BACKGROUND: This secondary analysis from a randomized double-blind study of acute bipolar depression compared olanzapine monotherapy, olanzapine-fluoxetine combination (OFC) and placebo in patients with or without comorbid anxiety. METHODS:Patients with bipolar disorder and a current depressive episode receivedolanzapine (5-20 mg/day), OFC (6/25, 6/50, or 12/50 mg/day), or placebo in an 8-week trial. Two populations were defined: comorbid (Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, HAM-A > or =18) or non-comorbid (HAM-A <18) anxiety. Changes in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and HAM-A total scores, and rates of response (> or =50% decrease from baseline to endpoint) and remission (MADRS < or =12 or HAM-A < or =7) were analyzed. RESULTS:Baseline MADRS and YMRS scores were significantly higher in patients with comorbid anxiety relative to those without. Patients without comorbid anxiety were more likely to achieve MADRS response and remission than those with comorbid anxiety (relative risk, RR: 1.21 and 1.29, respectively). Patients with comorbid anxiety had greater rates of response and remission with olanzapine and OFC relative to placebo (response RR:1.45 and 2.14; remission RR:1.96 and 2.32, respectively). Response and remission rates on the HAM-A scale were greater for OFC relative to placebo (RR: 2.00 and 3.20). Weight gain was greater for olanzapine (2.59+/-3.24 kg) and OFC (2.79+/-3.23 kg) relative to placebo, as were baseline to endpoint changes in cholesterol levels (6+/-31 and 10+/-67 mg/dL, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:Comorbid anxiety symptoms in patients with bipolar depression have a negative impact on treatment outcome. Olanzapine and, to a greater extent, olanzapine-fluoxetine combination were effective in reducing both depressive and anxiety symptoms in these patients. The significantly greater changes in weight, glucose and cholesterol parameters observed in the olanzapine and olanzapine-fluoxetine combination groups should be entered into the risk-benefit assessment in determining appropriate treatment options for these patients.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: This secondary analysis from a randomized double-blind study of acute bipolar depression compared olanzapine monotherapy, olanzapine-fluoxetine combination (OFC) and placebo in patients with or without comorbid anxiety. METHODS:Patients with bipolar disorder and a current depressive episode received olanzapine (5-20 mg/day), OFC (6/25, 6/50, or 12/50 mg/day), or placebo in an 8-week trial. Two populations were defined: comorbid (Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, HAM-A > or =18) or non-comorbid (HAM-A <18) anxiety. Changes in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and HAM-A total scores, and rates of response (> or =50% decrease from baseline to endpoint) and remission (MADRS < or =12 or HAM-A < or =7) were analyzed. RESULTS: Baseline MADRS and YMRS scores were significantly higher in patients with comorbid anxiety relative to those without. Patients without comorbid anxiety were more likely to achieve MADRS response and remission than those with comorbid anxiety (relative risk, RR: 1.21 and 1.29, respectively). Patients with comorbid anxiety had greater rates of response and remission with olanzapine and OFC relative to placebo (response RR:1.45 and 2.14; remission RR:1.96 and 2.32, respectively). Response and remission rates on the HAM-A scale were greater for OFC relative to placebo (RR: 2.00 and 3.20). Weight gain was greater for olanzapine (2.59+/-3.24 kg) and OFC (2.79+/-3.23 kg) relative to placebo, as were baseline to endpoint changes in cholesterol levels (6+/-31 and 10+/-67 mg/dL, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Comorbid anxiety symptoms in patients with bipolar depression have a negative impact on treatment outcome. Olanzapine and, to a greater extent, olanzapine-fluoxetine combination were effective in reducing both depressive and anxiety symptoms in these patients. The significantly greater changes in weight, glucose and cholesterol parameters observed in the olanzapine and olanzapine-fluoxetine combination groups should be entered into the risk-benefit assessment in determining appropriate treatment options for these patients.
Authors: A Carlo Altamura; Marta Serati; Alessandra Albano; Riccardo A Paoli; Ira D Glick; Bernardo Dell'Osso Journal: Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 2011-02-18 Impact factor: 5.270
Authors: William Coryell; Jess G Fiedorowicz; David Solomon; Andrew C Leon; John P Rice; Martin B Keller Journal: Br J Psychiatry Date: 2011-10-07 Impact factor: 9.319
Authors: Dawn F Ionescu; David A Luckenbaugh; Mark J Niciu; Erica M Richards; Carlos A Zarate Journal: Bipolar Disord Date: 2014-11-14 Impact factor: 6.744
Authors: Lakshmi N Yatham; Sidney H Kennedy; Sagar V Parikh; Ayal Schaffer; David J Bond; Benicio N Frey; Verinder Sharma; Benjamin I Goldstein; Soham Rej; Serge Beaulieu; Martin Alda; Glenda MacQueen; Roumen V Milev; Arun Ravindran; Claire O'Donovan; Diane McIntosh; Raymond W Lam; Gustavo Vazquez; Flavio Kapczinski; Roger S McIntyre; Jan Kozicky; Shigenobu Kanba; Beny Lafer; Trisha Suppes; Joseph R Calabrese; Eduard Vieta; Gin Malhi; Robert M Post; Michael Berk Journal: Bipolar Disord Date: 2018-03-14 Impact factor: 6.744
Authors: J Angst; A Gamma; C L Bowden; J M Azorin; G Perugi; E Vieta; A H Young Journal: Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 2013-01-31 Impact factor: 5.270
Authors: Martin A Katzman; Pierre Bleau; Pierre Blier; Pratap Chokka; Kevin Kjernisted; Michael Van Ameringen; Martin M Antony; Stéphane Bouchard; Alain Brunet; Martine Flament; Sophie Grigoriadis; Sandra Mendlowitz; Kieron O'Connor; Kiran Rabheru; Peggy M A Richter; Melisa Robichaud; John R Walker Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2014-07-02 Impact factor: 3.630