A retrospective study of clinical usage of quetiapine XR and quetiapine IR in outpatients with schizophrenia in Denmark.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Emborg C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3494380 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A retrospective study of clinical usage of quetiapine XR and quetiapine IR in outpatients with schizophrenia in Denmark.
Emborg Charlotte C Hallerbäck Teresa T Jörgensen Leif L Carlborg Andreas A
Human psychopharmacology 20120901 5
<h4>Objectives</h4>The atypical antipsychotic quetiapine is a first-line treatment for schizophrenia. This non-interventional study (NCT01212575) evaluated the clinical use of its two formulations, extended release (XR) and immediate release (IR), in outpatients with schizophrenia spectrum disorder.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients who had received at least one dose of quetiapine XR and/or IR were included. A dosage ≥400 mg/day was defined as antipsychotic. Medical records data were collected retrospecti ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Quetiapine fumarate, a first-line treatment for schizophrenia, exists in two formulations: extended release (XR) and immediate release (IR). This naturalistic, noninterventional study evaluated use of quetiapine XR/IR among in-patients with schizophrenia [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01214135]. Data were collected from medical records. Categorical and numerical outcomes were compared using χ(2) and t tests. Of 178 enrolled patients, 66% and 34% used quetiapine XR and IR respectively. Based on mean daily dose, XR was used as antipsychotic medication in 64% of patients compared with 40% of patients on IR (dose ≥ 400 mg/day; p = 0.002) and in higher doses than IR (494 versus 345 mg/day; p = 0.001; calculated averages). Schizophrenia was more commonly reported as reason for use of XR than IR (20% versus 0%; p = 0.0003). Patients with comorbid substance abuse or somatic disease were more likely to receive XR (p = 0.003; p = 0.03). Treatment cessation due to nonadherence was less common in patients on XR (3.4% versus 12%; p = 0.03). Polypharmacy was seen in 98% of patients. Quetiapine XR/IR usage varies in hospitalized patients with schizophrenia. XR is more often used in antipsychotic dosage; IR is more commonly used at lower doses as add-on therapy. Both quetiapine XR and IR have their place in clinical practice and provide treatment choice in schizophrenia.
| S-EPMC3736955 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectiveSchizophrenia is a low-prevalence mental disorder with a global age-standardized prevalence of 21 million people (2016). Second-generation antipsychotics (lurasidone and quetiapine XR) are recommended as the first-line treatment for schizophrenia. It is interesting to investigate how the results of clinical studies translate into direct medical costs. The objective of this analysis was to assess the direct medical costs related to pharmaceutical treatments and the management of relapses in patients affected with schizophrenia treated with lurasidone (74 mg) vs quetiapine XR (300 mg) assuming the Italian and Spanish National Health Service perspective.MethodsA health economic model was developed based on a previously published model. The analysis considered direct medical costs related to the pharmacological therapies and inpatient or outpatient management of relapses (direct medical costs referred to 2019). The probability of relapses and related costs were derived from two systematic reviews. A deterministic sensitivity analysis was implemented to test the robustness of the results.ResultsThe use of lurasidone (74 mg) compared with quetiapine XR (300 mg) would lead to a reduction in direct medical costs in Italy and Spain, with a lower cost per patient of - 163.7 € (- 9.0%) and - 327.2 € (- 22.7%), respectively. In detail, it would lead to an increase in the cost of therapy of + 53.8% and of + 30.5% in Italy and Spain, respectively, to a decrease in the cost of relapses with hospitalization of - 135.7%, and to an increase in the cost of relapses without hospitalization of + 24.5%.ConclusionsThe use of lurasidone (74 mg) for the treatment of patients affected with schizophrenia, compared with quetiapine XR (300 mg), would be a cost-saving strategy in the two contexts investigated assuming the National Health Service point of view.
| S-EPMC7452921 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Daytime sleepiness is a commonly reported adverse effect associated with psychotropic agents that may impair cognitive performance and functioning. The objective of this post-hoc analysis was to evaluate the long-term effects of lurasidone and quetiapine XR on daytime sleepiness and neurocognitive performance during a 6-month, double-blind continuation study, in subjects who completed an initial 6-week, randomized, placebo-controlled trial comparing these agents. Daytime sleepiness, cognitive performance, and health-related quality of life were assessed with the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), CogState computerized battery, and the Quality of Well-Being (QWB-SA) Scale, respectively. Treatment with flexible-dose lurasidone 40-160 mg/d, administered once daily in the evening, was associated with significantly reduced daytime sleepiness compared with flexibly dosed quetiapine XR 200-800 mg/d (p = 0.03, effect size = 0.36) at week 32 (month 6 of the continuation study endpoint). Incidence of markedly high sleepiness (ESS > 10) was significantly higher in the quetiapine XR (200-800 mg/d) group compared with the lurasidone (40-160 mg/day) group at both months 3 and 6 visits (p < 0.05). Lurasidone (40-160 mg/d) significantly improved neurocognitive performance compared to quetiapine XR (200-800 mg/d) before (effect size = 0.49) and after adjustment (effect size = 0.45) for sleepiness effect (p = 0.008 and 0.010, respectively). Increased daytime sleepiness was significantly associated with reduced neurocognitive performance (p = 0.019) and quality of well-being (p = 0.05). Our findings suggest that clinicians should actively monitor patients for the presence of daytime sleepiness due in part to its potential impact on neurocognitive performance and well-being.
| S-EPMC5514294 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aim of this analysis was to compare the effects of 2 atypical antipsychotic agents, lurasidone (80 mg/d or 160 mg/d) and quetiapine XR (600 mg/d), on daytime alertness, and to evaluate the effects of daytime sleepiness on treatment outcomes in patients with an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia.Patients who met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition, text revision (DSM-IV-TR) criteria for schizophrenia were randomized to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with fixed doses of lurasidone 80 mg/d (n = 125), lurasidone 160 mg/d (n = 121), quetiapine XR 600 mg/d (n = 119), or placebo (n = 121), all dosed once daily in the evening, with food. Daytime sleepiness was assessed using the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS).Daytime sleepiness improved in the lurasidone and placebo-treated groups but worsened in the quetiapine XR treatment group when compared to placebo (p = 0.001) and to either dose of lurasidone (both p < 0.01). Sedation associated with quetiapine XR treatment mediated an improvement in agitation [assessed by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Excitement (PANSS-EC) subscale] and a worsening in functional capacity [assessed by the University of California-San Diego (UCSD) Performance-Based Skills Assessment-Brief Version (UPSA-B) total score]; these mediating relationships were not observed for the lurasidone or placebo treatment groups.In this 6-week double-blind study, treatment with lurasidone 80 mg or 160 mg, administered once daily in the evening, was associated with a reduction in daytime sleepiness similar in magnitude to placebo, while quetiapine XR 600 mg/d was associated with a significant increase in daytime sleepiness, compared to both lurasidone dose groups and placebo. Daytime sleepiness was associated with improvement in agitation and worsening in functional capacity for quetiapine XR, but not lurasidone or placebo-treated patients.
| S-EPMC3968912 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesEvaluate the efficacy and tolerability of once-daily extended release quetiapine fumarate (quetiapine XR) monotherapy in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).Methods10-week (8-week active-treatment/2-week post-treatment), randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled study (D1448C00004). Patients received quetiapine XR 150 mg/day, escitalopram 10 mg/day, or placebo; patients with an inadequate response (<20% improvement in MADRS total score) at Week 2 received double-treatment dose. Primary endpoint: Week 8 change from randomization in MADRS total score. Secondary endpoints included: MADRS response (≥50% improvement) and remission (score ≤8), HAM-D total and Item 1, HAM-A total, psychic and somatic, CGI-S total, PSQI global, and Q-LES-Q-SF% maximum total scores; tolerability was assessed throughout.Results471 patients were randomized. No significant improvements in MADRS total score were observed at Week 8 (LOCF) with either active treatment (quetiapine XR, -17.21 [p=0.174]; escitalopram, -16.73 [p=0.346]) versus placebo (-15.61). There were no significant differences in secondary endpoints versus placebo, with the exception of Week 8 change in PSQI global score (quetiapine XR, -4.96 [p < 0.01] versus placebo, -3.37). MMRM analysis of observed cases data suggested that the primary analysis may not be robust. Most commonly reported AEs included: dry mouth, somnolence, and dizziness for quetiapine XR; headache and nausea for escitalopram.ConclusionsIn this study, neither quetiapine XR (150/300 mg/day) nor escitalopram (10/20 mg/day) showed significant separation from placebo. Both compounds have been shown previously to be effective in the treatment of MDD; possible reasons for this failed study are discussed. Quetiapine XR was generally well tolerated with a profile similar to that reported previously.
| S-EPMC5044477 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of once-daily extended release quetiapine fumarate (quetiapine XR) monotherapy in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).Patients and methodsThis was a 10-week (8-week active treatment/2-week post-treatment) randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled study (D1448C00004). Patients received quetiapine XR 150 mg/day, escitalopram 10 mg/day, or placebo; patients with an inadequate response (<20% improvement in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] total score) at week two received double-dose treatment. The primary end point was week eight change from randomization in MADRS total score. Secondary end points included MADRS response (≥50% improvement) and remission (score ≤8); Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression total and item 1; Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety total, psychic, and somatic; Clinical Global Impressions - Severity of Illness total; Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) global; and Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire - Short Form percentage maximum total scores. Tolerability was assessed throughout.ResultsA total of 471 patients was randomized. No significant improvements in MADRS total score were observed at week eight (last observation carried forward) with either active treatment (quetiapine XR, -17.21 [P=0.174]; escitalopram, -16.73 [P=0.346]) versus placebo (-15.61). There were no significant differences in secondary end points versus placebo, with the exception of week-eight change in PSQI global score (quetiapine XR, -4.96 [P<0.01] versus placebo, -3.37). Mixed-model repeated-measures analysis of observed-case data suggested that the primary analysis may not be robust. Most commonly reported adverse events included dry mouth, somnolence, and dizziness for quetiapine XR, and headache and nausea for escitalopram.ConclusionIn this study, neither quetiapine XR (150/300 mg/day) nor escitalopram (10/20 mg/day) showed significant separation from placebo. Both compounds have been shown previously to be effective in the treatment of MDD; possible reasons for this failed study are discussed. Quetiapine XR was generally well tolerated, with a profile similar to that reported previously.
| S-EPMC3916085 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOpen-label quetiapine coadministration with SSRI therapy, in a diagnostically mixed sample of comorbid anxiety patients, offered additional anxiolytic benefit. Therefore, we designed the following controlled trial to confirm these findings in a comorbid, SSRI-resistant, panic disorder (PD) patient sample.MethodsThis was a single-site, double-blind, placebo-controlled (PLAC), randomized, parallel group (2 groups), 8-week, quetiapine extended release (XR) coadministration trial. SSRI resistance was determined either historically or prospectively. Patients were randomized if they remained moderately ill (CGI-S score ≥ 4). Change in the PDSS scale total score was the primary efficacy outcome measure. Responders were identified as those with a ≥50 % decrease from their baseline PDSS score. In the early weeks of therapy, XR was flexibly and gradually titrated from 50 to 400 mg/day.Results43 patients were screened in total, and 26 of these were randomized and evaluable. 21 patients (78 % of the randomized group) completed the trial (10 XR; 11 PLAC). The endpoint quetiapine XR mean daily dose ± SD was 150 ± 106 mg. While, in the sample as a whole, there was improvement in PDSS scores across the 8-week trial (ANOVA main effect of time, F = 10.9, df 8,192, p < 0.0001), the treatment × time interaction effect was not statistically significant (F = 0.8, df 8,192, p = 0.61). There was no between-group difference in responder frequency at endpoint.ConclusionsThis proof-of-concept RCT did not support the efficacy of this treatment strategy for SSRI-resistant PD. Quetiapine XR was generally well-tolerated. Important limitations were the small sample size, and the relatively low average dose of quetiapine XR used. ClinicalTrials.gov ID#: NCT00619892.
| S-EPMC4570751 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Extended release (XR) and immediate release (IR) quetiapine have differing dosing, titration and plasma concentration profiles. The authors assessed whether the use of quetiapine XR and IR in schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SCZ) and bipolar disorder (BD) differ. Retrospective non-interventional registry study. Secondary healthcare. All SCZ and BD (ICD-10 codes F20-F29, F30-F31) patients discharged between June 2008 and June 2010 from a Finnish psychiatric hospital with any use of quetiapine during their inpatient stay. Differences in patient characteristics between quetiapine XR and IR users were tested. To assess the profile of XR versus IR patients, logistic regressions were performed. 43 patients used quetiapine XR, 58 used quetiapine IR and 55 used both formulations (n=156). 102 patients were diagnosed with SCZ and 54 with BD, with no significant differences between the quetiapine formulations. The mean daily dose of quetiapine XR was significantly higher than that of quetiapine IR (542 mg vs 328 mg; p<0.001). This was also true for the SCZ subgroup (XR: 593 mg vs IR: 338 mg; p<0.001) and the BD subgroup (XR: 466 mg vs IR: 308 mg; p=0.009). 48% of all quetiapine IR patients used a mean dose of ≤200 mg compared with 2% of XR patients. Injectable antipsychotics were combined with quetiapine IR but not with quetiapine XR (12% vs 0%; p=0.019). At discharge, quetiapine XR was used as monotherapy to a greater extent than IR (79% vs 44%; p=0.003). The odds for quetiapine XR use in hospital were lower with advancing age, substance abuse diagnosis and prior IR use. Among SCZ and BD inpatients, quetiapine XR was more often used as monotherapy and in significantly higher doses than quetiapine IR. Differential use of the quetiapine formulations appears to depend, at least in part, on patient characteristics.
| S-EPMC3391370 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStudies have reported liver injury as a consequence of antipsychotic treatment. Very heavy alcohol drinking (ten or more drinks/day for men and eight for women) also causes liver injury. This study aims to evaluate liver injury with quetiapine extended release (XR) in very heavy drinking alcohol-dependent (AD) patients.MethodsTwo hundred and eighteen AD patients, 18-65 years of age, received 12 weeks of quetiapine XR or placebo treatment in a dose-escalated manner reaching the full dose of 400 mg/day during week 4. Blood chemistry and hematology were assessed at baseline (W0), post-titration at the end of week 3 (W4), week 8 (W8), and end of week 12 (W13). Patients were further grouped as GR.1 (no liver injury, ALT ≤40) and GR.2 (pre-existing liver injury, ALT >40) within each treatment. Drinking history, fasting blood glucose concentration (FBG), and lipid panel were used as covariates in the analyses.ResultsLiver injury and total drinks and average drinking measures from the Timeline follow-back questionnaire (TLFB) were highly associated. No significant exacerbation in liver injury was observed in patients treated with quetiapine XR in GR.2. Liver injury as determined by elevated alanine aminotransaminase (ALT) was reported in a few patients in GR.1 who received quetiapine XR; however, the occurrence was low, and the level of liver injury was not significant. FBG and lipid measures showed some elevation, but did not show any significant association with liver injury.ConclusionQuetiapine XR did not show any significant exacerbation of liver injury in very heavy drinking alcohol-dependent patients with pre-existing liver injury. Frequency and severity of new liver injury cases in quetiapine XR-treated patients without any pre-existing liver injury was also low. Study findings support medical management of AD patients with heavy drinking profile using quetiapine XR formulation.
| S-EPMC5095696 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Quetiapine extended release (XR) and lithium are treatments with proven efficacy in acute mania. This randomized study evaluated the efficacy and safety of lithium or placebo as add-on to quetiapine XR in adult patients with manic or mixed symptoms of bipolar I disorder. In this 6-week, double-blind study (Trial D144AC00003), adult patients with DSM-IV-TR-diagnosed bipolar I disorder (current episode manic or mixed), a Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score ≥20, and score ≥4 on two of four core YMRS items were administered quetiapine XR (400 to 800 mg/day) and randomly assigned to receive add-on lithium (600 to 1,800 mg/day) or placebo. The primary efficacy end point was change in the YMRS total score from baseline to day 43, analyzed using a mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Secondary efficacy and safety end points were also measured. Rating scales were administered by trained staff. Three hundred fifty-six patients treated with quetiapine XR were randomized to add-on lithium (n = 173) or placebo (n = 183). Two hundred ninety-one patients (81.7%) completed the study. At day 43, least squares mean change in YMRS total score was -22.8 for add-on lithium and -20.1 for add-on placebo, a statistically significant treatment group difference of -2.69 (p < 0.001). On secondary measures, add-on lithium was associated with significant improvements in response, remission, illness severity, and overall illness versus add-on placebo (p < 0.05). The number needed to treat was 9.1 for response and 7.9 for remission for add-on lithium compared with add-on placebo. Lithium in combination with quetiapine XR was generally well tolerated, with a similar profile to quetiapine XR in combination with placebo. The addition of lithium to quetiapine XR therapy was associated with significantly greater efficacy than placebo as add-on and was generally well tolerated in patients with acute bipolar I mania. This study was registered under Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT00931723.
| S-EPMC4224669 | biostudies-literature