4.4 Article

Lamotrigine as add-on treatment to lithium and divalproex: lessons learned from a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in rapid-cycling bipolar disorder

期刊

BIPOLAR DISORDERS
卷 14, 期 7, 页码 780-789

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/bdi.12013

关键词

bipolar depression; combination treatment; divalproex; failed clinical trial; lamotrigine; lithium; rapid-cycling

资金

  1. Stanley Medical Research Institute
  2. Abbott
  3. AstraZeneca
  4. GlaxoSmithKline
  5. Eli Lilly Co.
  6. Bristol-Myers Squibb/Otsuka
  7. Cephalon
  8. Dainippon Sumitomo
  9. EPI-Q, Inc.
  10. Forest
  11. France Foundation
  12. Janssen
  13. Johnson Johnson
  14. Lundbeck
  15. Merck
  16. Neurosearch
  17. OrthoMcNeil
  18. Pfizer
  19. Repligen
  20. Sanofi
  21. Schering-Plough
  22. Servier
  23. Solvay
  24. Synosia
  25. Supernus Pharmaceuticals
  26. Takeda
  27. Wyeth
  28. [R21 MH-62650]
  29. [1KL2RR024990]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: A substantial portion of the morbidity associated with rapid-cycling bipolar disorder (RCBD) stems from refractory depression. This study assessed the antidepressant effects of lamotrigine as compared with placebo when used as add-on therapy for rapid-cycling bipolar depression non-responsive to the combination of lithium plus divalproex. Methods: During Phase 1 of this trial, hypomanic, manic, mixed, and/or depressed outpatients (n = 133) aged 1865 years with DSMIV RCBD type I or II were initially treated with the open combination of lithium and divalproex for up to 16 weeks. During Phase 2, subjects who did not meet the criteria for stabilization (n = 49) (i.e., remained in or cycled into the depressed phase) were randomly assigned to double-blind, adjunctive lamotrigine (n = 23) or adjunctive placebo (n = 26). The primary endpoint was the mean change in depression symptom severity from the beginning of Phase 2 to the end of Phase 2 (week 12) on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. Data were analyzed by analysis of covariance with last observation carried forward and a mixed-models analysis. Results: During Phase 1, a high rate of study discontinuations occurred due to intolerable side effects (13/133; 10%) and study non-adherence (22/133; 17%). Only 14% (19/133) stabilized on the open combination of lithium and divalproex. Among the 49 (37%) patients randomized to the double-blind adjunctive treatment phase, mean +/- standard error change from baseline on the MADRS total score was -8.5 +/- 1.7 points for lamotrigine and -9.1 +/- 1.5 points for placebo (p = not significant; mixed-models analysis). No significant differences were observed in the rates of response, remission, or bimodal response between lamotrigine and placebo. Conclusions: The poor tolerability, lack of efficacy, and high rate of early discontinuation with the combination of lithium and divalproex suggests this regimen was ineffective for the majority of patients with RCBD. Among patients who did not stabilize on lithium and divalproex, the addition of lamotrigine was no more effective than placebo in reducing depression severity. The findings suggest an opportunity for several design modifications to enhance signal detection in future trials of RCBD. The main limitation is the small number of subjects randomized to double-blind treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据