We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
In this article, we argue that landesque capital was integral to the development of complexity in the Maya Lowlands. Such features involved permanent investments in the landscape that supported material and ideological practices, resulting in increased sustainability and well-being. We contend that these developments stemmed from accretional modifications to soils in the Preceramic/Early Preclassic, as well as intentional investments of labor in agricultural features, large public works, and select civic complexes during the Middle Preclassic. Capital improvements were particularly important during the Middle Preclassic, when sedentary occupations and civic life were established. The timing and location of the investments strongly correlate with other aspects of Middle Preclassic lifeways, such as the transition to sedentism, acquisition and control of resources, changes in lithic production, and the emergence of an elite class. We note that some of the largest investments in landscape management during the Middle Preclassic occurred in the Central Karstic Uplands, where substantial cities rose in the Late Preclassic. We conclude that during the Middle Preclassic an ontology of landesque capital developed, based on the synergistic fusing of daily and ritual practices with physical features, which provided a foundation for resilience, sustainability, and well-being in subsequent generations.
Although numerous effective antidepressant (AD) strategies are available for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), many patients do not achieve satisfactory treatment response.
Objectives
The aims of the present European, cross-sectional, multicenter, naturalistic study were (1) to determine the proportion of patients suffering from primary MDD who received additional psychotherapy to their ongoing psychopharmacotherapy and (2) to identify the associated socio-demographic and clinical patterns.
Methods
Patients receiving both treatments were compared to those lacking concomitant additional psychotherapy that was manual-driven psychotherapy (MDP) in all cases.
Results
While 68.8% of a total of 1279 MDD patients received exclusively psychopharmacotherapy, 31.2% underwent a psychopharmacotherapy-MDP combination. The latter patient population was rather younger, higher educated, employed, exhibited an earlier mean age of MDD onset, lower severity of current depressive symptoms with lower odds of suicidality and higher rates of melancholic features, and comorbid asthma and migraine, and was generally treated with lower daily doses of their first-line ADs. Whereas agomelatine was more commonly dispensed in these patients, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors were more often prescribed in MDD patients lacking additional MDP. No significant between-group differences were detected in terms of treatment outcome.
Conclusions
The fact that the employment of additional MDP was not related to better treatment outcome in MDD represents our major and clinically most relevant finding. Generally, MDP was employed in a minority of our patients who experienced rather beneficial socio-demographic and clinical characteristics. This might reflect an inferior accessibility of these psychotherapeutic techniques for patients who are more severely ill and less socio-economically privileged.
Disclosure
References Bartova L, Fugger G, Dold M, Swoboda MMM, Zohar J, Mendlewicz J, Souery D, Montgomery S, Fabbri C, Serretti A, Kasper S. Combining psychopharmacotherapy and psychotherapy is not associated with better treatment outcome in major depressive disor
Bridgesite-(Ce), (IMA2019-034), was discovered at Tynebottom Mine, Cumbria, UK. It occurs as thin (1–2 μm) translucent blue crystals with a lath-like to acicular habit, aggregated into thin crusts and is associated mainly with brochantite, malachite, serpierite, devilline, gypsum, aragonite, jarosite, pyrite, lanthanite-(Ce) and undifferentiated iron oxyhydroxides, it is often intergrown with these other minerals. The lustre, hardness, cleavage and parting could not be determined, nor could density be measured due to crystal size. It has a pale blue streak and is brittle with a splintery fracture. Bridgesite-(Ce) is biaxial (–), shows no pleochroism and has refractive indices (white light): α = 1.526(2), β = 1.564(2), γ = 1.572(2) and 2V(calc) = 48.3°. The empirical formula calculated on the basis of 44 negative charges is Ca0.86REEΣ1.99Al0.07Cu5.95(SO4)3.99(SiO4)0.05(PO4)0.02(OH)11.52⋅8H2O. The idealised formula is CaCe2Cu6(SO4)4(OH)12⋅8H2O, requiring (wt.%): 3.91 CaO, 22.89 Ce2O3, 33.28 CuO, 22.33 SO3 and 17.59 H2O. Bridgesite-(Ce) is monoclinic, space group C2/m, a = 24.801(5), b = 6.3520(13), c = 11.245(2) Å, β = 114.51(3)°, V = 1611.9(6) Å and Z = 2. The five most intense X-ray diffraction peaks in the measured pattern are [d in Å (I, %) (hkl)]: 11.3 (100) (200), 6.391 (15) (201), 2.770 (8) (420), 3.194 (6) (402) and 4.858 (5) (310). The crystal structure was solved using single crystal data and refined to an R1 index of 5.86%. Bridgesite-(Ce) contains three distinct Cu sites containing Cu2+, two are coordinated octahedrally and one is square pyramidal. The octahedra form chains through edge sharing parallel to the b-axis which are linked by the square pyramid to form sheets oriented parallel to {100}. Sulfate tetrahedra decorate the sheets which are held together by interstitial REE3+, Ca2+ and hydrogen bonding. The structure is unique. Despite apparent similarity in chemical formula, bridgesite-(Ce) is not closely related to any other natural Cu-sulfate mineral. An FTIR absorption spectra is presented for reference purposes.
Adverse swallowing outcomes following head and neck squamous cell carcinoma treatment in the context of late-onset post-radiotherapy changes can occur more than five years post-treatment.
Methods
A retrospective study was conducted utilising patient records from March 2013 to April 2015. Patients were categorised into ‘swallow dysfunction’ and ‘normal swallow’ groups. Quality of life was investigated using the MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory and EuroQol questionnaires.
Results
Swallow dysfunction was seen in 77 (51 per cent) of 152 patients. Twenty-eight patients (36 per cent) in the swallow dysfunction group reported symptoms in year five. Swallow dysfunction was associated with stage IV head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (p < 0.001) and radiotherapy (p < 0.001). MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory global scores showed significant differences between swallow dysfunction and normal swallow groups (p = 0.01), and radiotherapy and surgery groups (p = 0.03), but there were no significant differences between these groups in terms of MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory composite or EuroQol five-dimensions instrument scores.
Conclusion
One-third of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma survivors with swallow dysfunction still show symptoms at more than five years post-surgery, a point at which they are typically discharged.
This study aimed to assess the current literature on the safety and impact of in-office biopsy on cancer waiting times as well as review evidence regarding cost-efficacy and patient satisfaction.
Method
A search of Cinahl, Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, Prospero, PubMed and Web of Science was conducted for papers relevant to this study. Included articles were quality assessed and critically appraised.
Results
Of 19 741 identified studies, 22 articles were included. Lower costs were consistently reported for in-office biopsy compared with operating room biopsy. Four complications requiring intervention were documented. In-office biopsy is highly tolerated, with a procedure abandonment rate of less than 1 per cent. When compared with operating room biopsy, it is associated with significantly reduced time-to-diagnosis and time-to-treatment initiation. It is linked to improved overall three-year survival.
Conclusion
In-office biopsy is a safe procedure that may help certain patients avoid general anaesthetic. It was shown to significantly reduce time-to-diagnosis and time-to-treatment initiation when compared with operating room biopsy. This may have important implications for oncological outcomes. In-office biopsy requires fewer resources and is likely to be cost-saving five-years following introduction. With high rates of sensitivity and specificity, in-office biopsy should be considered as the first-line procedure to achieve tissue diagnosis.
Pharmaceutical treatment and psychotherapy constitute the most common treatment methods for depression and anxiety. Physical training has been shown to have comparable effect to cognitive behavioral therapy in treatment of mild to moderate depression and anxiety. Physically active individuals also show lower risks to develop depression and relapse in depression.
Objectives
The objectives are to evaluate how physical activity can affect depressive and anxiety symptoms, by examining biomarkers in the blood and from the gut and also by measuring cognitive functions. Hopefully, this can lead to new treatment strategies for patients with depression and anxiety.
Methods
102 patients are randomized to two groups and undergo 12 weeks intervention as add-on to standard outpatient psychiatric treatment. The first group will participate in physical training three times per week and the other group will receive relaxation therapy on a weekly basis. Daily activity intensity will be measured before and at the last week of intervention with an accelerometer. Blood and faeces sample collection, symptom grading by clinician together with self-rating scales and cognitive screening will be performed at baseline, week 12 and one year of follow-up. The cognitive screenings are performed digitally in cooperation with Mindmore.
Results
The RCT is currently recruiting patients at the Department of Psychiatry of Örebro University Hospital.
Conclusions
The project aims to be holistic in its approach, combining the defining clinical psychiatric symptoms in patients who have both depression and anxiety with the finding and evaluation of new biomarkers from blood and gut to improve cognitive functions.
During the 2017 to 2019 growing seasons, samples of waterhemp and Palmer amaranth that had reportedly survived field-rate applications of protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO)–inhibiting herbicides were collected from the American Midwest and tested for target-site mutations known at the time to confer resistance. Target-site resistance was identified in nearly all (135 of 145) tested common waterhemp populations but in only 8 of 13 Palmer amaranth populations. Follow-up research on one population of Palmer amaranth (W-8), which tested negative for all such mutations, confirmed it was resistant to lactofen, with a magnitude of resistance comparable to that conferred by the ΔG210 PPO2 mutation. Gene sequences from both isoforms of PPO (PPO1 and PPO2) were compared between W-8 and known PPO inhibitor–sensitive sequence. A glycine-to-alanine substitution at the 399th amino acid position (G399A) of PPO2, recently identified to reduce target-site herbicide sensitivity, was observed in a subset of resistant W-8 plants. Because no missense mutation completely delimited resistant and sensitive sequences, we initially suspected the presence of a secondary, non-target-site resistance mechanism in this population. To isolate G399A, a segregating F2 population was produced and screened with a delimiting rate of lactofen. χ2 goodness-of-fit analysis of dead/alive ratings indicated single-locus inheritance of resistance in the F2 population, and molecular markers for the W-8 parental PPO2 coding region co-segregated tightly, but not perfectly, with resistance. More research is needed to fully characterize Palmer amaranth PPO inhibitor–resistance mechanisms, which appear to be more diverse than those found in common waterhemp.
Compare quetiapine+antidepressant (AD) with lithium+AD, and quetiapine monotherapy with lithium+AD in open, rater-blinded treatment.
Methods
Patients with treatment resistant depression (Thase et al 1997 stage 1 and 2) with severity of MADRS ≥25 received: quetiapine XR 300mg/day plus AD (SSRIs or venlafaxine) (n=229), lithium (monitored to between 0.6 to 1.0 meq/l) plus AD (n=221) or quetiapine XR alone (300mg/day) (n=225) for 6 weeks. Primary efficacy measure was change from baseline in MADRS total score. The pre-specified non-inferiority limit was 3 points on the MADRS.
Results
Fewer patients discontinued on quetiapine+AD (15.2%) than lithium+AD (20.5%) and quetiapine monotherapy (21.5%). Quetiapine+AD and quetiapine monotherapy, were not inferior to lithium+AD in the primary (per protocol) analysis with a mean difference (97.5%CI) on the MADRS of -2.32 (-4.6 to -0.05) favouring add-on quetiapine and -0.97 (-3.24 to 1.31) favouring quetiapine monotherapy. This mandated superiority testing on the modified ITT population showing no significant difference at endpoint.
In a post hoc analysis discounting multiplicity, quetiapine+AD was significantly more effective than lithium+AD on the MADRS change from baseline, p=0.046. The advantage was observed at day 4 (p=0.007) and persisted throughout. Efficacy was supported by CGI-I (p=0.07). Quetiapine+AD showed a numerically greater advantage over lithium+AD in those with two failed treatments (Stage 2) rather than one (Stage 1).
Conclusions
Quetiapine+AD and quetiapine monotherapy, were non-inferior to lithium+AD in treatment resistant depression. There was an early significant and persistent efficacy advantage on MADRS for quetiapine augmentation compared with lithium augmentation of SSRI or venlafaxine treatment.
To evaluate once-daily extended release quetiapine fumarate (quetiapine XR) as monotherapy (50, 150 and 300mg/day) (acute and maintenance treatment) or adjunct treatment (150 and 300mg/day) in patients with MDD.
Methods
Eight (7 acute, 1 maintenance) placebo-controlled studies were analysed. Primary endpoints: change from randomisation in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores (acute); time from randomisation to depressed event (maintenance). Statistical analyses: ANCOVA for difference between quetiapine XR and placebo in LSM change in MADRS total score from randomisation to study end (LOCF; acute); hazard ratio (HR) for time to recurrence of a depressed event (maintenance).
Results
Figure 1 shows treatment differences (95% CIs) for primary efficacy variable for the seven acute studies. Four monotherapy studies (D1448C00001, D1448C00002, D1448C00003, D1448C00014) were significant in favour of quetiapine XR; Study D1448C00004 (monotherapy) was not. Studies D1448C00006 and D1448C00007 were significant in favour of adjunct quetiapine XR. Time from randomisation to depressed event (Study D1448C00005) significantly increased with quetiapine XR; HR (95% CI): 0.34(0.25, 0.46); p< 0.001; number of depressed events: 55, quetiapine XR; 132, placebo. Safety findings were consistent with the known tolerability profile of quetiapine.
Conclusions
Quetiapine XR consistently demonstrated antidepressant efficacy, with 6/7 acute studies positive in favour of quetiapine XR (monotherapy or adjunct). Quetiapine XR maintenance therapy significantly reduced risk of a depressed event, demonstrating relapse prevention. AstraZeneca funded
Evaluate the effects of once-daily extended release quetiapine fumarate (quetiapine XR) monotherapy in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) according to disease severity.
Methods
Pooled data (quetiapine XR 50, 150 and 300mg/day doses combined) from four 6- or 8-week placebo-controlled quetiapine XR monotherapy studies (D1448C00001, D1448C00002, D1448C00003, D1448C00004) were analysed. Key inclusion criterion for all 4 studies: HAM-D total score ≥22. Primary endpoint: change from randomisation in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. A post-hoc analysis assessed change from randomisation in MADRS total score and MADRS response (≥ 50% reduction in MADRS total score) at endpoint (Week 6 or Week 8) in 6 severity cohorts (defined by a MADRS total score at randomisation ≥24, ≥26, ≥28, ≥30, ≥32 or ≥34).
Results
1752 patients (comprising the l’ all patients’ group) were evaluated (MADRS score ≥24 at randomisation, n=1601; ≥26, n=1467; ≥28, n=1269; ≥30, n=1038; ≥32, n=745; ≥34, n=500). Quetiapine XR significantly reduced mean MADRS total score at endpoint in lrsquo;all patients’ (p< 0.001 vs placebo) and in all 6 severity cohorts (≥24, ≥26, ≥28, ≥30 and ≥32, p< 0.001 vs placebo; ≥34, p< 0.01 vs placebo). MADRS response rates were significantly higher in the quetiapine XR group vs placebo in the ‘all patients’ group (p< 0.001 vs placebo) and in all 6 severity cohorts (≥24, ≥26, ≥28, ≥30 and ≥32, p< 0.001 vs placebo; ≥34, p=0.001 vs placebo).
Conclusions
Quetiapine XR monotherapy significantly improved depressive symptoms in patients with MDD irrespective of disease severity, including the most severe levels of depression.
To evaluate risperidone long-acting injectable (RLAI) versus placebo in prevention of mood episodes in adults with bipolar I disorder.
Methods
A 12-week open-label period with RLAI (N=585) was followed by an 18-month randomized, double-blind period with RLAI (25, 37.5 or 50 mg/2 weeks; N=137) or placebo (N=140); a third group (N=138) was randomized to olanzapine for reference and exploratory comparisons. Primary efficacy endpoint: time to relapse of any mood episode for risperidone LAI vs. placebo in the double-blind period (Kaplan-Meier analysis). Relapse was defined by criteria including DSM diagnosis, further treatment, hospitalisation, or Clinical Global Impression score ≥4 combined with YMRS or MADRS >12.
Results
Dosing was fixed during the double-blind period at patients’ final open-label dose (25 mg, 66%; 37.5 mg, 31%; 50 mg, 4%). Time to recurrence (any mood episode) was longer with RLAI versus placebo (log-rank test stratified by region and patient type, p=0.062; stratified by region only, p=0.032); the difference was significant for time to recurrence of elevated mood episodes (p=0.005) but not depressive episodes (p=0.587). Discontinuations due to adverse events (AEs) occurred in 2% of patients in the open-label period, and 4% and 1% in the RLAI and placebo groups, respectively, in the double-blind period. The most frequently reported AE in the open-label period was insomnia (15%). During double-blind treatment, the most frequently reported AEs with RLAI were weight increased (24%; placebo, 9%) and insomnia (16%; placebo, 17%).
Table 1.
Type of recurrence
Type of episode, n (%)
Risperidone LAI (N=135)
Placebo (N=138)
All mood episodes
52 (38.5)
77 (55.8)
Elevated mood episode
27 (20.0)
54(39.1)
Hypomanic
2(1.5)
4 (2.9)
Manic
17(12.6)
43(31.2)
Mixed
8 (5.9)
7(5.1)
Depressive
25(18.5)
23(16.7)
Conclusion
RLAI significantly delayed time to relapse of elevated mood episodes and was well tolerated.
To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of once-daily quetiapine XR (extended release) monotherapy in patients with MDD (unipolar depression) compared with placebo.
Methods:
8-week (6-week active treatment, randomised phase; 2-week post-treatment drug-discontinuation/tapering phase), multicentre, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo- and active-controlled study (D1448C00002). 612 patients were randomised to quetiapine XR 150mg/day (n=152), 300mg/day (n=152), duloxetine 60mg/day (n=151) and placebo (n=157). Primary endpoint: baseline to Week 6 change in MADRS total score. Secondary variables included: baseline to Week 6 change in HAM-D total and Item 1 (depressed mood) scores. Safety assessments included AE reporting.
Results:
Mean MADRS total score (overall baseline mean, 30.15) was significantly reduced at Week 6 by quetiapine XR 150mg/day, 300mg/day and duloxetine versus placebo (−14.81, −15.29, −14.64, −11.18, respectively; p≤0.001).
At Week 6, mean HAM-D total scores (overall baseline mean, 25.25) were significantly reduced versus placebo (−10.26) by quetiapine XR 150mg/day, 300mg/day (−13.12, −14.02, respectively, p≤0.001) and duloxetine (−12.37, p<0.05). Mean HAM-D item 1 scores (overall baseline mean, 3.03) were significantly reduced versus placebo (−1.07) by quetiapine XR 150mg/day, 300mg/day (−1.49, −1.56, respectively, p≤0.001) and duloxetine (−1.53, p<0.001).
Incidence of serious AEs were low (≤2%) in all groups. Most common AEs (>10%) were dry mouth, sedation, somnolence, dizziness, headache and nausea with quetiapine; dizziness and headache with placebo; and dry mouth, sedation, somnolence, dizziness, headache, constipation, nausea, diarrhoea and insomnia with duloxetine. Most AEs were mild-to-moderate in intensity.
Conclusion:
Quetiapine XR monotherapy at 150 and 300mg/day was effective and well tolerated in the treatment of patients with MDD.
Few studies have been conducted looking at clinical features associated to treatment resistant depression (TRD) defined as failure to at least two consecutive antidepressant trials. The objective of this study was to identify clinical and demographic factors associated to TRD in a large sample of depressed patients who failed to reach response or remission after at least two consecutive adequate treatments.
Methods
A total of 702 patients with unipolar major depression were included in the analysis. 346 patients were considered as non resistant. The remaining 356 patients were considered as resistant with a HAM-D-17 score remaining ≥ 17 after 2 consecutive adequate trials. Cox regression models were used to examine the association between individual clinical variables and TRD.
Results
Eleven variables were found to be associated with TRD. Anxiety comorbidity (p<0.001, OR=2.6), comorbid panic disorder (p<0.001, OR=2.6) and social phobia (p<0.008, OR=2.1), personality disorder (p<0.049, OR=1.7), suicidal risk (p<0.001, OR=2.2), severity (p<0.001, OR=1.7), melancholia (p<0.018, OR=1.5), a number of hospitalizations > 1 (p<0.003, OR=1.6), recurrent episodes (p<0.009, OR=1.5), early age of onset (p<0.009, OR=2.0) and non response to the first antidepressant received lifetime (p<0.019, OR=1.6).
Conclusions
Our findings provide a set of eleven relevant clinical variables associated to TRD which can be explored at the clinical level. The statistical model used in this analysis allowed for a hierarchy of these variables (based on the OR) showing that comorbid anxiety disorder is the most powerful clinical factor associated to TRD.
Suicidal behaviour runs in families and the existence of genetic vulnerability to suicidality is well-established. Mental disorders, especially depression, are present in more of 90% of suicides. The incidence of treatment emergent suicidal ideation in major depression (MDD) varies from 4% to 20%, depending on the definition of suicidal ideation and sample characteristics.
In the present study, we further elucidated the impact of depression candidate genes in treatment emergent suicidal ideation in MDD. One hundred-seventy MDD patients were collected in the context of a resistant depression study and treated with antidepressants at adequate doses for at least 4 weeks. MDD subjects were genotyped for SNPs within the COMT gene, BDNF, DTNBP1, 5HT1A, 5HT2A, GNB3, GRIK4, PTGS1, PTGS2, CREB, and cytochrome P450 CYP1A2, CYP2C9, CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 gene. Response, remission and treatment resistance, as well as suicidality information derived from Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) and Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) were recorded.
A quantitative and measure of suicidal behaviour was defined using the Hamilton rating scale (score 0 to 4) and the MINI-item (yes/no) on suicidality in a large cohort of depression cases. In addition, we tested for association with ‘serious suicidal attempts’ corresponding to a HAMD score of 4 (discrete trait analyses). Results of this candidate gene approach in treatment emergent suicidal ideation in MDD will be presented and discussed.
Those with psychiatric disorders have long suffered from prejudice, their illnesses and suffering often trivialised by journalists in their columns and by government agencies. Tougher regulations appear to be imposed on the licensing of new treatments in psychiatry and harsher criteria for their reimbursement by government agencies compared with other therapeutic areas despite clear evidence that these disorders are associated with the highest levels of suffering and disability according to the WHO.
For a new treatment for a psychiatric disorder to be licensed in the EU more studies meeting stricter conditions are required than is the case with equivalent licensing authorities such as the FDA. For example, in the EU a comparator arm is required in clinical trials in addition to the more scientific placebo control. There is no adequate justification for this demand which appears to confound the demonstration of efficacy and safety versus placebo with pricing issues. A further hurdle in the EU is the requirement that long term efficacy compared to placebo is established before a treatment can be licensed which causes delay in bringing the drug to the market and adds to the cost of development. The process might be eased if access to specialist advice by the licensing agencies, strictly limited in the CHMP in contrast to other agencies, were improved.
Difficulties in the licensing process and delays following the granting of a licence inevitably have a negative effect on the viability of developing new treatments. Even when a licence is granted transparency/pricing commissions are the source of serious delays before clinicians are allowed to prescribe the treatment. Delays in allowing access to treatment by EU citizens can be so long that medications become available only after they have come off patent. These issues have led some pharmaceutical companies to withdraw from the development of treatments in psychiatry for the EU market and to close their neuroscience laboratories. The resulting loss of expertise in neuroscience will not be easily reversed. Psychiatric patients in the EU will find that the options for new treatments of their serious disorders are declining compared with other countries.
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of pregabalin in relieving the symptoms of GAD in patients ≥65 years of age.
Methods:
This was a multicenter, randomized, flexible-dose, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group trial of pregabalin in the treatment of GAD. Randomization was 2:1, pregabalin:placebo. Patients underwent an 8-week double-blind, flexible-dosage (150-600 mg/d) treatment phase, including a 1-week dose-escalation period (50 mg/d to 150 mg/d). The primary efficacy assessment was change from baseline to endpoint-LOCF in HAM-A total score. Additionally, change from baseline to week 8 (observed cases) in HAM-A psychic and somatic factors was evaluated.
Results:
Mean age at GAD onset was 56 years; 77% of patients were women; mean age at enrollment was 72 years; mean duration of GAD was 17 years. Mean change from baseline in HAM-A total score was –12.84 (n=177) for the pregabalin group and –10.7 (n=96) for the placebo group (P=.0437). At week 8, patients treated with pregabalin had significant improvement in both the HAM-A psychic (–7.8 vs –6.3, P=.0111) and somatic (–6.6 vs –5.4, P=.0248) factors. The most common adverse events (AEs) among pregabalin-treated patients were dizziness (20.3%), somnolence (13.0%), headache (10.2%), and nausea (9.0%). Most AEs were mild-to-moderate and self-limiting. Discontinuation rates due to AEs were 10.7% and 9.4% in the pregabalin and placebo groups, respectively.
Conclusions:
Pregabalin was effective in reducing the symptoms of GAD in patients aged 65 years and older, and it was safe and well tolerated in this population.
To evaluate efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine XR monotherapy in patients with MDD.
Methods:
Data were analysed from two 6-week, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (D1448C00001, D1448C00002), prospectively designed to be pooled. Outpatients received quetiapine XR 150mg/day (n=315), 300mg/day (n=323), placebo (n=330). Primary outcome: change at Week 6 in MADRS total scores. Other assessments: MADRS individual item scores, HAM-A total scores, MADRS response and remission; AE reporting.
Results:
Quetiapine XR 150mg/day and 300mg/day reduced MADRS total scores at Week 6 (-14.7 and -14.7; p< 0.001) versus placebo (-11.1); significant reductions were also seen at Week 1 (p< 0.001).
Subgroup analyses showed the therapeutic effect of quetiapine XR was neither limited to nor driven by factors such as gender, age or depression severity.
Quetiapine XR demonstrated consistent improvements in MADRS items: both doses significantly improved 8/10 items at Week 6 versus placebo. At Week 6, MADRS response (≥50% decrease in total score) was 52.7% (p< 0.001), 49.5% (p< 0.001) versus 33.0%; MADRS remission (total score ≤10) was 33.7% (p< 0.01), 34.7% (p< 0.01) versus 24.2% for quetiapine XR 150mg/day and 300mg/day and placebo, respectively. Quetiapine XR 150mg/day and 300mg/day improved HAM-A total scores versus placebo at Week 1 (-4.6 [p< 0.01], -4.7 [p< 0.01], -3.6) and Week 6 (-8.1 [p< 0.001], -7.9 [p< 0.001], -6.2). Common AEs (≥10%) were dry mouth, sedation, somnolence, dizziness, headache and nausea with quetiapine XR.
Conclusion:
In patients with MDD, quetiapine XR monotherapy improved a broad range of depressive symptoms, with improvements seen from Week 1. Quetiapine XR was generally well tolerated.
We evaluated the efficacy of eszopiclone (ESZ) and concurrent escitalopram oxalate (EO) in patients with insomnia and co-morbid GAD.
Methods:
Patients meeting DSM-IV-TR criteria for GAD and insomnia received 10 weeks of EO 10mg and co-therapy with ESZ 3mg or placebo (PBO) for 8 weeks. For the last 2 weeks, ESZ was replaced with single-blind PBO to evaluate discontinuation effects. Sleep, daytime functioning and anxiety measures were captured during the study.
Results:
ESZ+EO improved sleep and daytime functioning at each week and the double-blind period average (p<0.05). At Week 8, significantly more ESZ+EO patients had no clinically meaningful insomnia based on ISI</=7. Significant improvements with ESZ+EO (relative to PBO+EO) were observed in HAM-A total scores each week, and Weeks 4-10 excluding the insomnia item. ESZ+EO was significantly better at every timepoint on CGI-I (p<0.02); CGI-S was not different between treatments after Week 1. Median time to anxiolytic response was reduced with ESZ+EO based on HAM-A and CGI-I. HAM-A response and remission rates at Week 8 were higher with ESZ+EO, and HAM-D17 scores were improved at all timepoints (p<0.004). After eszopiclone discontinuation, there was no evidence of rebound insomnia, and no treatment differences in sleep or daytime function. Significant treatment differences in anxiety and mood were maintained after discontinuation.
Conclusion:
In this study, ESZ+EO was well tolerated and associated with improved sleep and daytime function without evidence of tolerance. Improvements in anxiety and mood were observed with ESZ+EO.
Support for this study provided by Sepracor Inc., Marlborough, MA.