Adjunctive Cariprazine for the Treatment of Patients With Major Depressive Disorder: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase 3 Study

The real-world impact of cariprazine on short- and long-term disability outcomes among commercially insured patients in the United States

AIM

To compare all-cause and mental health (MH)-related short-term and long-term disability leaves and associated costs among patients in the United States with bipolar disorder (BP), major depressive disorder (MDD), or schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SCZ) before versus after cariprazine initiation.

METHODS

Merative MarketScan Commercial and Health and Productivity Management (HPM) databases (January 2016 to December 2021) were utilized to identify adults diagnosed with BP, MDD, or SCZ with ≥2 pharmacy cariprazine claims (first claim = index), ≥3 months of cariprazine use (adjunctively for MDD), and continuous commercial insurance coverage and HPM eligibility during baseline (12 months pre-index) and ≥3 months post-index. Observation continued until cariprazine discontinuation, insurance or HPM eligibility end, 1 year post-index, or HPM data availability end. All-cause and MH-related disability claims, days, and costs were evaluated. Baseline versus post-index rates of disability claims (events) and days were compared using rate ratios (RR); costs were compared using mean cost differences. Comparisons were calculated from generalized estimating equation models. Analyses were replicated separately across indications.

RESULTS

There were 489 patients overall (BP = 238, MDD = 233, SCZ = 18; mean age = 43.3 years; 60.7% female; mean follow-up = 7.6 months). All-cause rates of disability events and days following cariprazine initiation were 29% (RR = 0.71 [95% CI = 0.57, 0.86]) and 28% (0.72 [0.53, 0.94]) lower than baseline, respectively (both p < .05). MH-related rates of disability events and days were 40% (0.60 [0.43, 0.80]) and 43% (0.57 [0.34, 0.84]) lower, respectively (both p < .01). All-cause disability costs were $2,917 lower and MH-related disability costs were $2,482 lower than baseline (40% and 51% decrease, respectively; both p < .01). Results were similar for indication-specific analyses.

LIMITATIONS

Limited generalizability to patients who are unemployed, uninsured, or have public insurance.

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of disability events, days, and mean costs were significantly lower after versus before cariprazine initiation. These results can help contextualize cariprazine's role in managing disability for these patients.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs of using cariprazine as the first versus subsequent adjunctive therapy for major depressive disorder

AIM

Inadequate response to antidepressant therapy (ADT) is common in major depressive disorder (MDD); atypical antipsychotic (AA) adjunctive therapy may be effective for these patients. This study aimed to compare healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs between patients initiating the AA cariprazine as their first adjunctive therapy vs those initiating cariprazine subsequently.

METHODS

The Merative MarketScan Commercial Database (January 1, 2015, to June 30, 2021) was used to identify US adults with MDD and ≥1 pharmacy claim for cariprazine adjunctive to ADT in 2018 or after. Rates of mental health (MH)‑related and all‑cause HRU per patient-year (PPY) and mean healthcare costs per-patient-per-year (PPPY) were assessed after patients first initiated adjunctive therapy. HRU and costs were compared between cohorts using rate ratios (RRs) and mean cost differences, respectively, estimated from multivariable regression models.

RESULTS

Of 838 patients receiving cariprazine, 44.7% initiated cariprazine as their first adjunctive therapy to ADT, and 55.3% initiated it subsequently. Those initiating cariprazine first had significantly lower rates of MH‑related hospitalizations (RR [95% confidence interval] = 0.55 [0.30, 0.90], p = .020) and outpatient (OP) visits (0.67 [0.57, 0.82], p < .001) PPY than those initiating cariprazine subsequently. Moreover, patients initiating cariprazine as their first adjunctive therapy had lower annual total MH‑related healthcare costs (mean cost difference [95% confidence interval] -$2,182 [-$4,206, -$69], p = .040), driven primarily by lower OP visit costs (-$1,511 [-$2,330, -$615], p < .001). Similar trends were observed for all-cause HRU and costs.

LIMITATIONS

This was a retrospective analysis of secondary data with limited follow-up. Claims were a proxy for cariprazine use.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this real‑world study of commercially insured US adults suggest that initiating cariprazine as the first adjunctive therapy rather than a subsequent therapy could help mitigate the considerable economic burden of MDD for appropriate patients.

The augmentative efficacy of second-generation anti-psychotics (SGA) to anti-depressants in treating treatment-resistant depression: a network meta-regression analysis

BACKGROUND

To compare the augmentative efficacy of second-generation anti-psychotics (SGA) to anti-depressants in adult patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) adjusting follow-up period and explore the underlying"time window"effects of the regimens.

METHODS

Databases included Embase, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Google Scholars as well as Clinicaltrials.gov from inception to May 15, 2024, for relevant randomized controlled studies (RCTs) were retrieved. The primary endpoint was Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). The secondary endpoint was MADRS response rate. The tertiary endpoints were Clinical Global Impression-severity (CGI-S) and MADRS remission rate. Standard mean difference (SMD) and hazard ratio (HR) were generated by Bayesian network meta-regression (NMR) for pairwise comparisons on dichotomous and consecutive variants, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 23 studies (N = 10679) with 24 augmentation agents were included in the NMR. For the primary endpoint, compared with ADT, aripiprazole 3 - 12 mg/d, brexpiprazole 1 - 3 mg/d, cariprazine 1.5 - 3 mg/d, olanzapine 6 - 12 mg/d and fluoxetine 25 - 50 mg/d combination, and quetiapine XR were significantly effective (SMD ranged from - 0.28 to - 0.114) and their effect sizes were comparable, after adjusting follow-up period, the results resembled the former except for quetiapine XR (SMD = - 0.10, 95%CI: - 0.212 to 0.014). Brexpiprazole 3 mg/d (7.22 weeks), cariprazine 1 - 2 mg/d (2.97 weeks), cariprazine 2-4.5 mg/d (2.81 weeks), cariprazine 3 mg/d (7.16 weeks), olanzapine 6 - 12 mg/d (4.11 weeks) and quetiapine 150 - 300 mg/d (3.89 weeks) showed"time window". For the secondary endpoint, brexpiprazole 3 mg/d and rispridone 0.5 - 3 mg/d was evidently superior to all others (HR ranged from 1.748 to 2.301). For the tertiary endpoints, as for CGI-S, aripiprazole 2 - 20 mg/d, brexpiprazole 2 - 3 mg/d, cariprazine 3 mg/d, olanzapine 6 - 12 mg/d and fluoxetine 25 - 50 mg/d combination, and rispridone 0.5 - 3 mg/d were conspicuously effective compared with ADT (SMD ranged from - 0.438 to - 0.126) and for MADRS remission rate, aripiprazole 2 - 20 mg/d, brexpiprazole 3 mg/d, cariprazine 3 mg/d, rispridone 0.5 - 3 mg/d were conspicuously effective compared with ADT (HR ranged from 0.477 to 3.326).

CONCLUSION

Holistically considering each endpoint and corresponding "time window", certain SGAs appeared to be efficient augmentation to anti-depressants for TRD, but aripiprazole was relatively more effective and better tolerated.

Agomelatine as adjunctive therapy with SSRIs or SNRIs for major depressive disorder: a multicentre, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

In general, traditional antidepressants often have limited efficacy in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). Agomelatine, as an antidepressant with a different mechanism of action, might have adjunctive effects on traditional antidepressants. This study aimed to investigate the augmentation effect of agomelatine versus placebo in treating MDD patients who failed to respond to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs).

METHODS

This is an 8-week, multi-centred, double-blinded, randomized, and placebo-controlled trial. Participants diagnosed with MDD and demonstrated inadequate response to SSRI or SNRI lasting at least 2 weeks were randomly allocated to receive either agomelatine or placebo in conjunction with SSRIs or SNRIs. The 17 items of the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD-17) were employed to assess depression severity. The primary outcome is the total score of HAMD-17 at week 8. Secondary outcomes included HAMD-17 scores at weeks 2 and 4 and clinical remission and response over 8 weeks. Adverse events (AEs) reported in both groups were recorded. A linear mixed model was established for both primary and secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 123 eligible participants were included, among which 60 were randomized into the agomelatine group, and 63 were randomized into the placebo group. The between-group difference in HAMD-17 score reduction from baseline to week 8 was not significant (difference = - 0.12, 95% CI = - 3.94 to 3.70, P = 0.90; Cohen's d = 0.022). In addition, we did not observe significant differences between the two treatment groups for secondary outcomes, including response remission, and AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

This study did not obtain significant findings in favour of the augmentation effect of agomelation for MDD patients. However, agomelatine was generally well tolerated and demonstrated a favourable safety profile when used in combination with SSRIs and SNRIs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( https://clinicaltrials.gov ), the registration number is NCT04589143.

Emerging Medications for Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Review with Perspective on Mechanisms and Challenges

Background/Objectives: Non-response to initial treatment options for major depressive disorder (MDD) is a common clinical challenge with profound deleterious impacts for affected patients. Few treatments have received regulatory approval for treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Methods: A systematic search of United States and European Union clinical trials registries was conducted to identify Phase II, III, or IV clinical trials, with a last update posted on or after 1 January 2020, that were evaluating medications for TRD. For both the US and EU registries, the condition term "treatment resistant depression" and associated lower-level terms (per registry search protocol) were used. For the US registry, a secondary search using the condition term "depressive disorders" and the modifying term "inadequate" was also performed to capture registrations not tagged as TRD. Two additional searches were also conducted in the US registry for the terms "suicide" and "anhedonia" as transdiagnostic targets of investigational medications. Trials were categorized based on the primary mechanism of action of the trial's investigational medication. Results: Fifty clinical trials for TRD, 20 for anhedonia, and 25 for suicide were identified. Glutamate system modulation was the mechanism currently with the most compounds in development, including antagonists and allosteric modulators of NMDA receptors, AMPA receptors, metabotropic type 2/3 glutamate receptors, and intracellular effector molecules downstream of glutamate signaling. Psychedelics have seen the greatest surge among mechanistic targets in the past 5 years, however, with psilocybin in particular garnering significant attention. Other mechanisms included GABA modulators, monoamine modulators, anti-inflammatory/immune-modulating agents, and an orexin type 2 receptor antagonist. Conclusions: These investigations offer substantial promise for more efficacious and potentially personalized medication approaches for TRD. Challenges for detecting efficacy in TRD include the heterogeneity within the TRD population stemming from the presumed variety of biological dysfunctions underlying the disorder, comorbid disorders, chronic psychosocial stressors, and enduring effects of prior serotonergic antidepressant medication treatments.

Healthcare resource utilization with adjunctive cariprazine and other atypical antipsychotics in patients with major depressive disorder

OBJECTIVE

Little is known about the healthcare resource utilization (HRU) associated with different adjunctive atypical antipsychotics (AAs) for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). This analysis evaluated HRU in patients with MDD treated adjunctively with cariprazine versus other AAs.

METHODS

Merative MarketScan databases were searched for claims made from 01/01/2018 to 12/31/2020 (Medicaid) or 3/31/2021 (commercial and Medicare). The study included adults with ≥1 inpatient MDD claim or ≥2 outpatient MDD claims >30 days apart and ≥1 claim for cariprazine, brexpiprazole, generic aripiprazole, or generic quetiapine adjunctive to an antidepressant (i.e. ≥14-day overlap between AA and antidepressant). Outcomes included all-cause and MDD-related inpatient stays and emergency department (ED), office, and psychiatric visits. Results were reported as estimated mean ratios, calculated via negative binomial regression, of the comparator AA to cariprazine with 95% CIs.

RESULTS

Analyses included 40,195 patients (cariprazine [n = 1,038], brexpiprazole [n = 3,221], generic aripiprazole [n = 20,601], generic quetiapine [n = 15,335]). The cariprazine cohort had significantly fewer all-cause and MDD-related inpatient stays relative to all other AA cohorts. All-cause ED visits were significantly lower in the cariprazine versus generic quetiapine cohort, and MDD-related ED visits were significantly lower in the cariprazine versus generic aripiprazole and generic quetiapine cohorts. ED visits were similar between cariprazine and all other cohorts. All-cause and MDD-related office and psychiatric visits were significantly lower in the cariprazine versus most other AA cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Although causality cannot be determined from these real-world findings, results suggest that in patients with MDD, initiating adjunctive cariprazine is associated with significantly lower HRU for certain outcomes relative to other AAs.

Adjunctive cariprazine for the treatment of major depressive disorder: Number needed to treat, number needed to harm, and likelihood to be helped or harmed

BACKGROUND

The number needed to treat (NNT) for efficacy and number needed to harm (NNH) for tolerability/safety were evaluated for adjunctive cariprazine in major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHODS

Data were extracted from five randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of adjunctive cariprazine in MDD. NNTs (response, remission, severity shift) and NNHs (discontinuations due to adverse events [AEs], AEs, laboratory shifts) were determined in dose groupings; likelihood to be helped/harmed (LHH) was calculated.

RESULTS

NNTs (95 % CI) for adjunctive cariprazine versus placebo were statistically significant at week 6/early termination for response on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), as defined by a decrease in total score ≥ 50 % (doses ≥ 1 mg/d = 12 [9-21]; 1-2 mg/d = 12 [8-25]; 2-4.5 mg/d = 14 [9-43]) and other response/remission outcomes. NNHs for cariprazine versus placebo were generally ≥ 10 for AEs that were statistically significant; an apparent dose-response was seen for akathisia (lower dose = 24 [17-43]; higher dose = 9 [7-11]). LHHs were ≥ 1 (acceptable benefit/harm ratio) for MADRS total score response versus most important cariprazine AEs in most dose groupings. For response versus discontinuation because of an AE, adjunctive cariprazine 1-2 mg/d had a more favorable response/tolerability profile in indirect comparison with other approved atypical antipsychotics.

LIMITATIONS

Post hoc analysis; indirect comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving adjunctive cariprazine encountered benefits more often than harms; NNT values at week 6/early termination were statistically significant versus placebo on response/remission outcomes across dose groupings from the five pooled studies. Adjunctive cariprazine was well tolerated; NNH values versus placebo were generally > 10, with better akathisia tolerability in the lower-dose range.

Safety and tolerability of cariprazine for the adjunctive treatment of major depressive disorder: a pooled analysis of phase 2b/phase 3 clinical trials

To characterize the safety and tolerability of adjunctive cariprazine in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and inadequate response to monotherapy antidepressant treatment (ADT). Post hoc analyses evaluated pooled data from 2 fixed-dose phase 3 cariprazine studies (1.5 and 3 mg/d [approved doses for MDD]). In a separate safety analysis, cariprazine 0.1-4.5 mg/d was evaluated using data from the 2 fixed-dose trials plus 3 flexible-dose studies grouped by modal-daily dose. In the pooled phase 3 studies (placebo = 503, 1.5 mg/d = 502, 3 mg/d = 503), overall cariprazine-treated patients had high rates of study completion (90%). Patients had mostly mild/moderate treatment-emergent adverse events that caused premature discontinuation of 4.3%. Only akathisia, nausea, and insomnia occurred in ≥5% of cariprazine patients (any group) and at twice the rate of placebo; potential dose-dependent responses were observed for akathisia and insomnia. Cariprazine had a neutral metabolic profile, with mean weight increase of <1 kg. Modal-dose results were similar, and both analyses were consistent with the known safety profile of cariprazine across its approved indications. Adjunctive cariprazine therapy was safe and generally well tolerated in patients with MDD who had not obtained an adequate response to ADT monotherapy; no new safety signals were identified.

Cariprazine in the acute treatment of unipolar and bipolar depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cariprazine has emerged as a promising augmenting treatment agent for unipolar depression and as a monotherapy option for bipolar depression. We evaluated cariprazine's efficacy in treating acute major depressive episodes in individuals with major depressive disorder (MDD) or bipolar disorder.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted on MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and ScanMedicine. Study quality was assessed using the RoB 2 tool. Pairwise and dose-response meta-analyses were conducted with RStudio. Evidence quality was assessed with GRADE.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs meeting inclusion criteria encompassed 4889 participants. Cariprazine, compared to placebo, significantly reduced the MADRS score (MD = -1.49, 95 % CI: -2.22 to -0.76) and demonstrated significantly higher response (RR = 1.21, 95 % CI: 1.12 to 1.30) and remission (RR = 1.19, 95 % CI: 1.06 to 1.34) rates. Subgroup analysis unveiled statistically significant reductions in MADRS score in MDD (MD = -1.15, 95 % CI: -2.04 to -0.26) and bipolar I disorder (BDI) (MD = -2.53, 95 % CI: -3.61 to -1.45), higher response rates for both MDD (RR = 1.19, 95 % CI: 1.08 to 1.31) and BDI (RR = 1.27, 95 % CI: 1.10 to 1.46), and higher remission rates only for BDI (RR = 1.41, 95 % CI: 1.24 to 1.60). A higher rate of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events was observed.

LIMITATIONS

Reliance solely on RCTs limits generalisability; strict criteria might not reflect real-world diversity.

CONCLUSIONS

Cariprazine demonstrates efficacy in treating major depressive episodes, although variations exist between MDD and BDI and tolerability may be an issue.

Exploring cariprazine as a treatment option for varied depression symptom clusters

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is among the most prevalent psychiatric conditions and a leading cause of disability worldwide. MDD presents a diverse range of symptoms that significantly impact personal, societal, and economic dimensions. Despite the availability of numerous antidepressant treatments (ADTs) targeting different molecular mechanisms, a substantial proportion of patients experience inadequate response, presenting a considerable challenge in MDD management. As a result, adjunctive strategies, particularly involving atypical antipsychotics, are often employed to enhance treatment efficacy. Cariprazine, a D2/D3 partial agonist, is distinguished from other atypical antipsychotics by its selective action on the D3 receptor and its modulation of 5-HT1A, 5-HT2A, and alpha 1B receptors. This distinctive pharmacological profile warrants investigation into its potential effectiveness and tolerability across various symptom domains of MDD, including pleasure, interest, and motivation; mood and suicidality; sleep and appetite; fatigue; psychomotor activity and anxiety; and cognitive function. Preliminary evidence from animal studies and clinical trials suggests that cariprazine may improve motivation, anhedonia, and cognitive function symptoms. Cariprazine shows promise in alleviating mood-related symptoms, though its impact on anxiety and its effects on agitation and psychomotor retardation remains uncertain. Cariprazine may be particularly beneficial for patients with MDD exhibiting anhedonia, cognitive deficits, and possibly fatigue and hypersomnia. Evaluating cariprazine's efficacy across these symptom domains could reveal patterns that support more personalized treatment approaches for depression. Further research is essential to elucidate the role of cariprazine as an adjunctive therapy for adults with major depressive disorder who have an inadequate response to antidepressant monotherapy.

Clinical challenges in the dosing and titration of cariprazine

The introduction of a new psychopharmaceutical medication instead of the previous one always poses a certain challenge. In the case of antipsychotics (AP), these problems are considerably more complicated and are mainly caused by the question of dose equivalents, but also by the pharmacokinetic properties of the drug. In the case of partial dopamine D2 agonists, an additional issue is the possibility of deterioration when switching from the previous D2 antagonists to these drugs. Cross-titration is therefore generally recommended. Finally, due to the capsule form, it is not possible to increase the dose of cariprazine by less than 1.5 mg during titration. In this paper, we have presented our proposal to replace the most commonly used second-generation APs with the third-generation AP cariprazine. We have taken into account the dose equivalents, the pharmacological forms of the drugs and their pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties.

Adjunctive cariprazine for major depressive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Converging evidence has suggested that treatment augmentation with a second-generation atypical antipsychotic (SGA) may improve treatment outcomes in major depressive disorder (MDD) patients after an incomplete response to a first-line antidepressant. Cariprazine is a recently approved SGA for MDD augmentation. Herein, we evaluate both continuous (ie, change in depressive symptom severity scores over time) and categorical (ie, remission and response rates) outcomes. Following a full-text review, four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in our meta-analysis, while five studies were included for a qualitative review. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated for all included randomized controlled studies to determine the relative response and remission rates of cariprazine compared to placebo augmentation. The RR for all-cause dropout was also determined as a proxy for overall acceptability. Two studies found a statistically significant treatment response using cariprazine augmentation. One study observed depressive symptom remission for cariprazine compared to placebo. Our random-effects model revealed moderate antidepressant effects of cariprazine, with a standardized mean difference (SMD) in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores of -1.79 (95% CI): -2.89, -0.69). Our pooled response RR and remission RR were calculated as 1.21 (95% CI: 1.05, 1.39, P=0.008) and 0.99 (95% CI: 0.84, 1.17, P=0.91), respectively. The RR for response was statistically significant (P<0.05). However, the RR for remission was not statistically significant. The findings from our meta-analysis include a variable magnitude of effects. Evidence suggests cariprazine may be an effective treatment for MDD; however, further results are needed to clarify this relation.

Re-thinking the treatment of depression: have we been misinformed about antidepressants? A webinar discussion with Irving Kirsch, Ph.D. and Michael D. Yapko, Ph.D

This article provides an edited transcript of a moderated discussion between depression experts Irving Kirsch and Michael Yapko regarding the role of antidepressants in the treatment of major depression. It includes references to the role of expectancy and the merits of hypnosis in treatment. This presentation was sponsored by MindsetHealth, an Australian-based digital therapeutics company (mindsethealth.com) and took place online on March 28, 2023. As a webinar offered at no cost, it was open to anyone with an interest in the subject. Dr. Kirsch described his landmark research on the placebo effect and its curious relationship to the presumed merits of antidepressant medications. Dr. Yapko discussed the limitations of drug treatment based on the substantial evidence indicating that depression is much more a social problem than a medical one. The moderator for this discussion is Claire Davidson, who serves as the Research Lead at MindsetHealth. Drs. Kirsch and Yapko both serve on the MindsetHealth Scientific Advisory Board.

Role of adjunctive cariprazine for treatment-resistant depression in patients with major depressive disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Cariprazine is an orally active dopamine D3-preferring D3/D2 receptor and serotonin 5-HT1A receptor partial agonist, being considered as a treatment for refractory MDD. Therefore, we aim to perform the first meta-analysis of current literature, to collate changes in depression from baseline and assess tolerability of adjunctive cariprazine in MDD populace.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials.Gov, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception till 1st September 2023. RCTs of adult patients with refractory MDD under adjunctive cariprazine vs. placebo were included. Primary outcomes included improvement in MADRS, CGI-S, and HAM-D 17 scores. Secondary outcomes included treatment-emergent adverse events. The statistical analysis was performed using generic inverse variance with random-effects model. The overall risk ratios (RR) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of five RCTs were analysed, enrolling 2013 participants (cariprazine: 959 participants, Placebo: 1054). Supplementation of ADT with cariprazine demonstrated a significant improvement in MADRAS, CGI-S and HAMD-17 scores from baseline (LSMD: -1.88, 95% CI [-2.94, -0.83], p=0.0005), (LSMD: -0.18, 95% CI [-0.29, -0.07], p=0.002), and (LSMD: -0.96, 95% CI [-1.70, -0.21], p=0.01) respectively. Treatment with adjunctive cariprazine therapy demonstrated significantly increased incidence of akathisia, nausea, dizziness, fatigue, restlessness, somnolence, and tremors when compared with placebo.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis provides evidence supporting the efficacy of adjunctive cariprazine in patients with refractory MDD. However, it is essential to consider the safety profile of cariprazine, particularly the increased risk of adverse events. The vigilant monitoring and management of these side effects should be integrated into clinical practice to minimize discontinuation rates and optimize patient outcomes.

Adjunctive cariprazine as a novel effective strategy for treating major depressive disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cariprazine has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating bipolar depression and as an adjunctive treatment for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). However, it remains unclear about its pharmacological efficacy in treating MDD. Therefore, a meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the adjunctive use of cariprazine in MDD.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for eligible studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of cariprazine in patients with MDD up to November 15, 2023. The changes in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score and incidence of adverse events (AEs), which represents of efficacy and tolerability, are considered as the main outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 3066 patients with MDD included in all across 5 RCTs. With regard to MADRS score, cariprazine group showed better results than control group (SMD = -0.12, 95% CI -0.19 to -0.04, P = 0.002, 5 RCTs, n = 3066). Cariprazine, meanwhile, improved the MADRS response (RR = 1.19, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.31, P = 0.0004, 5 RCTs, n = 3066). For safety outcomes, statistical difference was observed in AEs (RR = 1.26, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.35, P < 0.00001, 5 RCTs, n = 3077). The suicide ideation and SAEs showed no statistical difference between two groups.

CONCLUSION

Cariprazine demonstrated antidepressant effect as an augmentation therapy in treating MDD. Meanwhile, the tolerability of it was acceptable as an adjunctive treatment. However, studies with larger sample sizes are still needed to explore the optimal dosage.

An "Awakener" Patient Suffering From Treatment-Resistant Depression Following Adjunctive Cariprazine

This report presents a case of particular interest in terms of course and therapeutic outcomes, concerning a patient suffering from treatment-resistant depression in whom adjunctive cariprazine to medication brought about an immediate overall improvement in symptomatology. Informed written consent was obtained from the subject for publication of the case.

Cariprazine augmentation in patients with treatment resistant unipolar depression who failed to respond to previous atypical antipsychotic add-on. A case-series

Among individuals receiving an adequate pharmacological treatment for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), only 30% reach a full symptom recovery; the remaining 70% will experience either a pharmacological response without remission or no response at all thus configuring treatment resistant depression (TRD). After an inadequate response to an antidepressant, possible next step options include optimizing the dose of the current antidepressant, switching to a different antidepressant, combining antidepressants, or augmenting with a non-antidepressant medication. Augmentation strategies with the most evidence-based support include atypical antipsychotics (AAs). Few data are available in literature about switching to another antipsychotic when a first augmentation trial has failed. We present a case-series of patients with unipolar treatment resistant depression who were treated with a combination of antidepressant and low dose of cariprazine after failing to respond to a first augmentation with another AA. We report data about ten patients affected by unipolar depression, visited at the outpatients unit of Mental Health Department of ASL CN2 of Bra and NA1 of Napoli (Italy). All patients failed to respond to conventional antidepressant therapy. A low dose of AA (aripiprazole, risperidone or brexpiprazole) was added for one month to the ongoing antidepressant treatment without clinical improvement. A second augmentation trial was then made with cariprazine. Seven out of ten patients were responders at the end of period, of them 1 patient reached responder status by week 2. HAM-D mean scores decreased from 23.9 ± 3.9 (baseline) to 14.8 ± 5.3 (4 weeks). Cariprazine was well tolerated, no severe side effect was observed during the trial. Our sample of treatment resistant unipolar patients showed good response to augmentation with cariprazine. Failure to a first AA-augmentation trial does not preclude response to a second one. This preliminary result requires confirmation through more rigorous studies conducted over greater samples.