for 6 weeks. Sexual functioning was assessed using the Massachusetts General Hospital Sexual Functioning Inventory (MGH-SFI). To assess whether adjunctive aripiprazole improves sexual functioning directly, rather than as an indirect effect of improvement in depression symptoms, the mean change in MGH-SFI item scores and overall improvement scores was assessed using analysis of covariance, with double-blind baseline and change in MADRS total score as covariates. Correlations between MGH-SFI items and MADRS total score and prolactin levels were also assessed.

RESULTS

The analysis included 1,092 subjects (n=737 female and n=355 male). In the total population, adjunctive aripiprazole demonstrated statistically significant greater improvements versus placebo on the MGH-SFI item "interest in sex" (-0.34 vs -0.18, P<.05). In males, no significant treatment differences were observed. In females, improvements in sexual functioning with adjunctive aripiprazole versus placebo were found on the MGH-SFI items "interest in sex" (-0.41 vs -0.21, P<.05) and "sexual satisfaction" (-0.44 vs -0.25, P<.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Aripiprazole adjunctive to antidepressant treatment can have some beneficial effects on sexual functioning in patients with major depressive disorder who respond inadequately to standard antidepressant treatment; the benefits in women were specific to sexual interest and satisfaction and were independent of the improvement in depressive symptoms.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00095823, NCT00095758, and NCT00105196.

Efficacy and safety of adjunctive aripiprazole in major depressive disorder in older patients: a pooled subpopulation analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adjunctive aripiprazole compared with standard antidepressant therapy (ADT) for older patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who demonstrated an incomplete response to standard antidepressant monotherapy.

METHODS

Data from three similar 14-week studies (an 8-week prospective ADT treatment phase and a 6-week randomized, double-blind phase) of aripiprazole augmentation were pooled for this post hoc analysis. Two age groups were defined: younger patients (aged 18-49 years) and older patients (aged 50-67 years). The older patient group was further divided into three subgroups: 50-55, 56-60, and 61-67 years. The efficacy endpoint was the mean change in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score from end of the prospective phase (Week 8) to endpoint (Week 14, last observation carried forward (LOCF)). Remission was defined as MADRS total score ≤10 at endpoint.

RESULTS

Four hundred and nine older patients (placebo, n = 198; aripiprazole, n = 211) and 679 younger patients (placebo, n = 341; aripiprazole, n = 338) were included in this analysis. Older patients receiving aripiprazole demonstrated significantly greater improvement in MADRS total score versus placebo at Week 14 (-10.0 vs. -6.4; p < 0.001; LOCF), similar to the improvement seen in younger patients. Remission rates were significantly higher with aripiprazole versus placebo in older (32.5% vs. 17.1%; p < 0.001) and younger (26.9% vs. 16.4%; p < 0.001) patients. Akathisia was the most common adverse event in both the older (17.1%) and younger (26.0%) patient groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunctive aripiprazole was effective in improving depressive symptoms in older patients, 50-67 years, with MDD who have had an inadequate response to standard antidepressant medication.

Analysis of suicidality in pooled data from 2 double-blind, placebo-controlled aripiprazole adjunctive therapy trials in major depressive disorder

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of adjunctive aripiprazole versus adjunctive placebo treatment on suicidality in patients with major depressive disorder.

METHOD

Data were pooled from 2 identical aripiprazole augmentation studies. Patients with DSM-IV-TR-diagnosed major depressive disorder with an inadequate response to 8 weeks of prospective antidepressant treatment were randomly assigned to adjunctive placebo or adjunctive aripiprazole (2-20 mg/d) treatment for 6 weeks. Adverse events related to suicidality were identified in the adverse event database using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities-preferred term. Treatment-emergent suicidal ideation was defined using item 10 (suicidality) of the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and item 18 (suicidality) of the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (IDS).

RESULTS

In total, 737 patients were included in the safety database (aripiprazole n = 371; placebo n = 366). No suicides were reported. There were no treatment-emergent, suicide-related adverse events in the aripiprazole group; 2 patients in the placebo group had ≥ 1 adverse event related to suicide (both suicidal ideation). More placebo than aripiprazole patients > 25 years old experienced a 2-point (P < .01) or 1-point (P < .05) worsening of MADRS item 10 scores. For this age group, 2-point improvement in MADRS item 10 scores and 1-point improvement of IDS item 18 scores were significantly more common in aripiprazole patients than placebo patients (both P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

This post hoc analysis demonstrated that adjunctive aripiprazole treatment in patients with depression with a history of an inadequate response to antidepressant medication is associated with a decreased rate of suicidality in a group of subjects not at significant risk. Prospective trials directly assessing suicidality are needed to further understand the benefits of an adjunctive antipsychotic in an at-risk population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00095823 and NCT00095758.

Metabolic syndrome in patients enrolled in a clinical trial of aripiprazole in the maintenance treatment of bipolar I disorder: a post hoc analysis of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of maintenance treatment with aripiprazole or placebo on the incidence of metabolic syndrome in bipolar disorder.

METHOD

Patients with DSM-IV bipolar I disorder were stabilized on aripiprazole therapy for 6-18 weeks prior to double-blind random assignment to aripiprazole or placebo for 26 weeks. The rate of metabolic syndrome in each group was calculated at maintenance phase baseline (randomization) and endpoint for evaluable patients using a last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) approach. Metabolic syndrome was defined using the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III criteria. The study was conducted from March 2000 to June 2003 at 76 centers in Argentina, Mexico, and the United States.

RESULTS

At entry into the maintenance phase, 45/125 patients (36.0%) overall met criteria for metabolic syndrome. Mean changes in the 5 components of metabolic syndrome (waist circumference, triglyceride levels, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level, blood pressure, and glucose level) from baseline to week 26 were small except for a meaningful reduction in triglycerides (placebo -18.9 mg/dL; aripiprazole -11.5 mg/dL). By the end of the maintenance phase (endpoint, LOCF), 5/18 placebo-treated patients (27.8%) and 4/14 aripiprazole-treated patients (28.6%) no longer met metabolic syndrome criteria. The proportion of patients with metabolic syndrome was similar in the placebo and aripiprazole groups at both baseline and week 26. There were no significant changes in any of the individual components of metabolic syndrome between aripiprazole- and placebo-treated patients during maintenance phase treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of metabolic syndrome in patients with bipolar disorder is higher than that commonly reported in the general population. The effect of 26 weeks of treatment with aripiprazole on the incidence of metabolic syndrome and its components was similar to placebo.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00036348.

Cost-sharing effects on adherence and persistence for second-generation antipsychotics in commercially insured patients

PURPOSE

To assess the relationship between patient cost-sharing (e.g., copayments or coinsurance) and adherence and persistence to second-generation (atypical) antipsychotic (SGA) medications.

DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

A retrospective, observational study of adults aged 18-64 years with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder (n = 7,910) who initiated SGA medications with employer-sponsored insurance in the 2003-2006 MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database. Adherence was defined as percent of days covered in each calendar quarter. Persistence was defined as days from initiation of SGA to the first 90-day gap in medication on-hand. Generalized Estimating Equations were used to determine the effects of cost-sharing on adherence to SGA medications based on patient-quarter data. A Cox proportional hazards model with patient cost-sharing as a time-varying covariate estimated the effects on persistence with SGA medication.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Higher cost-sharing was associated with a lower likelihood of adherence. When compared to plans with cost-sharing below $10, adherence rates were approximately 27% lower for patients in plans with SGA cost-sharing of $50 and above and about 10% lower for patients in plans with cost-sharing between $30 and $50. In both cases, the reduction in adherence was significant. Higher cost-sharing was also associated with a shorter time to discontinuation (HR: 1.028; 95% CI [1.006-1.051]).

CONCLUSION

High SGA cost-sharing appears to be a financial barrier to SGA medication compliance, especially when cost-sharing levels exceeded $30. Our findings have implications for health plans, employers, and policymakers who have, or are, contemplating establishing cost-sharing tiers for SCA medications for commercially insured patients with serious mental illnesses.

Effect of inadequate response to treatment in patients with depression

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of inadequate response to antidepressant treatment on healthcare resource utilization and on work productivity in patients diagnosed as having major depressive disorder (MDD).

STUDY DESIGN

This study used data from the 2006 US National Health and Wellness Survey, a cross-sectional survey of adults 18 years and older.

METHODS

Patients who self-reported a confirmed diagnosis of depression and were currently taking antidepressant medication were included in the analyses. Adequacy of antidepressant treatment response was determined from responses to the mental health domain of the 8-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-8). Logistic regression analyses adjusted for demographics, comorbidity, and component scores on the SF-8 were used to determine the associations between inadequacy of treatment response and health outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 5988 patients who met the inclusion criteria for the study, 30.9% were classified as antidepressant treatment responders, 31.2% were partial responders, and 37.9% were nonresponders. Partial response and nonresponse to treatment were associated with greater likelihood of emergency department utilization (odds ratios [ORs], 1.26 and 1.54, respectively; P <.01 for both) and hospitalization (OR, 1.23; P = .05 and OR, 1.39; P <.01, respectively). Similarly, partial response and nonresponse were associated with lower likelihood of current employment (OR, 0.83; P = .01 and OR, 0.63; P <.01, respectively) and with greater likelihood of work productivity loss among the employed (ORs, 1.42 and 1.99, respectively; P <.01 for both).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with MDD who failed to respond to antidepressant treatment as evidenced by poor self-reported mental health status used more healthcare resources, were less likely to be employed, and had more work productivity loss than those who responded to antidepressant therapy.

Evaluation of akathisia in patients with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or bipolar I disorder: a post hoc analysis of pooled data from short- and long-term aripiprazole trials

The objective of this article is to assess the clinical characteristics of akathisia in patients with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or bipolar I disorder receiving aripiprazole, haloperidol, olanzapine, or placebo. We conducted post hoc analyses of pooled safety data from trials in patients with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and bipolar I disorder. Outcome measures included the incidence of akathisia, time to onset, duration, severity, and discontinuation due to akathisia, concomitant use of benzodiazepines and/or anticholinergics, Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale (BARS) scores, and the correlation between antipsychotic efficacy and akathisia. The results for schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder were as follows: akathisia in 9% of aripiprazole- and 6% of placebo-treated patients; 12.5% of aripiprazole- versus 24% of haloperidol-treated patients; 11% of aripiprazole- versus 6% of olanzapine-treated patients. Bipolar I disorder: akathisia in 18% of aripiprazole- and 5% of placebo-treated patients. The clinical characteristics of akathisia were similar between each data set, regardless of disease. Akathisia was generally mild-to-moderate in severity. Discontinuation due to akathisia was low in both the schizophrenia trials (aripiprazole 0.3%; placebo 0%; aripiprazole 0.9%; haloperidol 2.3%; aripiprazole 1.2%; olanzapine 0.2%) and the bipolar trials (aripiprazole 2.3%; placebo 0%). Treatment-emergent akathisia was not associated with a poorer clinical response. In conclusion, akathisia with aripiprazole occurred early in treatment, was mild-to-moderate in severity, led to few study discontinuations, and did not compromise therapeutic efficacy.

Cost burden of treatment resistance in patients with depression

OBJECTIVE

To develop a claims-based scale for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) and estimate the associated direct cost burden.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective, observational study of patients receiving antidepressant therapy between January 2000 and June 2007 (N = 78,477).

METHODS

The Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) clinical staging method for treatment resistance (assigning points for adequate trials of antidepressant medication, upward dose titration, extended duration, augmentation, and electroconvulsive therapy) was applied to claims data from the MarketScan Research Databases over a 24-month time period. Direct expenditures were measured over a subsequent 12-month period. Patients identified as having TRD (MGH score >or=3.5) (n = 22,593) were matched to depressed patients without TRD using propensity score methods. Regression models estimated the relationship between TRD and expenditures, controlling for sociodemographics, health plan type, and health status. Similar regression models estimated costs for an antidepressant-only version of the scale (MGH-AD).

RESULTS

Treatment resistance among depressed patients was associated with 40% higher medical care costs (P <.001). The MGH-AD score was associated with an increasing gradient in direct costs. Annual costs for patients with mild TRD (MGH-AD 3.5-4) were $1530 higher than those for non-TRD patients, and costs for patients with complex TRD (MGH-AD >or=6.5) were $4425 higher than those for non-TRD patients (all P <.001). A 1-point increase in the MGH-AD score was associated with a $590 increase in annual costs (P <.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Early identification of TRD patients, using a claims-based algorithm, may support targeted interventions for these patients.

Predictive value of early improvement in bipolar depression trials: a post-hoc pooled analysis of two 8-week aripiprazole studies

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the value of early improvement to predict treatment outcome in patients with bipolar depression.

METHODS

Data were pooled from two aripiprazole, 8-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in patients with bipolar depression without psychotic features to determine whether early improvement (≥20% reduction in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) Total score at Week 2 or 3) predicts later response (≥50% MADRS Total score reduction at Week 8) or remission (MADRS Total ≤10 at Week 8). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated (LOCF). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to evaluate early improvement and baseline demographic/clinical characteristics as predictors of response/remission.

RESULTS

In total, 311 patients were randomized to placebo and 306 to aripiprazole. Predictive values of early improvement (≥20% MADRS Total score reduction) for remission with aripiprazole at Week 2/3, respectively, were: sensitivity 83%/94%; specificity 41%/33%; PPV 44%/45%; NPV 81%/91%. The corresponding values with placebo were as follows: sensitivity 70%/84%; specificity 60%/51%; PPV 50%/51%; NPV 77%/84%. Univariate linear regression showed that early improvement (≥15%, ≥20%, ≥25%, ≥30% at Week 3) was a significant potential predictor of remission.

CONCLUSION

Absence of early improvement after 3 weeks of treatment reliably predicted non-response/non-remission at study endpoint with high sensitivity and NPV. In patients with <20% improvement after 21 days of aripiprazole monotherapy, treatment should be modified, as continued use is unlikely to result in response/remission. Clinical decision-making to optimize treatment course in bipolar I depression may be appropriate after as little as 2 weeks and certainly within the first 3 weeks of treatment.

Effects of aripiprazole adjunctive to standard antidepressant treatment on the core symptoms of depression: a post-hoc, pooled analysis of two large, placebo-controlled studies

BACKGROUND

Although antipsychotic agents have a long history of use in depression, their effectiveness in treating core symptoms of depression such as loss of interest has been questioned. Adjunctive aripiprazole is beneficial for the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder but its effects on specific symptoms have not been reported. The objective of this study was to examine the effects of aripiprazole on core symptoms of depression.

METHODS

This is a post-hoc, pooled analysis of two trials of aripiprazole augmentation of standard antidepressants (ADT) in patients with major depression. Patients with an inadequate response to ADT received adjunctive aripiprazole (n=373) or placebo (n=368) for 6 weeks. Change on four subscales of the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D17) that capture core depression symptoms was determined and change on individual HAM-D items also was assessed. The magnitude of within-group change for the subscales and individual items was expressed as effect size (ES) and between-group significance tested with ANCOVA. The magnitude of change was also examined comparing the response rates for aripiprazole and placebo on HAM-D17 and the four subscales. Change on three composite subscales - anxiety, insomnia and drive was also examined.

RESULTS

Within-group change on the four core subscales was substantial (ES=1.1-1.2) and similar to that for the 17-item HAM-D total score. Between-group comparisons indicated mean change and response rates were significantly greater with adjunctive aripiprazole than placebo for each core subscale (all p<0.01). Individual HAM-D17 items showing the greatest change from baseline with adjunctive aripiprazole: depressed mood (within-group ES=1.03) work and activities (ES=0.86), guilt (ES=0.77) and psychic anxiety (ES=0.67) are the same symptoms identified by each of the core subscales and each of these items differed significantly from change on that item with placebo (p<0.01). On three composite scales, adjunctive aripiprazole was significantly more effective than placebo with respect to mean change for anxiety, insomnia and drive (all p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Aripiprazole augmentation of standard ADT results in significant, clinically meaningful changes in the core symptoms of depression. It is also associated with significant change in anxiety, insomnia, and drive components of the 17-item HAM-D.

Healthcare costs associated with treatment of bipolar disorder using a mood stabilizer plus adjunctive aripiprazole, quetiapine, risperidone, olanzapine or ziprasidone

OBJECTIVE

Bipolar disorder has an associated economic burden due to its treatment, including medication and hospitalization costs as well as costs associated with treatment of comorbid conditions. This study compared healthcare costs in patients treated with a mood stabilizer and adjunctive aripiprazole versus adjunctive olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone or ziprasidone.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study was conducted in the LabRx integrated claims database from January 2003 to December 2006. Patients (18-65 years) with bipolar disorder and 180 days of pre-index enrolment without atypical treatment and 90 days post-index enrolment were eligible. Mood stabilizer therapy was initiated prior to index atypical prescription. Generalized gamma regressions were used to compare the total healthcare costs of adjunctive aripiprazole treatment and treatment with adjunctive olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone or ziprasidone.

RESULTS

After controlling for differences in baseline characteristics and pre-index cost, psychiatric costs and subtotal psychiatric and general medical costs were higher for all adjunctive atypicals than adjunctive aripiprazole (p<0.001). Based on gamma regressions cost ratios, there was no significant difference in general medical costs between aripiprazole and ziprasidone, olanzapine, or quetiapine; risperidone general medical costs were 18% higher versus aripiprazole (p=0.041). Aripiprazole pharmacy costs were higher than quetiapine and risperidone (p<0.001) but not olanzapine or ziprasidone. Total healthcare costs were higher for ziprasidone, olanzapine, or risperidone (p<0.001) but not quetiapine.

LIMITATIONS

Methodological restriction of patients to those newly initiated on an atypical antipsychotic and incomplete medication history limit the generalizability of the findings.

CONCLUSION

Adjunctive aripiprazole may have economic benefits over other atypicals in terms of lower psychiatric treatment costs than adjunctive olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone or ziprasidone, and lower total healthcare costs than adjunctive olanzapine, risperidone or ziprasidone.

The efficacy, safety, and tolerability of aripiprazole for the treatment of schizoaffective disorder: results from a pooled analysis of a sub-population of subjects from two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, pivotal trials

BACKGROUND

Schizoaffective disorder shares clinical characteristics with schizophrenia and affective disorders, with patients experiencing concurrent manic, mixed, or depressive episodes during psychosis. Because efficacy may be better in schizoaffective disorder than schizophrenia, this post-hoc analysis examines the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of aripiprazole in patients with schizoaffective disorder.

METHOD

Data were obtained from a sub-sample of subjects with schizoaffective disorder (randomized: aripiprazole n=123, placebo n=56) who participated in two 4-week, multicenter, double-blind trials of subjects with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Aripiprazole was administered at fixed doses of 15 mg/day, 20 mg/day, or 30 mg/day. Efficacy assessments included the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) Total score, and the Positive, Negative, and General Psychopathology subscale scores. Safety and tolerability evaluations included incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events and extrapyramidal symptom assessments (SAS, BARS, and AIMS), and metabolic profile changes including weight and BMI.

RESULTS

A significantly greater improvement from baseline to endpoint was observed with aripiprazole compared with placebo on the PANSS Total (-15.9 vs. -3.4; p=0.038) and PANSS Positive subscale (-4.6 vs. -1.0; p=0.027). Differences between treatments were not significant for the PANSS Negative subscale score (-3.7 vs. -1.2; p=0.15) or PANSS General Psychopathology subscale score (-8.3 vs. -3.1; p=0.06). There were no statistically significant differences at endpoint between groups in the mean change from baseline to endpoint in weight, glucose, or total cholesterol, or on SAS, BARS, or AIMS scores. There was a statistically significant decrease in prolactin in subjects treated with aripiprazole compared with placebo (-5.6 vs. -1.3, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Aripiprazole was efficacious and well tolerated in patients with schizoaffective disorder.

A systematic review of augmentation strategies for patients with major depressive disorder

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a leading cause of disability worldwide. Clinicians need to determine the most appropriate and effective interventions for patients who do not benefit from first-line treatment. A systematic review of the literature on augmentation strategies for major depression was conducted. A total of 32 eligible studies were included in the final review. Identified augmentation strategies included lithium, thyroid hormone, buspirone, stimulant drugs (methylphenidate and modafinil), and atypical antipsychotics (olanzapine, quetiapine, aripiprazole, and risperidone). Additional studies used other augmentation strategies (yohimbine, atomoxetine, inositol, testosterone, and lamotrigine), or combinations with a second antidepressant (mianserin, mirtazapine, and desipramine). There was no evidence of clinical efficacy as measured by response in augmentation with buspirone, testosterone, methylphenidate, yohimbine, inositol, and atomoxetine. Although some studies of combined antidepressant therapy and lithium augmentation did show statistically significant clinical effects, results were inconsistent across studies. The only eligible study of thyroid augmentation was positive, though this study evaluated patients treated with tricyclic antidepressants. It is possible due to small sample sizes, that some of the trials failed to detect significant differences versus placebo because of inadequate statistical power. Adjunctive therapy with atypical antipsychotics showed higher response rates compared with antidepressant monotherapy and placebo but also had more withdrawals due to adverse events. Given ongoing concerns with the longer term tolerability and safety of the atypical antipsychotics, future research will need to investigate optimal duration of augmentation therapy in patients with major depressive disorder who do not respond to first line therapy.

Atypical antipsychotic drugs and diabetes mellitus in the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event database: a systematic Bayesian signal detection analysis

BACKGROUND

Prior literature suggests that the risk of diabetes-related adverse events (DRAEs) differs between atypical antipsychotics. The present study evaluated the potential association between atypical antipsychotics or haloperidol and diabetes using data from the FDA AERS database.

METHODS

Analysis of AERS data was conducted for clozapine, risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, ziprasidone, aripiprazole or haloperidol with 24 DRAEs from the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities using a Multi-item Gamma Poisson Shrinker (MGPS) data-mining algorithm. Using MGPS, adjusted reporting ratios (Empiric Bayes Geometric Mean or EBGM) and 90% confidence intervals (CIs; EB05-EB95) were calculated to estimate the degree of drug-event association relative to all drugs and events. Logistic regression odds ratios and 90% CIs (LR05-LR95) were calculated for diabetes mellitus events.

RESULTS

All six atypicals had an EB05 >/= 2 for at least one DRAE. The most common event was diabetes mellitus (2,784 cases). Adjusted reporting ratios (CIs) for diabetes mellitus were: olanzapine 9.6 (9.2-10.0; 1306 cases); risperidone 3.8 (3.5-4.1; 447 cases); quetiapine 3.5 (3.2-3.9; 283 cases); clozapine 3.1 (2.9-3.3; 464 cases); ziprasidone 2.4 (2.0-2.9; 74 cases); aripiprazole 2.4 (1.9-2.9; 71 cases); haloperidol 2.0 (1.7-2.3; 139 cases). Logistic regression odds ratios agreed with adjusted reporting ratios.

CONCLUSIONS

In the AERS database, lower associations with DRAEs were seen for haloperidol, aripiprazole and ziprasidone, and higher associations were seen for olanzapine, risperidone, clozapine and quetiapine. Our findings support differential risk of diabetes across atypical antipsychotics, reinforcing the need for metabolic monitoring of patients taking antipsychotics.

Adjunctive aripiprazole in major depressive disorder: analysis of efficacy and safety in patients with anxious and atypical features

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of adjunctive aripiprazole to standard antidepressant therapy (ADT) for patients with DSM-IV major depressive disorder with anxious/atypical features at baseline.

METHOD

Data from 2 identical 14-week studies (an 8-week prospective ADT treatment phase and a 6-week randomized, double-blind phase) of aripiprazole augmentation were pooled to evaluate efficacy and safety in the 2 subgroups. The primary efficacy endpoint was mean change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score from end of ADT treatment to end of randomized treatment (last observation carried forward). Anxious depression was defined by a Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression anxiety/somatization factor score ≥ 7, and atypical depression was defined by previously described criteria on the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report. Both anxious and atypical subtypes were defined based on symptoms at entry into prospective ADT (week 0). Patients were enrolled between June 2004 and April 2006 in one study and from September 2004 to December 2006 in the other (total randomized population, N = 742; anxious/nonanxious population, N = 740; atypical/nonatypical population, N = 737).

RESULTS

Completion rates were between 84% and 90% and comparable across all subgroups, with low discontinuations due to adverse events. Patients receiving adjunctive aripiprazole demonstrated significantly greater improvement in MADRS total score versus patients receiving adjunctive placebo, starting at week 1 or week 2 and continuing through to endpoint (anxious: -8.72 vs. -6.17, p ≤ .001; nonanxious: -8.61 vs. -4.97, p ≤ .001; atypical: -9.31 vs. -5.15, p ≤ .001; nonatypical: -8.08 vs. -6.22, p < .05). At endpoint, remission rates were also significantly higher with adjunctive aripiprazole versus adjunctive placebo (p < .05) in all subgroups. Treatment emergent adverse event profile was similar in all subgroups and comparable to the total population. Reporting of akathisia and weight gain on aripiprazole treatment did not differ between subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Adjunctive aripiprazole is an effective treatment for patients with major depression presenting with either anxious or atypical features.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00095823 and NCT00095758.

Examining the efficacy of adjunctive aripiprazole in major depressive disorder: a pooled analysis of 2 studies

BACKGROUND

Patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who fail to achieve complete remission with antidepressant therapy may benefit from augmentation therapy with an atypical antipsychotic.

METHOD

A pooled analysis was performed on 2 identical 14-week studies (8-week prospective antidepressant therapy treatment phase followed by 6-week randomized double-blind phase) evaluating the efficacy of adjunctive aripiprazole (2-20 mg/day) in DSM-IV-TR-defined MDD patients with an inadequate response to antidepressant therapy. Primary efficacy endpoint was the mean change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score from end of the prospective phase (week 8) to end of randomized phase (week 14, last observation carried forward). Subgroup analyses were performed. The key secondary endpoint was mean change in Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) mean score.

RESULTS

At endpoint, mean change in MADRS total score was significantly greater with adjunctive aripiprazole (-8.7) than with adjunctive placebo (-5.7; p < .001). Except for a differential treatment-by-sex interaction, change in MADRS total scores were consistently greater with adjunctive aripiprazole than with adjunctive placebo, regardless of race, age, episode duration, prior antidepressant therapy response, number of historical treatment failures, severity of depressive symptoms, and antidepressant. At endpoint, MADRS remission rates were significantly greater with adjunctive aripiprazole than with placebo (25.7% vs. 15.4%; p < .001). Adjunctive aripiprazole also demonstrated significantly greater improvements in mean change from baseline in SDS total score than adjunctive placebo (-1.2 vs. -0.6; p = .001).

CONCLUSION

Augmentation of antidepressant therapy with the atypical antipsychotic aripiprazole resulted in significant efficacy benefits across a range of subgroups of patients with MDD. Further study of a treatment-by-sex interaction is needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.clinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00095823 and NCT00095758.