Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE: Methods for characterizing the onset of treatment benefit in major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder have been studied for some time, yet there is no universal agreement as to the best approaches. Our purpose is to summarize the conceptual framework underlying modern methods for characterizing onset and detailed approaches for which there is consensus from the perspective of a clinician, clinical researcher, and statistician. Possible alternatives to unresolved issues are discussed. PARTICIPANTS: There were 17 experts from academia, the pharmaceutical industry, and the US Food and Drug Administration who met on April 19, 2007, to consider the issues. Many others from sponsoring firms observed the proceedings. EVIDENCE: A series of papers was presented at a consensus meeting and, after discussions, a sense of the participants was obtained. A small group subsequently reviewed the material and articles from the literature and prepared this article, which was reviewed by all of the participants. CONCLUSIONS: The elements that form the basis for describing onset of treatment benefit include defining a clinical event or measurable threshold that validly signals that a treatment has begun to provide clinically meaningful and sustained improvement and utilizing methods for estimating the probability of crossing the onset threshold, the distribution of time to onset for those who do cross, and when to alter or change interventions if the treatment is unsuccessful

A survey is conducted at w of K selection units or lists, e.g. health care institutions or weeks in a year, to estimate N, the total number of individuals with particular characteristics. Our estimator utilizes two items determined for each survey participant: the number, u, among the w lists in S and the number, j, among all K lists on which each survey participant appears. In its traditional form, selection units are chosen using probability sampling and the statistical properties of the estimator derive from the sampling mechanism. Here, selection units are purposively chosen to maximize the chance that they are 'typical' and a model-based analysis is used for inference. If the sample is typical, the ML estimators of N and E(J) are unbiased. If a condition on the second moment of U/J is satisfied, the model-based variance of the estimator of N based on a purposively chosen typical sample is smaller than one based on a randomly chosen sample. Methods to test whether the typical assumption is valid using data from the survey are not yet available. The importance of proper selection of the sample to maximize the chance that it is typical and model breakdown does not occur must be emphasized

OBJECTIVES: We sought to increase the accuracy of New York City's estimates of its unsheltered homeless population. METHODS: We employed 2 approaches to increasing count accuracy: a plant-capture strategy in which embedded decoys (or 'plants') were used to estimate the proportion of visible homeless people missed by enumerators and a postcount survey of service users designed to estimate the proportion of unsheltered homeless people who were not visible. RESULTS: Plants at 17 sites (29%) reported being missed in the count, because counters either did not visit those sites or did not interview the plants. Of 293 homeless service users who were not in shelters, 31% to 41% were in locations deemed not visible to counters. CONCLUSIONS: Both plant-capture estimation and postcount surveys are feasible approaches that can increase the accuracy of estimates of unsheltered homeless populations

OBJECTIVE: This longitudinal study used FDG-PET imaging to predict and monitor cognitive decline from normal aging. METHODS: Seventy-seven 50-80-year-old normal (NL) elderly received longitudinal clinical examinations over 6-14 years (561 person-years, mean per person 7.2 years). All subjects had a baseline FDG-PET scan and 55 subjects received follow-up PET exams. Glucose metabolic rates (MRglc) in the hippocampus and cortical regions were examined as predictors and correlates of clinical decline. RESULTS: Eleven NL subjects developed dementia, including six with Alzheimer's disease (AD), and 19 declined to mild cognitive impairment (MCI), on average 8 years after the baseline exam. The baseline hippocampal MRglc predicted decline from NL to AD (81% accuracy), including two post-mortem confirmed cases, from NL to other dementias (77% accuracy), and from NL to MCI (71% accuracy). Greater rates of hippocampal and cortical MRglc reductions were found in the declining as compared to the non-declining NL. CONCLUSIONS: Hippocampal MRglc reductions using FDG-PET during normal aging predict cognitive decline years in advance of the clinical diagnosis. Future studies are needed to increase preclinical specificity in differentiating dementing disorders

Clinical features that are prognostic indicators of placebo response among dyskinetic Parkinson's disease patients were determined. Placebo-associated improvements occur in Parkinsonism, but responses in dyskinesia have not been studied. Placebo data from two multicenter studies with identical design comparing sarizotan to placebo for treating dyskinesia were accessed. Sarizotan (2 mg/day) failed to improve dyskinesia compared with placebo, but both treatments improved dyskinesia compared with baseline. Stepwise regression identified baseline characteristics that influenced dyskinesia response to placebo, and these factors were entered into a logistic regression model to quantify their influence on placebo-related dyskinesia improvements and worsening. Because placebo-associated improvements in Parkinsonism have been attributed to heightened dopaminergic activity, we also examined the association between changes in Parkinsonism and dyskinesia. Four hundred eighty-four subjects received placebo treatment; 178 met criteria for placebo-associated dyskinesia improvement and 37 for dyskinesia worsening. Older age, lower baseline Parkinsonism score, and lower total daily levodopa doses were associated with placebo-associated improvement, whereas lower baseline dyskinesia score was associated with placebo-associated worsening. Placebo-associated dyskinesia changes were not correlated with Parkinsonism changes, and all effects in the sarizotan group were statistically explained by the placebo-effect regression model. Dyskinesias are affected by placebo treatment. The absence of correlation between placebo-induced changes in dyskinesia and Parkinsonism argues against a dopaminergic activation mechanism to explain placebo-associated improvements in dyskinesia. The magnitude and variance of placebo-related changes and the factors that influence them can be helpful in the design of future clinical trials of antidyskinetic agents

This research compared the long-term efficacy and safety of iloperidone with those of haloperidol in individuals with schizophrenia. Data were pooled from 3 prospective multicenter studies, each with 6-week stabilization followed by 46-week double-blind maintenance phases. Patients were randomized to iloperidone 4 to 16 mg/d or haloperidol 5 to 20 mg/d. Patients included in this analysis completed the initial 6-week phase with at least 20% reduction in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score at weeks 4 and 6, had 7-item Clinical Global Impressions of Change (CGI-C) scores less than 4, received 1 or more doses of long-term phase medication, and had 1 or more efficacy/safety assessments during the long-term phase. The primary efficacy variable was time to relapse, defined as a 25% or more increase in PANSS total score, including at least a 10-point change; discontinuation because of lack of efficacy; aggravated psychosis with hospitalization; or 2-point increase in the 7-item CGI-C after week 6. Of 1644 patients randomized and 1326 completing the 6-week phase, 473 (iloperidone, n = 359; haloperidol, n = 114) were included in the long-term efficacy analysis, and 489 (iloperidone, n = 371; haloperidol, n = 118) in the safety analysis. Iloperidone was equivalent to haloperidol in time to relapse. The most common adverse events were insomnia (18.1%), anxiety (10.8%), and schizophrenia aggravated (8.9%) with iloperidone, and insomnia (16.9%), akathisia (14.4%), tremor (12.7%), and muscle rigidity (12.7%) with haloperidol. The Extrapyramidal Symptoms Rating Scale scores improved with iloperidone and worsened with haloperidol. Metabolic changes were minimal for both groups. Mean changes in Fridericia's QT interval correction were 10.3 msec (iloperidone) and 9.4 msec (haloperidol) at end point. Iloperidone demonstrated long-term efficacy equivalent to haloperidol and a favorable long-term safety profile, potentially making this agent a suitable option as maintenance therapy for schizophrenia

The objective of this study is to conduct a dose-finding study of sarizotan in Parkinson's disease (PD) patients with dyskinesia to identify a safe dose and to identify a sensitive dyskinesia rating measure. Sarizotan is a novel compound with full 5-HT(1A) agonist properties and additional high affinity for D(3) and D(4) receptors. An open label study documented improvements in PD patients with levodopa-induced dyskinesia. There is no precedent for study designs or outcome measures in pivotal trials of antidyskinesia therapies. The approach used here was a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel study. Included were PD patients optimized to levodopa and dopaminergic drugs with moderately disabling dyskinesias present greater than or equal to 25% of the waking day. Interventions included sarizotan 2, 4, or 10 mg/day or matching placebo, given in two doses. There were two outcome measures: the primary measure was change from baseline in diary-based on time without dyskinesia; the secondary measures were change from baseline in scores on the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS), the composite score of Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) Items 32+33 (dyskinesia duration and disability) and total UPDRS. A total of 398 subjects were randomized, with 381 included in the intention-to-treat population. No significant changes occurred on sarizotan compared to placebo on any diary-based measure of dyskinesia or the AIMS score. The composite score of UPDRS Items 32+33 was significantly improved with 2 mg/day sarizotan, with a trend at 10 mg/day. Adverse events were not significantly different in sarizotan- and placebo-treated patients, but off time significantly increased with sarizotan 10 mg/day. Sarizotan 2 mg/day is a safe agent in PD patients with dyskinesia. To test its role in abating dyskinesia, future studies should focus on this dose and will use the composite score of UPDRS Items 32+33 as the primary outcome