bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
PW01-15 - Neurocognitive Function in Clinically Stable Patients With Bipolar Disorder or Schizophrenia and Normal Controls
Authors: Konstantakopoulos G. , Patrikelis P. , Ioannidi N. , Soumani A. , Oulis P. , Sakkas D. , Ploumpidis D. , Papadimitriou G. 
Published: June 2010

ObjectivesThere is a substantial body of evidence that cognitive deficits in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder persist after the subsidence of active symptoms. The aim of the study was to assess and compare the cognitive functioning of patients with clinically stable schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.MethodsAttention, memory, verbal learning ability, visuospatial ability, executive functions and social cognition were assessed in 21 patients with schizophrenia in remission, 23 euthymic bipolar-I patients, and 27 normal controls, using WAIS - Vocabulary, Block design, and Digit span, Stroop Test, Babcock Story Recall Test, Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT), Trail Making Test (Trails A and B), Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), and Faux Pas Recognition Test. The three groups were matched for gender, age and education. One-way ANOVA with post hoc Bonferroni corrections was used for the between groups comparisons.ResultsBoth bipolar disorder and schizophrenia patients were significantly impaired on tests of working memory, learning abilities, and executive functions compared to control subjects. Patients with schizophrenia performed significantly worse than patients with bipolar disorder on attention and verbal memory tasks, whereas the latter performed worse than normal controls on visuospatial ability tasks.Table 1Comparison of neuropsychological function Bipolar Disorder Mean (SD)Schizophrenia Mean (SD)Normal controls Mean (SD)FpPost-hoc test (p)WAIS - Vocabulary10.1 (1.8)10.2 (1.8)12.0 (1.6)6.06.004S < N (.015) B < N (.008)WAIS - Block design7.9 (2.5)9.9 (3.6)10.3 (2.7)3.76.032B < N (.039)Stroop - Word84.3 (18.7)82.3 (26.8)97.7 (16.5)4.03.022S < N (.038)Stroop - Colour59.5 (12.3)56.8 (16.8)72.0 (12.1)8.74.000S < N (.001) B < N (.006)Babcock - Delay recall12.1 (3.9)7.7 (3.3)13.2 (3.3)15.71.000S < N (.000) S < B (.000)WCST - categories2.4 (1.4)2.5 (1.3)3.1 (1.1)2.49.090nsWCST - perseverative errors14.6 (13.1)18.5 (16.4)11.1 (8.2)1.30.280nsTrails B164.1 (83.2)170.2 (76.8)86.7 (43.3)11.68.000S > N (.000) B > N (.001)Faux Pas - detection38.6 (11.6)40.1 (14.6)46.2 (9.6)2.64.080nsConclusionsOur results indicate that stable schizophrenia and euthymic bipolar disorder exhibit different but overlapping profiles of cognitive impairment.
PW01-16 - Neurocognitive Function in Bipolar Disorder: an Examination During Episode and in Remission
Authors: Konstantakopoulos G. , Ioannidi N. , Patrikelis P. , Economou A. , Sakkas D. , Ploumpidis D. , Oulis P. 
Published: June 2010

ObjectivesCognitive function seems to be impaired during both the acute and euthymic phases of bipolar disorder. The aim of the study was to determine the effect of remission on cognitive functioning in bipolar disorder.MethodsAttention, memory, verbal learning ability, visuospatial ability, executive functions and social cognition were assessed in 19 patients with bipolar-I patients during an episode of the illness and in remission as well as in 16 normal controls, using WAIS - Vocabulary, Block design, and Digit span, Stroop Test, Babcock Story Recall Test, Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT), Trail Making Test (Trails A and B), Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), and Faux Pas Recognition Test. The two groups were matched for gender, age and education. Paired t-test was used to compare patients’ neuropsycholigical performance in episode and euthimic states and one-way ANOVA with post hoc Bonferroni corrections for the between groups comparisons.ResultsPatients showed cognitive dysfunction in verbal learning, visospatial ability, executive functions and social cognition during both the acute and the euthymic phases in relation to the comparison group. Poorer performance in attention and working memory tasks was observed only in the acute phase of the illness. Performance in verbal learning and executive function tasks was significantly improved but still impaired in remission. BD-Ep (n = 19) Mean (SD)BD-Rem(n = 19) Mean (SD)tp WAIS - Vocabulary9.6 (1.7)9.9 (1.6)- 1.55.137BD-Ep < NC BD-Rem < NCWAIS - Block design7.9 (2.2)8.3 (1.9)- 0.64.532BD-Ep < NC BD-Rem < NCStroop - Word77.9 (19.2)82.8 (19.8)- 1.21.243BD-Ep < NCStroop - Colour56.7 (14.8)60.3 (12.9)- 1.28.218BD-Ep < NCRAVLT - Best learning9.9 (2.6)11.0 (2.8)- 2.52.021BD-Ep < NC BD-Rem < NCRAVLT - Delay recall7.3 (3.3)9.2 (3.5)- 3.41.003BD-Ep < NC BD-Rem < NCWCST - perseverative errors19.5 (10.6)13.5 (7.9)3.21.005BD-Ep > NCTrails B181.0 (92.2)167.1 (91.4)1.28.218BD-Ep > NC BD-Rem > NCFaux Pas - detection35.0 (8.9)37.8 (10.5)- 1.15.266BD-Ep < NC BD-Rem < NC[The effect of remission on cognitive functioning]ConclusionsPatients with bipolar disorder exhibit similar profiles of cognitive impairment during the acute and the euthymic phases of the illness.
PW01-17 - Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Medication Utilization and Expenditures in the Texas Medicaid Program: Comparison by Medication Class
Authors: Lawson K. , Johnsrud M. , Crismon M.L. , Hodgkins P. 
Published: June 2010

ObjectivesTo determine if utilization and expenditures differ between ADHD medication classes.MethodsPrescription and medical claims for Texas Medicaid patients with an ADHD diagnosis newly initiated on an ADHD medication (no previous use for 180 days) between January 2006 and September 2007 were analyzed. Logistic and linear regression analyses were used to evaluate differences in adherence, persistence, switching, and expenditures during a 180-day post-initiation observation period across ADHD treatment classes [immediate-release methylphenidate (IR-M) and amphetamines (IR-A) and extended-release methylphenidate (ER-M) and amphetamines (ER-A)] with relevant demographic and pre-initiation period comorbidities, utilization, and expenditure variables as covariates. Because prior authorization was required, the non-stimulant medication atomoxetine was excluded.ResultsThe sample consisted of 15,055 subjects with 71% aged 6 to 12 years; 64.7% were initiated on ER-M and 25.4% on ER-A. Compared to the ER-A group, the IR-M (OR=0.56, 95%CI=0.45-0.69) and IRA (OR=0.60, 95%CI=0.46-0.78) groups were less likely to be adherent, more likely to discontinue therapy (OR=2.03, 95%CI=1.67-2.47; and OR=1.77, 95%CI=1.38-2.27; respectively) and more likely to switch medications (OR=2.44, 95%CI=2.05-2.90; and OR=2.85, 95%CI=2.28-3.56; respectively) (all p< 0.001). The ER-A group had significantly higher ADHD medication expenditures compared to other groups (all p≤0.001), but no significant differences in medical expenditures.ConclusionsUtilization patterns differed across the ADHD medication classes. Most subjects were initiated on ER medications which demonstrated advantages in adherence, persistence, and less switching while the ER-A group, which included more complex patients as indicated by comorbidities, had higher ADHD medication expenditures but no difference in overall medical expenditures.
PW01-18 - Utilization and Expenditures for Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate Compared to Other Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Medications in the Texas Medicaid Program
Authors: Lawson K. , Johnsrud M. , Sasane R. , Hodgkins P. , Crismon M.L. 
Published: June 2010

ObjectivesTo determine if utilization and expenditures differ between a newly-marketed (at time of study) ADHD medication (lisdexamfetamine dimesylate [LDX]) and existing medications.MethodsPrescription and medical claims for Texas Medicaid patients diagnosed with ADHD newly initiated on an ADHD medication (no previous use for 180 days) during August and September 2007 were analyzed. Logistic and linear regressions were used to evaluate differences in adherence, persistence, switching, and expenditures during a 180-day post-initiation period between the LDX group and existing medications (immediate-release methylphenidate [IR-M] and amphetamines [IR-A] and extended-release methylphenidate [ER-M] and amphetamines [ER-A, excluding LDX]) with relevant demographic and preinitiation period comorbidities, utilization, and expenditure variables as covariates. Because prior authorization was required, the non-stimulant atomoxetine was excluded.ResultsThe sample consisted of 1810 subjects with 69% aged 6 to 12 years; 58.0% were initiated on ER-M and 14.4% on LDX. Psychiatrists prescribed 60.5% of LDX prescriptions. A greater proportion of LDX patients had psychiatric-related comorbidities compared to the other medication groups. Logistic regression showed that compared to the LDX group, the IR-M group was more likely to discontinue therapy (OR=1.95, 95%CI=1.05-3.60, P=0.034), and the IR-A group was more likely to switch therapy (OR=2.39, 95%CI=1.22-4.69, P=0.012). ADHD medication expenditures were significantly lower for the LDX group than the ER groups (all P≤0.003). ADHD-related and total medical expenditures did not differ significantly.ConclusionsAlthough used in more complex patients, LDX demonstrated advantages over IR-M on persistence, IR-A on therapy switching, and the ER groups on medication expenditures.
PW01-20 - Adjunctive Aripiprazole in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder: Pooled Safety and Tolerability Data from Three Short-Term Studies
Authors: Loze J.-Y. , Gismondi R. , McQuade R. , Carson W. , Berman R. 
Published: June 2010

ObjectivesThe safety and tolerability of aripiprazole as adjunctive treatment was examined in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) without psychotic features who had a major depressive episode and who did not respond adequately to standard antidepressant therapy (ADT).MethodsData from three identical short-term, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (CN138139, CN138163, CN138165) were pooled. After a prospective phase with placebo plus ADT, patients without adequate response entered a 6-week, double-blind phase with placebo or aripiprazole plus ADT. Safety endpoints included death, serious adverse events (SAEs), treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), Simpson-Angus Scale (SAS), Barnes Akathisia Global Clinical Assessment, Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS), clinical laboratory tests, vital signs and electrocardiograms.ResultsIn total, 538 patients were randomized to adjunctive placebo and 547 to adjunctive aripiprazole. AEs with an incidence ≥5% and at least twice the rate of placebo were akathisia (adjunctive aripiprazole, 22.7%; adjunctive placebo, 4.1%), restlessness (12.4% vs 2.2%), fatigue (8.6% vs 4.3%), insomnia (8.2% vs 3.2%), vision blurred (6.2% vs 1.5%), somnolence (5.9% vs 2.6%), and constipation (4.9% vs 2.4%). AEs that had a treatment difference of ≥2% included akathisia, somnolence, sedation, dizziness, disturbance in attention, extrapyramidal disorder, restlessness, insomnia, constipation, dyspepsia, fatigue, feeling jittery, vision blurred, weight increased, and dyspnea. SAEs occurred in 0.7% of patients in each treatment group. There were no deaths during the studies.ConclusionsIn this pooled analysis of patients with MDD and an inadequate response to ADT, adjunctive aripiprazole showed consistently high study completion rates and low discontinuation rates resulting from adverse events.
PW01-23 - Agomelatine, The First Melatonergic Antidepressant: A Sustained Efficacy in Severely Depressed Patients
Authors: Montgomery S.A. , Hale A. , Goodwin G.M. 
Published: June 2010

Agomelatine is a melatonergic agonist and 5-HT2C antagonist, efficacious in patients with major depressive disorder. The aim of the present analysis was to assess its short- and long-term antidepressant efficacy in the more severely depressed patient according to predefined cut-offs at baseline on HAM-D total score. The short-term treatment efficacy was assessed versus placebo in a pooled analysis from three 6-8 week trials using increasing and non-overlapping cut-offs of the HAM-D17 score at inclusion (n=591), and versus fluoxetine 20-40 mg in an 8-week study (HAM-D at inclusion ≥25 and CGI ≥4; n=515). Long-term efficacy was assessed in the severely depressed subpopulation (HAM-D ≥25; n=270) of a relapse prevention study. Agomelatine's doses were 25- 50 mg/d.In the pooled analysis, the difference between agomelatine and placebo at endpoint increased with increasing severity of depression at baseline, from 2.06 (95% CI, 0.31-3.81; P=0.021) (HAMD 22-25) to 4.45 (95% CI, 0.57-8.33; P=0.025) (HAMD>30). Agomelatine was significantly superior to fluoxetine, with a difference in the HAM-D score of 1.49 (95% CI, 0.20-2.77; P=0.024). Agomelatine was also significantly superior to placebo in preventing relapse in severe depression, with a relapse rate of 21.9% in the agomelatine group versus 45.1% in the placebo group (p=0.0001). Tolerability was good in all the studies versus placebo and versus fluoxetine.In conclusion, these results show that agomelatine is efficacious in severely depressed patients, with a superior efficacy to fluoxetine in the short term. This is in line with the superiority reported of agomelatine versus venlafaxine and sertraline.
PW01-31 - Early Increase of Peripheral BDNF In Major Depression During Antidepressant Treatment Predicts Late BDNF Increase With High Sensitivity and Specificity
Authors: Schlicht K.F. , Wagner S. , Peetz D. , Borysenko L. , Krannich D. , Bernius A. , Hiemke C. , Lieb K. , Tadić A. 
Published: June 2010

ObjectiveIn patients with major depression (MD), mean BDNF serum concentration increases during antidepressant treatment. This increase has been associated with symptom amelioration. In a previous analysis of the time course of BDNF serum concentration, we could show a high association between early and final changes of BDNF levels during antidepressant treatment. The aim of this study was to analyse the predictive value of early BDNF changes for BDNF changes after 4 to 6 weeks of antidepressant treatment in individual patients with MD.MethodsForty-six patients with MD according to DSM-IV were included in this study. All patients were treated as clinically indicated. Depression severity was assessed by HAMD-17 by trained raters from baseline to week 6 in weekly intervals. Serum at each visit (baseline, V1-V6) was obtained from whole blood after centrifugation with 1.000 × g for 10 minutes. Aliquots were frozen at -80°C until analysis. BDNF serum concentration was determined with ELISA (R&D Systems). We determined sensitivity and specificity of early changes (from baseline to weeks 1 and 2) of BDNF serum concentration to BDNF changes in the later course (from baseline to weeks 4 to 6) of treatment.ResultsBDNF increase from BL to week 2 predicted BDNF increase from baseline to week 5 with high sensitivity (81%) and specificity (73%). Further analyses revealed comparable results (data not shown).ConclusionsThese results suggest that early BDNF increase is predictive for final BDNF increase in individual patients with MD during antidepressant treatment.
PW01-42 - Escitalopram In Treatment of Disability In Major Depressive Patients
Authors: Zivkovic N. , Pavicevic D. , Djokic G. 
Published: June 2010

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a common, and often severe affective disorder which causes significant psychological distress, reduces quality of life and incised suicidal risk and mortality. Neurobiological basis of MDD involves at first serotoninergic and noradrenergic neuronal systems. Escitalopram is highly potent and highly selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor.Purpose of this study was toEstimate efficacy of the escitalopram in treatment of disability and impairment in social, professional and family life in patients with MDD.MethodsThis prospective clinical study included 110 patients with MDD diagnosed by ICD-10 criteria for MDD, who are randomly divided into control (40 patients) and experimental group (70 patients). Antidepressants were tested, for 6 months in hospital and outpatients conditions, according to specially designed protocol, which included Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) and Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS). Control group was treated with mianserine (30-90 mg/24h) and experimental group was treated with escitalopram (10-20 mg/24h).ResultsEscitalopram therapy influenced on HAMD score with high statistical significance vs. Mianserine, p=0.000. Escitalopram therapy improves all SDS scores after 6 months in comparison to Mianserine therapy with high statistical significance in Social life p=0.000, Family life/home responsibilities p=0.000, Days lost p=0.036 and Days unproductive p=0.003. Percentage of adverse effects is significantly lower in Escitalopram (10.76%) than in Mianserine (26.67%) group.ConclusionEscitalopram has significantly better efficacy in treatment of MDD and disability and impairment in MDD patients comparing to Mianserine, with significantly lower adverse effects rate.
PW01-47 - Increased DHEA And Dhea-s Concentrations In Plasma of Patients With Post-traumatic Stress Disorder and A History of Childhood Abuse
Authors: Kellner M. , Muhtz C. , Peter F. , Dunker S. , Yassouridis A. , Wiedemann K. 
Published: June 2010

IntroductionFindings about dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) and dehydroepiandrosterone sulphate (DHEA-S) in patients with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have been inconsistent and confusing.ObjectiveAlthough its impact on the regulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical axis has been demonstrated, the potential effect of severe childhood adverse events has not been considered regarding DHEA and DHEA-S data in PTSD.AimsWe investigated whether a history of severe childhood traumatisation affects these steroids in PTSD patients.Methods33 patients with chronic PTSD (15 with and 18 without sexual and/or severe physical abuse before age 12) were studied in a combined low dose dexamethasone/corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH) test. Mean pre-CRH levels of both plasma DHEA and DHEA-S were significantly increased in the subgroup with childhood abuse, the respective ratios with plasma cortisol were significantly lower. In the entire population of PTSD patients significant amounts of the variation of these parameters could be explained by childhood trauma history.ConclusionsFurther studies are needed to clarify the potential role of DHEA and DHEA-S as biomarkers for severe early adverse events in patients suffering from PTSD and in other stress-related disorders.
PW01-48 - Clinical And Vulnerability Characteristics Of Social Fears And Social Phobia Subtypes Among Community Youth
Authors: Knappe S. , Beesdo-Baum K. , Fehm L. , Lieb R. , Wittchen H.-U. ,   Early Developmental Stages of Psychopathology
Published: June 2010

Introduction/objectivesThe DSM-IV indicates severity of social phobia (SP) by the “generalized subtype”, when “most social situations” are feared. This specifier refers to the number of feared social situations, perhaps ignoring quantitative differences. We therefore compared specific and interaction-related vs. performance-related social fears according to clinical (age of onset, avoidance, impairment, comorbidities) and vulnerability characteristics (behavioural inhibition (BI), parental psychopathology and rearing).MethodsSix social situations and SP along with their clinical characteristics were assessed using the Munich-Composite International Diagnostic Interview (DIA-X/M-CIDI) in a population-based sample of N=3,021 14-24 year olds. BI and parental rearing were assessed using self-report questionnaires. Parental psychopathology was assessed directly in parents via DIA-X/M-CIDI, supplemented by offsprings’ family-history reports.ResultsIsolated social fears were rare, except for fear of taking tests and public speaking. The majority reported to fear two or more social situations. Compared to isolated fears of either interaction or performance situations, their co-occurrence was associated with lower age of onset, severe avoidance and impairment, more comorbid anxiety and depressive disorders. All social fears (in particular interaction-related fears) were associated with higher BI. Associations with parental psychopathology and unfavourable rearing were less consistent, albeit strongest for interaction-related fears.ConclusionsInteraction-related fears may represent a more familial form of SP, while performance-related fears might be less impairing and originate from non-familial factors. The DSM-IV specifier of SP may overlook these differences when individuals with predominantly interaction-related fears are categorized as generalized SP-cases. Findings suggest considering alternative specifiers for SP in future diagnostic systems.
PW01-57 - Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate As Treatment For Adhd In Children Previously Treated With Osmotic-Release Oral System Methylphenidate: Parental Impressions
Authors: Antonucci D. , Manos M. , Kerney D. , Lopez F. 
Published: June 2010

ObjectivesWe assessed parents’ perceptions of and satisfaction with daily lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX; Vyvanse®, US tradename, Shire US Inc.) treatment for their children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) previously treated with osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-MPH).MethodsParents of children with ADHD were surveyed via telephone or Internet about their child's experience before and approximately 6 weeks after initiating LDX treatment. Participants received a $25 coupon toward their child's next LDX prescription after survey completion. Post hoc analyses using the Wilcoxon signed rank test were performed.ResultsSchool time was the most frequently reported most bothersome time of day at baseline (41%), followed by homework time (23%). At follow-up, most parents reported improvement during their child's most bothersome time of day. Significantly less interference from ADHD symptoms with school activities, family interactions, homework, and social interactions was reported (all P< .01). LDX tolerability and convenience were rated, on average, 7.1 and 8.0, respectively (1=not at all well tolerated/convenient, 9=very well tolerated/convenient). Satisfaction with LDX was significantly higher than satisfaction with OROS-MPH treatment (6.9 and 5.0, respectively, P< .01 [1=not at all satisfied, 9=very satisfied]). Eighty-four percent of parents reported that they intend for their child to continue taking LDX.ConclusionsParents of children with ADHD who were previously treated with OROS-MPH and currently taking LDX reported less interference of ADHD symptoms with daily activities after LDX treatment and high satisfaction with LDX. LDX was also well tolerated and convenient to use.Supported by funding from Shire Development Inc.