investigation request with dossier to research subject advocate at university of minnesota
Post on 04-Apr-2018
220 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
1/301
Center for Bioethics N504 Boynton
410 Church Street
Minneapolis MN 55455
612-624-9440
Fax: 612-624-9108
www.bioethics.umn.eduMs. Laure CampbellResearch Subject AdvocateUniversity of MinnesotaMMC 504 Mayo8504A (Campus Delivery Code)420 Delaware St SEMinneapolis, MN 55455
November 7, 2012
Dear Ms. Campbell:
I would like to make a two-fold request. First, I would like to request an investigation into thecircumstances surrounding the suicide of Dan Markingson in an AstraZeneca-sponsored research studyof Seroquel in the Department of Psychiatry. As you probably know, a group of faculty members and Imade a similar request to the Board of Regents in late 2010, but they refused to look into the case.
Second, I am concerned that the absence of adequate human subject protections demonstrated inthat case may still be placing research subjects in danger, especially in the Department of Psychiatry.Charles Schulz in the Department of Psychiatry is currently recruiting subjects for an AstraZeneca-funded study of Seroquel, despite the fact that in 2010 the company settled a $520 million lawsuit forfraudulent marketing of Seroquel in which Schulz was implicated. The Clinical and Translational
Science Institute is listed as the sponsor of that trial on Clinicaltrials.gov. For that reason, I would liketo request an inquiry into the adequacy of human subject protections at the university, with specialattention to the Department of Psychiatry.
I should also mention that the Markingson case raises issues of concern to the federalgovernment in particular, to the Senate Finance Committee, which investigated the University ofMinnesota for conflict-of-interest violations in 2009. The study in which Markingson died waspublished with the aid of federal funding from the National Institutes of Mental Health (Attachment A.)The medical care of Markingson was paid for by a health insurance company through an arrangementwith Minnesota Care, a public assistance program which also receives federal funds (Attachment B.)
In order to make the case for action as forcefully as possible, I am including a summary of theproblems that I believe need to be investigated.
Summary
Dan Markingson was a 26 year-old man from St. Paul and a recent graduate of the University ofMichigan who began showing signs of mental illness in the summer of 2003. His thoughts becameparanoid and delusional, and he became convinced that he was part of a vast cult, which was calling onhim to murder people, including his mother. On November 12, 2003, Markingson was taken toFairview Hospital in Minneapolis, where he was seen by Dr. Stephen Olson, a psychiatrist at theUniversity of Minnesota. Olson recommended involuntary commitment, and a court agreed. Later,
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
2/301
despite objections by his mother, Mary Weiss, Olson recruited Markingson into a clinical trial ofantipsychotic drugs.
The clinical trial, which was known as the CAF study (an acronym for Comparison ofAtypicals in First-Episode Schizophrenia), was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the manufacturer ofSeroquel (quetiapine), and managed by Quintiles, a Contract Research Organization (Attachment C.)The CAF study was a randomized, double-blind trial comparing the effectiveness of three different
atypical antipsychotic drugs: Zyprexa (olanzapine), Risperdal (risperidone) and Seroquel (quetiapine.)The University of Minnesota was one of 26 sites for the trial, which lasted a full year. AfterMarkingson was enrolled in the CAF study, he spent about two weeks in Fairview Hospital beforebeing discharged against his mothers wishes to a halfway house. Over the next five months Ms. Weissrepeatedly expressed her concerns about her sons medical condition, especially his increasing agitationand rage. Her warnings were largely ignored. Finally, in desperation, she warned the study coordinatorthat her son might kill himself.
On May 7, 2004, Markingson mutilated himself with a box cutter so violently that he nearlydecapitated himself. His body was found by halfway house workers in the shower, along with a suicidenote that said, I went through this experience smiling. Blood tests later showed that Markingson hadbeen taking Seroquel (Attachment D.)
In the two years since Markingsons suicide became public, officials at the University ofMinnesota have consistently maintained that the case has been thoroughly investigated, that theuniversity has broken no laws, and that neither the university nor the CAF study investigators bearany responsibility for Markingsons death. However, the CAF study investigators and the Universityof Minnesota IRB violated an alarming number of widely accepted ethical guidelines governing theconduct of medical research, which, if uncorrected, endanger the welfare of human subjects at theuniversity. Those violations include the following:
Markingson was coerced into the CAF study by the threat of involuntary commitment. Markingson was incompetent to consent to the study. The CAFE study improperly enrolled psychotic subjects at risk of homicide or violence. University of Minnesota investigators ignored warnings that Markingson was in danger of
committing suicide.
University of Minnesota investigators illegally released private health information to CAFstudy sponsors.
The CAF study consent form failed to disclose serious risks to subjects. The CAF study targeted vulnerable subjects for recruitment. AstraZeneca and a University of Minnesota investigator manipulated research results to
promote Seroquel.
University of Minnesota investigators failed to disclose important financial conflicts of interestto subjects.
In the following pages, I have provided further information for your review. I have also included
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
3/301
supporting documentation in an appendix.
Markingson was coerced into the CAF study by the threat of involuntary commitment.
Because of the fact that Markingson was under a commitment order, I do not believe that he was ina position to give his voluntary informed consent for the CAF study. On November 12, 2003, when
Markingson was admitted to Fairview Hospital, Dr. Olson recommended that he be involuntarilycommitted to a state mental institution, on the grounds that he was mentally ill and dangerous. TheDakota County court agreed. A week later, Olson asked the court to give Markingson a stay ofcommitment, which allowed Markingson to avoid involuntary confinement as long as he agreed tofollow the recommendations of his treatment team. Again, the court agreed. On November, 20, thecourt issued a legal order requiring Markingson to remain hospitalized, cooperate with the treatmentplan at Fairview University Medical Center until medical discharged, and follow all of the aftercarerecommendations of his treatment team. The day after the court issued an order requiring Markingsonto comply with the recommendations of his psychiatrist, Dr. Olson enrolled him in the CAF study.The CAF study coordinator had Markingson sign a consent form for the study when his mother wasnot present, and kept him in the study despite her objections. At no time did Dr. Olson inform the courtthat he had enrolled Markingson in a research study (Attachment E.)
Markingson was incompetent to consent to the study.
It is very unlikely that Markingson, who was acutely psychotic, was mentally capable ofconsenting to the CAF study. During the period leading up to his enrollment, Markingson had beenrepeatedly judged incapable of consenting to neuroleptic (antipsychotic) drugs. On November 14, 2003Dr. Olson signed a commitment document stating that Markingson lacks the ability to make decisionsregarding such treatment. (Attachment E). On November 17, a pre-petition screening teamrecommended commitment, noting Markingsons bizarre beliefs and his refusal to acknowledge hismental illness. On November 19, a clinical psychologist confirmed those assessments, writing thatMarkingson is believed not to have the capacity to make decisions regarding neuroleptic medication.Yet on November 21, when Markingson was asked to consent to the CAF study, this assessment of hismental state was reversed and the CAF study team judged him competent (Attachment F).
While it is possible that a psychotic patients mental capacity could have improved in two days,there are good reasons to doubt this happened. First, the final competence assessment was made not byan independent party, but by the study coordinator for the CAF study, Jean Kenney, whose job it wasto recruit subjects for the study. This is hardly an impartial, disinterested assessment. Second, Kenneywas a social worker, not a psychiatrist or psychologist trained to make competence assessments. Third,even after Mr. Markingson had been judged competent to consent to the CAF study, his involuntarycommitment order was not lifted. This suggests that his mental state had not changed dramatically.Finally, one of the most persistent features of Markingsons psychosis was a lack of insight into hiscondition. Markingson did not believe he had a mental illness (Attachment H). It is unlikely that hecould be competent to consent to a study comparing treatments for his mental illness when he wouldnot even acknowledge that he was mentally ill.
The CAFE study improperly enrolled psychotic subjects at risk of homicide or violence.
Most clinical trials of antipsychotic drugs prohibit researchers from enrolling subjects who areat risk of suicide or violence, to minimize the possibility that these subjects will harm themselves orothers in the trial. While the CAF study did not allow researchers to recruit subjects at risk of suicide,it permitted the recruitment of subjects at risk of violence (Attachment G). The University of
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
4/301
Minnesota Institutional Review Board approved the protocol without requiring that potentially violentsubjects be excluded. This allowed the CAF study team to enroll Markingson, who had beeninvoluntarily committed precisely because he was threatening homicide. In fact, at the time of hisenrollment, there seems to have been broad agreement that he was at high risk of acting out hisdelusions.
University of Minnesota investigators ignored warnings that Markingson was in danger ofcommitting suicide.
Records indicate that Markingson experienced little if any improvement during the five and ahalf months he was in the CAF study. The documents show a subject who, by the most generousinterpretation possible, failed to improve over a period of five and a half months; whose ownpsychiatrist acknowledged so little improvement that his stay of commitment could not be lifted; whosemother was convinced that his condition was spiraling dangerously downward; and whose life ended ina grisly suicide. As Markingson grew increasingly agitated, Mary Weiss repeatedly warned the CAFstudy investigators that he was in danger of killing himself. On April 15, 2004, Ms. Weiss called theCAF study coordinator and asked, Do we have to wait until he kills himself or someone else beforeanyone does anything? After two letters to Dr. Schulz went unanswered, Ms. Weiss wrote a third letteron April 26, warning him, Dan has a rage within him, just below the surface, and desperately needshelp in dealing with it. Please dont wait until it comes boiling out! (Attachment H). Nonetheless, theCAF study investigators dismissed the concerns of Ms. Weiss and left Markingson in the CAF studyuntil he stabbed himself to death.
CAF study investigators illegally released private health information to the study sponsors.
According to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), health careproviders cannot release a patients private health information for use in research without the expresswritten consent of the patient. Violation of the law is a felony. However, Markingsons private healthinformation was given to AstraZeneca and Quintiles without his authorization. Included inMarkingsons medical records from Fairview Hospital is an unsigned authorization form. When Dr.Olson was questioned about possible HIPAA violations in his deposition, he replied that he did notknow whether Mr. Markingson had authorized the release of his health information and that he did notknow the specifics of HIPAA requirements (Attachment I.)
The CAF study consent form failed to disclose serious risks to subjects.
According to the informed consent document for the CAF study, the main risks to studysubjects were the side-effects of the drugs being tested and the possibility that the drugs would not beeffective (Attachment E.) However, the consent document did not mention that subjects in the CAFwere also required to forgo important therapeutic advantages of being treated outside the study.Ordinarily, if a treatment is not effective or is causing serious side-effects, the treating psychiatrist cantry another treatment or add adjunct treatments. However, the CAF study placed limits on the kinds ofadjunct treatments that could be used, and subjects could not be changed to another treatment withoutbeing dropped from the study.
On May 12, 2004, Dr. Olson asked the University of Minnesota IRB to approve a new consentform, which disclosed to subjects that all three study drugs carried the risk of diabetes. This change wasprompted by a warning issued by the FDA. However, litigation against AstraZeneca has subsequentlyrevealed that the company knew about the risk of diabetes and other metabolic side-effects as early as2000, three years before Mr. Markingson was recruited into the CAF study, and possibly as early as
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
5/301
1997 (Attachment J.) AstraZeneca did not inform subjects of these risks until 2004.
The CAF study targeted vulnerable subjects for recruitment.
Before Markingson was enrolled into the CAF study, Quintiles had placed the University ofMinnesota trial site on probation for being slow to recruit subjects. The Minnesota site was struggling
to get patients, according to internal email correspondence, and Quintiles and was pressuring it to stepup its efforts. However, as the St. Paul Pioneer Press has reported, in April 2003 the University ofMinnesotas Department of Psychiatry established a locked inpatient unit designed for severelypsychotic patients. On this psychosis unit, called Station 12, every patient could be evaluated forrecruitment as a potential research subject (Attachment K.) While the establishment of Station 12increased recruitment numbers dramatically, I am concerned that severely psychotic patients on alocked unit are especially vulnerable to coercion or undue influence.
A University of Minnesota investigator helped AstraZeneca manipulate research data.
In April 2010, AstraZeneca agreed to pay $520 million to settle two federal investigations and twowhistleblower lawsuits alleging that it had marketed Seroquel illegally and concealed its health risks.Documents unsealed in that litigation indicate that Dr. Charles Schulz, the co-investigator on the CAFstudy, was involved in the misleading presentation of least two AstraZeneca studies. As the St. PaulPioneer Press has reported, an AstraZeneca trial called Study 15 found that Seroquel performed worsethan Haldol, a older, generic antipsychotic drug, and also that Seroquel increased the risk weight gainand diabetes. Yet Schulz claimed publicly and in scientific presentations that Seroquel had been shownsuperior to Haldol (Attachment L).
Later, as reported in City Pages, Schulz helped AstraZeneca conduct a trial called Study 41,which found that extended-release Seroquel was no more effective than a placebo. AstraZeneca thenrepeated the study overseas in the developing world, where the results proved much better.Subsequently, AstraZeneca enlisted Schulz to publicize the positive study in press releases, whilekeeping the negative study quiet (Attachment L).
I am also concerned that the design of the CAF study was biased to produce a favorable resultfor Seroquel. As a meta-analysis in theAmerican Journal of Psychiatry has shown, 90% of similarhead-to-head comparisons of atypical antipsychotics come out positively for whichever company hasdesigned and funded the trial. Several experts, including the editor of the British Journal of Psychiatry,have argued that the CAF study was similarly biased (Attachment M.)
University of Minnesota investigators failed to disclose crucial financial conflicts of interest tosubjects.
Research subjects have a right to know if study investigators have financial conflicts of interestthat might influence their care. However, subjects in the CAF study were not informed that the studyinvestigators had significant financial relationships with AstraZeneca, the CAF study sponsor, as wellas the manufacturers of the other atypical antipsychotics being studied. According to the St. PaulPioneer Press, Dr. Charles Schulz, a co-investigator on the CAF study, received over $570, 000 fromthe pharmaceutical industry from 2002 to 2008, with $112,000 coming from AstraZeneca. Also,subjects were not informed that the Department of Psychiatry was paid $15,648 for each subject whocompleted the CAF study. This payment was arranged so that the longer a subject stayed in the study,the more the university would be paid. In total, the CAF study generated $327,000 for the Universityof Minnesotas Department of Psychiatry (Attachment N.)
Almost as alarming as these ethical violations is the refusal of University of Minnesota officials
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
6/301
to address them. Many of the violations reflect larger structural problems with the oversight of clinicalresearch at this institution which continue to place subjects at risk. Ordinarily, the primaryresponsibility for protecting human subjects rests with the Institutional Review Board (IRB). In thiscase, however, the Institutional Review Board compounded the problem by failing to address criticalproblems with the protocol, such as the inclusion of potentially violent subjects. In a deposition, thedirector of the IRB, Moira Keane, claimed that protecting subjects was not the responsibility of the IRB
(Attachment O.)The suicide of Markingson was first made public through a series of articles in the St. PaulPioneer Press in May 2008. Since that time, officials at the University of Minnesota have repeatedlyasserted that the case has already been reviewed and that the university has been cleared of any blame.This claim is misleading at best. To the best of my knowledge, the University of Minnesota hasconducted no internal investigation apart from the routine adverse event review by the IRB, whichwas itself implicated in the case. The only external investigations have resulted from complaints filedby Mary Weiss and Mike Howard (a family friend) to agencies which have little if any responsibilityfor the protection of human subjects, such as the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice. While it is truethat the FDA investigated the case in 2005, in response to a complaint by Mary Weiss and MikeHoward, the FDA inspector restricted its investigation to very narrow grounds and produced a deeplyflawed inspection report (Appendix P.)
I have been given no reason to believe that officials at the University of Minnesota are willingto address the problems raised by this case. Two months after a lawsuit filed by Mary Weiss wasdismissed on technical grounds, the University of Minnesota filed a legal action a notice to assesscosts -- against Ms. Weiss, demanding that she pay the university $57,000 (Attachment Q). InDecember 2010, a group of university faculty members sent a public letter to the Board of Regentsasking for an external investigation. That request was followed by a supporting letter from a campusorganization, Faculty for the Renewal of Public Education. In February, the Board of Regents refusedthat request, claiming that the case had already been investigated (Attachment R.) Since that time,similar communications have come from the Mark Rotenberg in the Office of the General Counsel;Aaron Friedman, the Vice-President for Health Sciences and Dean of Medicine; and Tim Mulcahy, theVice-President for Research (Appendix S). The continued failure of University of Minnesota officialsto take these troubling issues seriously has left me deeply concerned about the protection of researchsubjects at our institution.
I hope you will agree to look into my concerns. If you have any further questions, I would behappy to talk to you further.
Yours sincerely,
Carl Elliott MD PhDProfessor, Center for Bioethics
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
7/301
ATTACHMENT A
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
8/301
Article
1050 Am J Psychiatry 164:7, July 2007ajp.psychiatryonline.org
This article is featured in this months AJPAudio.
Efficacy and Tolerability of Olanzapine, Quetiapine,and Risperidone in the Treatment of Early Psychosis:A Randomized, Double-Blind 52-Week Comparison
Joseph P. McEvoy, M.D.
Jeffrey A. Lieberman, M.D.
Diana O. Perkins, M.D., M.P.H.
Robert M. Hamer, Ph.D.
Hongbin Gu, Ph.D.
Arthur Lazarus, M.D., M.B.A.
Dennis Sweitzer, Ph.D.
Christina Olexy
Peter Weiden, M.D.
Stephen D. Strakowski, M.D.
Objective: This 52-week randomized,
double-blind, flexible-dose, multicenter
study evaluated the overall effectiveness
(as measured by treatment discontinua-
tion rates) of olanzapine, quetiapine, and
risperidone in patients early in the course
of psychotic illness.
Method: Patients were randomly as-
signed to treatment with olanzapine (2.5
20 mg/day), quetiapine (100800 mg/
day), or risperidone (0.54 mg/day) ad-
ministered in twice-daily doses. Statistical
analyses tested for noninferiority in all-
cause treatment discontinuation rates up
to 52 weeks (primary outcome measure)
based on a prespecified noninferiority
margin of 20%.
Results: A total of 400 patients were ran-
domly assigned to treatment with olanza-
pine (N=133), quetiapine (N=134), or ris-
peridone (N=133). The mean modal
prescribed daily doses were 11.7 mg for
olanzapine, 506 mg for quetiapine, and
2.4 mg for risperidone. At week 52, all-
cause treatment discontinuation rates
were 68.4%, 70.9%, and 71.4% for olanza-
pine, quetiapine, and risperidone, respec-
tively. Reductions in total score on the
Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale
(PANSS) were similar for the three treat-
ment groups, but reductions in PANSS
positive subscale scores were greater in
the olanzapine group (at 12 weeks and at
52 weeks or withdrawal from study) and
the risperidone group (at 12 weeks). The
most common elicited adverse events for
olanzapine were drowsiness (53%), weight
gain (51%), and insomnia (38%); for que-
tiapine, drowsiness (58%), increased sleephours (42%), and weight gain (40%); and
for risperidone, drowsiness (50%), men-
strual irregularities in women (47%), and
weight gain (41%).
Conclusions: Olanzapine, quetiapine,
and risperidone demonstrated compara-
ble effectiveness in early-psychosis pa-
tients, as indicated by similar rates of all-
cause treatment discontinuation.
(Am J Psychiatry 2007; 164:10501060)
Patients experiencing a first episode of psychosis have abetter therapeutic response to antipsychotic medications
than do chronic, multiepisode patients (1, 2). Despite this
good clinical response, however, the majority of first-epi-
sode patients discontinue their initial antipsychotic medi-
cation, often not continuing treatment with another med-
ication (13), which places them at high risk of psychotic
relapse and clinical deterioration (4).
Comparative studies of atypical versus conventional an-
tipsychotics in patients with first-episode psychosis dem-
onstrate reduced extrapyramidal side effects and equal or
slightly superior efficacy for the atypical antipsychotics (510). First-episode patients respond to lower doses and
demonstrate a greater sensitivity to antipsychotic treat-
ment-related side effects (6, 7, 11) than do multiepisode
patients.
Few studies have compared atypical antipsychotics to
determine their relative effectiveness in a first-episode
population. Studies comparing olanzapine and risperi-
done in first-episode patients suggest similar efficacy for
the two treatments, with few extrapyramidal side effects,
although olanzapine is associated with more weight gain
(12, 13). Preliminary noncomparative studies suggest that
quetiapine is efficacious and well-tolerated in first-epi-
sode patients (1416). The purpose of this study was to de-
termine the overall effectiveness of quetiapine relative to
two established standards, olanzapine and risperidone, in
patients early in the course of psychotic illness. The pri-
mary outcome measure was the percentage of patients
discontinuing their assigned antipsychotic (all-cause
treatment discontinuation) during the 52 weeks of treat-
ment. This measure integrates the efficacy and tolerabilityof each drug over time. The primary hypothesis was that
quetiapine was not inferior to olanzapine or risperidone
in the rate of all-cause treatment discontinuation in early-
psychosis patients. No prior data suggested that superior-
ity for quetiapine was a likely outcome.
Previous studies suggested that first-episode patients
receive good therapeutic benefit from olanzapine with
doses in the range of 1015 mg/day (6) and that the effec-
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
9/301
Am J Psychiatry 164:7, July 2007 1051
MCEVOY, LIEBERMAN, PERKINS, ET AL.
ajp.psychiatryonline.org
tiveness of risperidone may be reduced by extrapyramidal
side effects if doses exceed 24 mg/day (3, 5, 9). Given que-
tiapines low liability for extrapyramidal side effects, we
speculated that doses up to 800 mg/day would be tolera-ble in our study population.
Secondary measures of psychopathology, quality of life,
and side effects were obtained to delineate differential ef-
fects of each drug on efficacy, tolerability, and safety.
Method
Study Design
This was a 52-week randomized, double-blind, flexible-dose,
multicenter study of patients early in the course of schizophrenia,
schizoaffective disorder, or schizophreniform disorder assigned to
treatment with olanzapine, quetiapine, or risperidone.
Study PopulationParticipants were recruited from inpatient, outpatient, and
emergency department services for the evaluation and treatment
of psychosis. The study was approved by the institutional review
board at each site, and written informed consent was obtained
from the patients or their legally authorized representatives. Pa-
tients had to be able to participate in the informed consent pro-
cess or have a legal guardian available to provide informed con-
sent. Consenting patients 1640 years of age were eligible for the
study if they met DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia, schizo-
phreniform disorder, or schizoaffective disorder. Patients had to
be in the first episode of their psychotic illness and had to have
been continuously ill for at least 1 month and no more than 5
years. Patients were excluded if a prior psychotic episode had re-
mitted for 3 months or more or if they had prior antipsychotic
drug treatment for more than 16 cumulative weeks. All patients
had a score 4 on at least one Positive and Negative Syndrome
Scale (PANSS; 17) psychosis item (delusions, conceptual disorga-
nization, hallucinatory behavior, grandiosity, or suspiciousness/
persecution) and a score 4 (moderately ill) on the severity item
of the Clinical Global Impression scale (CGI; 19) at the point of
maximum severity of illness to date. Female participants of child-
bearing potential had to be using a medically acceptable form of
contraception.
We excluded patients who did not speak English; had a history
of mental retardation; were pregnant or nursing; had a serious,
unstable medical illness; had a known allergy to one of the study
medications; were at serious risk of suicide; or had participated in
an investigational drug trial within 30 days before the first treat-
ment visit.
Study TreatmentsPatients were randomly assigned to treatment with olanzapine
(2.520 mg/day), quetiapine (100800 mg/day), or risperidone
(0.54 mg/day). On days 1 and 2, each patient received one cap-
sule of olanzapine (2.5 mg), quetiapine (100 mg), or risperidone
(0.5 mg) in the evening. At the treating physicians discretion, the
dose could be increased by one capsule every other dayi.e., on
days 3 and 4, one capsule in the morning and one in the evening;
on days 5 and 6, one capsule in the morning and two in the
evening; and so on, up to a maximum of four capsules twice daily.
Any previous antipsychotic therapy was tapered and discontin-
ued during the first 2 weeks of double-blind treatment, and no
TABLE 1. Baseline Characteristics of 400 Early-Psychosis Patients Randomly Assigned to Treatment With Olanzapine,Quetiapine, or Risperidonea
Characteristic
Treatment Group
All Patients (N=400)Olanzapine (N=133) Quetiapine (N=134) Risperidone (N=133)
N % N % N % N %Female 32 24.1 42 31.3 34 25.6 108 27.0Ethnicity
White 61 45.9 66 49.3 78 58.7 205 51.3Black 61 45.9 60 44.8 51 38.4 172 43.0
Other 11 8.3 8 6.0 4 3.0 23 5.8DSM-IV diagnosis
Schizophrenia 81 60.9 75 56.0 75 56.4 231 57.8Schizophreniform disorder 35 26.3 42 31.3 38 28.6 115 28.8Schizoaffective disorder 17 12.8 17 12.7 20 15.0 54 13.5
Antipsychotic naive 32 24.2 36 26.9 28 21.1 96 24.1Illness onset >60 months
before baseline1 0.8 4 3.1 4 3.2 9 2.4
Inpatient treatment 29 21.8 29 21.6 26 19.7 84 21.1Age >40 years 3 2.3 2 1.5 2 1.5 7 1.8Previous antipsychotic
treatment 16 weeks total7 7.1 6 6.1 3 2.9 16 5.4
Mean/Median
SD/Range
Mean/Median
SD/Range
Mean/Median
SD/Range
Mean/Median
SD/Range
Duration of previousantipsychotic use (weeks)Mean (SD) 6.9 8.81 6.6 7.34 5.4 4.97 6.3 7.20
Median (range) 4.0 1.052.0 4.0 1.046.3 4.0 0.027.0 4.0 0.052.0Duration of illness (months)
Mean (SD) 11.0 12.86 15.1 20.04 12.7 17.90 12.9 17.29Median (range) 5.4 0.462.3 7.3 0.9166.4 6.1 0.4124.0 6.5 0.4166.4
Age (years)Mean (SD) 24.7 5.8 25.0 6.1 23.9 5.5 24.5 5.8Median (range) 23.1 16.542.0 23.0 16.444.4 22.6 16.543.9 23.0 16.444.4
Age at onset (years)Mean (SD) 23.4 5.3 23.9 5.7 23.0 5.7 23.5 5.6Median (range) 21.8 16.241.3 22.2 15.343.3 21.4 13.043.6 21.8 13.043.6
a Treatment groups did not differ significantly on any characteristic.
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
10/301
1052 Am J Psychiatry 164:7, July 2007
EFFICACY AND TOLERABILITY OF ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS
ajp.psychiatryonline.org
subsequent use of an additional antipsychotic was permitted.
Treatment with an adjunctive antidepressant or mood stabilizer
during the first 8 weeks of treatment was not allowed unless ap-
proved by the project medical officer. Anticholinergic medications
for acute extrapyramidal side effects were permitted for up to a to-
tal of 2 weeks over the course of the trial. Clinicians were encour-
aged to lower the dose of antipsychotic to relieve extrapyramidal
side effects. Otherwise, adjunctive medications (prescribed to ad-
dress an aspect of psychopathology inadequately controlled by
the assigned antipsychotic) and concomitant medications (pre-
scribed to treat a side effect or a comorbid medical illness) could
be used without restriction. When an adjunctive or concomitant
medication was prescribed, its name, modal dose, and indication
(selected from forced-choice lists) were recorded.
Assessments
The screening evaluation included a diagnostic interview (the
Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV [1 8]), medical history,
physical examination, measurement of vital signs, and laboratory
tests. Confirmation that the illness met clinical severity criteria
TABLE 2. Least Square Mean (LSM) Change From Baseline on Efficacy Measures in Early-Psychosis Patients at Weeks 12 and52 of Treatment With Olanzapine, Quetiapine, or Risperidonea
Variable
Treatment Group
Olanzapine Quetiapine
Baseline (N=134) Week 12 (N=85) Week 52 (N=37) Baseline (N=133) Week 12 (N=96) Week 52 (N=44)
Mean SDLSM
Change SELSM
Change SE Mean SDLSM
Change SELSM
Change SE
Positive and NegativeSyndrome ScalePositive subscale score 18.8 5.12 5.2 0.36 7.1 0.51 18.6 4.99 4.0b 0.35 5.3c 0.51Negative subscale score 19.9 6.27 2.9 0.37 3.5 0.51 19.5 6.18 2.1 0.36 2.8 0.52General psychopatho-
logy subscale score35.6 8.56 6.3 0.57 7.9 0.81 36.1 8.28 5.5 0.56 7.6 0.82
Total score 74.3 16.27 14.3 1.12 18.4 1.60 74.2 15.15 11.6 1.11 15.6 1.61Clinical Global Impression
scale, severity item4.3 0.75 0.9 0.07 1.3 0.11 4.3 0.69 0.8 0.07 1.2 0.11
Calgary Depression Scalefor Schizophrenia score
12.9 4.15 1.1 0.23 1.2 0.33 13.2 4.30 1.5 0.23 2.1 0.33
Heinrichs-CarpenterQuality of Life Scale,social subscale
9.1 6.80 1.1 0.58 3.0 0.86 8.7 7.10 0.3 0.58 2.2 0.88
Heinrichs-CarpenterQuality of Life Scale,vocational subscale
20.4 10.18 1.6 0.85 4.7 1.25 20.5 9.64 0.2 0.85 2.9 1.29
a Analyzed using a mixed random coefficients model with fixed effects for treatment, baseline, and center and with random effects for the
intercept and log (time). The listed Ns for weeks 12 and 52 for each group are maximums for the visit. Because of sporadic missing data, thenumber used in the analysis for each specific variable may be slightly different.
b Week 12: quetiapine versus olanzapine, p=0.017; quetiapine versus risperidone, p=0.031.c Week 52: quetiapine versus olanzapine, p=0.013.
TABLE 3. Elicited Adverse Events of Moderate Severity or Worsea in 400 Early-Psychosis Patients During Treatment WithOlanzapine, Quetiapine, or Risperidone (Intent-to-Treat Population)
Adverse Event
Treatment Group
All Patients (N=400)Olanzapine (N=133) Quetiapine (N=134) Risperidone (N=133)
N % N % N % N %
Daytime drowsiness 71 53.4 77 57.5 66 49.6 214 53.5Weight gain 68 51.1 54 40.3 55 41.4 177 44.3Increased sleep hours 45 33.8 56 41.8 36 27.1 137 34.3Insomnia 51 38.4 39 29.1 45 33.8 135 33.8Menstrual irregularitiesb 10 31.3 10 23.8 16 47.1 36 33.3
Decreased sex drive 37 27.8 35 26.1 36 27.1 108 27.0Akinesia 32 24.1 33 24.6 36 27.1 101 25.3Dry mouth 29 21.8 46 34.3 21 15.8 96 24.0Akathisia 27 20.3 25 18.7 30 22.6 82 20.5Decreased sexual arousal 29 21.8 22 16.4 24 18.1 75 18.8Decreased orgasm 22 16.5 21 15.7 25 18.8 68 17.0Orthostatic faintness 15 11.3 26 19.4 17 12.8 58 14.5Constipation 11 8.3 16 11.9 18 13.5 45 11.3Sialorrhea 7 5.3 8 6.0 18 13.5 33 8.3Skin rash 10 7.5 7 5.2 9 6.8 26 6.5Gynecomastia 9 6.8 3 2.2 13 9.8 25 6.3Urinary hesitancy 7 5.3 7 5.2 4 3.0 18 4.5Incontinence or nocturia 5 3.8 5 3.7 4 3.0 14 3.5Galactorrhea 3 2.3 0 0.0 3 2.3 6 1.5a The table includes patients for whom adverse events were scored at least moderate in severity by the treating cl inician at some point during
the study.b Percentages are based on the total number of women in the study.
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
11/301
Am J Psychiatry 164:7, July 2007 1053
MCEVOY, LIEBERMAN, PERKINS, ET AL.
ajp.psychiatryonline.org
was established by a modified, abbreviated version of the PANSS
that included items P1P6 and rated symptom severity at the point
of maximum severity of illness.
Study visits occurred at baseline, at weekly intervals for the first
6 weeks, every other week for the next 6 weeks, and monthly there-
after. All clinical and laboratory assessments were obtained at
baseline, week 12, and week 52 or when the patient terminated the
study before week 52. Measures of psychopathology, function, tol-
erability, and safety were completed at intermediate visits as spec-
ified in a schedule of events for the study.The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients
who withdrew from the study prior to 52 weeks of treatment (all-
cause pharmacological treatment discontinuation). The reason
for discontinuation was recorded according to a predetermined
algorithm: 1) administrative discontinuation due to an indepen-
dent external event (e.g., moving with family to another state); 2) a
clinician decision to discontinue treatment because of inadequate
therapeutic effect or intolerable side effects whether or not the pa-
tient wanted to discontinue; or 3) a patient decision to discon-
tinue although the clinician believed the treatment to be ade-
quately efficacious, tolerable, and safe.
Efficacy was measured in two domains: 1) psychopathology and
2) social and occupational functioning. Psychopathology was as-
sessed by the PANSS, the CGI, and the Calgary Depression Scale
for Schizophrenia (20). Social and occupational functioning was
assessed with the Heinrichs-Carpenter Quality of Life Scale (21).
Clinical response was defined as a score 3 on all PANSS items and
3 on the CGI severity item at any time during the trial.
The number of pills taken was determined by pill counts, and
use of concomitant or adjunctive medication was recorded at each
study visit. The modal dose for each patient within a treatment
group was the dose prescribed for that patient on the maximum
number of days during the trial. The mean modal dose for each
treatment group was defined as the mean of the modal doses pre-
scribed for the patients assigned to that treatment.
Clinicians rated the severity of 19 medication-related elicited
adverse events on a checklist at each visit. Severity of akathisia was
determined with the Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale (23), parkinso-
nian signs with the Simpson-Angus Scale (22), and dyskinetic
movements with the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (19).
The most severe scores recorded at any time during the study pe-
riod are reported.
Laboratory tests evaluated glucose, lipids, and prolactin levels.
At each blood draw, the patients report of the number of hours
since consumption of any food or caloric drink was recorded. Fast-
ing was defined as no caloric consumption for 8 or more hours
prior to the blood draw. Weight and waist circumference were
recorded.
Risperidone
Baseline (N=133) Week 12 (N=86) Week 52 (N=37)
Mean SDLSM
Change SELSM
Change SE
18.4 5.15 5.1 0.36 6.6 0.5219.4 6.09 2.6 0.37 3.6 0.5235.1 8.73 6.2 0.57 8.4 0.83
73.0 15.94 13.7 1.12 18.5 1.634.2 0.85 0.9 0.07 1.3 0.11
13.0 4.01 1.0 0.24 1.3 0.33
9.0 7.20 1.2 0.59 3.7 0.91
21.7 11.09 1.5 0.86 5.7 1.32
FIGURE 1. Treatment Discontinuation by 52 Weeks in 400Early-Psychosis Patients Taking Olanzapine, Quetiapine, orRisperidone (Intent-to-Treat Population)a
a The Blackwelder noninferiority method (24) was used for compari-
sons between quetiapine and olanzapine or risperidone using aprotocol-defined 20% equivalence margin.
b Percentage differences, quetiapine versus olanzapine: 2.5 (95% CI=8.55to 13.50); quetiapine versus risperidone: 0.5 (95% CI=11.4 to 10.33).
c Percentage differences, quetiapine versus olanzapine: 6.7 (95% CI=0.58to 12.79); quetiapine versus risperidone: 0.7 (95% CI=6.56 to 7.90).
d Percentage differences, inadequate therapeutic effect, quetiapineversus olanzapine: 0.7 (95% CI=7.02 to 8.35); quetiapine versusrisperidone: 2.9 (95% CI=4.42 to .26); unacceptable side effects,quetiapine versus olanzapine: 0.8 (95% CI=8.06 to 6.41); quetia-pine versus risperidone: 0.1 (95% CI=7.19 to 7.04); patient deci-sion, quetiapine versus olanzapine: 4.1 (95% CI=15.8 to 7.73);quetiapine versus risperidone: 4.1 (95% CI=15.8 to 7.73).
Olanzapine(N=133)
Quetiapine(N=134)
Risperidone(N=133)
Continued
treatment(N=42, 31.6%)
Continued
treatment(N=39, 29.1%)
Continued
treatment(N=38, 28.6%)
Discontinuedtreatment, all
causes (N=91,68.4%):
Administrativecauses (N=5,
3.8%)
Clinical causes:Inadequate
therapeuticeffect (N=15,11.3%)
Unacceptableside effects(N=14, 10.5%)
Patient decision(N=57, 42.9%)
Discontinuedtreatment, all
causes (N=95,70.9%)b:
Administrativecauses (N=14,
10.5%)c
Clinical causesd:Inadequate
therapeuticeffect (N=16,11.9%)
Unacceptableside effects(N=13, 9.7%)
Patient decision(N=52, 38.8%)
Total all-cause discontinuations (N=281, 70.3%):
Administrative causes (N=32, 8.0%)
Clinical causes:Inadequate therapeutic effect (N=43, 10.8%)Unacceptable side effects (N=40, 10.0%)
Patient decision (N=166, 41.5%)
Discontinuedtreatment, all
causes (N=95,71.4%):
Administrativecauses (N=13,
9.8%)
Clinical causes:Inadequate
therapeuticeffect (N=12,9.0%)
Unacceptableside effects(N=13, 9.8%)
Patient decision(N=57, 42.9%)
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
12/301
1054 Am J Psychiatry 164:7, July 2007
EFFICACY AND TOLERABILITY OF ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS
ajp.psychiatryonline.org
Statistical Analysis
The protocol-designated primary hypothesis was that quetia-
pine was not inferior to olanzapine or risperidone in the rate of all-
cause treatment discontinuation in early-psychosis patients. The
primary hypothesis was tested with the protocol-designated sta-
tistical analysis of Blackwelders (24) noninferiority normal ap-
proximation method with a noninferiority margin of 0.20 (20%),
using a significance level of 0.025 for each of the two pairwise
comparisons. All analyses were specified in a statistical analysis
plan that was finalized before the blind was broken. Kaplan-Meier
survival curves and a log-rank test were used to assess time to dis-
continuation. Pairwise comparisons of time to discontinuation
between treatments were performed using the log-rank test.
Baseline measures of demographic and clinical characteristics
were compared using Fishers exact test for categorical variables
or a Kruskal-Wallis test for continuous variables. Efficacy mea-sures (PANSS, Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia, CGI,
and Heinrichs-Carpenter Quality of Life Scale) were tested using a
mixed random coefficients model with fixed effects for treatment,
baseline, and center and with random effects for the intercept
and log (time).
Efficacy analyses used a modified intent-to-treat population,
defined as patients who were randomly assigned to a treatment
and returned for at least one postrandomization assessment.
Baseline descriptive statistics are presented using the intent-to-
treat population, which contained all patients who underwent
random assignment to a treatment.
TABLE 4. Change From Baseline in Weight and Related Measures in Early-Psychosis Patients at Weeks 12 and 52 ofTreatment With Olanzapine, Quetiapine, or Risperidonea
Measure
Olanzapine
Baseline (N=134) Week 12 (N=85) Week 52 (N=37)
Mean SDLSM
Change SELSM
Change SEWeight (lbs) 172.0 43.77 15.7b 1.01 24.4b 1.75
Male 172.9 38.90 16.1b 1.21 24.9b 2.05
Female 168.8 57.26 19.1 3.05 14.3 1.68Body mass index (kg/m2) 25.8 6.20 2.4d 0.15 3.7d 0.26
Male 25.0 4.66 2.3d 0.18 3.6d 0.30Female 28.5 9.17 2.4 0.28 3.8 0.52
Waist circumference (in)Male 35.2 5.16 1.7 0.30 3.5 0.51Female 35.6 7.58 2.2 0.57 3.2 1.30
N % N %Weight gain 7% 58 59.8f 28 80.0f
Male 43 59.7g 23 79.3Female 15 60.0 5 83.3
Body mass index increase 1 unit 75 78.1i 31 88.6Male 53 74.6 26 89.7j
Female 22 88.0k 5 83.3Male waist circumference >40 in 20 30.3 12 46.2Female waist circumference >35 in 14 82.4l 5 100.0a Changes in continuous measures were analyzed using a mixed model similar to that used for the efficacy measures, and changes in categor-
ical measures were analyzed using logistic regression with treatment as the predictor. The listed Ns for weeks 12 and 52 for each group aremaximums for the visit. Because of sporadic missing data, the number used in the analysis for each specific variable may be slightly different.
b Weight and male weight: quetiapine or risperidone vs. olanzapine (weeks 12 and 52), p
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
13/301
Am J Psychiatry 164:7, July 2007 1055
MCEVOY, LIEBERMAN, PERKINS, ET AL.
ajp.psychiatryonline.org
Postbaseline rates of elicited adverse events were compared us-
ing Fishers exact test. Between-groups differences that met the sig-nificance threshold of p0.05 are reported without adjustment for
multiple comparisons. Because extrapyramidal side effects were
minimized by reducing the antipsychotic dose as soon as possible
when symptoms appeared, the scores reported for the Simpson-
Angus Scale, the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale, and the
Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale represent worst-case postbaseline
values. These were compared using Fishers exact test for categori-
cal variables and the Kruskal-Wallis test for continuous variables.
Changes in continuous measures of weight, body mass index (BMI),
waist circumference, and metabolic parameters were analyzed us-
ing a mixed model similar to that used for the efficacy measures,
while changes in categorized measures of these parameters were
analyzed using logistic regression with treatment as the predictor.
Sensitivity analyses for secondary variables were performed us-
ing last observation carried forward and observed case analyses to
investigate whether the results of the mixed models were similar
to those obtained using the observed case and last observation
carried forward methods. All analyses of efficacy, weight, and met-
abolic measures were tested at the nominal significance threshold
of p0.05, without adjustment for multiple comparisons.
Results
Baseline Characteristics
Table 1 presents demographic and clinical characteris-
tics for the three treatment groups and the whole cohort.
There were no significant differences between treatment
groups. Patients showed moderate levels of psychopathol-ogy at baseline, with a mean total score of 73.8 (SD=15.8)
on the PANSS, a mean score of 4.3 (SD=0.8) on the CGI se-
verity item, and a mean total score of 13.0 (SD=4.2) on the
Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia. After case-
by-case discussions with site investigators, the project
medical officer ( J.P.M.) allowed the enrollment of nine pa-
tients who had been ill for more than 60 months, seven pa-
tients who were over 40 years of age, and 16 patients who
had taken antipsychotics for more than 16 weeks.
Pharmacological Treatments
The mean modal number of capsules prescribed perday was 4.7 (SD=2.1) for olanzapine, 5.1 (SD=2.2) for que-
tiapine, and 4.7 (SD=2.0) for risperidone, which resulted in
a mean modal prescribed daily dose of 11.7 mg (SD=5.3)
for olanzapine, 506 mg (SD=215) for quetiapine, and 2.4
mg (SD=1.0) for risperidone. Over the course of the trial,
19% of patients in the olanzapine group, 20% of patients in
the quetiapine group, and 11% of patients in the risperi-
done group were brought to the maximum allowed dose of
four capsules twice daily.
Treatment Group
Quetiapine Risperidone
Baseline (N=133) Week 12 (N=96) Week 52 (N=44) Baseline (N=133) Week 12 (N=86) Week 52 (N=37)
Mean SDLSM
Change SELSM
Change SE Mean SDLSM
Change SELSM
Change SE170.3 41.12 8.12b 1.00 12.49b 1.73 173.1 42.43 8.87 1.01 14.5 1.74175.2 36.44 9.38b 1.28 15.2b 2.17 177.4 39.16 8.18 1.21 13.0 2.06
159.4 48.60 4.65c 1.41 6.47c 2.55 161.1 49.29 11.0 1.72 19.1 3.0525.5 5.22 1.2d 0.15 1.9d 0.26 26.1 5.62 1.4 0.15 2.3 0.2725.4 5.03 1.4d 0.19 2.2d 0.32 25.7 5.01 1.2 0.18 2.0 0.3025.9 5.67 0.8e 0.24 1.1e 0.43 27.2 7.01 1.8 0.29 3.1 0.51
34.9 5.08 1.1 0.32 2.1 0.59 35.4 5.55 1.2 0.31 2.4 0.5634.8 5.84 0.5 0.44 0.0 0.90 36.2 7.69 0.1 0.59 0.8 1.21
N % N % N % N %26 29.2f 15 50.0f 27 32.5g 19 57.6g
20 35.7 11 64.7 20 31.3 11 45.86 18.2h 4 30.8h 7 36.8 8 88.9
45 50.6i 19 63.3i 49 59.8 23 69.731 55.4j 12 70.6 39 61.9 15 62.514 42.4k 7 53.8 10 52.6 8 88.99 19.6 3 21.4 10 18.5 5 25.0
15 55.6 8 61.5 7 46.7 3 50.0
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
14/301
1056 Am J Psychiatry 164:7, July 2007
EFFICACY AND TOLERABILITY OF ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS
ajp.psychiatryonline.org
During the study, patients received adjunctive medica-
tions mainly for dysphoria/depression (25.7%), anxiety
(16.5%), insomnia (15.2%), and agitation/excitement(9.9%). There were no significant differences in postbase-
line adjunctive medication use between treatment groups.
Primary Outcome Measure
Figure 1 shows rates of all-cause treatment discontinua-
tion across the three treatment groups. Overall, 70% of pa-
tients discontinued treatment before 52 weeks: 68.4% of
those assigned to olanzapine, 70.9% of those assigned to
quetiapine, and 71.4% of those assigned to risperidone.
Based on the prespecified primary outcome measure of a
20% margin for clinically significant inferiority, quetiapine
proved noninferior to olanzapine or risperidone. The ab-
solute difference between quetiapine and olanzapine was
2.5%, with an upper-bound one-sided 97.5% confidence
interval (CI) of 13.5%, while the absolute difference be-
tween quetiapine and risperidone was 0.5%, with an up-
per-bound one-sided 97.5% CI of 10.3%. Patients receiving
olanzapine had fewer administrative discontinuations
(3.8%) than those receiving quetiapine (10.5%) or risperi-
done (9.8%), but there were no other notable differences
across the treatment groups in reasons for discontinua-
tion. The most frequent reason for discontinuation across
the entire study population was patient decision despite
the recommendations of the treating clinician to continue
treatment (41.5%). Only 10.8% discontinued because ofinadequate therapeutic effect, and only 10.0% because of
intolerable side effects.
Figure 2 displays the survival curves to all-cause treat-
ment discontinuation. The median times to all-cause
discontinuation for olanzapine (28 weeks), quetiapine
(25 weeks), and risperidone (25 weeks) did not differ
significantly.
Secondary Outcome Measures
Table 2 presents the least square mean change from
baseline scores on efficacy measures at 12 and 52 weeks.
All treatment groups showed improvements in symptoms,
with no significant differences across groups in PANSS to-
tal scores. At 12 weeks, the mean change from baseline in
the PANSS positive subscale scores showed greater reduc-
tions for olanzapine (5.2) and risperidone (5.1) than for
quetiapine (4.0; quetiapine versus olanzapine, p=0.017;
quetiapine versus risperidone, p=0.031), but this signifi-
cant difference persisted only with olanzapine at week 52
(5.3 for quetiapine versus 7.1 for olanzapine, p=0.013).
On all other measures, the three treatment groups did not
differ significantly.
TABLE 5. Change from Baseline in Metabolism-Related Measures and Prolactin Level in Early-Psychosis Patients at Weeks12 and 52 of Treatment With Olanzapine, Quetiapine, or Risperidonea
Variable
Olanzapine
Baseline (N=134) Week 12 (N=85) Week 52 (N=37)
Mean SDLSM
Change SELSM
Change SEFasting triglycerides level (mg/dl) 99.7 58.13 32.3 11.77 66.4 12.90b
Fasting glucose level (mg/dl) 85.3 9.83 1.7 1.39 8.6 1.59
Fasting total cholesterol level (mg/dl) 174.8 34.28 8.9 4.62 15.7 4.30Fasting high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level (mg/dl) 48.0 12.45 3.8 1.08d 6.5 0.91d
Male 47.5 12.25 3.9 1.17 6.7 0.98e
Female 50.0 13.58 2.5 2.59 3.9 2.37Prolactin level 27.9 27.70 16.4 2.76f 15.9 2.56f
Systolic blood pressure (mm Hg) 117.3 12.79 1.5 1.18g 8.5 1.22g
Diastolic blood pressure (mm Hg) 73.0 9.60 0.0 0.84 4.8 0.82h
N % N % N %Fasting 8 hours 80 64.0 59 62.1 78 75.0Fasting triglycerides level >150 mg/dl 6 7.7 11 25.0 22 40.0Fasting glucose level 100 mg/dl 4 5.13 5 11.9 14 25.5Fasting total cholesterol level 200 mg/dl 19 24.4 13 29.5 23 41.8Male fasting high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
15/301
Am J Psychiatry 164:7, July 2007 1057
MCEVOY, LIEBERMAN, PERKINS, ET AL.
ajp.psychiatryonline.org
Sixty-four percent of patients in the olanzapine group,
58% of patients in the quetiapine group, and 65% of pa-
tients in the risperidone group met the treatment re-sponse criteria (3 for all PANSS items and 3 for the CGI
severity item) at some point during the study. The rates of
response were not significantly different between the
treatment groups.
Safety and Tolerability
Adverse Events. A total of 18 serious adverse events oc-
curred, four in the olanzapine group and seven each in the
quetiapine and risperidone groups. These events included
two suicide attempts and one alleged homicide in the
olanzapine group, two completed suicides and one case of
suicidal ideation in the quetiapine group, and one suicide
attempt in the risperidone group.
The rates of elicited adverse events that clinicians scored
as moderate or severe are presented in Table 3. The most
frequent adverse events in the olanzapine group were day-
time drowsiness (53%), weight gain (51%), and insomnia
(38%); in the quetiapine group, daytime drowsiness (58%),
increased sleep hours (42%), and weight gain (40%); in the
risperidone group, daytime drowsiness (50%), menstrual
irregularities in women (47%), and weight gain (41%). Dry
mouth was more common in the quetiapine group than in
the other two groups. Sialorrhea was more common in the
risperidone group than in the other two groups. Gyneco-
mastia was more common in the risperidone group than inthe quetiapine group. Hypersomnia was more common in
the quetiapine group than in the risperidone group.
Extrapyramidal Symptoms. Over the course of the
trial, only 16% of patients had a rating>1 (mild) on any
Simpson-Angus Scale item, only 7% had a rating>2 (mild)
on the global severity item of the Barnes Akathisia Rating
Scale, and only 1% had a score >2 (mild) on the global se-
verity item of the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale.
There were no significant differences across treatment
groups. The proportion of patients receiving concomitant
medications for parkinsonism or akathisia was lower in
the quetiapine group (4%) than in the olanzapine group(11%, p=0.021).
Physical Measures and Laboratory Tests
Weight and BMI. Olanzapine was associated with the
greatest increases in body weight and related measures
(Table 4). At week 12, the olanzapine group had more
weight gain, a greater increase in BMI, and a higher pro-
portion of patients with a BMI increase of at least 1 unit
compared with the quetiapine and risperidone groups.
Similar differences between olanzapine and quetiapine or
Treatment Group
Quetiapine Risperidone
Baseline (N=133) Week 12 (N=96) Week 52 (N=44) Baseline (N=133) Week 12 (N=86) Week 52 (N=37)
Mean SDLSM
Change SELSM
Change SE Mean SDLSM
Change SELSM
Change SE115.4 72.56 52.9 12.16 68.1 13.37b 116.1 68.38 18.2 12.81 19.1 13.92
85.8 9.25 3.8 1.42 6.2 1.67 86.5 12.31 1.5 1.50 4.8 1.70
180.5 38.50 19.3 4.78 25.2 4.46c
176.3 34.27 7.2 5.02 11.4 4.6548.7 12.99 2.2 1.12 3.6 0.95d 47.4 11.81 0.5 1.18 2.6 0.9947.5 13.11 3.0 1.37 3.6 1.12f 46.6 11.00 1.6 1.34 2.9 1.1351.5 12.51 1.2 1.81 4.5 1.73 49.8 14.08 3.2 2.25 1.9 1.9335.5 36.90 18.5 2.92f 18.7 2.66f 32.7 40.28 13.3 2.90 12.1 2.61
119.5 12.42 1.9 1.16g 7.5 1.21g 118.4 11.59 2.8 1.25 2.7 1.2775.7 10.56 0.5 0.83 4.1 0.82 73.9 9.57 1.5 0.89 1.8 0.86
N % N % N % N % N % N %80 62.5 56 62.9 74 72.5 80 63.0 48 58.5 70 72.215 19.0 22 53.7i 29 56.9i 16 20.5 10 27.0 14 29.88 10.4 5 12.5 10 20.0 6 7.6 1 2.8 6 12.5
22 27.9 19 46.3 23 45.1 17 21.8 13 35.1 18 38.315 28.3 9 33.3 15 41.7 16 28.1 9 32.1 12 34.39 40.9 6 42.9 9 60.0 9 50.0 4 44.4 7 58.3
34 25.8 26 25.5 40 35.7 23 18.3 12 13.8 24 23.819 14.4 18 17.6 32 28.6k 16 12.7 8 9.2 16 15.8
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
16/301
1058 Am J Psychiatry 164:7, July 2007
EFFICACY AND TOLERABILITY OF ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS
ajp.psychiatryonline.org
risperidone were also observed at week 52 except in the
proportion of patients with a BMI increase of at least 1 unit
in the risperidone group. Furthermore, 80% of patients in
the olanzapine group had gained 7% of their baseline
weight at week 52, compared with 50% and 58% of the
quetiapine and risperidone groups, respectively (observed
cases). Risperidone was associated with greater increases
than quetiapine in weight and BMI in women (p
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
17/301
Am J Psychiatry 164:7, July 2007 1059
MCEVOY, LIEBERMAN, PERKINS, ET AL.
ajp.psychiatryonline.org
Received Sept. 13, 2005; revisions received May 25 and Sept. 19,
2006, and Jan. 16, 2007; accepted Feb. 1, 2007. From the Duke Uni-
versity Medical Center, Durham, N.C.; the Department of Psychiatry,
College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York;
the Department of Psychiatry, University of North Carolina School of
Medicine, Chapel Hill, N.C.; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Wilm-
ington, Del.; SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York;
and the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. McEvoy, Clini-
cal Research Service, John Umstead Hospital, 1003 12th St., Bldg. 32,
Butner, NC 27509; jpmcevoy@duke.edu (e-mail).
Dr.McEvoy has received research funding or speakingfees from As-
traZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Janssen. Dr. Lieberman has received research
funding from Acadia, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen,
Merck, Organon, and Pfizer and holds a patent related to work with
Repligen. He has also served without remuneration as a consultant
or on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline,
Lundbeck, Organon, and Pfizer. Dr. Perkins has received research
funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Otsuka, Eli Lilly, Jan-
ssen, and Pfizer and consulting and educational fees from AstraZen-
eca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, Forest
Labs, Pfizer, and Shire. Dr. Hamer has served in an advisory, consult-
ing, or data monitoring capacity for or has been involved in a con-
tract agreement between University of North Carolina and the fol-
lowing: Wyeth, Allergan, AstraZeneca, Corcept Pharmaceuticals, Epix
Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Eli Lilly,
Pfizer, SAS Institute, Schwartz, Solvay, and Somerset Pharmaceuticals.
He or his wife holds shares of stock from Amgen, Bristol-Myers
Squibb, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Proctor & Gamble, and Sepracor. Dr.
Weiden has received grant support or speaker or consulting fees
from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb (Otsuka), Janssen, Langeloth
Foundation, NIMH, Pfizer, Shire, Solvay, and Vanda. Dr. Strakowski
has received grant support or speaker or consulting fees from Ab-
bott, AstraZeneca, DiMedix, Eli Lilly, France Foundation, Janssen, For-
est, Nutrition 21, Pfizer, and Repligen. Dr. Lazarus is an employee of
AstraZeneca and holds stock options with the firm. Dr. Sweitzer is an
employee of AstraZeneca, owns shares of AstraZeneca, and holds
stock options with the firm. Ms. Olexy is an employee of AstraZeneca.
Dr. Gu reports no competing interests.
The Comparison of Atypicals in First Episode of Psychosis research
program was coordinated by the University of North Carolina. Fund-
ing for this program was provided by AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
LP (5077IL/0114). The authors acknowledge the assistance of SandraWoolson for statistical programming.
This study is registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov under the title
CAFE: Comparison of Atypicals in First Episode of Psychosis (gov-
Identifier: NCT00034892, Study ID Numbers: 5077IL/0114). All crite-
ria as stated in the Clinical Trial Registration policy have been met.
References
1. Lieberman J, Jody D, Geisler S, Alvir J, Loebel A, Szymanski S,
Woerner M, Borenstein M: Time course and biologic correlates
of treatment response in first-episode schizophrenia. Arch Gen
Psychiatry 1993; 50:369376
2. Robinson DG, Woerner MG, Alvir JMJ, Geisler S, Koreen A, Sheit-
man B, Chakos M, Mayerhoff D, Bilder R, Goldman R, Lieber-
man JA: Predictors of treatment response from a first episodeof schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Am J Psychiatry
1999; 156:544549
3. Gaebel W, Moller HJ, Buchkremer G, Ohmann C, Riesbeck M,
Wolwer W, Von Wilmsdorff M, Bottlender R, Klingberg S: Phar-
macological long-term treatment strategies in first episode
schizophrenia: study design and preliminary results of an on-
going RCT within the German Research Network on Schizo-
phrenia. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 2004; 254:129140
4. Lieberman JA: Is schizophrenia a neurodegenerative disorder?
a clinical and neurobiological perspective. Biol Psychiatry
1999; 46:729739
5. Emsley RA, Risperidone Working Group: Risperidone in the
treatment of first-episode psychotic patients: a double-blind
multicenter study. Schizophr Bull 1999; 25:721729
6. Sanger TM, Lieberman JA, Tohen M, Grundy S, Beasley C Jr,
Tollefson GD: Olanzapine versus haloperidol treatment in first-
episode psychosis. Am J Psychiatry 1999; 156:7987
7. Malla AK, Norman RM, Scholten DJ, Zirul S, Kotteda V: A com-
parison of long-term outcome in first-episode schizophrenia
following treatment with risperidone or a typical antipsychotic.
J Clin Psychiatry 2001; 62:1791848. Lieberman JA, Tollefson G, Tohen M, Green AI, Gur RE, Kahn R,
McEvoy J, Perkins D, Sharma T, Zipursky R, Wei H, Hamer MM
(HGDH Study Group): Comparative efficacy and safety of atypi-
cal and conventional antipsychotic drugs in first-episode psy-
chosis: a randomized, double-blind trial of olanzapine versus
haloperidol. Am J Psychiatry 2003; 160:13961404; correction,
160:1901
9. Schooler N, Rabinowitz J, Davidson M, Emsley R, Harvey PD, Ko-
pala L, McGorry PD, Van Hove I, Eerdekens M, Swyzen W, De
Smedt G (Early Psychosis Global Working Group): Risperidone
and haloperidol in first-episode psychosis: a long-term ran-
domized trial. Am J Psychiatry 2005; 162:947953
10. McEvoy JP, Hogarty GE, Steingard S: Optimal dose of neurolep-
tic in acute schizophrenia: a controlled study of the neurolep-
tic threshold and higher haloperidol dose. Arch Gen Psychiatry1991; 48:739745
11. Zhang-Wong J, Zipursky RB, Beiser M, Bean G: Optimal halo-
peridol dosage in first-episode psychosis. Can J Psychiatry
1999; 44:164167
12. Malla A, Norman R, Scholten D, Townsend L, Manchanda R, Ta-
khar J, Haricharan R: A comparison of two novel antipsychotics
in first episode non-affective psychosis: one-year outcome on
symptoms, motor side effects, and cognition. Psychiatry Res
2004; 129:159169
13. Montes JM, Ciudad A, Gascon J, Gomez JC; EFESO Study Group:
Safety, effectiveness, and quality of life of olanzapine in first-
episode schizophrenia: a naturalistic study. Prog Neuropsy-
chopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 2003; 27:667674
14. Good KP, Kiss I, Buiteman C, Woodley H, Rui Q, Whitehorn D,
Kopala L: Improvement in cognitive functioning in patientswith first-episode psychosis during treatment with quetiapine:
an interim analysis. Br J Psychiatry 2002; 43(suppl):S45S49
15. Tauscher-Wisniewski S, Kapur S, Tauscher J, Jones C, Daskalakis
ZJ, Papatheodorou G, Epstein I, Christensen BK, Zipursky RB:
Quetiapine: an effective antipsychotic in first-episode schizo-
phrenia despite only transiently high dopamine-2 receptor
blockade. J Clin Psychiatry 2002; 63:992997
16. Ohlsen RI, OToole MS, Purvis RG, Walters JT, Taylor TM, Jones
HM, Pilowsky LS: Clinical effectiveness in first-episode patients.
Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 2004; 14(suppl 4):S445S451
17. Kay SR, Fiszbein A, Opler LA: The Positive and Negative Syn-
drome Scale (PANSS) for schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull 1987;
13:261276
18. Guy W (ed): ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacol-
ogy: Publication ADM 76-338. Washington, DC, US Departmentof Health, Education, and Welfare, 1976, pp 217222
19. Spitzer RL, Williams JBW, Gibbon M, First MB: Structured Clini-
cal Interview for DSM-IV (SCID). New York, New York State Psy-
chiatric Institute, Biometrics Research, 1995
20. Addington D, Addington J, Schissel B: A depression rating scale
for schizophrenics. Schizophr Res 1990; 3:247251
21. Heinrichs DW, Hanlon TE, Carpenter WT Jr: The Quality of Life
Scale: an instrument for rating the schizophrenic deficit syn-
drome. Schizophr Bull 1984; 10:388398
22. Barnes TRE: A rating scale for drug-induced akathisia. Br J Psy-
chiatry 1989; 154:672676
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
18/301
1060 Am J Psychiatry 164:7, July 2007
EFFICACY AND TOLERABILITY OF ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS
ajp.psychiatryonline.org
23. Simpson GM, Angus JWS: A rating scale for extrapyramidal side
effects. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl 1970; 212:1119
24. Blackwelder WC: Proving the null hypothesis in clinical trials.
Controlled Clin Trials 1982; 3:345353
25. Zhong KX, Lieberman JA, Hamer RM, Sweitzer D: Comparison
of quetiapine and risperidone in the treatment of schizophre-
nia: a randomized, double-blind, flexible-dose, 8-week study. J
Clin Psychiatry 2006; 67:10931103
26. Lieberman JA, Stroup TS, McEvoy JP, Swartz MS, Rosenheck RA,Perkins DO, Keefe RS, Davis SM, Davis CE, Lebowitz BD, Severe
J, Hsiao JK; Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effec-
tiveness (CATIE) Investigators: Effectiveness of antipsychotic
drugs in patients with chronic schizophrenia. N Engl J Med
2005; 353:12091223
27. McEvoy JP, Lieberman JA, Stroup TS, Davis SM, Meltzer HY,
Rosenheck RA, Swartz MS, Perkins DO, Keefe RSE, Davis CE, Se-
vere J, Hsiao JK, CATIE Investigators: Effectiveness of clozapine
versus olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone in patients with
chronic schizophrenia who did not respond to prior atypical an-
tipsychotic treatment. Am J Psychiatry 2006; 163:600610
28. Stroup TS, Lieberman JA, McEvoy JP, Swartz MS, Davis SM,
Rosenheck RA, Perkins DO, Keefe RSE, Davis CE, Severe J, Hsiao
JK, CATIE Investigators: Effectiveness of olanzapine, quetiapine,
risperidone, and ziprasidone in patients with chronic schizo-phrenia following discontinuation of a previous atypical anti-
psychotic. Am J Psychiatry 2006; 163:611622
29. Bradford DW, Perkins DO, Lieberman JA: Pharmacological
management of first-episode schizophrenia and related nonaf-
fective psychoses. Drugs 2003; 63:22652283
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
19/301
ATTACHMENT B
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
20/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
21/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
22/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
23/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
24/301
ATTACHMENT C
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
25/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
26/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
27/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
28/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
29/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
30/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
31/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
32/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
33/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
34/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
35/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
36/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
37/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
38/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
39/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
40/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
41/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
42/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
43/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
44/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
45/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
46/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
47/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
48/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
49/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
50/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
51/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
52/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
53/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
54/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
55/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
56/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
57/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
58/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
59/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
60/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
61/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
62/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
63/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
64/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
65/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
66/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
67/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
68/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
69/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
70/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
71/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
72/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
73/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
74/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
75/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
76/301
ATTACHMENT D
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
77/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
78/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
79/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
80/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
81/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
82/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
83/301
ATTACHMENT E
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
84/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
85/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
86/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
87/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
88/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
89/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
90/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
91/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
92/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
93/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
94/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
95/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
96/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
97/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
98/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
99/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
100/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
101/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
102/301
EXCERPT
1
1 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
2 COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT3 Court File No. 62 CO 06 11934
45 --------------------------------6 Mary Weiss, on her own behalf,
7 and as the next of kin and Trustee
8 of the estate of Dan Markingson, deceased,
910 Plaintiff,
11
12 vs.
1314 Board of Regents for the University of
15 Minnesota; Dr. Stephen Olson; Dr.16 Charles Schulz; Institutional Review Board
17 for the University of Minnesota; Astrazeneca
18 Pharmaceuticals LP, Astrazeneca LP and Zeneca, Inc.,
1920 Defendants.
21 ----------------------------------
2223 AUDIO VISUAL DEPOSITION OF
24 STEPHEN OLSON, M.D.25 MAY 1, 2007
VERBATIM COURT REPORTING 763-493-4535
2
3 The following is the deposition of STEPHEN
4 OLSON, M.D.; Mari Skalicky, Court Reporter, Notary
5 Public, pursuant to Notice of Taking Deposition, at6 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 600, Minneapolis,
7 Minnesota, commencing at approximately 9:00 a.m.,
8 MAY 1, 2007.
25 Q. (BY DR. BARDEN) Was the court ever informed
1 that Dan would be going into a research study?
2 MR. ALSOP: Object on the basis of
3 foundation. Go ahead, Doctor.
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
103/301
4 Q. (BY DR. BARDEN) Let me ask you this. Did you5 ever inform the court that Dan was actually
6 going into a research study?
7 A. Not directly, although, the county case manager8 who was responsible --
9 Q. Objection, move to strike. Go ahead and finish10 your answer and we'll ask for the time back the11 next day. Go ahead.
12 MR. ALSOP: We're not coming back a next
13 day.
14 DR. BARDEN: Let me just make for the15 record here. If the witness rambles on and if
16 we add up the time and at the end of the day
17 he's rambled on, obviously not answering my18 question and he's wasted a half an hour of our
19 time, we will seek that time back, period.
20 MR. ALSOP: You can go ahead and seek it.21 He's answered the question.
22 Q. (BY DR. BARDEN) So please, go ahead and answer
23 your -- give the answer that you think is
24 responsive to my question.25 A. Would you ask it again?
VERBATIM COURT REPORTING 763-493-4535
791 MR. ALSOP: Doctor, answer the question
2 the way you feel is most responsive. He's not
3 rambling, and he will answer the question as he4 sees fit.
5 A. Will you ask the question again?
6 Q. Would you read that back.7 (Record read back.)
8 A. I didn't inform the court directly but the
9 county case manager is required to make a
10 report to the court that the patient was11 meeting the terms of the stay of commitment
12 that he seek appropriate care. And I had
13 discussions with Mr. Pettit numerous times that14 the participation of the CAFE was one way that
15 he could receive appropriate care, although,
16 there were certainly other options had Dan17 chosen not to participate in the study.
18 Q. Objection. Move to strike the entire response
19 after the first sentence. Did you follow-up20 and make sure that the court was informed by
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
104/301
21 Mr. Pettit that Dan had not gone into treatment22 but in fact had gone into a clinical research
23 study?
24 A. No.25 Q. Other than Dan, were there any other subjects
VERBATIM COURT REPORTING 763-493-4535
80
1 in your study who were court-ordered into2 treatment, yet ended up in your research study?
3 MR. ALSOP: It's repetitious, but go
4 ahead.5 A. I don't recall but there may have been.
6 Q. (BY DR. BARDEN) But no one, the IRB, Dr.
7 Schulz, the University, no one raised any8 questions about that, correct?
9 MR. ALSOP: It's repetitious. Talk about
10 wasting time with multiple questions, that's
11 been asked and answered multiple times. Go12 ahead one more time.
13 A. Repeat the question.
14 (Record read back.)15 A. Not at the time and not after the conduct of
16 the study was investigated following Dan's17 death.
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
105/301
ATTACHMENT F
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
106/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
107/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
108/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
109/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
110/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
111/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
112/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
113/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
114/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
115/301
ATTACHMENT G
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
116/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
117/301
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
118/301
ATTACHMENT H
-
7/30/2019 Investigation Request With Dossier to Research Subject Advocate at University of Minnesota
119/301
EXCERPT
1
1 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT2 COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
3 Court File No. 62 CO 06 11934
45 --------------------------------
6 Mary Weiss, on her own behalf,
7 and as the next of kin and Trustee8 of the estate of Dan Markingson, deceased,
9
10 Plaintiff,
1112 vs.
13
14 Board of Regents for the University of15 Minnesota; Dr. Stephen Olson; Dr.
16 Charles Schulz; Institutional Review Board
17 for the University of Minnesota; Astrazeneca18 Pharmaceuticals LP, Astrazeneca LP and Zeneca, Inc.,
19
20 Defendants.
21 ----------------------------------
2223 AUDIO VISUAL DEPOSITION OF
24 STEPHEN OLSON, M.D.25 MAY 1, 2007
3 Q. These are Dan's journals marked March 9 and
4 March 23rd of '04. These are in order in Dan's
5 journa
top related