This analysis of the Paliperidone Palmitate Research in Demonstrating Effectiveness (PRIDE) study (NCT01157351) compared outcomes after administration of once-monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP) vs conventional oral antipsychotics (COAs) or atypical oral antipsychotics (AOAs).

PRIDE was a 15-month study of 444 individuals with schizophrenia and a history of incarceration. They were randomly assigned to PP or to 1 of 7 commonly prescribed OAs. Primary endpoint was time to first treatment failure (TF). Event-free probabilities were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method; treatment group differences (PP vs COAs, PP vs AOAs, and PP vs oral paliperidone/risperidone) were assessed using a log-rank test. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression models. No adjustment was made for multiplicity.

Compared with PP, risk for first TF was 34% higher with COAs (HR: 1.34; 95% CI: 0.80–2.25), 41% higher with AOAs (HR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.06–1.88), and 39% higher with paliperidone/risperidone (HR: 1.39; 95% CI: 0.97–1.99). Incidences of extrapyramidal symptom–related adverse events (AEs) were 45.7%, 13.7%, and 10.6% in the COA, AOA, and oral paliperidone/risperidone groups vs 23.9% in the PP group. Incidences of prolactin-related AEs were 5.7%, 3.8%, and 3.5% vs 23.5%, and incidences of ≥7% weight increase were 11.4%, 14.9%, and 16.0% vs 32.4%.

Results suggest a lower risk of TF but a higher rate of some AEs after treatment with PP vs COAs, AOAs, and paliperidone/risperidone. Deselection of specific OAs and low patient-compliance rates with OAs likely biased the safety results.

A post hoc analysis evaluated the effects of levomilnacipran ER on individual symptoms and symptom domains in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD).

Data were pooled from 5 Phase III trials comprising 2598 patients. Effects on depression symptoms were analyzed based on change from baseline in individual Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) item scores. A1dditional evaluations included resolution of individual symptoms (defined as a MADRS item score ≤1 at end of treatment) and concurrent resolution of all 10 MADRS items, all MADRS6 subscale items, and all items included in different symptom clusters (Dysphoria, Retardation, Vegetative Symptoms, Anhedonia).

Significantly greater mean improvements were found on all MADRS items except Reduced Appetite with levomilnacipran ER treatment compared with placebo. Resolution of individual symptoms occurred more frequently with levomilnacipran ER than placebo for each MADRS item (all P<.05), with odds ratios (ORs) ranging from 1.26 to 1.75; resolution of all 10 items was also greater with levomilnacipran ER (OR=1.57; P=.0051). Significant results were found for the MADRS6 subscale (OR=1.73; P<.0001) and each symptom cluster (OR range, 1.39 [Vegetative Symptoms] to 1.84 [Retardation]; all clusters, P<.01).

Adult MDD patients treated with levomilnacipran ER improved across a range of depression symptoms and symptom domains.

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of lurasidone in the long-term treatment of patients with schizophrenia.

Patients who completed a 6-week, double-blind (DB), placebo-controlled trial continued in a 22-month, open-label (OL) study during which they received once-daily, flexible-doses of lurasidone, 40–120 mg. Change in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) was analyzed using both observed case (OC) and last observation carried forward (LOCF) analyses.

Of the 251 patients who entered the OL extension, 51.4% completed 6 months, 36.7% completed 12 months, and 26.7% completed 22 months of OL treatment. Treatment with lurasidone was associated with a mean change from DB baseline, in weight of +0.4 kg at Month 12 (n=99), and +0.8 kg at Month 24 (n=67; OC analyses). Median change from DB baseline to Month 12 and Month 24, respectively, was -1.0 and -9.0 mg/dL for total cholesterol; 0.0 and -1.0 mg/dL for LDL; +1.0 and -11.0 mg/dL for triglycerides; and 0.0 and +0.1/% for HbA1c (OC analyses). The mean PANSS total score was 96.5 at DB baseline and 69.5 at OL baseline. The mean change from DB baseline in the PANSS total score at Month 24 was -43.6 (OC) and -28.4 (LOCF). Thirty-seven patients (14.7%) discontinued due to an adverse event (AE) during OL treatment. Three AEs occurred in ≥10% of patients: schizophrenia (12.4%), akathisia (10.8%), and somnolence (10.8%); and 19.2% reported at least one movement disorder–related AE. Discontinuations due to AEs occurred in 14.8% of patients.

In this 22-month, open-label extension study, treatment with lurasidone was associated with minimal effects on weight, glucose, lipids, and prolactin. Patients demonstrated sustained improvement in the PANSS total score for up to 24 months of lurasidone treatment.

Antidepressants are frequently associated with treatment-emergent sexual dysfunction (TESD). Vortioxetine, which was approved for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), has a receptor profile that suggests limited impact on sexual functioning.

Arizona Sexual Experiences Scale (ASEX) patient-level data were pooled from 7 short-term vortioxetine trials (6 in MDD, 1 in generalized anxiety disorder) and analyzed for incidence of TESD at any post-baseline visit in patients without sexual dysfunction at baseline (defined as ASEX total score ≥19; individual ASEX item score ≥5; or a score ≥4 on any 3 ASEX items). The primary objective was to confirm the non-inferiority of vortioxetine 5–20 mg/day to placebo on the incidence of TESD. Comparisons were based on the common risk difference (95% confidence interval). Additional analyses compared vortioxetine to duloxetine and duloxetine to placebo. A sensitivity analysis, defined as TESD at 2 consecutive post-baseline visits, was conducted.

TESD incidence, relative to placebo, generally increased with vortioxetine dose with vortioxetine 5 mg non-inferior to placebo. Vortioxetine 10, 15, and 20 mg did not meet the non-inferiority criterion, but no dose had a significantly higher risk of developing TESD versus placebo. Changes in ASEX individual item scores supported the similarity of vortioxetine doses to placebo. Significantly higher TESD risk occurred with duloxetine 60 mg/day versus placebo and versus vortioxetine 5 or 10 mg. The sensitivity analysis was generally consistent with the primary analysis. Rates of spontaneously reported sexual adverse events were low.

Vortioxetine was associated with rates of TESD that were not significantly different from placebo in short-term clinical trials.

Dextromethorphan (DM)/quinidine (Q) is an approved treatment for pseudobulbar affect (PBA) based on trials in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or multiple sclerosis. PRISM II evaluated DM/Q effectiveness and tolerability for PBA secondary to dementia, stroke, or traumatic brain injury; dementia cohort results are reported.

This was an open-label, multicenter, 90 day trial; patients received DM/Q 20/10 mg twice daily. Primary outcome was change in Center for Neurologic Study–Lability Scale (CNS-LS) score. Secondary outcomes included PBA episode count and Clinical and Patient/Caregiver Global Impression of Change scores with respect to PBA (CGI-C/PGI-C).

134 patients were treated. CNS-LS improved by a mean (SD) of 7.2 (6.0) points at Day 90/Endpoint (P<.001) vs. baseline. PBA episodes were reduced 67.7% (P<.001) vs. baseline; global measures showed 77.5% CGI-C and 76.5% PGI-C “much”/”very much” improved. Adverse events included headache (7.5%), urinary tract infection (4.5%), and diarrhea (3.7%); few patients dropped out for adverse events (10.4%).

DM/Q significantly reduced PBA symptoms in patients with dementia; reported adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of DM/Q.

clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01799941.

Unemployment can negatively impact quality of life among patients with schizophrenia. Employment status depends on ability, opportunity, education, and cultural influences. A clinician-rated scale of work readiness, independent of current work status, can be a valuable assessment tool. A series of studies were conducted to create and validate a Work Readiness Questionnaire (WoRQ) for clinicians to assess patient ability to engage in socially useful activity, independent of work availability.

Content validity, test–retest and inter-rater reliability, and construct validity were evaluated in three separate studies.

Content validity was supported. Cronbach’s α was 0.91, in the excellent range. Clinicians endorsed WoRQ concepts, including treatment adherence, physical appearance, social competence, and symptom control. The final readiness decision showed good test–retest reliability and moderate inter-rater reliability. Work readiness was associated with higher function and lower levels of negative symptoms. Low positive and high negative predictive values confirmed the concept validity.

The WoRQ has suitable psychometric properties for use in a clinical trial for patients with a broad range of symptom severity. The scale may be applicable to assess therapeutic interventions. It is not intended to assess eligibility for supported work interventions.

The WoRQ is suitable for use in schizophrenia clinical trials to assess patient work functional potential.

Depressive symptoms are common in schizophrenia and can worsen outcomes and increase suicide risk. Lurasidone is an atypical antipsychotic agent indicated for the treatment of schizophrenia and for the treatment of major depressive episodes associated with bipolar I disorder. This post hoc analysis evaluated the effect of lurasidone on depressive symptoms in patients with schizophrenia.

Patient-level data were pooled from 4 similarly designed, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 6-week registration studies of lurasidone (40–160 mg/d) in adult patients with an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia. Changes in depressive symptoms, measured by the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), were analyzed for the overall sample and for subgroups of patients stratified by baseline MADRS scores.

MADRS assessments at baseline and endpoint (day 42 or last observation carried forward [LOCF]) were available for 1330 patients. Patients receiving lurasidone experienced significantly greater decreases in MADRS score (–2.8, least-squares [LS] mean change, LOCF) compared with patients receiving placebo (–1.4, P < .001, effect size 0.24). Analysis of change in MADRS score (LOCF) by baseline symptom severity (MADRS score of ≥12, ≥14, ≥16, ≥18) showed significantly greater improvement for lurasidone-treated patients across all severity groups; effect sizes ranged from 0.25 to 0.34. Among patients with a baseline MADRS score of ≥12, depressive symptom remission (defined as MADRS score <10 at LOCF endpoint) was attained by 45.0% of lurasidone-treated patients and 36.3% of patients receiving placebo (P < .05).

In a pooled analysis of short-term, placebo-controlled studies, lurasidone significantly improved depressive symptoms in patients with schizophrenia.

Post hoc analyses were conducted to evaluate the efficacy of levomilnacipran extended-release (ER) in subgroups of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).

Data were pooled from 5 completed Phase II/III studies. Patients were categorized by sex, age, MDD duration, recurrence of MDD, current episode duration, number of prior episodes, and baseline Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score. Efficacy was evaluated by MADRS least squares (LS) mean change from baseline, response (MADRS improvement ≥50%), and remission (MADRS ≤10).

In the pooled population, treatment with levomilnacipran ER versus placebo resulted in greater improvement in MADRS score (−15.8 versus −12.9; LS mean difference, −2.9; P < .001) and higher response rates (44.7% versus 34.5%; P < .001). Comparable treatment effects were found in most subgroups. Remission rates in the overall population were higher for levomilnacipran ER versus placebo (27.7% versus 21.5%; P < .05); notably high remission rates were seen in patients with baseline MADRS score < 30 (48.8% versus 28.9%; P < .001).

Clinically meaningful improvements in depressive symptoms were found across subgroups, including statistically significant outcomes for both response and remission.

Levomilnacipran ER was efficacious across a wide range of MDD patients, including men and women, ages 18–78, with varying histories and symptom severity.

A number of studies have demonstrated the anti-aggressive properties of clozapine in schizophrenia and its positive effect in borderline personality disorder. There is no published literature on the treatment of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) with clozapine. We present a case series of 7 patients with primary ASPD and high psychopathic traits treated with clozapine, having a significant history of serious violence and currently detained in a UK based high-security hospital.

A retrospective review of case notes was carried out to formulate Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scores and record incidents of violence and aggression. Effect on specific symptom domains (cognitive-perceptual, impulsive-behavioural dyscontrol, affective dysregulation) was also noted. Metabolic parameters and serum clozapine levels were also sampled.

All 7 patients showed significant improvement on clozapine. It was shown to benefit all symptom domains, especially impulsive behavioral dyscontrol and anger. The number of violent incidents committed by 6 of the 7 patients reduced significantly, and all patients’ risk of violence reduced. Clozapine serum levels for 6 of the 7 patients were in the range 150–350 ng/mL.

Clozapine is of benefit in reducing the clinical severity of ASPD. It improved all symptom domains, especially impulsive-behavioral dyscontrol and anger, and reduced levels of aggression and violence, especially at lower doses (serum levels <350 ng/m). To our knowledge, this is the first account of clozapine treatment in patients with ASPD and high psychopathy.

Efficacy of depression treatments, including adjunctive antipsychotic treatment, has not been explored for patients with worsening symptoms after antidepressant therapy (ADT).

This post-hoc analysis utilized pooled data from 3 similarly designed, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of adjunctive aripiprazole in patients with major depressive disorder with inadequate response to ADT. The studies had 2 phases: an 8-week prospective ADT phase and 6-week adjunctive (aripiprazole or placebo) treatment phase. This analysis focused on patients whose symptoms worsened during the prospective 8-week ADT phase (worsening defined as >0% increase in Montgomery–Åsberg Depressive Rating Scale [MADRS] Total score). During the 6-week, double-blind, adjunctive phase, response was defined as ≥50% reduction in MADRS Total score and remission as ≥50% reduction in MADRS Total score and MADRS score ≤10.

Of 1065 patients who failed to achieve a response during the prospective phase, 160 exhibited worsening of symptoms (ADT-Worseners), and 905 exhibited no change/reduction in MADRS scores (ADT-Non-worseners). Response rates for ADT-Worseners at endpoint were 36.6% (adjunctive aripiprazole) and 22.5% (placebo). Similarly, response rates at endpoint for ADT-Non-worseners were 37.5% (adjunctive aripiprazole) and 22.5% (placebo). Remission rates at endpoint for ADT-Worseners were 25.4% (adjunctive aripiprazole) and 12.4% (placebo). For ADT-Non-worseners, remission rates were 29.9% (adjunctive aripiprazole) and 17.4% (placebo).

These results suggest that adjunctive aripiprazole is an effective intervention for patients whose symptoms worsen during antidepressant monotherapy. The results challenge the view that benefits of adjunctive therapy with aripiprazole are limited to partial responders to ADT.

The Lifetime Impairment Survey, conducted in Europe, assessed impairment and symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in childhood, and experiences of ADHD diagnosis and treatment, as recalled by adults.

Adults with ADHD and without ADHD (control group) were invited to participate in an internet-based survey and report on their childhood experiences. History of ADHD diagnosis was self-reported. Groups were compared using impairment and symptom scales.

Overall, 588 adults with ADHD and 736 without ADHD participated. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) age at diagnosis of ADHD was 20.0 (12.6) years (median 18.0) following consultation with 3.8 (5.1) doctors (median 2) over 44.6 (69.3) months (median 17.0). A total of 64.1% (377/588) of adults with ADHD reported frustration or difficulties during the diagnostic process. The ADHD group had a higher mean (SD) score versus control for general (3.3 [1.2] vs 2.1 [1.2]; p < 0.001) and school impairment (2.8 [0.7] vs 2.3 [0.6]; p < 0.001) but not home impairment (2.1 [0.5] for both groups).

The survey demonstrated that ADHD had a negative impact on all aspects of childhood investigated, as recalled by adults.

These data provide insights into childhood impairments and identify areas for improvement in the management and treatment of ADHD.

To evaluate the long-term safety and tolerability of lurasidone in schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder patients switched to lurasidone.

Patients in this multicenter, 6-month open-label, flexible-dose, extension study had completed a core 6-week randomized trial in which clinically stable, but symptomatic, outpatients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder were switched to lurasidone. Patients started the extension study on treatment with the same dose of lurasidone taken at study endpoint of the 6-week core study; following this, lurasidone was flexibly dosed (40–120 mg/day), if clinically indicated, starting on Day 7 of the extension study. The primary safety endpoints were the proportion of patients with treatment emergent adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, or who discontinued due to AEs. Secondary endpoints included metabolic variables and measures of extrapyramidal symptoms and akathisia, as well as the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S), and the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS). The study was conducted from August 2010 to November 2011.

Of the 198 patients who completed the 6-week core study, 149 (75.3%) entered the extension study and 148 received study medication. A total of 98 patients (65.8%) completed the 6-month extension study. Lurasidone 40, 80, and 120 mg were the modal daily doses for 19 (12.8%), 65 (43.9%), and 64 (43.2%) of patients, respectively. Overall mean (SD) daily lurasidone dose was 102.0 mg (77.1). The most commonly reported AEs were insomnia (13 patients [8.8%]), nausea (13 patients [8.8%]), akathisia (12 patients [8.1%]), and anxiety (9 patients [6.1%]). A total of 16 patients (10.8%) had at least one AE leading to discontinuation from the study. Consistent with prior studies of lurasidone, there was no signal for clinically relevant adverse changes in body weight, lipids, glucose, insulin, or prolactin. Movement disorder rating scales did not demonstrate meaningful changes. Treatment failure (defined as any occurrence of discontinuation due to insufficient clinical response, exacerbation of underlying disease, or AE) was observed for 19 patients (12.8% of patients entering) and median time to treatment failure was 58 days (95% CI 22–86). The discontinuation rate due to any cause was 50/148 (33.8%), and median time to discontinuation was 62 days (95% CI 30–75). The mean PANSS total score, mean CGI-S score, and mean CDSS score decreased consistently from core study baseline across extension visits, indicating an improvement in overall condition.

In this 6-month, open-label extension study, treatment with lurasidone was generally well-tolerated with sustained improvement in efficacy measures observed in outpatients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder who had switched to lurasidone from a broad range of antipsychotic agents.

The aim of this analysis was to compare the effects of 2 atypical antipsychotic agents, lurasidone (80 mg/d or 160 mg/d) and quetiapine XR (600 mg/d), on daytime alertness, and to evaluate the effects of daytime sleepiness on treatment outcomes in patients with an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia.

Patients who met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition, text revision (DSM-IV-TR) criteria for schizophrenia were randomized to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with fixed doses of lurasidone 80 mg/d (n = 125), lurasidone 160 mg/d (n = 121), quetiapine XR 600 mg/d (n = 119), or placebo (n = 121), all dosed once daily in the evening, with food. Daytime sleepiness was assessed using the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS).

Daytime sleepiness improved in the lurasidone and placebo-treated groups but worsened in the quetiapine XR treatment group when compared to placebo (p = 0.001) and to either dose of lurasidone (both p < 0.01). Sedation associated with quetiapine XR treatment mediated an improvement in agitation [assessed by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale—Excitement (PANSS-EC) subscale] and a worsening in functional capacity [assessed by the University of California–San Diego (UCSD) Performance-Based Skills Assessment—Brief Version (UPSA-B) total score]; these mediating relationships were not observed for the lurasidone or placebo treatment groups.

In this 6-week double-blind study, treatment with lurasidone 80 mg or 160 mg, administered once daily in the evening, was associated with a reduction in daytime sleepiness similar in magnitude to placebo, while quetiapine XR 600 mg/d was associated with a significant increase in daytime sleepiness, compared to both lurasidone dose groups and placebo. Daytime sleepiness was associated with improvement in agitation and worsening in functional capacity for quetiapine XR, but not lurasidone or placebo-treated patients.

To identify and explore concepts important to patients with cognitive symptoms of major depressive disorder (MDD) and adapt an existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure to assess these symptoms.

Four focus groups were conducted with MDD patients (n = 33) to elicit relevant concepts and determine whether one of several PRO scales could be used to assess cognitive symptoms of depression. Following selection and minor modification of the Perceived Deficits Questionnaire (PDQ), cognitive debriefing interviews were conducted with additional patients (n = 17) to further refine and adapt this measure for use in MDD. Minor revisions based on patient input yielded the PDQ for Depression (PDQ-D).

Focus group participants reported a variety of cognitive symptoms that were classified into 7 general categories: lack of focus and clear thought, memory problems, difficulty with lexical access, difficulty with divided attention, difficulty with decision making, difficulty thinking quickly, and difficulty learning new things. Limitations in work productivity were the most commonly reported impacts of cognitive symptoms. While suggesting a few modifications, focus group participants reacted positively to the PDQ based on the breadth, specificity, and relevance of the items. Cognitive debriefing participants indicated that the modified PDQ items were generally easy to understand and relevant to their experiences with MDD.

Because cognitive symptoms are burdensome to patients with MDD, their assessment is important to optimize treatment outcomes. The PDQ-D has the potential to supplement existing assessment methods, providing unique information important for both comprehensive evaluation of individuals with MDD and evaluation of new treatments.