Josephine Cucchiaro

Lurasidone Monotherapy in the Treatment of Bipolar I Depression: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study

OBJECTIVE The authors evaluated the efficacy and safety of lurasidone in the treatment of patients with major depressive episodes associated with bipolar I disorder. METHOD Patients were randomly assigned to receive double-blind treatment with lurasidone (20-60 mg/day [N=166] or 80-120 mg/day [N=169]) or placebo (N=170) for 6 weeks. Primary and key secondary endpoints were change from baseline to week 6 on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and depression severity score on the Clinical Global Impressions scale for use in bipolar illness (CGI-BP), respectively. RESULTS Lurasidone treatment significantly reduced mean MADRS total scores at week 6 for both the 20-60 mg/day group (-15.4; effect size=0.51) and the 80-120 mg/day group (-15.4; effect size=0.51) compared with placebo (-10.7). Similarly, lurasidone treatment resulted in significantly greater endpoint reduction in CGI-BP depression severity scores for both the 20-60 mg/day group (-1.8; effect size=0.61) and the 80-120 mg/day group (-1.7; effect size=0.50) compared with placebo (-1.1). Both lurasidone groups also experienced significant improvements compared with placebo in anxiety symptoms and in patient-reported measures of quality of life and functional impairment. Discontinuation rates due to adverse events were similar in the 20-60 mg/day (6.6%), 80-120 mg/day (5.9%), and placebo (6.5%) groups. The most frequent adverse events associated with lurasidone were nausea, headache, akathisia, and somnolence. Minimal changes in weight, lipids, and measures of glycemic control were observed with lurasidone. CONCLUSION Monotherapy with lurasidone in the dosage range of 20-120 mg/day significantly reduced depressive symptoms in patients with bipolar I depression. Lurasidone was well tolerated, with few changes in weight or metabolic parameters.

Lurasidone in the treatment of acute schizophrenia: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE Lurasidone is a novel psychotropic agent with high affinity for D(2) and 5-HT(2A) receptors, as well as for receptors implicated in the enhancement of cognition and mood and the reduction of negative symptoms (5-HT(7), 5-HT(1A), and alpha(2c)). The objective of the study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of lurasidone in patients hospitalized for an acute exacerbation of DSM-IV-defined schizophrenia. METHOD Patients were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with a fixed dose of lurasidone 80 mg (N = 90, 75.6% male, mean age = 39.7 years, mean baseline score on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale derived from the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale [BPRSd] = 55.1) or placebo (N = 90, 77.8% male, mean age = 41.9 years, mean BPRSd score = 56.1). The primary efficacy measure was the BPRSd. The study was conducted from May to December 2004. RESULTS At day 42, last-observation-carried-forward endpoint, treatment with lurasidone was associated with significant improvement compared to placebo on the BPRSd (least squares mean +/- SE = -8.9 +/- 1.3 vs. -4.2 +/- 1.4; p = .012), as well as on all secondary efficacy measures, including the PANSS total score (-14.1 +/- 2.1 vs. -5.5 +/- 2.2; p = .004) and the PANSS positive (-4.3 +/- 0.7 vs. -1.7 +/- 0.7; p = .006), negative (-2.9 +/- 0.5 vs. -1.3 +/- 0.5; p = .025), and general psychopathology (-7.0 +/- 1.1 vs. -2.7 +/- 1.2; p = .0061) subscales. Significant improvement was seen as early as day 3, based on BPRSd, PANSS, and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness assessments. Treatment with lurasidone was generally well tolerated and was not associated with adverse changes in metabolic or electrocardiogram parameters. There were no clinically significant differences between lurasidone and placebo in objective measures of extrapyramidal symptoms. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study suggest that the novel psychotropic agent lurasidone is a safe and effective treatment for patients with an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia. TRIAL REGISTRATION (ClinicalTrials.gov) Identifier: NCT00088634.

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.

Characteristics of the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery in a 29-site antipsychotic schizophrenia clinical trial

OBJECTIVE The Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia (MATRICS) Project produced a battery of tests, the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB), designed to assess cognitive treatment effects in clinical trials of patients with schizophrenia. In validation studies, the MCCB demonstrated excellent reliability, minimal practice effects and significant correlations with measures of functional capacity. This study addresses whether the MCCB demonstrates these favorable characteristics when administered in the context of the type of large multi-site industry trial for which it was designed. METHODS In a clinical trial comparing risperidone and lurasidone, 323 clinically-stable outpatients with schizophrenia at 29 sites were assessed with MCCB at screening and a median of 15days later at baseline. A measure of functional capacity, the UCSD Performance-based Skills Assessment-Brief (UPSA-B) was administered at baseline. RESULTS All 323 (100%) patients had sufficient data for computing a composite score according to the MCCB criteria. The test-retest reliability of the MCCB composite score was excellent (ICC=0.88). The severity of cognitive impairment was T=24.7 (SD=12.1) at screening and T=26.7 (SD=12.4) at baseline. The MCCB composite score demonstrated a large correlation with the UPSA-B composite score (r=.60, df=304, p<.001). The practice effect on the composite score was small (z=0.18). DISCUSSION In the context of a 29-site antipsychotic trial in stable outpatients with schizophrenia, the MCCB is sensitive to cognitive deficits in all domains, demonstrates excellent test-retest reliability and small practice effects, and is strongly correlated with a leading measure of functional capacity.

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.

Performance and interview-based assessments of cognitive change in a randomized, double-blind comparison of lurasidone vs. ziprasidone.

BACKGROUND Improving cognitive functioning in people with schizophrenia is a major treatment goal. In addition, interview-based measures have been developed to supplement performance-based assessments. However, few data are available regarding whether interview-based measures are sensitive to treatment-related changes. METHODS Adult outpatients who met DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder were randomized to 21 days of double-blind treatment with lurasidone 120 mg once daily (N=150) or ziprasidone 80 mg BID (N=151). A similar proportion of patients completed the study on lurasidone (67.5%) and ziprasidone (69.3%). Study participants were assessed with the majority of the tests from the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB) and an interview-based assessment of cognitive functioning, the Schizophrenia Cognition Rating Scale (SCoRS). SCoRS ratings were based on the interviewers best judgment, after interviews with the patient and a caregiver when available. The study was conducted from April 2006 to January 2007. RESULTS There were no between-group treatment differences in performance on the MCCB or the SCoRS ratings. Lurasidone patients demonstrated significant within group-improvement from baseline on the MCCB composite score (p=0.026) and on the SCoRS (p<0.001), but ziprasidone patients did not improve on either the MCCB composite (p=0.254) or the SCoRS (p=0.185). At endpoint there was a statistical trend (p=0.058) for lurasidone to demonstrate greater improvement from baseline in SCoRS ratings. Improvements in interview-based aspects of cognition were not related to MCCB test changes, and had minimal correlations with changes in symptoms. CONCLUSIONS These data suggest that interview-based cognitive measures such as the SCoRS may be sensitive to changes after 3weeks of treatment in patients with schizophrenia. Lurasidone is being assessed further in ongoing clinical trials with additional outcome measures.

Lurasidone for the treatment of acutely psychotic patients with schizophrenia: A 6-week, randomized, placebo-controlled study

Despite the availability of established antipsychotic agents for the treatment of schizophrenia, continued unmet needs exist for effective medications with lower adverse-effect burden. The present study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of treatment with the atypical antipsychotic lurasidone for patients with an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia. Patients were randomized to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with lurasidone 40 mg/day, 80 mg/day, or 120 mg/day, or placebo. Changes in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) scores were evaluated using mixed-model repeated-measures (MMRM) analysis. Vital signs, laboratory parameters, extrapyramidal symptoms, and electrocardiogram were assessed. Treatment with lurasidone 80 mg/day resulted in significantly greater improvement in PANSS total score compared with placebo (-23.4 versus -17.0; p < 0.05) at study endpoint (MMRM); lurasidone 40 mg/day and 120 mg/day achieved clinically meaningful overall PANSS score reductions from baseline (-19.2 and -20.5), but not significant separation from placebo. Differences between all lurasidone groups and placebo for changes in laboratory parameters and electrocardiographic measures were minimal. Weight gain ≥ 7% occurred in 8.2% of patients receiving lurasidone and 3.2% receiving placebo. Modest increases in prolactin (median increase, 0.7 ng/mL) and extrapyramidal symptoms were observed following treatment with lurasidone compared with placebo. Akathisia was the most commonly reported adverse event with lurasidone (17.6%, versus 3.1% with placebo). In this study, in which a large placebo response was observed, lurasidone 80 mg/day, but not 40 mg/day or 120 mg/day, was statistically superior to placebo in treating acute exacerbation of chronic schizophrenia. All lurasidone doses were generally well tolerated.

Long-term safety and tolerability of lurasidone in schizophrenia: a 12-month, double-blind, active-controlled study.

The aim of this study is to evaluate the long-term safety and tolerability of lurasidone in the treatment of schizophrenia. Clinically stable adult outpatients with schizophrenia were randomized in a 2 : 1 ratio to 12 months of double-blind treatment with once-daily, flexibly-dosed lurasidone (40–120 mg) or risperidone (2–6 mg). Outcome measures included adverse events (AEs), vital signs, ECG, and laboratory tests. Secondary assessments included measures of psychopathology. A total of 427 patients were randomized to treatment with lurasidone and 202 with risperidone. The three most frequent AEs in the lurasidone group (vs. risperidone) were nausea (16.7 vs. 10.9%), insomnia (15.8 vs. 13.4%), and sedation (14.6 vs. 13.9%); the three most frequent AEs in the risperidone group (vs. lurasidone) were increased weight (19.8 vs. 9.3%), somnolence (17.8 vs. 13.6%), and headache (14.9 vs. 10.0%). A higher proportion of patients receiving risperidone had at least a 7% endpoint increase in weight (14 vs. 7%). The median endpoint change in prolactin was significantly higher for risperidone (P<0.001). A comparable improvement in efficacy measures was observed with both agents and the rates of relapse were similar. All-cause discontinuation rates were higher for lurasidone versus risperidone. Long-term treatment with lurasidone was generally well tolerated in this study, with minimal effects on weight and metabolic outcomes.

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.

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).