Clinical Development of Antidepressive Drugs - the Viewpoint of the Industry

2009 ◽  
Vol 24 (S1) ◽  
pp. 1-1
Author(s):  
C. de Bodinat ◽  
B. Delalleau
Keyword(s):  
Depressive Disorders ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Development Program ◽  
Placebo Response ◽  
Clinical Development ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Clinical Development Program ◽  
Term Efficacy ◽  
Number Of Patients

The clinical development program strategy of a new treatment of depression to be registered in Europe must be built in agreement with recommendations of the CHMP guidance.Demonstration that an antidepressant is effective in treatment of major depressive disorders requires consideration of specific recommendations notably regarding the use of placebo and reference drugs, efficacy assessment, designs features and safety aspects.In the field of depression, comparisons between test medicinal product and reference drugs are difficult to interpretate since the level of placebo response is high and variable. An adequate evaluation of antidepressant efficacy is firstly based on randomised double blind comparison versus placebo. For short term efficacy, studies with 6 week-treatment period are required and three arm trials including placebo and active control are recommended. Regarding the long term efficacy, relapse prevention study is the design recommended for demonstrating that the short term effect can be maintained over time.Assessment of efficacy criteria includes both clinical relevance and statisitical significance, particularly:Improvement expressed as difference between baseline and post-treatment score in symptomatology and as proportion of responders.Remission, defined as a condition where no or only few signs remained, with a justified cut-off on a validated rating-scale.In randomised withdrawal trials, efficacy is expressed as number of patients relapsing and/or time to relapse.The acceptable scales for use as primary endpoint include the HAM-D17 scale, the MADRS scale. Cautions regarding designs features, safety assessment and the global methodological issues faced in conducting such program will be detailed in the presentation.

Impact of Michigan’s new opioid prescribing laws on spine surgery patients: analysis of the Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Paul Park ◽  
Victor Chang ◽  
Hsueh-Han Yeh ◽  
Jason M. Schwalb ◽  
David R. Nerenz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Spinal Surgery ◽  
Readmission Rate ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Readmission Rates ◽  
Opioid Prescribing ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Before And After ◽  
The Impact

OBJECTIVEIn 2017, Michigan passed new legislation designed to reduce opioid abuse. This study evaluated the impact of these new restrictive laws on preoperative narcotic use, short-term outcomes, and readmission rates after spinal surgery.METHODSPatient data from 1 year before and 1 year after initiation of the new opioid laws (beginning July 1, 2018) were queried from the Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative database. Before and after implementation of the major elements of the new laws, 12,325 and 11,988 patients, respectively, were treated.RESULTSPatients before and after passage of the opioid laws had generally similar demographic and surgical characteristics. Notably, after passage of the opioid laws, the number of patients taking daily narcotics preoperatively decreased from 3783 (48.7%) to 2698 (39.7%; p < 0.0001). Three months postoperatively, there were no differences in minimum clinically important difference (56.0% vs 58.0%, p = 0.1068), numeric rating scale (NRS) score of back pain (3.5 vs 3.4, p = 0.1156), NRS score of leg pain (2.7 vs 2.7, p = 0.3595), satisfaction (84.4% vs 84.7%, p = 0.6852), or 90-day readmission rate (5.8% vs 6.2%, p = 0.3202) between groups. Although there was no difference in readmission rates, pain as a reason for readmission was marginally more common (0.86% vs 1.22%, p = 0.0323).CONCLUSIONSThere was a meaningful decrease in preoperative narcotic use, but notably there was no apparent negative impact on postoperative recovery, patient satisfaction, or short-term outcomes after spinal surgery despite more restrictive opioid prescribing. Although the readmission rate did not significantly increase, pain as a reason for readmission was marginally more frequently observed.

Short‐term efficacy of a gel containing propolis extract, nanovitamin C and nanovitamin E on peri‐implant mucositis: A double‐blind, randomized, clinical trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
José González‐Serrano ◽  
Rosa María López‐Pintor ◽  
Julia Serrano ◽  
Jesús Torres ◽  
Gonzalo Hernández ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Propolis Extract ◽  
Term Efficacy

scholarly journals Evaluation of the short-term efficacy of local analgesic (lidocaine) and opioid analgesic (sufentanil) on patients with centrally mediated abdominal pain syndrome: a randomized controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 175628482110217
Author(s):  
Hang Yang ◽  
Honglin Chen ◽  
Bing Hu
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Abdominal Pain ◽  
Rating Scales ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Opioid Analgesic ◽  
Pain Syndrome ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Term Efficacy

Background: Centrally mediated abdominal pain syndrome (CAPS) is characterized by continuous or frequently recurring abdominal pain and can result in functional loss across several life domains. The efficacy of the present management methods has not been established yet. We performed a prospective randomized controlled trial to explore the short-term efficacy of local analgesic (lidocaine) and opioid analgesic (sufentanil) in patients with CAPS. Methods: We consecutively enrolled 130 patients who met the Rome IV CAPS criteria and divided them into the sufentanil + lidocaine (S + L) group and sufentanil (S) group. Patients completed the pain rating scales, including the numeric rating scale (NRS) and verbal rating scale (VRS), 60 min before colonoscopy. All the patients were initially administered sufentanil. In the S + L group, we sprayed a 5 ml solution of lidocaine on the surface of ascending, transverse, descending, and sigmoid colon during colonoscope withdrawal, while 5 ml saline was sprayed in the S group. Follow up was performed 1 day, 3 days, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, and 3 months after colonoscopy, to complete the pain scaling. Results: A comparison of the NRS and VRS showed that there were no significant differences between the S + L and S groups and within each group ( p > 0.05). Conclusions: Local analgesic lidocaine and opioid analgesic sufentanil showed negative efficacy during short-term observation. The opioid receptor blocker sufentanil did not worsen symptoms in patients with CAPS after colonoscopy under general anesthesia in the short term. [chictr.org.cn, Chinese Clinical Trial Identifier, ChiCTR-IOR-16008187]

scholarly journals A double-blind randomized placebo-controlled study of low dose mirtazapine once daily in patients of major depressive disorders on escitalopram

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 1067
Author(s):  
Mallikarjuna Rao I. ◽  
Usha Kiran Prayaga ◽  
Dharma Rao Uppada ◽  
Ramachandra Rao E. ◽  
B. L. Kudagi
Keyword(s):  
Depressive Disorders ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
P Value ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Chi Square Test

Background: The SSRIs being used as 1st line therapy in treatment of depression have delayed therapeutic effect which makes the patient vulnerable to an increased risk of suicide and decreased adherence to the treatment and will prematurely discontinue the therapy. The present study was conducted to evaluate if low dose mirtazapine-escitalopram combination therapy has any add on benefit over monotherapy with escitalopram.Methods: In a single-centered, comparative study involving patients with depression attending the out-patient after screening and exclusion, 60 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive tablet mirtazapine 7.5 mg plus tablet escitalopram 10 mg intervention or tablet escitalopram 10 mg plus placebo intervention in a double-blind 6-week treatment phase. The primary outcome measure was the change in the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score from baseline. Participants were evaluated at baseline, 1st, 2nd,4th and 6th week. Results were analyzed using Chi-Square test for adverse effects and independent t-test analysis for efficacy parameter.Results: In the analysis of results at 6th week the numbers of patients achieved remission in mirtazapine group are more with a p-value of 0.018 which is significant and the numbers of responders in mirtazapine group are also more which is statistically significant on chi-square test. There is no significant difference was observed between the two groups with reference to occurrence of adverse effect.Conclusions: Adding low dose mirtazapine has an added benefit in terms of efficacy and getting remission early with more number of responders in the treatment of major depression.

scholarly journals Edaravone in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis’Lessons from the Clinical Development Program and the Importance of a Strategic Clinical Trial Design

US Neurology ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Said R Beydoun ◽  
Jeffrey Rosenfeld
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis ◽  
Trial Design ◽  
Development Program ◽  
Clinical Trial Design ◽  
Clinical Development ◽  
Disease Heterogeneity ◽  
Clinical Development Program ◽  
Lateral Sclerosis

Edaravone significantly slows progression of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and is the first therapy to receive approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the disease in 22 years. Approval of edaravone has marked a new chapter in pharmaceutical development since the key trial included a novel strategic clinical design involving cohort enrichment. In addition, approval was based on clinical trials that had a relatively small patient number and were performed outside of the US. Edaravone was developed through a series of clinical trials in Japan where it was determined that a well-defined subgroup of patients was required to reveal a treatment effect within the study period. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis is associated with wide-ranging disease heterogeneity (both within the spectrum of ALS phenotypes as well as in the rate of progression). The patient cohort enrichment strategy aimed to address this heterogeneity and should now be considered as a viable, and perhaps preferred, trial design for future studies. Future research incorporating relevant biomarkers may help to better elucidate edaravone’s mechanism of action, pharmacodynamics, and subsequently ALS phenotypes that may preferentially benefit from treatment. In this review, we discuss the edaravone clinical development program, outline the strategic clinical trial design, and highlight important lessons for future trials.

Characterizing the Placebo Response in Adults With ADHD

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 425-433 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Ben-Sheetrit ◽  
Miriam Peskin ◽  
Jeffrey H. Newcorn ◽  
Yaron Daniely ◽  
Liat Shbiro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Cohort ◽  
Adult Adhd ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Cohort Analysis ◽  
Placebo Response ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Retrospective Cohort Analysis ◽  
Current Sample

Objective: Several ADHD pharmacological trials reported high placebo response (PR) rates. This study aims to characterize the PR in adult ADHD. Method: A retrospective cohort analysis of the placebo arm (140 adults with ADHD, 18-55 yrs, M:F 46.4%-53.6%) of a 6-week randomized, multicenter, double-blind metadoxine study, using Conners’ Adult ADHD Rating Scale (CAARS) and the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS), was conducted. Results: Pre–post changes in placebo-treated adults were significant for both the CAARS and ASRS, F(2.9, 404.5) = 61.2, p < .00001, F(2.8, 383.0) = 43.1, p < .00001, respectively. Less than half of the participants had a PR which began early in treatment and persisted; almost 50% had a variable, inconsistent PR. Conclusion: In the current sample, PR in adult ADHD was prominent on both symptom scales and the investigator–rater instrument. Therefore, using investigator ratings as a primary endpoint does not necessarily attenuate PR. Of note, about half of the PR is variable, suggesting unreliable determination of efficacy.

scholarly journals Randomized trial of preladenant, given as monotherapy, in patients with early Parkinson disease

Neurology ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 88 (23) ◽  
pp. 2198-2206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabrizio Stocchi ◽  
Olivier Rascol ◽  
Robert A. Hauser ◽  
Susan Huyck ◽  
Anjela Tzontcheva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Parkinson Disease ◽  
Active Control ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Clinical Trial Registration ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Parallel Group ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Disease Rating ◽  
Post Hoc

Objective:To evaluate the adenosine 2a receptor antagonist preladenant as a nondopaminergic drug for the treatment of Parkinson disease (PD) when given as monotherapy.Methods:This was a randomized, 26-week, placebo- and active-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter, double-blind trial conducted in adults diagnosed with PD for <5 years who were not yet receiving l-dopa or dopamine agonists. Patients with a Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) part 3 (motor function) score ≥10 and Hoehn & Yahr score ≤3 were randomized 1:1:1:1:1 to preladenant 2, 5, or 10 mg twice daily, rasagiline 1 mg (active-control) once daily, or placebo. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline at week 26 in the sum of UPDRS parts 2 (activities of daily living) and 3 scores (UPDRS2+3).Results:The number of patients treated was 1,007. Neither preladenant nor rasagiline was superior to placebo after 26 weeks. The differences vs placebo (95% confidence interval) in UPDRS2+3 scores (with a negative difference indicating improvement vs placebo) were preladenant 2 mg = 2.60 (0.86, 4.30), preladenant 5 mg = 1.30 (−0.41, 2.94), preladenant 10 mg = 0.40 (−1.29, 2.11), and rasagiline 1 mg = 0.30 (−1.35, 2.03). Post hoc analyses did not identify a single causal factor that could explain the finding of a failed trial. Preladenant was generally well-tolerated with few patients discontinuing due to adverse events (preladenant 7%, rasagiline 3%, placebo 4%).Conclusions:No evidence supporting the efficacy of preladenant as monotherapy was observed in this phase 3 trial. The lack of efficacy of the active control rasagiline makes it difficult to interpret the results.Clinical trial registration:Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01155479.Classification of evidence:This study provides Class I evidence that for patients with early PD, preladenant is not effective as monotherapy at the doses studied (2, 5, 10 mg).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document