Imperial College School of Medicine, University of London, UK
Pfizer Global Research and Development, Sandwich, UK
Pfizer Global Research and Development, Ann Arbor Michigan, USA
Pfizer Inc, New York, New York, USA
Correspondence: Professor Stuart A. Montgomery, PO Box 8751, London W13 8WH, UK. Email: stuart{at}samontgomery.co.uk
This study was sponsored by Pfizer Inc. S.M. has served on advisory boards for Pfizer, has received fees as a consultant to Pfizer, and has been reimbursed for travel-related expenses incurred for scientific meetings. K.C., L.P., E.W. and F.B. are full-time employees of Pfizer.
* Presented in part at the 159th Annual Meeting of the American Psychiatric
Association, Toronto, Canada, 20–25 May 2006. ![]()
|
|
|---|
Pregabalin is a novel compound that has been shown to have efficacy in the treatment of generalised anxiety disorder and is licensed for the treatment of the disorder in the European Union.
Aims
The current study was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of
pregabalin, an
2
-ligand, in the treatment of
generalised anxiety disorder in people 65 years and older.
Method
This was a double-blind, randomised (2:1), placebo-controlled, 8-week trial
of pregabalin, in flexible doses of 150–600 mg/day, in the treatment of
DSM–IV generalised anxiety disorder with a baseline Hamilton Rating
Scale for Anxiety (HRSA) total score
20. The primary outcome was
end-point (week 8 or last visit, with last observation carried forward (LOCF))
change in HRSA total score.
Results
A total of 273 patients (women, 78%; mean age, 72 years (s.d.=6); mean baseline HRSA total score, 26 (s.d.=4.6)) were randomised and received study treatment. On the primary intent-to-treat LOCF analysis, pregabalin was associated with a 2-point greater reduction in HRSA total score than placebo (12.87 v. 10.7; P<0.05). In a post hoc repeated measures mixed-effect model analysis, pregabalin was associated with significantly greater improvement than placebo in the HRSA total score from week 2 (–9.8 (s.d.=0.6) v. –7.2 (s.d.=0.8); P=0.0052) through week 8 (–14.4 (s.d.=0.6) v. –11.6 (s.d.=0.8); P=0.0070). Significant improvement was observed in the pregabalin group on both the HRSA psychic and somatic anxiety factors. There was a significantly greater decrease from baseline in mean Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) score with pregabalin compared with placebo (–5.48 (s.d.=0.46) v. –4.02 (s.d.=0.59); P=0.041). Pregabalin was well-tolerated, with almost all adverse events in the mild-to-moderate range, and self-limiting (median duration of 4–16 days). Discontinuations due to adverse events were similar for pregabalin (10.7%) and placebo (9.4%).
Conclusions
Pregabalin, in doses of 150–600 mg/day, was a safe and effective treatment of generalised anxiety disorder in patients 65 years and older. The anxiolytic efficacy of pregabalin had an early onset (by 2 weeks) and significantly improved both psychic and somatic symptoms of anxiety.
|
|
|---|
Unlike other anxiety disorders which have an overwhelmingly early age at onset, the age at onset of generalised anxiety disorder appears to be after 40 years in about a third of individuals, with up to 10% of cases having a first onset after the age of 50.6 Generalised anxiety disorder appears to be most common in older age groups,7 steadily rises until age 50, and may be the most common anxiety disorder in adults aged 55 and over.8
In younger adults, prospective studies have found that generalised anxiety disorder has notably higher chronicity than major depression, with remission rates at 12 years of approximately 42%.9 In older adults it also appears to be chronic, with 6-year remission rates of 31%.10
Generalised anxiety disorder in the elderly is frequently comorbid with both major depression (in 30–90% of cases) and with physical illnesses.8,11 Risk factors for generalised anxiety disorder in the elderly, based on a multivariate analysis in a community-based sample, include increased life stressors or recent losses, increased illness burden and related functional limitations, and absence of social support.2
Across all age groups, the presence of generalised anxiety disorder has been found to be associated with a more than 8-fold increase in the annual utilisation of both out-patient medical and psychiatric services.5 In elderly people with the disorder, utilisation of healthcare services continues to be significantly elevated, though relatively few are treated outside primary care settings.4
In the past 25 years, only one small (n=17 per treatment group) placebo-controlled study has been reported that evaluated the efficacy of pharmacological treatment of DSM–III/IV generalised anxiety disorder in the elderly.12 This study reported significant anxiolytic benefit for citalopram. A second analysis of pooled data (n=195) from five adult generalised anxiety disorder trials found improvement in an elderly subgroup (mean age 65 years) after 8 weeks of treatment with venlafaxine extended release, but the degree of improvement was not significantly better than with placebo.13 Benzodiazepines continue to be the predominant treatment of generalised anxiety disorder in the elderly, despite the absence of specific evidence for efficacy in this population and the associated risks, including cognitive, memory and psychomotor impairment, and risk of injury due to falling.14
Pregabalin is a novel compound that has been shown to have efficacy in the treatment of generalised anxiety disorder.15–18
The objective of the current study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pregabalin in elderly out-patients diagnosed with generalised anxiety disorder.
|
|
|---|
Pregabalin treatment was initiated at 50 mg/day, followed by an increase to 100 mg/day on day 3, and 150 mg/day on day 5. Dosing was flexible from weeks 1 to 6 in the range of 150–600 mg/day, administered either twice daily or three times daily. Patients were maintained on the same dose of medication from weeks 6 to 8.
The study was conducted at 13 US and 69 European centres in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice guidelines.19 The protocol was approved at each centre by the appropriate ethics panel, and written informed consent was obtained from each patient prior to enrolment. Patients were recruited through clinic referrals and by ethics panel-approved advertisements in local media.
Participant selection
Male or female out-patients aged 65 years or older, who met
DSM–IV20
criteria for generalised anxiety disorder based on a structured Mini
International Neuropsychiatric Interview
(MINI),21,22
who had screening and baseline Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety
(HRSA)23 scores
20 and a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score
24, were
eligible for entry. Patients were excluded if they met any of the following
criteria:
45 ml/min Medical evaluation, physical examination, electrocardiogram (ECG), laboratory data and pregnancy test were carried out at screening.
Efficacy measures
The primary efficacy measure was the change from baseline to end-point
(week 8 or last observation carried forward (LOCF) in double-blind phase) in
the 14-item, clinician-rated HRSA. The HRSA was performed at screening,
baseline and weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 (or at the time of early discontinuation),
and at week 9 (the post-taper follow-up visit). The original HRSA has shown
acceptable internal consistency and construct validity in elderly people with
generalised anxiety
disorder.24
Secondary efficacy measures were:
The following derived outcomes were also analysed:
2 `much' or `very much'
improved, and
50% reduction from baseline in the HRSA total score)
7). A repeated-measures analysis was
also performed on the HRSA and CGI–I scales. Experienced raters were used and rater training was provided. Linguistically validated versions of efficacy measures were administered in the native language of the study patient.
Safety and tolerability measures
Spontaneously reported or observed adverse events were recorded with regard
to onset, duration and severity. Adherence was monitored by counts of returned
medication, and patients were counselled if they were found to be
non-adherent. Vital signs were obtained at each visit. The ECG, physical
examination, and laboratory testing were repeated at week 8 (or early
termination).
Statistical methods
As preferred by regulatory bodies, the primary efficacy analysis, which
compared the HRSA change scores at end-point, was carried out at end-point on
the intent-to-treat population (all randomised patients who received at least
one dose of study medication) using the LOCF for missing values. All
statistical analyses were performed using SAS statistical package (Version 8)
for Windows. A sample size of 261 evaluable patients per treatment group would
provide 80% power to detect a mean difference of 3.0 with a standard deviation
of 8.1 in the HRSA score between placebo and pregabalin with an
experiment-wise
-level of 0.05. The HRSA change score was also analysed
using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model that included the effects of
treatment and centre, with baseline HRSA total score as a
covariate.28
Least-squares means and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Weekly HRSA
change scores were analysed separately at each week by ANCOVA using a model
that included the effects of treatment and centre, with baseline HRSA total
score as a covariate.
The treatment effects of pregabalin on the HRSA psychic and somatic
sub-scales, and on HRSA items 1 and 2, were evaluated by ANCOVA analyses. The
HRSD change scores were analysed using ANCOVA with treatment and centre in the
model, and HRSD score at baseline as the covariate (
=0.05,
two-sided).
Logistic regression adjusting for centre was performed to compare the
percentage of HRSA responders/remitters by treatment group in the
intent-to-treat population (
=0.05,
two-sided).29,30
Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for pregabalin relative to placebo
were computed. The CGI–I responder rates were analysed in the same
manner as the HRSA responder rates.
A secondary post hoc mixed-model repeated-measures analysis, which is increasingly recommended as an alternative method to assess the impact of missing data, was carried out. No adjustment for multiple comparisons of the secondary measures was made as these are usually regarded as exploratory.
|
|
|---|
![]() View larger version (21K): [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide] |
Fig. 1 Flow diagram of participants through study. DB, double-blind; ITT,
intent-to-treat. a. Did not enter taper phase because of dosing error
(n=1), non-adherence (n=1), and administrative reasons
(n=2). b. Patients who did not complete the 8 weeks of double-blind
treatment could nevertheless enter taper phase.
|
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
Table 1 Baseline clinical and demographic characteristics of patient
sample
|
Efficacy
On the primary outcome, change from baseline to end-point LOCF in HRSA
total score, treatment with pregabalin was significantly superior to placebo:
pregabalin –12.8 (s.d.=0.7); placebo –10.7 (s.d.=0.9);
P=0.044. Additionally, from week 2 through the end of double-blind
treatment, pregabalin showed statistically significant greater changes in HRSA
score compared with placebo patients (Fig.
2 and Table 2; a
more detailed version of Table
2, showing results from baseline to end-point, appears as online
Table DS1).
![]() View larger version (12K): [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide] |
Fig. 2 Mean HRSA total score over 8 weeks of study treatment. HRSA, Hamilton
Rating Scale for Anxiety; LOCF end-point, last-observation carried forward
ANCOVA model. Weeks 1–8 P-values based on a repeated-measures
mixed-effect model. *P<0.01; P=0.0437.
|
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
Table 2 Efficacy variables: results of repeated measures and LOCF end-point
analyses
|
There was a significant advantage for pregabalin compared with placebo from week 2 onwards on the HRSA psychic anxiety factor and from week 4 onwards on the HRSA somatic anxiety factor (Fig. 3 and Table DS1). There was a significantly greater improvement on the CGI–I with pregabalin compared with placebo (Table DS1).
![]() View larger version (22K): [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide] |
Fig. 3 Mean change in HRSA psychic and somatic factor scores: results of
mixed-model repeated-measures analysis. HRSA, Hamilton Rating Scale for
Anxiety. *P<0.05; **P<0.01.
|
50% reduction from
baseline) on pregabalin compared with placebo at week 4 but not at week 8 on
either a completer or LOCF analysis (Fig.
4). There was no significant difference at end-point in responders
on the CGI–I (`much'/`very much improved': 58.4% v. 48.4%;
P=0.117). There was no significant difference in remission rates
(HRSA
7: 29.8% v. 24.2%; P=0.368).
![]() View larger version (20K): [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide] |
Fig. 4 Mean HRSA responder rates at 4 weeks and 8 weeks. HRSA, Hamilton Rating
Scale for Anxiety; OC, observed case; LOCF, last observation carried forward.
*P<0.05; P 0.07.
|
An ANCOVA of secondary baseline depressive symptoms (mean HRSD–17=14 (s.d.=3.6) found significantly greater improvement at end-point for pregabalin compared with placebo (–5.5 (s.d.=0.5) v. –4.0 (s.d.=0.6); P=0.0414).
Efficacy in clinically relevant subgroups
To address the regulatory request for information on efficacy in patients
with more severe generalised anxiety disorder, a post hoc
analysis was carried out in the subgroup of participants with high anxiety
severity, defined as a baseline HRSA total score
26. The magnitude of
improvement (least-squares mean change score at 8-week end-point) was
numerically greater for pregabalin compared with placebo (–15.4
(s.e.=1.0) v. –12.7 (s.e.=1.4); P<0.096). A
comparison of effect sizes (pregabalin v. placebo at end-point)
showed comparable benefit as the severity of baseline HRSA total scores
increased from HRSA
20 (Cohen's d=0.26), to
22
(d=0.28), to
24 (d=0.32), to
26 (d=0.30),
to
28 (d=0.33).
The influence of baseline severity of depressive symptoms was also
examined. The magnitude of end-point improvement in the HRSA total score for
pregabalin was similar in participants with high v. low levels of
subsyndromal depression at baseline (HRSD
15 v. HRSD<15:
–12.5 (s.d.=1.1) v. –13.0 (s.d.=0.9)), a finding mirrored
in those on placebo (–11.0 (s.d.=1.4) v. –10.3
(s.d.=1.2)).
Tolerability and safety
Pregabalin was well-tolerated on a mean maximal dose of 270 mg/day
(s.d.=145). The great majority of adverse events were mild to moderate in
intensity and transient, with tolerance typically developing within the first
1–3 weeks of treatment (Table
3). Discontinuations due to adverse events were similar for
pregabalin and placebo (10.7% v. 9.4%). The mean change in weight at
end-point was slightly higher for pregabalin (+0.8 kg (s.d.=2.5)) compared
with placebo (–0.2 kg (s.d.=2.5)).
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
Table 3 Treatment-emergent adverse events (all causes, with pregabalin incidence
5%)
|
Serious adverse events occurred in nine patients during study treatment, three (3.1%) on placebo and seven (4.0%) on pregabalin (two serious events occurred in one patient on pregabalin: an ulcer of the toe, and progression of chronic arteritis). One death due to cerebral haemorrhage occurred in an 82-year-old woman (this was judged by the investigator as not related to pregabalin). Three of the serious adverse events in patients on pregabalin were judged by the investigator to be related to pregabalin: increased anxiety, somnolence, and a fractured arm secondary to a fall. There was no difference in the incidence of treatment-emergent changes in ECG or laboratory tests for pregabalin compared with placebo.
During rapid taper, the incidence of discontinuation-emergent adverse events was very low for pregabalin and placebo, respectively: dizziness 0.6% v. 0%; insomnia 0.6% v. 0%; pruritus 0% v. 1.0%; and peripheral oedema 0% v. 1.0%.
|
|
|---|
Treatment with pregabalin resulted in significant improvement in both psychic and somatic symptoms of anxiety. The broad-spectrum improvement in both psychic and somatic symptoms is consistent with data from studies in younger adults and contrasts with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and serotonin–noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor anxiolytics, which do not always reduce somatic anxiety symptoms.
Patients in the current study reported a relatively late first onset of generalised anxiety disorder, at a mean age of 56 years. Although this is consistent with emerging epidemiological data,6 which suggest that generalised anxiety disorder may frequently begin after age 50, the reliability of retrospective assessment of age at onset is uncertain. Future studies are needed to evaluate whether early- v. late-onset generalised anxiety disorder have different presentations or a different course of illness or treatment response.
In the current sample, approximately 50% of participants presented with
severe anxiety, defined as a minimum HRSA score of 26 at baseline. Treatment
with pregabalin was comparably effective regardless of baseline anxiety
severity, with effect sizes that showed a marginal increase (from 0.26 to
0.33) as baseline anxiety severity increased. Similarly, pregabalin was
equally effective in the subgroup (
40%) of patients who reported higher
baseline levels of depressive symptoms (HRSD
15).
The end-point difference in the HRSA total score (<3 points) is in line with the difference from placebo reported with other recently licensed treatments for generalised anxiety disorder, such as escitalopram and venlafaxine.31 Although these differences might appear modest, they are clinically relevant and have been used to justify the licensing of treatments for generalised anxiety disorder. This is the first large, placebo-controlled pharmacological treatment study in elderly people with generalised anxiety disorder and it is reassuring to have convincing evidence of the efficacy of a treatment for adults of all ages.
Pregabalin was well-tolerated at a mean dose of 270 mg/day (s.d.=145). The
proportion of patients who discontinued because of poor tolerability was
similar for pregabalin and placebo (
10%). Severe adverse events for
pregabalin were rare, occurring with a frequency above 1% only for dizziness
(2.1%). Tolerance rapidly developed to most adverse events, with a median
duration in the range of 4–16 days. No unexpected safety events were
noted on ECG or laboratory tests. During rapid taper, the incidence of
discontinuation-emergent adverse events was the same for pregabalin and
placebo.
Limitations
The current study has several limitations. Study entry criteria excluded
patients with comorbid major depression and/or other Axis I anxiety disorders,
which reduces the generalisability of the results to clinical practice, where
such comorbidity is relatively common. Future research is needed to evaluate
the efficacy of pregabalin monotherapy in generalised anxiety disorder
presenting with comorbid affective and anxiety disorders. The exclusion of
more severe medical illness and psychiatric comorbidity is required in all
pivotal studies seeking evidence for a licence for treatment in generalised
anxiety disorder in order that the therapeutic benefit observed may be
attributable to the effect on generalised anxiety disorder alone. However, the
exclusion of patients with comorbid conditions is a limitation and future
research is needed to establish the safety of pregabalin in elderly patients
with more severe medical comorbidity. In light of the chronicity of
generalised anxiety disorder, the current study is limited by the relatively
short duration. A final limitation is the use of nominal P-values,
unadjusted for multiple comparisons, for secondary efficacy measures. However,
the study was designed for the analysis of the primary efficacy measure; the
secondary analyses are usually regarded as exploratory. We consider the
consistency of the findings with the secondary measures to be reassuring in
supporting the efficacy demonstrated with the primary measure.
In conclusion, this study demonstrates that pregabalin, in a dosing range of 150–600 mg/day, is a safe and effective treatment of generalised anxiety disorder in the elderly regardless of generalised anxiety disorder severity or level of sub-syndromal depression. The anxiolytic efficacy of pregabalin had an early onset (by 2 weeks) and significantly improved both psychic and somatic symptoms of anxiety.
|
|
|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||