Patients: A total of 209 outpatients with mild to moderate AD were randomized into the double-blind treatment phase. The median age of the patients was 75 years, 58.9% were APOE ε4 carriers, and baseline measures of disease severity were similar among groups.

Many drugs have been associated with QTc prolongation and, in some cases, this is augmented by concomitant administration with metabolic inhibitors. The effects of 6 antipsychotics on the QTc interval at and around the time of estimated peak plasma/serum concentrations in the absence and presence of metabolic inhibition were characterized in a prospective, randomized study in which patients with psychotic disorders reached steady-state on either haloperidol 15 mg/d (n = 27), thioridazine 300 mg/d (n = 30), ziprasidone 160 mg/d (n = 31), quetiapine 750 mg/d (n = 27), olanzapine 20 mg/d (n = 24), or risperidone 6-8 mg/d increased to 16 mg/d (n = 25/20). Electrocardiograms (ECGs) were done at estimated Cmax at steady-state on both antipsychotic monotherapy and after concomitant administration of appropriate cytochrome P-450 (CYP450) inhibitor(s). Mean QTc intervals did not exceed 500 milliseconds in any patient taking any of the antipsychotics studied, in the absence or presence of metabolic inhibition. The mean QTc interval change was greatest in the thioridazine group, both in the presence and absence of metabolic inhibition. The presence of metabolic inhibition did not significantly augment QTc prolongation associated with any agent. Each of the antipsychotics studied was associated with measurable QTc prolongation at steady-state peak plasma concentrations, which was not augmented by metabolic inhibition. The theoretical risk of cardiotoxicity associated with QTc prolongation should be balanced against the substantial clinical benefits associated with atypical antipsychotics and the likelihood of other toxicities.

disease (AD) is important for clinical management and affords the opportunity to assess potential disease-modifying agents in clinical trials. To our knowledge, this is the first report of a randomized trial to prospectively enrich a study population with prodromal AD (PDAD) defined by cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarker criteria and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) symptoms. OBJECTIVES To assess the safety of the γ-secretase inhibitor avagacestat in PDAD and to determine whether CSF biomarkers can identify this patient population prior to clinical diagnosis of dementia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial with a parallel, untreated, nonrandomized observational cohort of CSF biomarker-negative participants was conducted May 26, 2009, to July 9, 2013, in a multicenter global population. Of 1358 outpatients screened, 263 met MCI and CSF biomarker criteria for randomization into the treatment phase. One hundred two observational cohort participants who met MCI criteria but were CSF biomarker-negative were observed during the same study period to evaluate biomarker assay sensitivity. INTERVENTIONS Oral avagacestat or placebo daily. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURE Safety and tolerability of avagacestat. RESULTS Of the 263 participants in the treatment phase, 132 were randomized to avagacestat and 131 to placebo; an additional 102 participants were observed in an untreated observational cohort. Avagacestat was relatively well tolerated with low discontinuation rates (19.6%) at a dose of 50 mg/d, whereas the dose of 125 mg/d had higher discontinuation rates (43%), primarily attributable to gastrointestinal tract adverse events. Increases in nonmelanoma skin cancer and nonprogressive, reversible renal tubule effects were observed with avagacestat. Serious adverse event rates were higher with avagacestat (49 participants [37.1%]) vs placebo (31 [23.7%]), attributable to the higher incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer. At 2 years, progression to dementia was more frequent in the PDAD cohort (30.7%) vs the observational cohort (6.5%). Brain atrophy rate in PDAD participants was approximately double that of the observational cohort. Concordance between abnormal amyloid burden on positron emission tomography and pathologic CSF was approximately 87% (κ = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48-0.87). No significant treatment differences were observed in the avagacestat vs placebo arm in key clinical outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Avagacestat did not demonstrate efficacy and was associated with adverse dose-limiting effects. This PDAD population receiving avagacestat or placebo had higher rates of clinical progression to dementia and greater brain atrophy compared with CSF biomarker-negative participants. The CSF biomarkers and amyloid positron emission tomography imaging were correlated, suggesting that either modality could be used to confirm the presence of cerebral amyloidopathy and identify PDAD. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00890890

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of gabapentin in relieving the symptoms of panic disorder. One hundred three patients were randomly assigned to receive double-blind treatment with either gabapentin (dosed flexibly between 600 and 3,600 mg/day) or placebo for 8 weeks. No overall drug/placebo difference was observed in scores on the Panic and Agoraphobia Scale (PAS) (p = 0.606). A post hoc analysis was used to evaluate the more severely ill patients as defined by the primary outcome measure (PAS score > or = 20). In this population, the gabapentin-treated patients showed significant improvement in the PAS change score (p = 0.04). In patients with a PAS score of 20 or greater, women showed a greater response than men regardless of treatment. Adverse events were consistent with the known side effect profile of gabapentin and included somnolence, headache, and dizziness. One patient experienced a serious adverse event during the study. No deaths were reported. The results of this study suggest that gabapentin may have anxiolytic effects in more severely ill patients with panic disorder.

Accounting for subject nonadherence and eliminating inappropriate subjects in clinical trials are critical elements of a successful study. Nonadherence can increase variance, lower study power, and reduce the magnitude of treatment effects. Inappropriate subjects (including those who do not have the illness under study, fail to report exclusionary conditions, falsely report medication adherence, or participate in concurrent trials) confound safety and efficacy signals. This paper, a product of the International Society for CNS Clinical Trial Methodology (ISCTM) Working Group on Nonadherence in Clinical Trials, explores and models nonadherence in clinical trials and puts forth specific recommendations to identify and mitigate its negative effects. These include statistical analyses of nonadherence data, novel protocol design, and the use of biomarkers, subject registries, and/or medication adherence technologies.