PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

John M Zajecka

Publications and source records attributed to John M Zajecka.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

Calming the bipolar storm: treating acute mania and mixed episodes in patients with bipolar disorder.

Bipolar disorder is a seriously debilitating psychiatric disorder that greatly affects patients and their loved ones. Although bipolar disorder is one of the most frequently occurring mental disorders worldwide, many patients, particularly those with mixed mania, remain misdiagnosed. Compared to pure mania, mixed episodes of bipolar disorder present with symptoms that can be more challenging to treat. However, proper diagnosis and early treatment can usually alter the course of the illness, and remission is certainly possible. This expert roundtable supplement reviews the differences between acute manic and mixed episodes in patients with bipolar disorder, explains proper dosing and the advantages of different dosage formulations, and identifies the rationale for monotherapy and combination therapy in these patient populations. The aim is to educate clinicians about ways to diagnose and treat the mood state aggressively and safely, especially in light of the many new treatment options available.

Acute Disease↗

High-dose sertraline strategy for nonresponders to acute treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a multicenter double-blind trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of high-dose sertraline for patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) who failed to respond to standard sertraline acute treatment. METHOD: Sixty-six nonresponders to 16 weeks of sertraline treatment who met DSM-III-R criteria for current OCD were randomly assigned, in a double-blind continuation phase of a multicenter trial, either to continue on 200 mg/day of sertraline or to increase their dose to between 250 and 400 mg/day for 12 additional weeks. Efficacy measures included the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (YBOCS), the National Institute of Mental Health Global Obsessive Compulsive Scale (NIMH Global OC Scale), and the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness and -Improvement (CGI-I) scales. Data were collected from July 26, 1994, to October 26, 1995. RESULTS: The high-dose (250-400 mg/day, mean final dose = 357, SD = 60, N = 30) group showed significantly greater symptom improvement than the 200-mg/day group (N = 36) as measured by the YBOCS (p = .033), NIMH Global OC Scale (p = .003), and CGI-I (p = .011). Responder rates (decrease in YBOCS score of > or = 25% and a CGI-I rating < or = 3) were not significantly different for the 200-mg/day versus the high-dose sertraline group, either on completer analysis, 34% versus 52%, or on endpoint analysis, 33% versus 40%. Both treatments showed similar adverse event rates. CONCLUSION: Greater symptom improvement was seen in the high-dose sertraline group compared to the 200-mg/day dose group during continuation treatment. Both dosages yielded similar safety profiles. Administration of higher than labeled doses of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors may be a treatment option for certain OCD patients who fail to respond to standard acute treatment.

Adult↗

A randomized, double-blind, active-control study of sertraline versus venlafaxine XR in major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Sertraline may produce dual neurotransmitter effects similar to the serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs); however, it has been tested against an SNRI in only 1 previous study, and never at an optimal dose. The objective of the current multisite study was to compare relatively higher doses of sertraline (i.e., 150 mg/day) and venlafaxine extended release (XR) (225 mg/day) in outpatients with major depressive disorder. METHOD: Subjects with DSM-IV major depressive disorder were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of double-blind treatment with sertraline (N = 82) or venlafaxine XR (N = 78). The study ran from January 2002 through January 2003. The primary outcome measure was the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire; secondary outcome variables included the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. RESULTS: Both treatments led to significant improvement in depressive symptoms and quality-of-life measures. No significant differences were noted between treatment groups for final scores on the primary or secondary measures. The treatment groups did not differ significantly in the percentage of responders (sertraline = 55%, venlafaxine XR = 65%; intent-to-treat [ITT] sample) or remitters (sertra-line = 38%, venlafaxine XR = 49%; ITT sample), although the proportions are similar to those found in earlier selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) vs. venlafaxine meta-analyses. In patients who achieved the maximum dose of drug and maintained it for 3 weeks, response rates were similar to those found at lower doses (sertraline = 59%, venlafaxine XR = 70%); however, remission rates for this sample were comparable for both drug groups (sertraline = 48%, venlafaxine XR = 50%). CONCLUSIONS: The efficacies of sertraline and venlafaxine XR were comparable. Although response and remission rates did not differ statistically, the rates were analogous to those reported in previous meta-analyses. However, at clinically relevant higher doses, the remission rates were very similar. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00179283.

Adult↗

SNRIs in the management of acute major depressive disorder.

Remission of a patient's index major depressive episode is essential in preventing a recurrent or chronic depressive course. Once remission is established, the subsequent goal is to maintain remission and prevent a relapse of the episode with a minimum of 4 to 9 months of continuation treatment. Common belief suggests that all antidepressants have equivalent efficacy when measured by remission, but this may be a misconception based on limitations in current clinical trial methods. Furthermore, major depressive disorder (MDD) is a complex illness with a variety of co-occurring somatic and often painful symptoms. In addition, increasing evidence suggests that, in some depressed patients, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) may provide benefits of treating a broader range of target symptoms than single-acting agents, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Given the available evidence and the importance of remission, the pendulum has swung to consider using agents with dual reuptake inhibition (e.g., SNRIs) as standard and initial treatment for depression.

Acute Disease↗

Divalproex sodium versus olanzapine in the treatment of acute mania in bipolar disorder: health-related quality of life and medical cost outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Divalproex sodium is a mood stabilizer used in the United States for the treatment of acute mania associated with bipolar disorder. Recently, olanzapine, an atypical antipsychotic, was approved for the treatment of acute mania. This study compares the clinical, health-related quality of life (HRQL), and economic outcomes of divalproex and olanzapine in the treatment of acute mania associated with bipolar disorder. METHOD: This 12-week, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized clinical trial included 120 subjects with DSM-IV bipolar disorder type I hospitalized for an acute manic episode recruited from 21 U.S. clinical centers. Subjects were randomly assigned to treatment with either divalproex or olanzapine and were followed in hospital for up to 21 days. If after 21 days clinical improvements (based on the Mania Rating Scale [MRS]) were not observed, subjects were discontinued. Subjects showing clinical improvement were treated for up to 12 weeks. HRQL was assessed using the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (Q-LES-Q) after hospital discharge (baseline) and at 6 and 12 weeks. Medical resource use and costs were collected over the 12-week study. RESULTS: A total of 120 subjects (N = 63 divalproex, N = 57 olanzapine) were randomized, and 78 (65%) were followed beyond 21 days. No statistically significant differences between the treatment groups for baseline-to-endpoint MRS or Q-LES-Q scores were observed. Total 12-week outpatient medical costs were significantly lower for the divalproex-treated group (541 US dollars) compared with the olanzapine-treated group (1080 US dollars) (p =.004). There was no significant difference in total medical costs between the 2 groups (divalproex = 13,703 US dollars; olanzapine = 15,180 US dollars; p =.88). CONCLUSION: Divalproex is associated with lower 12-week outpatient costs compared with olanzapine. Divalproex and olanzapine have similar short-term effects on clinical or HRQL outcomes in bipolar disorder subjects.

Acute Disease↗

Treating depression to remission.

Over the last several years, the recommended end point in the treatment of depression has become remission. Patients who achieve remission not only enjoy the benefits of decreased disability and improved functioning in work, family, and social situations, they also have a lower risk of disease progression and relapse. Despite the benefits associated with remission, many patients are left with residual symptoms that prevent them from achieving these benefits. Potential obstacles to reaching remission include diagnostic issues, inadequate treatment, lack of adherence to the treatment regimen, satisfaction with partial improvement, and failure to recognize residual symptoms. Strategies for treating to remission include ensuring appropriate diagnosis, setting treatment goals, selecting antidepressants that are more likely to result in remission, providing patient education and adequate treatment, assessing for residual symptoms, and heeding partial response or lack of response by switching or augmenting treatment.

Antidepressive Agents↗

A comparison of the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of divalproex sodium and olanzapine in the treatment of bipolar disorder.

BACKGROUND: This study compared the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of divalproex and olanzapine in the treatment of acute mania associated with bipolar disorder. METHOD: This randomized, 12-week, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter study included DSM-IV-defined bipolar disorder type I patients hospitalized for acute mania and randomly assigned to treatment with divalproex or olanzapine. After an inpatient period of up to 21 days, subjects were followed as outpatients. Dose adjustment was permitted during the inpatient period. Efficacy was assessed using change from baseline in Mania Rating Scale (MRS) score to day 21; other efficacy measures included the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, and the Clinical Global Impressions-Part I, Severity of Illness scale. The primary safety endpoint was change from baseline in weight. Other safety and tolerability endpoints included spontaneous adverse event reporting and changes from baseline in laboratory measures and vital signs. RESULTS: 120 subjects (N = 63 divalproex, N = 57 olanzapine) were randomly assigned to treatment. No significant differences between groups were found for any efficacy variable for change from baseline to day 21. Mean MRS score changes from baseline to day 21 were -14.8 for divalproex and -17.2 for olanzapine (p =.210). A significantly (p <.05) greater proportion of olanzapine-treated subjects experienced somnolence, weight gain, edema, rhinitis, and speech disorder (slurred speech); no adverse events were significantly greater in the divalproex group. A number of laboratory measures also demonstrated significant treatment differences, but the clinical significance of many of these is uncertain. Mean body weight changes were significantly greater in the olanzapine group (+ 8.8 lb [+ 4.0 kg]) than the divalproex group (+ 5.5 lb [+ 2.5 kg], p <.050). One death occurred during the study (olanzapine group, diabetic ketoacidosis). CONCLUSION: No significant difference in efficacy was found between treatment groups. Divalproex was associated with a more favorable adverse event profile and significantly less weight gain than olanzapine.

Adolescent↗