Efficacy of modern antipsychotics in placebo-controlled trials in bipolar depression: a meta-analysis.

Randomized, controlled trials have demonstrated efficacy for second-generation antipsychotics in the treatment of acute mania in bipolar disorder. Despite depression being considered the hallmark of bipolar disorder, there are no published systematic reviews or meta-analyses to evaluate the efficacy of modern atypical antipsychotics in bipolar depression. We systematically reviewed published or registered randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) of modern antipsychotics in adult bipolar I and/or II depressive patients (DSM-IV criteria). Efficacy outcomes were assessed based on changes in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) during an 8-wk period. Data were combined through meta-analysis using risk ratio as an effect size with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) and with a level of statistical significance of 5% (p<0.05). We identified five RCTs; four involved antipsychotic monotherapy and one addressed both monotherapy and combination with an antidepressant. The two quetiapine trials analysed the safety and efficacy of two doses: 300 and 600 mg/d. The only olanzapine trial assessed olanzapine monotherapy within a range of 5-20 mg/d and olanzapine-fluoxetine combination within a range of 5-20 mg/d and 6-12 mg/d, respectively. The two aripiprazole placebo-controlled trials assessed doses of 5-30 mg/d. Quetiapine and olanzapine trials (3/5, 60%) demonstrated superiority over placebo (p<0.001). Only 2/5 (40%) (both aripiprazole trials) failed in the primary efficacy measure after the first 6 wk. Some modern antipsychotics (quetiapine and olanzapine) have demonstrated efficacy in bipolar depressive patients from week 1 onwards. Rapid onset of action seems to be a common feature of atypical antipsychotics in bipolar depression. Comment in The following popper user interface control may not be accessible. Tab to the next button to revert the control to an accessible version.Destroy user interface controlEfficacy of modern antipsychotics in placebo-controlled trials in bipolar depression: a meta-analysis--results to be interpreted with caution.

Efficacy of modern antipsychotics in placebo-controlled trials in bipolar depression: a meta-analysis.

Randomized, controlled trials have demonstrated efficacy for second-generation antipsychotics in the treatment of acute mania in bipolar disorder. Despite depression being considered the hallmark of bipolar disorder, there are no published systematic reviews or meta-analyses to evaluate the efficacy of modern atypical antipsychotics in bipolar depression. We systematically reviewed published or registered randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) of modern antipsychotics in adult bipolar I and/or II depressive patients (DSM-IV criteria). Efficacy outcomes were assessed based on changes in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) during an 8-wk period. Data were combined through meta-analysis using risk ratio as an effect size with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) and with a level of statistical significance of 5% (p<0.05). We identified five RCTs; four involved antipsychotic monotherapy and one addressed both monotherapy and combination with an antidepressant. The two quetiapine trials analysed the safety and efficacy of two doses: 300 and 600 mg/d. The only olanzapine trial assessed olanzapine monotherapy within a range of 5-20 mg/d and olanzapine-fluoxetine combination within a range of 5-20 mg/d and 6-12 mg/d, respectively. The two aripiprazole placebo-controlled trials assessed doses of 5-30 mg/d. Quetiapine and olanzapine trials (3/5, 60%) demonstrated superiority over placebo (p<0.001). Only 2/5 (40%) (both aripiprazole trials) failed in the primary efficacy measure after the first 6 wk. Some modern antipsychotics (quetiapine and olanzapine) have demonstrated efficacy in bipolar depressive patients from week 1 onwards. Rapid onset of action seems to be a common feature of atypical antipsychotics in bipolar depression. Comment in The following popper user interface control may not be accessible. Tab to the next button to revert the control to an accessible version.Destroy user interface controlEfficacy of modern antipsychotics in placebo-controlled trials in bipolar depression: a meta-analysis--results to be interpreted with caution.

Predictors and consequences of adherence to the treatment of pediatric patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in Central Europe and East Asia.

PURPOSE: To assess baseline predictors and consequences of medication non-adherence in the treatment of pediatric patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) from Central Europe and East Asia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data for this post-hoc analysis were taken from a 1-year prospective, observational study that included a total of 1,068 newly-diagnosed pediatric patients with ADHD symptoms from Central Europe and East Asia. Medication adherence during the week prior to each visit was assessed by treating physicians using a 5-point Likert scale, and then dichotomized into either adherent or non-adherent. Clinical severity was measured by the Clinical Global Impressions-ADHD-Severity (CGI-ADHD) scale and the Child Symptom Inventory-4 (CSI-4) Checklist. Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) was measured using the Child Health and Illness Profile-Child Edition (CHIP-CE). Regression analyses were used to assess baseline predictors of overall adherence during follow-up, and the impact of time-varying adherence on subsequent outcomes: response (defined as a decrease of at least 1 point in CGI), changes in CGI-ADHD, CSI-4, and the five dimensions of CHIP-CE. RESULTS: Of the 860 patients analyzed, 64.5% (71.6% in Central Europe and 55.5% in East Asia) were rated as adherent and 35.5% as non-adherent during follow-up. Being from East Asia was found to be a strong predictor of non-adherence. In East Asia, a family history of ADHD and parental emotional distress were associated with non-adherence, while having no other children living at home was associated with non-adherence in Central Europe as well as in the overall sample. Non-adherence was associated with poorer response and less improvement on CGI-ADHD and CSI-4, but not on CHIP-CE. CONCLUSION: Non-adherence to medication is common in the treatment of ADHD, particularly in East Asia. Non-adherence was associated with poorer response and less improvement in clinical severity. A limitation of this study is that medication adherence was assessed by the treating clinician using a single item question.

Predictors of remission in the treatment of major depressive disorder: real-world evidence from a 6-month prospective observational study

BACKGROUND: This study examined potential predictors of remission among patients treated for major depressive disorder (MDD) in a naturalistic clinical setting, mostly in the Middle East, East Asia, and Mexico. METHODS: Data for this post hoc analysis were taken from a 6-month prospective, noninterventional, observational study that involved 1,549 MDD patients without sexual dysfunction at baseline in 12 countries worldwide. Depression severity was measured using the Clinical Global Impression of Severity and the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology Self-Report (QIDS-SR16). Depression-related pain was measured using the pain-related items of the Somatic Symptom Inventory. Remission was defined as a QIDS-SR16 score ≤5. Generalized estimating equation regression models were used to examine baseline factors associated with remission during follow-up. RESULTS: Being from East Asia (odds ratio [OR] 0.48 versus Mexico; P<0.001), a higher level of depression severity at baseline (OR 0.77, P=0.003, for Clinical Global Impression of Severity; OR 0.92, P<0.001, for QIDS-SR16), more previous MDD episodes (OR 0.92, P=0.007), previous treatments/therapies for depression (OR 0.78, P=0.030), and having any significant psychiatric and medical comorbidity at baseline (OR 0.60, P<0.001) were negatively associated with remission, whereas being male (OR 1.29, P=0.026) and treatment with duloxetine (OR 2.38 versus selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, P<0.001) were positively associated with remission. However, the association between Somatic Symptom Inventory pain scores and remission no longer appeared to be significant in this multiple regression (P=0.580), (P=0.008 in descriptive statistics), although it remained significant in a subgroup of patients treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (OR 0.97, P=0.023), but not in those treated with duloxetine (P=0.182). CONCLUSION: These findings are largely consistent with previous reports from the USA and Europe. They also highlight the potential mediating role of treatment with duloxetine on the negative relationship between depression-related pain and outcomes of depression.