Andrei Pikalov

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.

A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, 16-Week Study of Adjunctive Aripiprazole for Schizophrenia or Schizoaffective Disorder Inadequately Treated With Quetiapine or Risperidone Monotherapy

OBJECTIVE Combining antipsychotics is common practice in the treatment of schizophrenia. This study investigated aripiprazole adjunctive to risperidone or quetiapine for treating schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. METHOD In this multicenter, double-blind, 16-week, placebo-controlled study conducted at 43 American sites from July 2006 to October 2007, patients with chronic, stable schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder diagnosed with DSM-IV-TR were randomly assigned to receive aripiprazole (2-15 mg/d) or placebo in addition to a stable regimen of quetiapine (400-800 mg/d) or risperidone (4-8 mg/d). The primary outcome measure was the mean change from baseline to endpoint (week 16, last observation carried forward) in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score. RESULTS 323 subjects being treated with either risperidone (n = 177) or quetiapine (n = 146) were randomly assigned to receive adjunctive aripiprazole (n = 168) or placebo (n = 155). Baseline characteristics were similar (mean PANSS total score: aripiprazole, 74.5; placebo, 75.9) except for history of suicide attempts (aripiprazole, 27%; placebo, 40%). Nearly 70% of subjects in each arm completed the trial. Adjunctive aripiprazole and placebo groups were similar in the mean change from baseline to endpoint in the PANSS total score (aripiprazole, -8.8; placebo, -8.9; P = .942). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between groups. Mean changes in Simpson-Angus Scale, Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale, and Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale scores were not statistically significantly different. Adjunctive aripiprazole was associated with statistically significantly greater decreases in mean serum prolactin levels from baseline than was adjunctive placebo (-12.6 ng/mL for aripiprazole vs -2.2 ng/mL for placebo; P < .001), an effect that was seen in the risperidone subgroup (-18.7 ng/mL vs -1.9 ng/mL; P < .001) but not in the quetiapine subgroup (-3.01 ng/mL vs +0.15 ng/mL; P = .104). CONCLUSIONS The addition of aripiprazole to risperidone or quetiapine was not associated with improvement in psychiatric symptoms but was generally safe and well tolerated. Further research is warranted to explore whether antipsychotic combination therapy offers benefits to particular patient populations-for example, in cases of hyperprolactinemia. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00325689.

Akathisia: An Updated Review Focusing on Second-Generation Antipsychotics

OBJECTIVE To provide a brief description of the pathophysiology of akathisia, the challenges of diagnosing and treating this condition, and potential associated clinical issues. Also, to provide a review of the literature on the incidence of drug-induced akathisia associated with the use of second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) and first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs). DATA SOURCES English-language literature with no date restrictions cited in PubMed was searched for the keywords akathisia, placebo, neuroleptic, or haloperidol, and the generic names of SGAs (clozapine, risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, ziprasidone, or aripiprazole). STUDY SELECTION Limits were set to search clinical trials, meta-analyses, or randomized controlled trials reviewing data from adult schizophrenia or bipolar disorder clinical trials. Studies including SGA comparisons with placebo and with FGAs, and also between SGAs themselves, were selected. Studies that specifically assessed akathisia (either subjectively or objectively or both) were included. Studies reporting generalized results pertaining to extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION The incidence of akathisia, EPS rating scores, and required medications for the management of movement disorders were reviewed. DATA SYNTHESIS Seventy-seven trials were included in the comparative review. Akathisia was observed with the use of all the SGAs. The akathisia incidence reported in bipolar disorder trials was generally higher compared with schizophrenia trials. The incidence reported for FGAs was consistently higher than that reported for SGAs, regardless of the patient population studied. CONCLUSION Akathisia remains a concern with the use of SGAs. More accurate and standardized evaluations are required for a better understanding of the nature and incidence of akathisia.

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.

Remission, response without remission, and nonresponse in major depressive disorder: impact on functioning

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is associated with significant functional impairment. This post-hoc analysis of data from two randomized trials assessed the impact of response status on functioning in MDD. Patients with at least one historical treatment failure followed by an inadequate response after 8 weeks of prospective open-label treatment with escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine-CR, sertraline, or venlafaxine-XR plus single-blind placebo were randomized to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with adjunctive placebo or adjunctive aripiprazole. At the end of double-blind treatment, patients were defined as: in remission [≥50% reduction in Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score with MADRS ≤10]; with a response without remission (≥50% reduction in MADRS with MADRS >10); or with a nonresponse (all others). Functional status was assessed with the Sheehan Disability Scale. Of the 679 patients, 144 were in remission, 44 had a response without remission, and 491 had a nonresponse. Mean improvements in the Sheehan Disability Scale total and item scores were significantly greater in patients in remission versus those with a response without remission (P<0.02) as well as nonresponse (P<0.001). Structural Equation Modeling found that efficacy (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression scores) did not significantly correlate with functioning in this study. In conclusion, MDD patients achieving symptomatic remission experience greater functional improvements than those respond without remission. Functioning may be a distinctly different outcome from symptom reduction. Treatments focused on producing high remission rates may improve patient functioning over and above that seen with patients who only achieve response.

Effectiveness of lurasidone vs. quetiapine XR for relapse prevention in schizophrenia: A 12-month, double-blind, noninferiority study

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the relapse prevention efficacy of lurasidone compared with quetiapine XR (QXR) in adults patients with schizophrenia. METHOD This double-blind study evaluated the relapse prevention efficacy of 12 months of flexible-dose treatment with lurasidone (40-160 mg/day) compared with QXR (200-800 mg/day), in outpatients with an acute exacerbation of chronic schizophrenia who had recently completed a 6-week placebo-controlled trial of treatment with either lurasidone or QXR. The primary endpoint, time-to-relapse, was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards model in this noninferiority trial. RESULTS The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the probability of relapse over 12 months was 23.7% for subjects receiving lurasidone vs. 33.6% for QXR. The hazard ratio [95% CI] for probability of relapse was 0.728 [0.410, 1.295] (log-rank p=0.280). Since the upper limit of the hazard ratio (1.295) was smaller than the prespecified noninferiority margin (1.93), noninferiority of lurasidone compared with QXR was demonstrated in this study. The probability of hospitalization at 12 months was lower for the lurasidone group compared with the QXR group (9.8% vs. 23.1%; log-rank p=0.049). A significantly higher proportion of lurasidone subjects achieved remission at study endpoint compared with the QXR group (61.9% vs. 46.3%; p=0.043). Discontinuation rates due to AEs were similar for lurasidone and QXR (7% vs. 5%). Treatment with lurasidone was not associated with clinically significant changes in weight or metabolic parameters. CONCLUSIONS Twelve months of treatment with lurasidone met noninferiority criteria, and was associated with higher rates of remission, and reduced risk of hospitalization compared with QXR. No clinically significant effects on weight or metabolic parameters were observed during maintenance treatment with lurasidone.

Tolerability and pharmacokinetics of aripiprazole in children and adolescents with psychiatric disorders: an open-label, dose-escalation study.

Abstract This multicenter, open-label, sequential-cohort, dose-escalation study explored the tolerability and pharmacokinetics (PK) of aripiprazole up to the maximum approved adult dose (30 mg/d) in children and adolescents (aged 10-17 years) preferentially with primary psychiatric diagnoses of a bipolar or schizophrenia spectrum disorder. During a dose-escalation phase, patients received aripiprazole for up to 12 days using forced titration to achieve doses of 20, 25, or 30 mg/d. In the subsequent fixed-dose phase, patients received the maximum dose for that cohort for an additional 14 days. Tolerability in each fixed-dose cohort was assessed by measures including evaluation of spontaneously reported adverse events (AEs) and vital signs. If 4 of 6 patients tolerated the maximum dose for the cohort, the dose was considered tolerated, and enrollment in the next dose level began. Of 21 enrolled patients, 17 completed the fixed-dose phase. Aripiprazole treatment was generally well tolerated, with criteria for tolerability met for all doses tested. All patients experienced at least 1 AE, none of which met the regulatory criteria for a serious AE. There were no deaths or clinically relevant changes in vital signs or weight. Aripiprazole PK seemed to be linear across the tested dose range and was comparable with previous PK observations in adults. This study provides information regarding the tolerability and PK of aripiprazole up to the maximum adult dose in children and adolescents. These data provided support for exploration of a 30-mg/d dose in child/adolescent schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

Lurasidone for the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder With Mixed Features: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study

OBJECTIVE Accumulating evidence indicates that manic symptoms below the threshold for hypomania (mixed features) are common in individuals with major depressive disorder. This form of depression is often severe and is associated with an increased risk for recurrence, suicide attempts, substance abuse, and functional disability. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of lurasidone in major depressive disorder with mixed features. METHODS Patients meeting DSM-IV-TR criteria for major depressive disorder who presented with two or three protocol-defined manic symptoms were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with either lurasidone at 20-60 mg/day (N=109) or placebo (N=100). Changes from baseline in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score (MADRS; primary outcome measure) and Clinical Global Impressions severity subscale score (CGI-S; key secondary outcome measure) were evaluated using a mixed model for repeated-measures analysis. RESULTS Lurasidone significantly improved depressive symptoms and overall illness severity, assessed by least squares mean change at week 6 in the MADRS and CGI-S scores: -20.5 compared with -13.0 (effect size, 0.80) and -1.8 compared with -1.2 (effect size, 0.60), respectively. Significant improvement in manic symptoms, assessed by the Young Mania Rating Scale, was also observed, in addition to other secondary efficacy endpoints. Rates of discontinuation due to adverse events were low. The most common adverse events were nausea (6.4% and 2.0% in the lurasidone and placebo groups, respectively) and somnolence (5.5% and 1.0%). CONCLUSIONS Lurasidone was effective and well tolerated in this study involving patients with major depressive disorder associated with subthreshold hypomanic symptoms (mixed features).

Augmentation treatment in major depressive disorder: focus on aripiprazole

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a disabling psychiatric condition for which effective treatment remains an outstanding need. Antidepressants are currently the mainstay of treatment for depression; however, almost two-thirds of patients will fail to achieve remission with initial treatment. As a result, a range of augmentation and combination strategies have been used in order to improve outcomes for patients. Despite the popularity of these approaches, limited data from double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies are available to allow clinicians to determine which are the most effective augmentation options or which patients are most likely to respond to which options. Recently, evidence has shown that adjunctive therapy with atypical antipsychotics has the potential for beneficial antidepressant effects in the absence of psychotic symptoms. In particular, aripiprazole has shown efficacy as an augmentation option with standard antidepressant therapy in two, large, randomized, double-blind studies. Based on these efficacy and safety data, aripiprazole was recently approved by the FDA as adjunctive therapy for MDD. The availability of this new treatment option should allow more patients with MDD to achieve remission and, ultimately, long-term, successful outcomes.

Clinical value of early partial symptomatic improvement in the prediction of response and remission during short-term treatment trials in 3369 subjects with bipolar I or II depression☆

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the clinical value of early partial symptomatic improvement in predicting the probability of response during the short-term treatment of bipolar depression. METHODS Blinded data from 10 multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in bipolar I or II depression were used to determine if early improvement (≥20% reduction in depression symptom severity after 14 days of treatment) predicted later short-term response or remission. Sensitivity, specificity, efficiency, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) were calculated using an intent to treat analysis of individual and pooled study data. RESULTS 1913 patients were randomized to active compounds (aripiprazole, lamotrigine, olanzapine/olanzapine-fluoxetine, and quetiapine), and 1456 to placebo. In the pooled positive studies, early improvement predicted response and remission with high sensitivity (86% and 88%, respectively), but rates of false positives were high (53% and 59%, respectively). Pooled negative predictive values for response/remission (i.e. confidence in knowing the drug will not result in response or remission) were 74% and 82%, respectively, with low rates of false negatives (14% and 12%, respectively). CONCLUSION Early improvement in an individual patient does not appear to be a reliable predictor of eventual response or remission due to an unacceptably high false positive rate. However, the absence of early improvement appears to be a highly reliable predictor of eventual non-response, suggesting that clinicians can have confidence in knowing when a drug is not going to work during short-term treatment. Patients who fail to demonstrate early improvement within the first two weeks of treatment may benefit from a change in therapy.