Dataset Information

Olanzapine is superior to lamotrigine in the prevention of bipolar depression: a naturalistic observational study.

ABSTRACT: Bipolar disorder is a highly recurrent disease and has great impact on the function of patients. Depressive symptoms consist of more than 50% of life time during the illness and may lead to self harm or suicidal behaviors. Little is known about the antidepressant effects of olanzapine, an atypical antipsychotic, as monotherapy despite its indication for preventing manic episodes. In contrast, lamotrigine, a mood stabilizer, has been proven to be effective in preventing depression in patients with bipolar disorder. However, no studies have compared the efficacy between lamotrigine and olanzapine in the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder. This enriched naturalistic study was implemented to assess the effectiveness of olanzapine and lamotrigine as monotherapy in the prevention of recurrence of bipolar disorder.Patients with bipolar disorder in a euthymic state (Young's Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score <12, and 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) score <7) for at least two months, having already received either olanzapine or lamotrigine as the maintenance treatment were recruited. The patients maintained with olanzapine (n?=?22) were applied to olanzapine group whereas those maintained with lamotrigine (n?=?29) were applied to lamotrigine group. They were followed up for 12 months. Differences in the efficacy between olanzapine and lamotrigine in recurrence prevention were analyzed. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to generate time-to-recurrence curves, and differences between the two groups were compared using the log-rank test.Olanzapine had a significantly lower recurrence rate of depressive episodes than lamotrigine (20.0% vs. 57.7%, ?2?=?6.62, p?=?.010). However, olanzapine and lamotrigine had similar mania (15.0% vs. 0%, ?2?=?4.17, p?=?.075, Fisher's exact test) and any mood episode (35.0% vs. 57.7%, ?2?=?2.33, p?=?.127) recurrence rates. Olanzapine was significantly superior to lamotrigine in the time to recurrence of depressive episodes (?2?=?4.55, df?=?1, p?=?.033), but there was no difference in the time to recurrence of any mood episode (?2?=?1.68, df?=?1, p?=?.195).This prospective naturalistic study suggests that olanzapine is more effective than lamotrigine in the prevention of depressive episodes in patients with bipolar disorder. Future large-scale randomized studies are warranted to validate our results.ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01864551.

SUBMITTER: Pan PY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4035822 | biostudies-literature | 2014 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Olanzapine is superior to lamotrigine in the prevention of bipolar depression: a naturalistic observational study.

Pan Pei-Yin PY Lee Meei-Shyuan MS Lo Miao-Chi MC Yang En-Lin EL Yeh Chin-Bin CB

BMC psychiatry 20140519

<h4>Background</h4>Bipolar disorder is a highly recurrent disease and has great impact on the function of patients. Depressive symptoms consist of more than 50% of life time during the illness and may lead to self harm or suicidal behaviors. Little is known about the antidepressant effects of olanzapine, an atypical antipsychotic, as monotherapy despite its indication for preventing manic episodes. In contrast, lamotrigine, a mood stabilizer, has been proven to be effective in preventing depress ...[more]

PMID: 24885966

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDepression in people with bipolar disorder is a major cause of long-term disability, possibly leading to early mortality and currently, limited safe and effective therapies exist. Although existing monotherapies such as quetiapine have limited proven efficacy and practical tolerability, treatment combinations may lead to improved outcomes. Lamotrigine is an anticonvulsant currently licensed for the prevention of depressive relapses in individuals with bipolar disorder. A double-blinded randomized placebo-controlled trial (comparative evaluation of Quetiapine-Lamotrigine [CEQUEL] study) was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of lamotrigine plus quetiapine versus quetiapine monotherapy in patients with bipolar type I or type II disorders.ObjectiveBecause the original CEQUEL study found significant depressive symptom improvements, the objective of this study was to reanalyze CEQUEL data and determine an unbiased classification accuracy for active lamotrigine versus placebo. We also wanted to establish the time it took for the drug to provide statistically significant outcomes.MethodsBetween October 21, 2008 and April 27, 2012, 202 participants from 27 sites in United Kingdom were randomly assigned to two treatments; 101: lamotrigine, 101: placebo. The primary variable used for estimating depressive symptoms was based on the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-self report version 16 (QIDS-SR16). The original CEQUEL study findings were confirmed by performing t test and linear regression. Multiple features were computed from the QIDS-SR16 time series; different linear and nonlinear binary classifiers were trained to distinguish between the two groups. Various feature-selection techniques were used to select a feature set with the greatest explanatory power; a 10-fold cross-validation was used.ResultsFrom weeks 10 to 14, the mean difference in QIDS-SR16 ratings between the groups was -1.6317 (P=.09; sample size=81, 77; 95% CI -0.2403 to 3.5036). From weeks 48 to 52, the mean difference was -2.0032 (P=.09; sample size=54, 48; 95% CI -0.3433 to 4.3497). The coefficient of variation (σ/μ) and detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA) exponent alpha had the greatest explanatory power. The out-of-sample classification accuracy for the 138 participants who reported more than 10 times after week 12 was 62%. A consistent classification accuracy higher than the no-information benchmark was obtained in week 44.ConclusionsAdding lamotrigine to quetiapine treatment decreased depressive symptoms in patients with bipolar disorder. Our classification model suggested that lamotrigine increased the coefficient of variation in the QIDS-SR16 scores. The lamotrigine group also tended to have a lower DFA exponent, implying a substantial temporal instability in the time series. The performance of the model over time suggested that a trial of at least 44 weeks was required to achieve consistent results. The selected model confirmed the original CEQUEL study findings and helped in understanding the temporal dynamics of bipolar depression during treatment.Trial registrationEudraCT Number 2007-004513-33; https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2007-004513-33/GB (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/73sNaI29O).

Project description:BACKGROUND:We examined the efficacy of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC) in improving health-related quality of life (QoL) in the treatment of bipolar depression in children and adolescents. METHODS:Patients aged 10-17 years with bipolar I disorder, depressed episode, baseline children's depression rating scale-revised (CDRS-R) total score ?40, Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score ?15, and YMRS-item 1 ? 2 were randomized to OFC (6/25-12/50 mg/day olanzapine/fluoxetine; n = 170) or placebo (n = 85) for up to 8 weeks of double-blind treatment. Patients and parents completed the revised KINDL questionnaire for measuring health-related QoL in children and adolescents (KINDL-R) at baseline and endpoint. The mean change in CDRS-R total and item scores were used to compare improvement in symptomatology in patients taking OFC and placebo. Tests were 2-sided using a Type I error cutoff of 0.05, and no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. RESULTS:Baseline QoL as measured by the KINDL-R was substantially impaired relative to published norms for a healthy school-based sample. OFC-treated patients demonstrated an improvement over placebo at endpoint with respect to mean change from baseline in the patient-rated KINDL-R Self-esteem subscale score (p = 0.028), and in the parent KINDL-R ratings of emotional well-being (p = 0.020), Self-esteem (p = 0.030), and Family (p = 0.006). At endpoint, OFC-treated patients still had a lower QoL compared to the normative population. OFC showed significant improvement (p ? 0.05) versus placebo on the CDRS-R total score and on 7 of the 17 CDRS-R items. CONCLUSIONS:Patients aged 10-17 years with an acute episode of bipolar depression and their parents reported greater improvements (parents noticed improvements in more areas than did their offspring) on some aspects of QoL when treated with OFC compared with placebo. However, after 8 weeks of treatment, KINDL-R endpoint scores remained lower than those of the, presumably healthy, control population. Clinical trial registration information A Study for Assessing Treatment of Patients Ages 10-17 with Bipolar Depression; http://www.clinicaltrials.gov; NCT00844857.

Project description:Treatment of bipolar depression poses a significant clinical challenge. Lamotrigine is one of a few efficacious drugs, however, it needs to be titrated very slowly and response can only be assessed after 10-12 weeks. With only a proportion of patients responding, an exploration of factors underlying treatment responsivity is of paramount clinical importance, as it may lead to an allocation of the drug to those most likely to respond to it. This study aimed at identifying differences in patterns of pre-treatment resting state functional connectivity (rsFC) that may underlie response to lamotrigine in bipolar depression. After a baseline MRI scan, twenty-one patients with bipolar depression were treated with lamotrigine in an open-label design; response, defined as ≥50% decrease in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) score, was assessed after 10-12 weeks of treatment. Twenty healthy controls had a baseline clinical assessment and scan but did not receive any treatment. Fifteen out of 21 (71%) patients responded to lamotrigine. Treatment responsivity was associated with enhanced pre-treatment rsFC of the right fronto-parietal network (FPN) and dorsal attention network (DAN) with left precuneus. The lack of treatment response was additionally characterised by reduced rsFC: of the DAN with right middle temporal gyrus; of the default mode network (DMN) with left precuneus; of the extended sensory-motor area with areas including the left hippocampus/left amygdala and left subcallosal cortex/nucleus accumbens; and of the left FPN with left inferior temporal gyrus/occipital fusiform gyrus/lateral occipital cortex. The results suggest that preserved rsFC between the FPN and DAN, the networks involved in cognitive control, and the hub of the posterior DMN, the left precuneus, may be critical for good response to lamotrigine as an add-on treatment in patients with bipolar depression. The study also suggests a more general decrease in rsFC to be related to poor treatment responsivity.

Project description:The efficacy and safety of olanzapine monotherapy are evaluated in Japanese patients from a large, global study of bipolar depression.This is an analysis of Japanese patients from a 6-week, global (Japan, China, Korea, Taiwan, and the United States), randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase 3 study of patients with a depressive episode of bipolar I disorder. The primary outcome was baseline-to-endpoint change in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. Secondary outcome measures included the Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar Version Severity of Illness Scale (CGI-BP), the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17) total score, the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score, and rates of response (?50% baseline-to-endpoint reduction in MADRS total score), recovery, and remission.Of the 156 Japanese patients, 104 had been allocated to olanzapine and 52 to placebo. All results are baseline-to-endpoint change. Compared to placebo, patients in the olanzapine group experienced greater improvement in the primary outcome measure, MADRS total score (-14.9 vs. -10.7; p?=?.01). They also had greater reductions in the following secondary measures: CGI- BP Depression (-1.41 vs. -0.89; p?=?.008), CGI-BP Bipolar (-1.31 vs. -0.83; p?=?.01), HAMD-17 (-11.7 vs. -7.9; p?<?.01), and YMRS (-0.32 vs. 0.34; p?=?.03). Differences in rates of response, recovery, and remission were not statistically significant. A greater proportion of olanzapine-treated patients reported treatment- emergent adverse events (87.5% vs. 59.6%; p?<?.001). Patients treated with olanzapine had greater increases in weight (p?<?.001) and fasting total cholesterol (p?=?.008); fasting triglycerides (p?=?.02), and fasting low-density lipoprotein (p?=?.01). There was a greater reduction in fasting high-density lipoprotein in olanzapine-treated patients (p?=?.01). Compared with placebo-group patients, more olanzapine-group patients shifted from borderline to high cholesterol (25.0% vs. 0.0%; p?=?.007) and had clinically significant weight gain (?7% body weight) (20.2% vs. 1.9%; p?=?.001).Results of this analysis support the efficacy and tolerability of olanzapine for the treatment of bipolar depression in Japanese patients. Results in this population were consistent with those seen in the more ethnically diverse parent study. In making treatment decisions for individual patients, clinicians should carefully consider the risks and benefits of olanzapine treatment.Clinicatrials.gov ID NCT00510146 Olanzapine Treatment of Patients with Bipolar I Disorder.

Project description:BackgroundDepression in bipolar I disorder responds to the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine. This subpopulation analysis assessed whether olanzapine is superior to placebo specifically in the treatment of Chinese patients with bipolar I depression.MethodsThis was a subpopulation analysis of a 6-week, multicenter, double-blind, parallel, randomized, placebo-controlled trial among 12 Chinese study centers. Eligible inpatients and outpatients were randomized to olanzapine (5 to 20 mg/day) or placebo. Patients were primarily assessed by the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score. Secondary assessments used a range of other efficacy and safety measures. This subpopulation analysis was underpowered to show statistically significant differences between treatment groups.ResultsIn total, 210 patients (mean age 32.9 years at baseline, 54.3% females) were random-ized. Similar proportions of patients treated with olanzapine (75.0%) and placebo (72.9%) completed the double-blind phase. Baseline-to-endpoint least-squares mean ± standard error decrease in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score in the olanzapine group (-13.55±0.80) was similar to that noted in the parent trial (-13.82±0.65). However, the difference between olanzapine and placebo groups was not statistically significant (P=0.44); this finding was also true for the secondary efficacy measures. A post hoc analysis showed a greater emergence of mania in the placebo group, which likely reduced the treatment difference between olanzapine and placebo in the primary efficacy measure. Safety data were consistent with the known safety profile of olanzapine, including a higher incidence of weight gain (≥7%) in the olanzapine group (24.1% vs 1.4%, P<0.001).ConclusionOlanzapine provides similar improvement in depression among Chinese and non-Chinese bipolar I patients. The lack of a statistically significant difference between the olanzapine and placebo groups in this Chinese subpopulation analysis may relate to an a priori lack of study power, and underestimation of the effect of olanzapine because of a greater emergence of mania in placebo-treated patients and missing data associated with a high early discontinuation rate.

Dataset Information

Olanzapine is superior to lamotrigine in the prevention of bipolar depression: a naturalistic observational study.

Publications

Olanzapine is superior to lamotrigine in the prevention of bipolar depression: a naturalistic observational study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets