Amir H. Kalali

Lurasidone in the Treatment of Schizophrenia: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo- and Olanzapine-Controlled Study

OBJECTIVE The study was designed to evaluate the short-term efficacy and safety of lurasidone in the treatment of acute schizophrenia. METHOD Participants, who were recently admitted inpatients with schizophrenia with an acute exacerbation of psychotic symptoms, were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with 40 mg of lurasidone, 120 mg of lurasidone, 15 mg of olanzapine (included to test for assay sensitivity), or placebo, dosed once daily. Efficacy was evaluated using a mixed-model repeated-measures analysis of the change from baseline to week 6 in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score (as the primary efficacy measure) and Clinical Global Impressions severity (CGI-S) score (as the key secondary efficacy measure). RESULTS Treatment with both doses of lurasidone or with olanzapine was associated with significantly greater improvement at week 6 on PANSS total score, PANSS positive and negative subscale scores, and CGI-S score compared with placebo. There was no statistically significant difference in mean PANSS total or CGI-S change scores for the lurasidone groups compared with the olanzapine group. With responders defined as those with an improvement of at least 20% on the PANSS, endpoint responder rates were significant compared with placebo for olanzapine only. The incidence of akathisia was higher with 120 mg of lurasidone (22.9%) than with 40 mg of lurasidone (11.8%), olanzapine (7.4%), or placebo (0.9%). The proportion of patients experiencing ≥ 7% weight gain was 5.9% for the lurasidone groups combined, 34.4% for the olanzapine group, and 7.0% for the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS Lurasidone was an effective treatment for patients with acute schizophrenia. Safety assessments indicated a higher frequency of adverse events associated with 120 mg/day of lurasidone compared with 40 mg/day.

What Is Causing the Reduced Drug-Placebo Difference in Recent Schizophrenia Clinical Trials and What Can be Done About It?

On September 18, 2007, a collaborative session between the International Society for CNS Clinical Trials and Methodology and the International Society for CNS Drug Development was held in Brussels, Belgium. Both groups, with membership from industry, academia, and governmental and nongovernmental agencies, have been formed to address scientific, clinical, regulatory, and methodological challenges in the development of central nervous system therapeutic agents. The focus of this joint session was the apparent diminution of drug-placebo differences in recent multicenter trials of antipsychotic medications for schizophrenia. To characterize the nature of the problem, some presenters reported data from several recent trials that indicated higher rates of placebo response and lower rates of drug response (even to previously established, comparator drugs), when compared with earlier trials. As a means to identify the possible causes of the problem, discussions covered a range of methodological factors such as participant characteristics, trial designs, site characteristics, clinical setting (inpatient vs outpatient), inclusion/exclusion criteria, and diagnostic specificity. Finally, possible solutions were discussed, such as improving precision of participant selection criteria, improving assessment instruments and/or assessment methodology to increase reliability of outcome measures, innovative methods to encourage greater subject adherence and investigator involvement, improved rater training and accountability metrics at clinical sites to increase quality assurance, and advanced methods of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling to optimize dosing prior to initiating large phase 3 trials. The session closed with a roundtable discussion and recommendations for data sharing to further explore potential causes and viable solutions to be applied in future trials.

The GRID-HAMD: standardization of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

This report describes the GRID-Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (GRID-HAMD), an improved version of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale that was developed through a broad-based international consensus process. The GRID-HAMD separates the frequency of the symptom from its intensity for most items, refines several problematic anchors, and integrates both a structured interview guide and consensus-derived conventions for all items. Usability was established in a small three-site sample of convenience, evaluating 29 outpatients, with most evaluators finding the scale easy to use. Test–retest (4-week) and interrater reliability were established in 34 adult outpatients with major depressive disorder, as part of an ongoing clinical trial. In a separate study, interrater reliability was found to be superior to the Guy version of the HAMD, and as good as the Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (SIGH-D), across 30 interview pairs. Finally, using the SIGH-D as the criterion standard, the GRID-HAMD demonstrated high concurrent validity. Overall, these data suggest that the GRID-HAMD is an improvement over the original Guy version as well as the SIGH-D in its incorporation of innovative features and preservation of high reliability and validity.

Four-week, Double-blind, Placebo- and Ziprasidone-controlled Trial of Iloperidone in Patients With Acute Exacerbations of Schizophrenia

Abstract Iloperidone is a mixed D2/5-HT2 antagonist in development for treatment of schizophrenia. This trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a fixed dose of iloperidone in patients with acute exacerbations of schizophrenia. This randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter study comprised a 1-week titration period and a 3-week double-blind maintenance period. Eligible patients (n = 593) were randomized to iloperidone 24 mg/d, ziprasidone 160 mg/d as an active control, or placebo. Primary efficacy variable was change from baseline in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale Total (PANSS-T) score, using a mixed-effects model repeated measures analysis. Iloperidone demonstrated significant reduction versus placebo on the PANSS-T score (P< 0.01). Significant improvement versus placebo was also demonstrated with ziprasidone (P < 0.05). Compared with ziprasidone, iloperidone was associated with lower rates of many adverse events (AEs) that are particularly troublesome with antipsychotics, including sedation, somnolence, extrapyramidal symptoms, akathisia, agitation, and restlessness; iloperidone was associated with higher rates of weight gain, tachycardia, orthostatic hypotension, dizziness, and nasal congestion as reported as an AE. Most AEs were mild to moderate. A similar amount of QT prolongation was observed with both active treatments, although no patient had a treatment-emergent postbaseline corrected QT interval of 500 msec or greater. The incidence of clinically relevant changes in laboratory parameters was comparable between iloperidone and ziprasidone. Iloperidone was associated with a low incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms. Overall, there was improvement in akathisia with iloperidone treatment. Iloperidone treatment was effective, safe, and well tolerated in patients with acute exacerbation of schizophrenia.

Efficacy and safety of lurasidone 80 mg/day and 160 mg/day in the treatment of schizophrenia: A randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE This study was designed to evaluate the short-term efficacy and safety of once-daily lurasidone (80 mg/day and 160 mg/day) in the treatment of an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia. METHODS Participants, who were recently admitted inpatients with schizophrenia with an acute exacerbation of psychotic symptoms, were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of fixed-dose, double-blind treatment with lurasidone 80 mg (n=125), lurasidone 160 mg (n=121), quetiapine XR 600 mg (QXR-600 mg; n=119; active control included to test for assay sensitivity), or placebo (n=121), all dosed once daily in the evening. Efficacy was evaluated using a mixed-model repeated-measures analysis of the change from Baseline to Week 6 in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score (the primary efficacy measure) and Clinical Global Impressions severity (CGI-S) score (the key secondary efficacy measure). RESULTS Treatment with both doses of lurasidone or with QXR-600 mg was associated with significantly greater improvement at Week 6 on PANSS total score, PANSS positive and negative subscale scores, and CGI-S score compared with placebo. The endpoint responder rate (≥ 20% improvement in PANSS total score) was higher in subjects treated with lurasidone 80 mg (65%; p<0.001), lurasidone 160 mg (79%; p<0.001), and QXR-600 mg (79%; p<0.001) compared with placebo (41%). The proportion of patients experiencing ≥ 7% weight gain was 4% for each lurasidone group, 15% for the QXR-600 mg group, and 3% for the placebo group. Endpoint changes in levels of cholesterol, triglycerides, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol were comparable for both lurasidone groups and placebo, while the QXR-600 mg group showed a significant median increase compared with the placebo group in levels of cholesterol (p<0.001), LDL cholesterol (p<0.01), and triglycerides (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS Lurasidone 80 mg and 160 mg doses administered once-daily in the evening, were safe and effective treatments for subjects with acute schizophrenia, with increased response rates observed at the higher dose. Dose-related adverse effects were limited, and both doses were generally well-tolerated.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of Paliperidone Extended-Release and Quetiapine in Inpatients With Recently Exacerbated Schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE The authors compared paliperidone extended-release and quetiapine in patients with recently exacerbated schizophrenia requiring hospitalization. METHOD In a 6-week double-blind study, inpatients with a recent exacerbation of schizophrenia were randomly assigned to treatment with paliperidone extended-release, quetiapine, or placebo. A 2-week monotherapy phase was followed by a 4-week additive-therapy phase. Target doses were at the upper end of recommended ranges: paliperidone extended-release, 9 or 12 mg/day, and quetiapine, 600 or 800 mg/day. The primary endpoint was the difference in mean total change score on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) between paliperidone extended-release and quetiapine at the 2-week monotherapy phase endpoint. RESULTS Six-week completion rates were 77.5% (124/160) with paliperidone extended-release, 66.7% (106/159) quetiapine, and 63.8% (51/80) placebo. Improvement in mean PANSS total change score was greater with paliperidone extended-release than with quetiapine from day 5 (-11.4 versus -8.2) through the monotherapy phase endpoint (-23.4 versus -17.1). Only paliperidone extended-release showed significantly greater PANSS improvement compared with placebo at 2 weeks. At the 6-week study endpoint, there was a significantly greater improvement with paliperidone extended-release compared with quetiapine despite similar use of additive therapy (predominantly other antipsychotics). Common adverse events with paliperidone extended-release, quetiapine, and placebo, respectively, were tremor (13.9%, 5.0%, 7.5%), somnolence (8.9%, 11.9%, 1.3%), insomnia (10.1%, 9.4%, 11.3%), and headache (12.0%, 7.5%, 13.8%). Six-week adverse event-related discontinuation rates were 6.3%, 10.1%, and 6.3%, respectively, in the paliperidone extended-release, quetiapine, and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS Compared with quetiapine, paliperidone extended-release improved symptoms earlier and to a greater degree in patients with recently exacerbated schizophrenia requiring hospitalization, with no unexpected tolerability findings.

Extended-Release Carbamazepine Capsules as Monotherapy in Bipolar Disorder Pooled Results from Two Randomised, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trials

AbstractObjectives: Recently, two large, 3-week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials using nearly identical protocols demonstrated that monotherapy with carbamazepine extended-release capsules (CBZ-ERC) was effective for the treatment of acute mania in patients with bipolar I disorder. By pooling data from these two trials, a more highly powered analysis of the efficacy and safety of CBZ-ERC in bipolar I disorder could be conducted. Methods: Efficacy was assessed with the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), the Clinical Global Impression (CGI)-Severity (CGI-S) scale, the CGI-Improvement (CGI-I) scale and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS). A sub-analysis of the data based on manic versus mixed presentation was performed, as well as sub-analyses by age, sex and ethnicity. Results: Of the 443 randomised patients in the pooled population, 240 completed the studies. Forty-two percent of CBZ-ERC-treated patients did not complete the studies, compared with 50% of placebo-treated patients (p = 0.087). Ten percent of patients given CBZ-ERC withdrew because of lack of efficacy, compared with 22% of patients given placebo (p < 0.001). At endpoint, CBZ-ERC compared with placebo was associated with significant improvements in mean YMRS total scores in patients experiencing both manic (p < 0.0001) and mixed (p < 0.01) episodes, using last-observation-carried-forward analyses. CGI-I and CGI-S scores also showed significant improvements from baseline for both manic and mixed patients at endpoint. In patients with mixed episodes, at endpoint there was a mean improvement in HDRS total score of 4.8 points with CBZ-ERC, compared with 2.3 points with placebo (p < 0.05). Ninety percent of patients given CBZ-ERC experienced an adverse event, compared with 64% of those patients given placebo. Discontinuation because of adverse events occurred in 10.8% of patients taking CBZ-ERC, compared with 5.5% of patients taking placebo. Conclusions: These results confirm previous findings that CBZ-ERC is effective in the treatment of bipolar I disorder patients with either acute manic or mixed episodes. These data suggest that further randomised controlled studies are warranted to delineate the effect of CBZ-ERC on depressive symptoms in patients with bipolar disorder.

Reduction in psychotic symptoms as a predictor of patient satisfaction with antipsychotic medication in schizophrenia: Data from a randomized double-blind trial

BackgroundPatient satisfaction with antipsychotic treatment is important. Limited evidence suggests that satisfaction is associated with symptom improvement and compliance. Predictors of patient satisfaction with antipsychotic medication were examined in a study of patients with a recent exacerbation of schizophrenia.MethodsData are from a randomized, double-blind trial comparing risperidone (n = 152), quetiapine (n = 156), and placebo (n = 73). Medication Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) was completed after 14 days of treatment and after 6 weeks at last study visit.ResultsMedication satisfaction at both time points was significantly associated in multiple regression analysis with improvement on 3 Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) factor scores (positive symptoms p < .01; uncontrolled hostility/excitement, p < .0005; anxiety/depression, p < .04) and treatment with risperidone (p < .03); at day 14, significant association was also found with older age (p = .01). At both time points, predictor variables explained over 30% of the variance in medication satisfaction. Change in Hamilton Depression Scale, prolactin levels, sex, and reported adverse events of extrapyramidal symptoms, sedation, and movement disorders were not significant predictors of satisfaction. Lower level of medication satisfaction at day 14 was associated with earlier discontinuation in the trial at week 6 end point. A focused principal components analysis of PANSS factors and MSQ suggested that medication satisfaction relates to 3 groups of factors in descending order of magnitude: lower levels of (a) uncontrolled hostility/excitement, (b) positive symptoms, and (c) negative symptoms, disorganized thoughts, and anxiety/depression.ConclusionResults give further support that treatment satisfaction is positively associated with symptom improvement, particularly psychotic symptoms, and suggest that satisfaction may also be related to compliance, as those who were more satisfied remained in the trial for a longer period of time.Trial registration numberTrial registration number NCT00061802

Effect of fluoxetine and imipramine on the pharmacokinetics and tolerability of the antipsychotic quetiapine.

The effects of fluoxetine and imipramine on the pharmacokinetics and nonpsychiatric side effect profile of quetiapine fumarate were investigated in 26 patients with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or bipolar disorder in a multicenter, twoperiod, multiple-dose, open-label, randomized trial. Over a 1- to 2-week period, patients were titrated to a 300-mg twice-daily dose of quetiapine. Patients treated for at least 7 days at the target dose entered a combination therapy period, receiving fluoxetine (60 mg daily) or imipramine (75 mg twice daily) for 8 days. Key assessments included pharmacokinetic analysis of quetiapine, the Udvalg for kliniske undersøgelser (UKU) Side Effect Rating Scale, and safety evaluations (e.g., adverse events, electrocardiograms, laboratory tests, and vital signs). Fluoxetine increased the quetiapine area under the plasma concentration time curve during a 12-hour interval (+12%), maximum plasma concentration during the dosing interval (Cssmax; +26%), and minimum plasma concentration at the end of the dosing interval (+8%), although it decreased oral clearance (−11%). The change in Cssmax was statistically although not clinically significant. Imipramine did not affect the pharmacokinetics of quetiapine. Overall, scores on the UKU Side Effect Rating Scale improved during combination therapy with either agent, and no statistically significant deterioration was observed for any item. For safety assessments, the only clinically remarkable event was an imipramine-associated complete left bundle branch block in one patient. No unexpected side effects were reported. In conclusion, combination therapy with quetiapine and fluoxetine or imipramine had a minimal effect on quetiapine pharmacokinetics and was well tolerated.

Psychometric evaluation of the Medication Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) to assess satisfaction with antipsychotic medication among schizophrenia patients

The Medication Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) is a single-item questionnaire which evaluates satisfaction with antipsychotic medication in schizophrenia patients. This study evaluated the reliability and validity for its use in research and clinical settings. Data pooled across treatment groups (control vs. Paliperidone ER) from a randomized 6-week study were used to conduct four psychometric assessments of the MSQ: (1) test-retest reliability, (2) convergent validity, (3) known-groups validity, and (4) minimally important difference (MID). This analysis included 191 randomized subjects. Test-retest reliability was evaluated for patients with no change in satisfaction from weeks 2 to 4 and weeks 4 to 6 (ICC=0.80; 0.83, respectively). Convergent validity was demonstrated through large correlations with Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) global score (r=0.72-0.77), and through small correlations with variables measuring clinical symptoms and functioning (e.g., Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score [r=-0.30 to -0.17], CGI-S [r=-0.35 to -0.27], SF-36 Physical Functioning Score [r=0.18] and side effects and extrapiramidal measures (including UKU, ESRS-A, SAS). Mean MSQ scores were significantly different between those who completed and discontinued the study, and between different satisfaction groups based on TSQM, demonstrating good known-groups validity. MID estimates for the MSQ ranged from 0.47 (standard error of measurement) to 0.58 (anchor-based method). Results suggest that the MSQ has acceptable reliability and validity, making this single-item questionnaire appropriate and easy to use in clinical research and potentially in clinical practice. A 1-point change on the MSQ may be considered clinically meaningful.