Dataset Information

Lamotrigine Therapy for Bipolar Depression: Analysis of Self-Reported Patient Data.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Depression 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. OBJECTIVE:Because 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. METHODS:Between 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. RESULTS:From 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 (?/?) 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. CONCLUSIONS:Adding 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 REGISTRATION:EudraCT Number 2007-004513-33; https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2007-004513-33/GB (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/73sNaI29O).

SUBMITTER: Nzeyimana A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6284142 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Lamotrigine Therapy for Bipolar Depression: Analysis of Self-Reported Patient Data.

Nzeyimana Antoine A Saunders Kate Ea KE Geddes John R JR McSharry Patrick E PE

JMIR mental health 20181122 4

<h4>Background</h4>Depression 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 doubl ...[more]

PMID: 30467104

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:CEQUEL (Comparative Evaluation of QUEtiapine plus Lamotrigine combination versus quetiapine monotherapy [and folic acid versus placebo] in bipolar depression) was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel group, 2×2 factorial trial that examined the effect of adding lamotrigine and/or folic acid (FA) to quetiapine in bipolar depression. Lamotrigine improved depression, but its effectiveness was reduced by FA. We investigated the baseline predictors and correlates of clinical response, and the possible basis of the interaction. METHODS:The main outcome was change in depressive symptoms at 12 weeks, measured using the Quick Inventory for Depressive Symptoms-self report version 16 (QIDS-SR16). We examined the relationship between symptoms and lamotrigine levels, and biochemical measures of one-carbon metabolism and functional polymorphisms in catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT), methylene tetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) and folate hydrolase 1 (FOLH1). RESULTS:Lamotrigine levels were unaffected by FA and did not differ between those participants who achieved remission and those with persisting symptoms. When participants with subtherapeutic serum levels were excluded, there was a main effect of lamotrigine on the main outcome, although this remained limited to those randomized to FA placebo. None of the biochemical measures correlated with clinical outcome. The negative impact of FA on lamotrigine response was limited to COMT Met carriers. FOLH1 and MTHFR had no effect. CONCLUSIONS:Our results clarify that FA's inhibition of lamotrigine's efficacy is not a pharmacokinetic effect, and that low serum lamotrigine levels contributed to lamotrigine's lack of a main effect at 12 weeks. We were unable to explain the lamotrigine-FA interaction, but our finding that it is modulated by the COMT genotype provides a starting point for follow-on neurobiological investigations. More broadly, our results highlight the value of including biochemical and genetic indices in randomized clinical trials.

Project description:BackgroundPatient-based registries can help advance research on rare diseases such as eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA), a complex multiorgan form of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to compare patient-reported and physician-reported data on manifestations, treatments, and outcomes for patients with EGPA.MethodsWe completed a comparative analysis of patients ≥18 years with EGPA in Canada and the United States from the following 2 cohorts: (1) The Vasculitis Patient-Powered Research Network (VPPRN), a self-enrolled secure portal with patient-entered data updated quarterly (2014-2019) and (2) the Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium (VCRC) observational studies, a physician-entered database (2003-2019) of patients who fulfilled the 1990 American College of Rheumatology classification criteria for EGPA. The studied parameters included demographic characteristics, clinical manifestations, ANCA status, treatments, and relapses.ResultsData from 195 patients with a validated diagnosis of EGPA in the VPPRN and 354 patients enrolled in the VCRC were analyzed. Compared to the VCRC cohort, the patients in the VPPRN cohort were more likely to be female (135/195, 69.2% compared to 209/354, 59%; P=.02) and younger at diagnosis (47.3 compared to 50.0 years; P=.03); both cohorts reported similar frequencies of asthma (177/184, 96.2% in the VPPRN cohort compared to 329/354, 92.9% in the VCRC cohort; P=.13) and cardiac manifestations (44/153, 28.8% compared to 75/354, 21.2%; P=.06), but the VPPRN cohort reported less frequent lung manifestations other than asthma and more frequent disease manifestations in all other organ systems. The ANCA positivity was 48.9% (64/131) in the VPPRN patients compared to 38.9% (123/316; P=.05) in the VCRC cohort. Relapsing disease after study enrollment was reported in 32.3% (63/195) of patients in the VPPRN compared to 35.7% (99/277) of patients in the VCRC. Most therapies (GC, cyclophosphamide, mepolizumab) were used at similar frequencies in both groups, except for rituximab with VPPRN patients reporting more use than the VCRC cohort (47/195, 24.1% compared to 29/277, 10.5%; P<.001).ConclusionsOverall, patients and physicians report manifestations of EGPA at similar frequencies. However, observed differences between patient and physician reports imply the potential occurrence of selection biases. These results support the use of patient-reported data in EGPA but also the need for careful consideration of disease-specific definitions for the study of EGPA and how patient- and physician-reported data are collected.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00315380, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00315380; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01241305, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01241305.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Therapeutic cancer chemotherapy is most successful when complete dosing is achieved. Because many newer therapeutic agents are oral and self-administered by the patient, adherence is a concern. The purpose of our analysis was to explore relationships between adherence, patient characteristics, and barriers to adherence. METHODS:This secondary analysis utilized self-reported data from a randomized trial of self-care management conducted at two cancer centers in the US. Symptom distress was measured using the 15-item Symptom Distress Scale (SDS-15) and depression with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Adherence to oral medication was self-reported using the 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8). Measures were collected via Web-based, study-specific software ~8 weeks after treatment start date. Odds of low/medium adherence (score <8) were explored using univariate logistic regression. Given the number of factors and possible relationships among factors, a classification tree was built in lieu of a multivariable logistic regression model. RESULTS:Of the eligible participants enrolled, 77 were on oral therapy and 70 had an MMAS score. Forty-nine (70%) reported a high adherence score (=8). Higher odds of low/medium adherence were associated with greater symptom distress (P=0.09), more depression (P=0.05), chemotherapy vs hormonal oral medication (P=0.03), being female (P=0.02), and being randomized to the control group in the parent trial (P=0.09). Conversely, high adherence was associated with working (P=0.08), being married/partnered (P=0.004), and being older (P=0.02). Factors identified as significantly related to low/medium adherence from the univariate logistic regression analyses were supported by the classification tree results. CONCLUSION:Nonadherence to therapeutic oral medications in patients with cancer was associated with being unmarried/unpartnered, symptom distress, younger age, not working, and female sex. These findings may help to identify patients at risk for nonadherence and for whom supportive interventions to enhance adherence may be needed.

Dataset Information

Lamotrigine Therapy for Bipolar Depression: Analysis of Self-Reported Patient Data.

Publications

Lamotrigine Therapy for Bipolar Depression: Analysis of Self-Reported Patient Data.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets