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

Towards full recovery with lurasidone: effective doses in the treatment of agitation, affective, positive, and cognitive symptoms in schizophrenia and of dual psychosis

The management of schizophrenia necessitates a comprehensive treatment paradigm that considers individual patient nuances and the efficacy of lurasidone in addressing schizophrenia symptoms, particularly at elevated dosages. Numerous randomized trials have affirmed the efficacy of lurasidone across various dimensions of schizophrenia, demonstrating marked enhancements in positive, negative and cognitive symptoms compared to a placebo. In addition, lurasidone exhibits potential in ameliorating agitation amongst acutely ill patients, showcasing greater efficacy at higher doses. However, despite the favourable outcomes observed with higher lurasidone doses, routine clinical practice often opts for lower doses, potentially limiting its maximal therapeutic impact. Furthermore, lurasidone also shows efficacy in reducing post-psychotic depression in dual psychosis. Moreover, practical insights into lurasidone usage encompass swift dose escalation within a 1-5-day span and recommended combination strategies with other medications such as benzodiazepines for insomnia or agitation, beta-blockers for akathisia, and antihistamines or antimuscarinic drugs for patients transitioning rapidly from antipsychotics with substantial antihistamine and/or anticholinergic effects. Finally, a series of clinical cases is presented, highlighting benefits of lurasidone in terms of cognitive function, functional recovery and other therapeutic aspects for the management of schizophrenia.

The specific anti-hostility effect of lurasidone in patients with an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia: results of pooled post hoc analyses in adolescents and adults

Symptoms of hostility in patients during acute exacerbations of schizophrenia have been associated with aggressive behavior. Data suggest that some second-generation antipsychotics have specific anti-hostility effects, independent of sedation and positive symptom improvement. Two post hoc analyses were performed to examine the efficacy of lurasidone for reducing hostility in patients with schizophrenia. One analysis pooled adults (N = 1168) from 5 placebo-controlled, 6-week trials of lurasidone (40-160 mg). Another analysis pooled younger patients (up to age 25 years, N = 427) from the adult studies and a similarly designed trial of lurasidone (40 or 80 mg) in adolescent patients (13-17 years old). The outcome measure was mean change in the hostility item (P7) of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). To address pseudospecificity, results were adjusted for positive symptom change and sedation. In adults with a baseline PANSS hostility score ≥2, significant improvement in hostility was observed for all doses with a dose-related increase in effect size (Cohen's d): lurasidone 40 mg = 0.18, 80 mg = 0.24, 120 mg = 0.36, and 160 mg = 0.53. The same dose-response pattern was observed for the more severe hostility subgroups (P7: ≥3, ≥4), and in the early-onset population. Results suggest that lurasidone has specific, dose-related anti-hostility effects.

Long-term safety and effectiveness of lurasidone in adolescents and young adults with schizophrenia: pooled post hoc analyses of two 12-month extension studies

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of lurasidone in the treatment of schizophrenia in adolescents and young adults (13-25).

METHODS

The 2 pooled studies used similar designs and outcome measures. Patients (13-25) with schizophrenia completed an initial double-blind 6-week trial of lurasidone (40 and 80 mg/day) in the adolescent trial and (80 and 160 mg/day) in the young adult trial. In open-label long-term trials, adolescent patients were treated with 20-80 mg/day lurasidone, and adults were treated with 40-160 mg/day lurasidone. Efficacy was evaluated based on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and Clinical Global Impression-Severity Scale (CGI-S).

RESULTS

The safety population consisted of 306 patients (mean age, 16.2 years; 208 patients (68.0%) who completed 12 months of treatment; 8.2% who discontinued treatment by 12 months due to an adverse event). The mean (SD) changes in the PANSS total score from the extension baseline to months 6 and 12 were - 11.8 (13.9) and - 15.3 (15.0), respectively (OC), and the mean (SD) changes in the CGI-S score were - 0.8 (1.0) and - 1.0 (1.1), respectively (OC). The most frequent adverse events were headache (17.6%), anxiety (11.4%), schizophrenia (9.8%), and nausea (9.8%). No clinically meaningful changes were observed in weight, metabolic parameters, or prolactin.

CONCLUSIONS

In adolescents and young adults with schizophrenia, treatment with lurasidone was generally well tolerated and effective. Long-term treatment was associated with a continued reduction in symptoms of schizophrenia. Long-term treatment was associated with minimal effects on weight, metabolic parameters, and prolactin.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov identifiers D1050234, D1050302.

Efficacy and Safety of Adding Lurasidone to Ongoing Therapy With Lithium or Valproate for the Treatment of an Acute Bipolar Depressive Episode: A Post Hoc Analysis of 2 Placebo-Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety profile of lurasidone combined with either lithium or valproate, in the short-term treatment of patients with bipolar depression.

METHODS

Data were pooled from two 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of patients with bipolar depression on stable doses of lithium or valproate randomized to lurasidone (20-120 mg/d) or placebo. Efficacy measures included the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Clinical Global Impressions Bipolar Scale, and the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology via self-assessment and were analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures approach.

RESULTS

Notably larger week 6 effect sizes were observed when lurasidone was added to lithium, compared with when lurasidone was added to valproate, on 2 of the 3 depression outcome measures, Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score (d = 0.45 vs 0.22) and Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology via self-assessment (d = 0.63 vs 0.29); the efficacy advantage was smaller on the Clinical Global Impressions Bipolar Scale depression score (d = 0.34 vs 0.29). Similar adverse event profiles were observed for lurasidone treatment in combination with either lithium or valproate. The most frequently reported events (≥5%) in both groups were nausea, parkinsonism, somnolence, akathisia, and insomnia. Minimal changes in weight, lipids, and measures of glycemic control were observed during treatment with lurasidone combined with either lithium or valproate.

CONCLUSIONS

Lurasidone added to either lithium or valproate was found to be an effective treatment for bipolar depression, with a larger antidepressant effect observed when lurasidone was combined with lithium. There were no clinically meaningful differences in the safety or tolerability of lurasidone when used adjunctively with lithium or valproate.

Efficacy and safety of lurasidone for schizophrenia: A systematic review and meta‑analysis of eight short‑term, randomized, double‑blind, placebo‑controlled clinical trials

Lurasidone is an atypical anti-psychotic approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. It is mainly used to treat schizophrenia in adults through its antagonistic action on dopamine and 5-hydroxytryptamine receptors. The present study systematically assessed the efficacy and safety of lurasidone in the treatment of schizophrenia. Clinical, double-blind, parallel, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of lurasidone in the treatment of schizophrenia were retrieved from PubMed\Medline, EBSCO, Embase, Cochrane Library, OVID, Web of Science and related clinical trial registration websites up to May 2023. A total of two investigators independently screened the included references and evaluated their quality. RevMan 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis of each measure outcome. The present systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (ID=CRD42018108178). A total of eight RCTs were included in the present study, including a total of 2,456 patients with schizophrenia. All eight references were randomized, double-blind and parallel control trials. All eight references were evaluated as high quality. The meta-analysis results demonstrated that there were no significant change in total Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) score, Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S) score and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) between the 40 mg lurasidone group and the placebo group (P>0.05). However, as the dosage increased, the 80, 120 and 160 mg lurasidone groups had significant changes in total PANSS score, CGI-S score and MADRS Compared with placebo (P<0.05), although changes in MADRS in the 120 mg lurasidone group were not statistically significant (P>0.05). In terms of safety, the changes in the incidence of agitation in the 40 mg lurasidone group (P<0.05), vomiting in the 80 mg group (P<0.05) and akathisia in the 160 mg group (P<0.05) were statistically significant and there were also statistically significant changes in the incidence of akathisia, nausea, somnolence and extrapyramidal disorder among the 40, 80 and 120 mg lurasidone groups (P<0.05); No statistically significant changes in the in the incidence of other adverse reactions (P>0.05). In conclusion, existing evidence suggests that the initial dose of lurasidone for schizophrenia can be adjusted to 80 mg. As the condition aggravates, the dose can be incrementally increased to 160 mg. A dose of 160 mg lurasidone is recommended as the most efficacious and safe dose for acute schizophrenia and the risk of occurrence of akathisia, nausea, somnolence and extrapyramidal disorder is still high when lurasidone is administered at a dose of 80-120 mg. The dose should be promptly adjusted or the drug should be withdrawn if the aforementioned adverse reactions worsen. Multi-center, high-quality and long-term clinical RCTs influenced by the included references are still necessary to support the aforementioned conclusions.

Cascade [4 + 1] Annulation through Activation of the C(sp2)-H Bond Enabling Benzothiadiazinoisoindolcarboxylate, Benzothiadiazinoisoindole, and Benzothiadiazinoisoindolepyrrolidinedione as Hybrid Spiro-Heterocyclic Frameworks†

Two structurally distinct and biologically privileged succinimide and isoindole heteroarenes bearing benzothiadiazinedioxide motif-centered hybrid conjugates are proficiently achieved through Rh(III)-catalyzed sequential C(sp2)-H bond activation, ortho-alkenylation and finally cascade intramolecular cyclization. The significant feature of this developed protocol is that the resulting diversely decorated heterocycles contain a quaternary carbon center and this has been coursed through atypical [4 + 1] annulation ignoring the prevalent [4 + 2]-cyclization pathway and interestingly the applied coupling partners (e.g., maleimide, maleate, and styrene) to materialize the protocol functioned only as C1 synthon. Furthermore, the selective reduction strategy enables to modify the hybrid conjugate of succinimide and benzothiazine dioxide to benzothiazine dioxide-based spirocyclic isoindolopyrrolidinedione skeleton following preferential reduction of one carbonyl group of imide functionality. Overall this methodology emerges to be easily handled, versatile, time-efficient, and manifests relatively unfamiliar spiro-cyclization and good functional group tolerance so easy to grab a library of the entirely new variant of decorated hybrid spiro-heterocyclic scaffolds.

A Novel Method for Deriving Adverse Event Prevalence in Randomized Controlled Trials: Potential for Improved Understanding of Benefit-Risk Ratio and Application to Drug Labels

INTRODUCTION

Adverse event (AE) data in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) allow quantification of a drug's safety risk relative to placebo and comparison across medications. The standard US label for Food and Drug Administration-approved drugs typically lists AEs by MedDRA Preferred Term that occur at ≥ 2% in drug and with greater incidence than in placebo. We suggest that the drug label can be more informative for both patients and physicians if it includes, in addition to AE incidence (percent of subjects who reported the AE out of the total subjects in treatment), the absolute prevalence (percent of subject-days spent with an AE out of the total subject-days spent in treatment) and expected duration (days required for AE incidence to be reduced by half). We also propose a new method to analyze AEs in RCTs using drug-placebo difference in AE prevalence to improve safety signal detection.

METHODS

AE data from six RCTs in schizophrenia were analyzed (five RCTs of the dopamine D2 receptor-based antipsychotic lurasidone and one RCT of the novel trace amine-associated receptor 1 [TAAR1] agonist ulotaront). We determined incidence, absolute prevalence, and expected duration of AEs for lurasidone and ulotaront vs respective placebo. We also calculated areas under the curve of drug-placebo difference in AE prevalence and mean percent contribution of each AE to this difference.

RESULTS

A number of AEs with the same incidence had different absolute prevalence and expected duration. When accounting for these two parameters, AEs that did not appear in the 2% incidence tables of the drug label turned out to contribute substantially to drug tolerability. The percent contribution of a drug-related AE to the overall side effect burden increased the drug-placebo difference in AE prevalence, whereas the percent contribution of a placebo-related AE decreased such difference, revealing a continuum of risk between drug and placebo. AE prevalence curves for drug were generally greater than those for placebo. Ulotaront exhibited a small drug-placebo difference in AE prevalence curves due to a relatively low incidence and short duration of AEs in the ulotaront treatment arm as well as the emergence of disease-related AEs in the placebo arm.

CONCLUSION

Reporting AE absolute prevalence and expected duration for each RCT and incorporating them in the drug label is possible, is clinically relevant, and allows standardized comparison of medications. Our new metric, the drug-placebo difference in AE prevalence, facilitates signal detection in RCTs. We piloted this metric in RCTs of several neuropsychiatric indications and drugs, offering a new way to compare AE burden and tolerability among treatments using existing clinical trial information.

Lurasidone and risk of metabolic syndrome: results from short and long-term studies in patients with bipolar depression

OBJECTIVE

The elevated prevalence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) in patients with depression has been associated with increased mortality. This post hoc analysis assessed the effect of treatment with lurasidone on risk of MetS in patients with bipolar depression.

METHODS

Data used in the current analyses consisted of 3 double-blind (DB), placebo-controlled, 6-week studies in adults with bipolar I depression (N = 1192), consisting of 1 monotherapy, and 2 adjunctive trials (lithium or valproate). Also analyzed was a 6-month open-label (OL) extension study (monotherapy, N = 316; adjunctive therapy, N = 497); and a 5-month, OL, stabilization phase followed by randomization to a 28-week DB, placebo-controlled, adjunctive therapy study with lurasidone (N = 490). MetS was defined based on NCEP ATP III criteria (2005 revision).

RESULTS

The proportion of patients with new-onset MetS was similar for lurasidone vs placebo in the short-term studies (monotherapy, 13.9% vs 15.3%; adjunctive therapy, 13.6% vs 11.0%); and remained stable during both the 6-month extension phase study (monotherapy, 15.2%; adjunctive therapy, 16.9%), and the 5-month stabilization study (adjunctive therapy, 12.2%). After 28 weeks of DB treatment (following 5-month treatment in the stabilization study), new onset MetS was observed at endpoint (OC) in 26.2% of the lurasidone group, and 30.8% of the placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS

This post hoc analysis found that both short and long-term treatment with lurasidone was associated with a relatively low risk for the development of MetS in patients with bipolar I disorder. These findings are consistent with similar analyses in patients with schizophrenia.

Adverse effects of antipsychotics on sleep in patients with schizophrenia. Systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Our objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of adverse effects on sleep in patients with schizophrenia receiving antipsychotic treatment.

Methods

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Central, Embase, Toxline, Ebsco, Virtual Health Library, Web of Science, SpringerLink, and in Database of abstracts of Reviews of Effects of Randomized Clinical Trials to identify eligible studies published from January 1990 to October 2021. The methodological quality of the studies was evaluated using the CONSORT list, and the Cochrane bias tool. Network meta-analysis was performed using the Bayesian random-effects model, with multivariate meta-regression to assess the association of interest.

Results

87 randomized clinical trials were identified that met the inclusion criteria, and 70 articles were included in the network meta-analysis. Regarding the methodological quality of the studies, 47 had a low or moderate bias risk. The most common adverse effects on sleep reported in the studies were insomnia, somnolence, and sedation. The results of the network meta-analysis showed that ziprasidone was associated with an increased risk of insomnia (OR, 1.56; 95% credible interval CrI, 1.18-2.06). Several of the included antipsychotics were associated with a significantly increased risk of somnolence; haloperidol (OR, 1.90; 95% CrI, 1.12-3.22), lurasidone (OR, 2.25; 95% CrI, 1.28-3.97) and ziprasidone (OR, 1.79; 95% CrI, 1.06-3.02) had the narrowest confidence intervals. In addition, perphenazine (OR, 5.33; 95% CrI, 1.92-14.83), haloperidol (OR, 2.61; 95% CrI, 1.14-5.99), and risperidone (OR, 2.41; 95% CrI, 1.21-4.80) were associated with an increased risk of sedation compared with placebo, and other antipsychotics did not differ. According to the SUCRAs for insomnia, chlorpromazine was ranked as the lowest risk of insomnia (57%), followed by clozapine (20%), while flupentixol (26 %) and perospirone (22.5%) were associated with a lower risk of somnolence. On the other hand, amisulpride (89.9%) was the safest option to reduce the risk of sedation.

Discussion

Insomnia, sedation, and somnolence were the most frequent adverse effects on sleep among the different antipsychotics administered. The evidence shows that chlorpromazine, clozapine, flupentixol, perospirone, and amisulpride had favorable safety profiles. In contrast, ziprasidone, perphenazine, haloperidol, and risperidone were the least safe for sleep.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017078052, identifier: PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017078052.

Lurasidone for Treating Schizophrenia and Bipolar Depression: A Review of Its Efficacy

Lurasidone is an antipsychotic medication that blocks dopamine D2 and serotonin 5-hydroxy-tryptamine (5-HT)_2A receptors and affects other serotoninergic and noradrenergic receptors. It has rapid absorption and linear pharmacokinetics. The rates of metabolic syndrome for patients taking lurasidone are comparable to placebo groups. Lurasidone is a safe and effective treatment for patients with acute schizophrenia and bipolar depression. It has been found to improve the brief psychiatric rating scale and other secondary measures in schizophrenic patients and reduce depressive symptoms in bipolar I depression. The once-daily administration of lurasidone is generally well-tolerated and does not cause clinically significant differences in extrapyramidal symptoms, adverse effects, or weight gain compared to a placebo. However, lurasidone's effectiveness in combination with lithium or valproate has been mixed. Further research is needed to determine optimal dosing, treatment duration, and combination with other mood stabilizers. Long-term safety and effectiveness and its use in different subpopulations should also be evaluated.

Lurasidone Augmentation of Clozapine in Schizophrenia—Retrospective Chart Review

The aim of our study was to evaluate the effectiveness of lurasidone augmentation of clozapine in treatment-resistant schizophrenia (SZ) in a retrospective chart review. From the medical records of 916 SZ patients, we identified 16 individuals treated with a combination of clozapine and lurasidone. The detailed clinical data are described separately for each patient. We compared the Clinical Global Impression—Severity (CGI-S) scores between three points of observation: before the treatment and one month and two months after its initiation. CGI Improvement (CGI-I) scores were used to evaluate the treatment response between the first and last points of observation. The vast majority of patients (14/16, 87.5%) responded to lurasidone augmentation of clozapine (CGI-I scores 1 or 2). Therapeutic effects were observable after 3–12 weeks of treatment (median 6 (4–6)). A reduction in CGI-S scores was observed after the first month of observation. There was an observable reduction in positive, depressive and anxiety symptoms, as well as an improvement in psychosocial functioning. Two patients discontinued treatment due to side effects. Our study suggests that lurasidone augmentation of clozapine may lead to improvements in a broad range of SZ symptom dimensions.

Lurasidone for the treatment of schizophrenia in adult and paediatric populations

Schizophrenia is a common debilitating disorder characterized by significant impairments in how reality is perceived, combined with behavioural changes. In this review, we describe the lurasidone development programme for adult and paediatric patients. Both the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of lurasidone are revisited. In addition, pivotal clinical studies conducted on both adults and children are summarized. Several clinical cases, which demonstrate the role of lurasidone in real-world practice, are also presented. Current clinical guidelines recommend lurasidone as the first-line treatment in the acute and long-term management of schizophrenia in both adult and paediatric populations.

Systematic literature review and network meta-analysis of lurasidone, brexpiprazole and cariprazine for schizophrenia

A systematic review was undertaken to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of lurasidone, brexpiprazole and cariprazine (selected because of a shared safety profile) with each other or placebo in adult patients with schizophrenia. Key outcomes included: Positive and Negative Syndrome Scales (PANSS), Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) scores and cardiovascular and metabolic parameters. A feasibility assessment evaluated the trials' suitability for inclusion in a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). Random effects models were used. In total, 1138 records were identified and 19 RCTs contributed to the NMA. Lurasidone doses of 160 mg performed best in terms of change in PANSS and CGI-S scores at 6 weeks, with stronger evidence when compared with brexpiprazole than cariprazine. The safety outcomes were variable; for all treatments, the 95% credible intervals usually contained 'no difference'. Active treatments were associated with lower odds of discontinuation due to any cause, and higher odds of experiencing any adverse event. Lurasidone was comparable to brexpiprazole and cariprazine for efficacy and safety outcomes assessed at 6 weeks, with the 160 mg dose being superior for the change in PANSS and CGI-S outcomes. The lurasidone results were relatively consistent across doses compared with brexpiprazole and cariprazine.

Cognitive Effects of Lurasidone and Cariprazine: A Mini Systematic Review

Cognitive deficits are associated with schizophrenia and show a progressive worsening, often being unresponsive to treatment. New antipsychotic molecules acting as antagonist at the serotoninergic 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor 7 (e.g. lurasidone) or partial agonists at dopamine D3 receptor (e.g. cariprazine) could have an impact on cognition in this patient group. The aim of the systematic review is to explore the efficacy of lurasidone and cariprazine in improving cognition in both animal models and human studies. The following terms: (lurasidone AND cognit*) OR (cariprazine AND cognit*) were searched in Web of Science from inception to December 2021. We included all studies that assessed changes in cognitive function after treatment with cariprazine or lurasidone. Of 201 selected articles, 36 were included. Twenty-four articles used animal models (rats, mice and marmosets), five evaluating the effects of cariprazine and 19 the effects of lurasidone. Twelve articles were clinical studies (cariprazine n = 2; lurasidone n = 10). In both animal and human studies lurasidone showed a greater efficacy on cognitive performance compared to placebo, quetiapine, ziprasidone or treatmentas- usual. Cariprazine was superior to other antipsychotics in improving cognitive functions in both animal and human studies. The cognitive effect of lurasidone could be explained by its potent antagonism at the 5-HT7 receptors combined with partial agonism at 5-HT1A receptors. The pro-cognitive effect of cariprazine is probably explained by its very high affinity for D3 receptors. Head-to-head studies comparing lurasidone and cariprazine are needed to establish the "first-choice" treatment for cognitive dysfunction associated with schizophrenia.

Lurasidone use in Cannabis-Induced Psychosis: A Novel Therapeutic Strategy and Clinical Considerations in Four Cases Report

BACKGROUND

Lurasidone is an atypical antipsychotic approved for the acute and maintenance treatment of schizophrenia. Recently, lurasidone was also extended FDA approval for adults with major depressive episodes associated with bipolar I disorder (bipolar depression), as either a monotherapy or as adjunctive therapy with lithium or valproate. The use of low doses of atypical antipsychotics is an essential component of early intervention in psychosis, but little has yet been studied on first episode cannabis-induced psychosis. For its particular performance and tolerability, lurasidone is becoming an important option for the treatment of first-episode psychosis in youth. Case presentation four patients experiencing first cannabis-induced psychotic episode were treated with lurasidone. In all patients, there was an improvement in the clinical picture of psychosis. The recovery was positive, not only with the remission of positive and negative symptoms, but also regarding disruptive behaviour, with the return of functioning. All the patients were treated with lurasidone, with a target dose of 74-128 mg/day. No significant side effects were reported.

CONCLUSION

There are non-controlled studies for the use of lurasidone in first episode psychosis cannabis induced. These findings suggest that lurasidone is an atypical antipsychotic beneficial in this clinical picture. Treatment with medium-high doses of lurasidone could be effective and tolerable in this phase of the disorder. Randomized control trials with longer follow-up are recommended to confirm these positive results.

Clinical Effectiveness of Lurasidone Monotherapy in Patients with Acute Episodes of Schizophrenia and Associated Symptoms of Depression

AIM

We endeavored to evaluate the efficacy of Lurasidone at doses of 40-160 mg per day on symptoms of schizophrenia associated with symptoms of depression in real clinical practice in a Russian patient population.

METHODS

One hundred sixty eight patients aged 18-65 years old, who at the time of the start of the observation were being treated in a hospital or day hospital due to an exacerbation of paranoid schizophrenia accompanied by symptoms of depression, were prescribed lurasidone. Treatment with lurasidone and other concomitant drugs, their prescription, withdrawal, selection, and dose modifications were determined based on the indications for the use of those drugs and the recommended doses in the instructions, clinical need, and patient interests, rather than by the goals of the study. During the observation period, the severity of depressive symptoms according to the Calgary Depression Scale (CDSS) and that of psychotic symptoms according to the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) were assessed six times (before the start of treatment and then on the 4th, 7th, 14th, 28th, and 42nd days).

RESULTS

A statistically significant reduction in the severity of the symptoms was observed with the use of lurasidone in doses ranging from 40 mg to 160 mg per day. The fastest and most significant (p <0.001) reductions in the total PANSS and CDSS scores were observed with lurasidone 120 mg. A somewhat lower efficacy of lurasidone was observed at a dose of 160 mg. The largest reductions in the total PANSS and CDSS scores with lurasidone 120 mg were associated with the highest survival rate and the longest median time from treatment initiation to discontinuation or follow-up. The most commonly reported side effects with lurasidone in this study (nausea, akathisia, tremor and drowsiness) were consistent with the known safety profile of the drug. Adverse events in most cases were assessed as mild, or occasionally moderate.

CONCLUSION

A six-week prospective observational study of the real-world clinical effectiveness of lurasidone in doses ranging from 40 mg to 160 mg per day established statistically and clinically significant improvements in both psychotic and depressive symptoms in patients with acute exacerbation of schizophrenia and associated symptoms of depression.

Efficacy and safety of lurasidone in schizophrenia: pooled analysis of European results from double-blind, placebo-controlled 6-week studies

The objective of this study is to confirm the efficacy and safety of lurasidone in the acute treatment of schizophrenia in European patients. Data were pooled from three studies of patients randomized to 6 weeks of double-blind, placebo-controlled, fixed-dose (40/80 mg and 120/160 mg) lurasidone. The primary efficacy endpoint was a week 6 change in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score and secondary endpoints included the Clinical Global Impression, Severity scale (CGI-S). In total 328 safety patients were enrolled; 72.6% were completers. Endpoint change was significantly greater in patients treated with 40-80 mg/d and 120-160 mg/d compared to placebo on the PANSS total score ( P  < 0.001) and the CGI-Severity score ( P  < 0.001) for all comparisons. For PANSS total scores, endpoint effect sizes for lurasidone 40-80 mg/d and 120-160 mg/d were 0.68 to 0.77, respectively. Adverse events with a frequency ≥5% (and were greater than for combined lurasidone) were insomnia (11.7%), akathisia (11.3%), headache (7.4%), Parkinsonism (6.5%) and nausea (5.7%). Median changes (in mg/dL) at endpoint were minimal for total cholesterol (-8.0); triglycerides (-8.5) and glucose (-2.0) and in mean weight (-0.2 kg). In European patients with schizophrenia, short-term treatment with lurasidone in doses of 40-160 mg/d was generally safe, well-tolerated and effective with minimal effects on weight and metabolic parameters.

Antipsychotic-Induced Weight Gain: Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Weight gain is among the most important side-effects of antipsychotics. It is, however, unclear whether it is associated with antipsychotic doses. We aimed to fill this gap with a dose-response meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched multiple electronic databases (last update search June 2021) for all fixed-dose studies that investigated 16 second-generation antipsychotics and haloperidol in adults with acute exacerbation of schizophrenia or with negative symptoms. We estimated the dose-response curves by conducting random-effects dose-response meta-analyses. We used the restricted cubic spline to model the dose-response relationship. The primary outcome was mean weight gain in kg from baseline to endpoint, the secondary outcome was the number of patients with clinically important weight gain.

FINDINGS

Ninety-seven studies with 333 dose arms (36 326 participants) provided data for meta-analyses. Most studies were short-term with median duration of 6 weeks (range 4 to 26 weeks). In patients with acute exacerbation, amisulpride, aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, cariprazine, haloperidol, lumateperone, and lurasidone produced mild weight gain in comparison to placebo (mean difference at any dose≤1 kg), while more significant weight gain was observed by all other drugs. For most drugs, dose-response curves showed an initial dose-related increase in weight which plateaued at higher doses, while for others there was no plateau and some even had bell-shaped curves, meaning less weight gain to be associated with higher doses.

INTERPRETATION

Second-generation antipsychotics do not only differ in their propensity to produce weight gain, but also in the shapes of their dose-response curves. This information is important for dosing decisions in clinical practice.

Short-term Efficacy and Safety of Lurasidone Versus Placebo in Antipsychotic-Naïve vs. Previously Treated Adolescents with an Acute Exacerbation of Schizophrenia

Background

To evaluate the efficacy of short-term lurasidone in antipsychotic treatment-naïve (TN) adolescents with schizophrenia versus those treated previously (TP) with antipsychotics.

Methods

Patients aged 13–17 with schizophrenia, and a Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS) score ≥ 70 and < 120, were randomized to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with lurasidone (40 or 80 mg/day) or placebo. In a post-hoc, pooled-dose analysis, efficacy was evaluated for TN (criteria: never received antipsychotic treatment) versus TP at the time of the study. Treatment response criteria: ≥20% reduction in PANSS total score.

Results

Altogether, 57 TN and 269 TP patients enrolled in the 6-week DB study. Mean endpoint change in PANSS total score was significantly greater for lurasidone versus placebo in both the TN group (−25.0 vs. -14.4; p < 0.02; effect size = 0.75), and in the TP group (−17.3 vs. -10.0; p < 0.001; effect size = 0.45); and responder rates were higher for lurasidone versus placebo in both the TN group 84.6% versus 38.9%; number needed to treat [NNT] = 3 and in the TP group (60% vs. 42%; NNT = 6). Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events, and mean changes in body weight and metabolic parameters were similar for the TN and TP groups.

Conclusions

In a 6-week, placebo-controlled trial, lurasidone demonstrated significant efficacy in adolescents with schizophrenia regardless of previous antipsychotic therapy status; however, the effect size was notably larger in the TN patient group. In both the TN and TP groups, minimal effects were noted on weight, metabolic parameters, or prolactin.

Safety and effectiveness of lurasidone in adolescents with schizophrenia: results of a 2-year, open-label extension study

BACKGROUND

Minimal long-term benefit: Risk data are available regarding antipsychotic treatments for schizophrenia in pediatric populations. This study evaluated the long-term safety, tolerability, and effectiveness of lurasidone in adolescents with schizophrenia.

METHODS

Patients aged from 13 to 17 who completed 6 weeks of double-blind (DB), placebo-controlled treatment with lurasidone were enrolled in a 2-year, open-label (OL), flexible dose (20-80 mg/day) lurasidone treatment study. Safety was assessed via spontaneous reporting, rating scales, body weight measurement, metabolic, and prolactin testing. Effectiveness measures included the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score.

RESULTS

About 271 patients completed 6 weeks of DB treatment and entered the 2-year OL extension study. Altogether, 42.4% discontinued prematurely, 10.7% due to adverse events. During OL treatment, the most common adverse events were headache (24.0%); anxiety (12.9%), schizophrenia, and nausea (12.5%); sedation/somnolence (12.2%); and nasopharyngitis (8.9%). Minimal changes were observed on metabolic parameters and prolactin. Mean change from DB baseline in weight at week 52 and week 104 was +3.3 kg and + 4.9 kg, respectively, compared to an expected weight gain of +3.4 kg and + 5.7 kg, respectively, based on the sex- and age-matched US Center for Disease Control normative data. Continued improvement was observed in PANSS total score, with mean change from OL baseline of -15.6 at week 52 and -18.4 at week 104.

CONCLUSION

In adolescents with schizophrenia, long-term lurasidone treatment was associated with minimal effects on body weight, lipids, glycemic indices, and prolactin. Continued improvement in symptoms of schizophrenia was observed over 2 years of lurasidone treatment.

Long-term safety and effectiveness of open-label lurasidone in antipsychotic-Naïve versus previously treated adolescents with Schizophrenia: A post-hoc analysis

BACKGROUND

There is a relative lack of long-term, prospective data evaluating the safety and effectiveness of treatment in early-onset adolescent patients with schizophrenia who are treatment-naïve. The aim of this post-hoc analysis was to examine the long-term safety and effectiveness of lurasidone in adolescents with schizophrenia who were antipsychotic treatment-naïve (TN; at the time of enrolment in the initial study) compared to adolescents treated previously (TP) with an antipsychotic.

METHODS

Patients aged 13-17 who completed 6 weeks of double-blind (DB), placebo-controlled treatment with lurasidone were enrolled in a 2-year, open-label (OL), flexible-dose (20-80 mg/day) lurasidone study.

RESULTS

The long-term analysis sample consisted of 50 TN and 221 TP patients, of whom 40% and 43%, respectively, discontinued prematurely. The three most common adverse events for TN and TP patients, respectively, were headache (26.0%, 23.5%); schizophrenia (14.0%, 12.2%), dizziness (16.0%, 4.1%), and nausea (16.0%, 11.8%). At endpoint, mean increase in weight was similar to expected weight gain based on growth charts for both TN (+4.5 kg vs. + 5.7 kg) and TP (+4.6 kg vs. + 6.6 kg) patients. Minimal changes were observed for each group in metabolic parameters and prolactin. Mean improvement was consistently greater in the TN vs. TP group (-19.2 vs. -15.9; effect size of 0.33) for between-group change in PANSS total score at Week 104.

CONCLUSIONS

In both TN and TP adolescents with schizophrenia, long-term treatment with lurasidone was associated with minimal effects on body weight, lipids, glycemic indices, and prolactin, with generally small differences noted in rates of reported AEs. Continued improvement in symptoms of schizophrenia was evident for both the TN and TP groups. These data indicate that lurasidone is a safe and efficacious treatment option for treatment-naïve youth with schizophrenia, who are generally most sensitive to antipsychotic adverse effects.

Response efficacy and heterogeneity of antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia: Systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUNDS

This meta-analysis aimed to assess antipsychotic and placebo effects in patients with schizophrenia at the level of symptom factors.

METHODS

A systematic literature search up to June 2020 was undertaken and 62 studies were included, with 23,478 patients with schizophrenia at the study baseline point. We calculated mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. The comparison was made according to the study content using a continuous method with a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Patients with schizophrenia treated by antipsychotic drugs had a significantly lower psychiatric rating scale total score; lower clinical global impression of severity; lower positive and negative syndrome scale; and lower assessment of negative symptoms total score, when compared to placebo treated patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with schizophrenia treated with an antipsychotic drug show a much greater improvement and lower inconsistency in the level of symptom factors when compared to the effects of placebo. Our findings evidence for a comparatively homogeneous outcome of the antipsychotic-treatment in improving schizophrenia symptoms. This opposes the notion of the presence of patient sub-groups with treatment non-responsive schizophrenia.

Safety and effectiveness of ulotaront (SEP-363856) in schizophrenia: results of a 6-month, open-label extension study

Ulotaront, a trace amine-associated receptor 1 (TAAR1) and serotonin 5-HT1A receptors agonist, has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of patients with an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia in a 4-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. The aim of this 26-week open-label extension study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of ulotaront (25/50/75 mg/d) in patients who completed the initial 4-week study. Of the 193 4-week completers, 157 patients (81.3%) continued into the open-label extension study; 66.9% were completers. Among all extension phase patients, treatment with ulotaront was associated with minimal changes in body weight (mean [SD] change from double-blind baseline: −0.3 [3.7] kg), cholesterol (median change, −2.0 mg/dL), triglycerides (median, −5.0 mg/dL), and prolactin (female, median, −3.4 ng/mL; male, median, −2.7 ng/mL). Movement disorder scales showed no extrapyramidal effects. Twenty-six weeks of extension phase treatment was associated with a mean (95% CI) observed change from open-label baseline in the PANSS total score of −22.6 (−25.6, −19.6; effect size, 1.46), and a mean (95% CI) change in the CGI-Severity score of −1.0 (−1.2, −0.8; effect size, 1.07). Long-term treatment with the TAAR1 agonist ulotaront, in the daily dose range of 25–75 mg, was characterized by a relatively high completion rate, an adverse event profile notable for the absence of extrapyramidal-related adverse effects, a low liability for adverse weight and metabolic effects, and no effect on prolactin levels. Additional studies are needed to further confirm the long-term efficacy and safety of ulotaront.

Safety and effectiveness of ulotaront (SEP-363856) in schizophrenia: results of a 6-month, open-label extension study

Ulotaront, a trace amine-associated receptor 1 (TAAR1) and serotonin 5-HT1A receptors agonist, has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of patients with an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia in a 4-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. The aim of this 26-week open-label extension study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of ulotaront (25/50/75 mg/d) in patients who completed the initial 4-week study. Of the 193 4-week completers, 157 patients (81.3%) continued into the open-label extension study; 66.9% were completers. Among all extension phase patients, treatment with ulotaront was associated with minimal changes in body weight (mean [SD] change from double-blind baseline: -0.3 [3.7] kg), cholesterol (median change, -2.0 mg/dL), triglycerides (median, -5.0 mg/dL), and prolactin (female, median, -3.4 ng/mL; male, median, -2.7 ng/mL). Movement disorder scales showed no extrapyramidal effects. Twenty-six weeks of extension phase treatment was associated with a mean (95% CI) observed change from open-label baseline in the PANSS total score of -22.6 (-25.6, -19.6; effect size, 1.46), and a mean (95% CI) change in the CGI-Severity score of -1.0 (-1.2, -0.8; effect size, 1.07). Long-term treatment with the TAAR1 agonist ulotaront, in the daily dose range of 25-75 mg, was characterized by a relatively high completion rate, an adverse event profile notable for the absence of extrapyramidal-related adverse effects, a low liability for adverse weight and metabolic effects, and no effect on prolactin levels. Additional studies are needed to further confirm the long-term efficacy and safety of ulotaront.

Differences in the incidence of lurasidone adverse events between depressive disorders and schizophrenia in double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials: a meta-analysis

RATIONALE

We conducted a meta-analysis of double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trials of lurasidone (LUR) to examine the difference in the risk ratios (RRs) for adverse events (AEs) between depressive disorders (bipolar depression and major depressive disorders) and schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES

Three trials for depressive disorders (n = 1,239) were used for flexible-dose LUR 20-60 (LUR20-60) and/or 80-120 (LUR80-120) mg/day. Nine schizophrenia trials (n = 2,684) were used for fixed-dose LUR. The RRs of LUR20-60 and LUR80-120 for depressive disorders were compared with those of LUR 40 (LUR40) and LUR 80 (LUR80) mg/day for schizophrenia, respectively, to match LUR dose.

RESULTS

LUR20-60 caused a higher incidence of akathisia (RR = 2.28; p = 0.003) and weight gain (RR = 4.11; p = 0.05) than placebo in patients with depressive disorders, and LUR40 caused a higher incidence of akathisia (RR = 2.39; p = 0.0001), extrapyramidal symptoms (RR = 1.88; p = 0.02), anticholinergic drug use (RR = 1.58; p = 0.005), somnolence (RR = 2.19; p = 0.002), and dizziness (RR = 2.06; p = 0.05) than placebo in patients with schizophrenia. However, no significant differences in the RRs for all outcomes were found between depressive disorders and schizophrenia. LUR80-120 caused a higher incidence of akathisia (RR = 3.90; p < 0.0001), extrapyramidal symptoms (RR = 2.26; p = 0.04), anticholinergic use (RR = 4.70; p < 0.0001), and nausea (RR = 2.15; p = 0.001) than placebo in patients with depressive disorders. LUR80 caused a higher incidence of akathisia (RR = 2.99; p < 0.0001), extrapyramidal symptoms (RR = 2.55; p = 0.01), anticholinergic use (RR = 1.86; p = 0.01), somnolence (RR = 2.46; p = 0.001), and nausea (RR = 1.64; p = 0.04) than placebo in patients with schizophrenia. Depressive disorders had a higher RR for anticholinergic use than schizophrenia (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of AEs did not differ between schizophrenia and depressive disorders.

Depicting Safety Profile of TAAR1 Agonist Ulotaront Relative to Reactions Anticipated for a Dopamine D2-Based Pharmacological Class in FAERS

Background and Objectives

In clinical trials, the safety of drugs is summarized by the incidence of adverse events, while post-marketing reporting systems use disproportionate reporting of adverse drug reactions. Here, we propose a method to evaluate the novelty of a safety profile of a drug in a new class (in clinical trials), against that of those already on the market (using pharmacovigilance data).

Methods

Through Bayesian disproportionality analyses of the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) data, we identified and ranked Preferred Terms for a pool of 30 antipsychotics. Adverse event rates in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled schizophrenia clinical trials were summarized by their class specificity. One study (N = 245) of the trace amine-associated receptor 1 (TAAR1) agonist ulotaront (SEP-363856) was compared with five studies of dopamine D2 receptor-based antipsychotics lurasidone (N = 1041), quetiapine (N = 119), olanzapine (N = 122), and placebo (N = 504).

Results

In clinical trials of antipsychotics, cumulative rates for adverse events at and above a threshold of disproportional reporting (Empirical Bayes Geometric Mean 50 > 3 in FAERS) were 52%, 42%, and 60% for lurasidone, quetiapine, and olanzapine, respectively, indicating that over half of the adverse events reported in clinical trials of an atypical antipsychotic are class-specific risks. In contrast, in the clinical trial of ulotaront, the cumulative rate was 23%, indicating a lower rate of antipsychotic class-specific risk.

Conclusions

These results demonstrate a novel approach to summarize adverse events in clinical trials, where the cumulative burden of class-specific risks describes the emerging safety profile of a new drug in clinical development, relative to reactions anticipated for drugs in an established pharmacological class.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers

NCT0296938, NCT00088634, NCT00549718, NCT00615433, NCT00790192.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40261-021-01094-7.

Examining Side Effect Variability of Antipsychotic Treatment in Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders: A Meta-analysis of Variance

Side effects of antipsychotic drugs play a key role in nonadherence of treatment in schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD). While clinical observations suggest that side effect variability between patients may be considerable, statistical evidence is required to confirm this. Here, we hypothesized to find larger side effect variability under treatment compared with control. We included double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with a diagnosis of SSD treated with 1 out of 14 antipsychotics. Standard deviations of the pre-post treatment differences of weight gain, prolactin levels, and corrected QT (QTc) times were extracted. The outcome measure was the variability ratio of treatment to control for individual antipsychotic drugs and the overall variability ratio of treatment to control across RCTs. Individual variability ratios were weighted by the inverse-variance method and entered into a random-effects model. We included N = 16 578 patients for weight gain, N = 16 633 patients for prolactin levels, and N = 10 384 patients for QTc time. Variability ratios (VR) were significantly increased for weight gain (VR = 1.08; 95% CI: 1.02-1.14; P = .004) and prolactin levels (VR = 1.38; 95% CI: 1.17-1.62; P < .001) but did not reach significance for QTc time (VR = 1.05; 95% CI: 0.98-1.12; P = 0.135). We found marked differences between individual antipsychotics and increased variability in side effects in patients under treatment with antipsychotics suggesting that subgroups of patients or individual patients may benefit from treatment allocation through stratified or personalized medicine.

Efficacy and safety of lurasidone in adolescents and young adults with schizophrenia: A pooled post hoc analysis of double-blind, placebo-controlled 6-week studies

BACKGROUND

The aim of this pooled analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lurasidone in the treatment of an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia in adolescents and young adults.

METHODS

The six pooled studies in this analysis used similar study designs and outcome measures. Patients (aged 13-25 years) were randomized to 6 weeks of double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment with lurasidone in fixed doses of 40, 80, 120, or 160 mg. The primary efficacy endpoint was Week 6 change in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score; secondary efficacy endpoints included Week 6 change in the Clinical Global Impression-Severity scale.

RESULTS

The safety population consisted of 537 patients (mean age: 18.1 years); 82.6% of patients completed the studies. Treatment with lurasidone was significantly better than placebo at all doses (p < 0.001) for change in the PANSS total score at Week 6. Placebo-adjusted PANSS scores ranged from -9.4 to -16.1 (effect sizes: 0.53-0.90), with effect sizes increasing at higher doses. For lurasidone (combined doses), three adverse events occurred with a frequency of ≥5% (nausea: 13.5%; somnolence: 12.1%; akathisia: 10.1%). At last observation carried forward (LOCF)-endpoint weight gain of ≥7% was similar for lurasidone versus placebo (3.6 vs. 4.7%). Minimal median changes were observed at endpoint in cholesterol, -2.0 mg/dL; triglycerides, 0.0 mg/dL; and glucose, 0.0 mg/dL.

CONCLUSIONS

In adolescents and young adults with schizophrenia, treatment with lurasidone in doses of 40-160 mg/d was a safe, well-tolerated, and effective treatment. Short-term treatment with lurasidone was associated with minimal effects on weight and metabolic parameters.

A network meta-analysis of the dose-response effects of lurasidone on acute schizophrenia

We compared the efficacy, safety, and acceptability of lurasidone at different doses to establish the dose-response relationships of lurasidone therapeutic and adverse effects in acute schizophrenia. Included trials were 4- to 16-week, fixed-dose, randomized controlled trials of lurasidone in adults with acute schizophrenia. Different doses of lurasidone, other antipsychotics, and placebo were considered as independent treatments. Apart from all-cause dropout rates, four therapeutic and four adverse outcomes were included in the frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA). Lurasidone 160, 120, 80, 40, and 20 mg/day were studied in ten trials of 3,366 adults with schizophrenia exacerbation. Lurasidone 160 mg/day reduced Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total scores significantly more than lurasidone 120, 80, 40, and 20 mg/day (mean differences = - 7.63, - 7.04, - 8.83, and - 12.25, respectively). All-cause dropout rates were significantly lower in participants receiving lurasidone 160 mg/day and 80 mg/day compared with those taking placebo. The half-maximal effective doses of lurasidone for PANSS total, PANSS positive, and MADRS score reductions were higher than 80 mg/day. The confidence of all NMA estimates was low or very low. Lurasidone 160 mg/day is currently the most efficacious and acceptable dose for acute schizophrenia. Its maximal effective doses may be higher than 160 mg/day.

Specific Anti-hostility Effects of Atypical Antipsychotics in Persons with Schizophrenia: From Clozapine to Cariprazine

LEARNING OBJECTIVE

After participating in this activity, learners should be better able to:• Evaluate the anti-hostility effects of available atypical antipsychotic agents.

ABSTRACT

In addition to hallucinations and delusions, persons with schizophrenia may exhibit hostility. In clinical trials of antipsychotics, hostility is routinely measured as part of rating scales such as the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale or Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale. The availability of the atypical antipsychotic clozapine in 1989 led to the observation that it is possible to have a treatment effect on hostility that is independent of the treatment effect on hallucinations or delusions, and independent of general sedative effects. The data supporting this notion of a specific anti-hostility effect are the most robust for clozapine as the data include specifically designed randomized, controlled clinical trials. A specific anti-hostility effect is also observable to various degrees with most of the other atypical antipsychotics, as evidenced in post hoc analyses of clinical trials originally conducted for regulatory purposes, supplemented by post hoc analyses of large effectiveness trials. The generalizability of these studies, however, may be limited. Participants in these trials were not selected for aggressive and hostile behavior. Some of the studies also excluded patients with substance use disorders. The latter is particularly important because alcohol and substance use are well known to increase risk for hostility and aggression. Nevertheless, the repeated demonstrations of the specificity of an anti-hostility effect (in terms of statistical independence of effects on other positive symptoms and of sedation) are of potential clinical importance.

TULIP study: Trail of Lurasidone in bipolar disorder in Pakistan

BACKGROUND

This study examined usefulness and efficiency of Lurasidone in appraisal with the placebo as for the treatment of Bipolar Disorders.

METHODS

Seven treatment centers in Pakistan were selected for the purpose of starting a six week-long control trial (randomized and double-blind placebo). 76 subjects, already diagnosed with Bipolar I or II based on DSM 5 diagnosis, were selected after randomization. Patients were allocated in one of the two groups. Primary efficacy of the drug was measured using Young Mania Rating Scale. Positive response of the drug was defined as 50% reduction in symptoms from the baseline/13 point less than the baseline score on Young Mania Rating Scale. Efficacy and safety of the drug was assessed using variety of markers such as administering extra-pyramidal symptoms rating scale, adverse side effects reported, electrocardiograms, body weight, vital signs changes, and laboratory investigations.

RESULTS

Patients treated with Lurasidone showed enhanced improvement in their overall health and symptoms manifestation in comparison to patients who were given placebo. Lurasidone treated patients showed a better response to the drug (66%), in comparison with the placebo treated patients (42%).

LIMITATIONS

Study was conducted on small scale due to complexity.

CONCLUSION

Patients treated with Lurasidone showed reduction in bipolar symptoms and tolerate the drug well.

International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology. CX. Classification of Receptors for 5-hydroxytryptamine; Pharmacology and Function

5-HT receptors expressed throughout the human body are targets for established therapeutics and various drugs in development. Their diversity of structure and function reflects the important role 5-HT receptors play in physiologic and pathophysiological processes. The present review offers a framework for the official receptor nomenclature and a detailed understanding of each of the 14 5-HT receptor subtypes, their roles in the systems of the body, and, where appropriate, the (potential) utility of therapeutics targeting these receptors. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: This review provides a comprehensive account of the classification and function of 5-hydroxytryptamine receptors, including how they are targeted for therapeutic benefit.

Identification of clinical phenotypes in schizophrenia: the role of lurasidone

The treatment of schizophrenia includes the control of symptoms, the prevention of relapses, and amelioration of adaptive skills for patient re-integration into society. Antipsychotic drugs are the agents of choice for the treatment of schizophrenia, as they reduce the positive symptoms of psychosis. Lurasidone is a second-generation antipsychotic drug representing a novel and useful clinical tool for the management of schizophrenia. A board consisting of a panel of Italian expert psychiatrists was organized with the following aims: (a) defining the current modalities of use of lurasidone, highlighted through 17 specific questions; (b) defining and agreeing the main features of the drug and the principal reasons to suggest its administration. We established that lurasidone is suggested at any age, with no gender difference, at all stages of the disease. The switch from previous treatments is done primarily because of lack of efficacy as well as poor adherence/tolerability. Lurasidone is among the best-tolerated antipsychotics, and its use is indicated in the presence of different comorbidities. A wide range of dosages is available, allowing safe titration in particular cases, with the highest dose (148 mg) generally used for the treatment of the acute phase. The discontinuation rate due to poor tolerability, low compliance, and interactions with other drugs is very low. Akathisia is the most reported adverse event, but it may be controlled by dose reduction. Lurasidone does not possess a marked sedative action but, in agitated patients, can be associated with sedative drugs, such as benzodiazepines. The most frequent reason for switching to other therapies is the need for long-acting formulations, as in patients at risk of very low adherence or suicide. Lurasidone does not strongly impact metabolism or the cardiovascular system (QT interval), and does not influence the metabolism of other drugs, showing good efficacy and tolerability.

Lurasidone and risk for metabolic syndrome: results from short- and long-term clinical studies in patients with schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of treatment with lurasidone on risk for metabolic syndrome (MetS) in patients with schizophrenia.

METHODS

Rates of metabolic syndrome during treatment with lurasidone (40-160 mg/d) were analyzed using pooled, short-term data from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (vs olanzapine and quetiapine XR); long-term data from two active-comparator-controlled studies (vs risperidone and quetiapine XR); and data from two open-label studies in which patients were switched from olanzapine or risperidone to lurasidone.

RESULTS

MetS was defined based on the National Cholesterol Education Program criteria. In short-term studies, the odds of meeting criteria for MetS at week 6 LOCF (adjusted for baseline metabolic syndrome status) was similar for the lurasidone and placebo groups (OR = 1.18; [95% CI, 0.81-1.71]; P = .39), but the odds (vs placebo) were significantly greater for olanzapine (OR = 2.81; [95% CI, 1.53-5.15]; P < .001) and quetiapine (OR = 3.49; [95% CI, 1.93-6.29]; P < .0001). No dose effect was observed for lurasidone across the dose range of 40-160 mg/d. In long-term studies, the odds of MetS after 12 months of treatment was significantly higher for risperidone compared with lurasidone (OR = 2.12; 95% CI, 1.15-3.90; P = .016) and for quetiapine XR compared with lurasidone (OR = 3.92; 95% CI, 1.15-13.40; P = .029). In open-label extension studies, the rate of MetS decreased in patients switched to lurasidone after 6 weeks of treatment with olanzapine or 12 months of treatment with risperidone.

CONCLUSION

In this analysis of lurasidone clinical trials, the odds of developing metabolic syndrome were minimal during short- and long-term treatment with lurasidone (40-160 mg/d).

Window to His World: Using a Patient's YouTube Channel to Help Diagnose Chronic Mania

Although chronic mania has been investigated, with several case reports and systematic retrospective cohort studies in the literature, it not a widely recognized entity. No specific definition for chronic mania is provided in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). Furthermore, it is challenging to identify patients with chronic mania unless they come to the attention of the legal or medical system. We present the case of a manic patient who was hospitalized and subsequently found to have a YouTube channel that he had been using to promote his self-invented religion for over 2 years. Consent was obtained from the patient to review this YouTube channel for collateral information. From these videos, the patient was seen to be chronically circumstantial in his thought processes, grandiose in his ideas, highly energetic, distractible, preoccupied with religion, and talking with elaborate and rapid speech. A significant improvement in his symptoms was observed after administration of oral risperidone, with his scores on the Young Mania Rating Scale and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale also showing improvement. To our knowledge, this is the first case in the literature in which an online video-sharing service was used longitudinally to facilitate diagnosis of a mental illness. We suggest that technology has great potential to improve our diagnostic tools, especially for disorders such as chronic mania the diagnosis of which relies primarily on self-report and collateral information.

Commentary on "Window to His World: Using a Patient's YouTube Channel to Help Diagnose Chronic Mania"

Although chronic mania has been investigated, with several case reports and systematic retrospective cohort studies in the literature, it not a widely recognized entity. No specific definition for chronic mania is provided in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). Furthermore, it is challenging to identify patients with chronic mania unless they come to the attention of the legal or medical system. We present the case of a manic patient who was hospitalized and subsequently found to have a YouTube channel that he had been using to promote his self-invented religion for over 2 years. Consent was obtained from the patient to review this YouTube channel for collateral information. From these videos, the patient was seen to be chronically circumstantial in his thought processes, grandiose in his ideas, highly energetic, distractible, preoccupied with religion, and talking with elaborate and rapid speech. A significant improvement in his symptoms was observed after administration of oral risperidone, with his scores on the Young Mania Rating Scale and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale also showing improvement. To our knowledge, this is the first case in the literature in which an online video-sharing service was used longitudinally to facilitate diagnosis of a mental illness. We suggest that technology has great potential to improve our diagnostic tools, especially for disorders such as chronic mania the diagnosis of which relies primarily on self-report and collateral information.

Randomized, double-blind, 6-week non-inferiority study of lurasidone and risperidone for the treatment of schizophrenia

AIM

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lurasidone for the treatment of Chinese schizophrenic patients.

METHODS

Hospitalized schizophrenia patients aged 18-65 were randomized to 6 weeks of double-blind, double-dummy, flexible-dose treatment with lurasidone (40 or 80 mg/day) or risperidone (2, 4 or 6 mg/day). Efficacy was evaluated using a non-inferiority comparison of lurasidone relative to risperidone based on week 6 change in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score. Safety assessments included adverse events, clinical laboratory measures, and electrocardiograms.

RESULTS

Four hundred and forty-four patients were screened to obtain an intent-to-treat sample of 384 patients, of whom 54 patients discontinued treatment prior to 6 weeks. Lurasidone met the criteria for non-inferiority versus risperidone on the PANSS total score. Adjusted mean (SE) change at week 6 on the PANSS total score was -31.2 (1.0) and -34.9 (1.0) in the lurasidone and risperidone group, respectively. The mean difference score was 3.7, and the upper boundary of the 95%-confidence interval (1.0-6.3) was less than the prespecified margin of 7.0. No clinically meaningful between-treatment group differences were evident on secondary efficacy measures, including PANSS positive, PANSS negative, Clinical Global Impression scale - Severity, and Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia scales. The incidence of adverse events was lower for lurasidone vs risperidone for extrapyramidal symptoms (17.0% vs 38.2%), akathisia (7.2% vs 13.6%), prolactin increase (3.1% vs 14.1%), and weight increase (0.5% vs 5.2%).

CONCLUSION

Lurasidone was found to be non-inferior to risperidone on the primary endpoint with minimal effects on weight, metabolic parameters, or prolactin levels.

Switching to Lurasidone following 12 months of treatment with Risperidone: results of a 6-month, open-label study

BACKGROUND

Patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia are at an increased risk for developing metabolic syndrome, which is associated with greater cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Treatment with some commonly used antipsychotic medications may increase the risk of developing metabolic syndrome. The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety of lurasidone in patients who continued lurasidone or switched from risperidone to lurasidone. A secondary aim was assessment of the effect of long-term lurasidone on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS).

METHODS

The treatment sample in the current study consisted of clinically stable patients with schizophrenia (N = 223) who had completed a 12-month, double-blind study of lurasidone vs. risperidone. In the current extension study, all patients received 6 months of open-label treatment with lurasidone, either continuing lurasidone assigned during the preceding double-blind trial, or switching from double-blind risperidone to lurasidone. Safety and tolerability parameters included body weight, prolactin, and metabolic laboratory tests.

RESULTS

Six months of OL treatment with lurasidone was generally well-tolerated, with a low incidence of parkinsonism (4.5%) and akathisia (3.1%). Overall, few adverse events were rated as severe (4.9%), and discontinuation due to an adverse event was low in the lurasidone continuation vs. risperidone switch groups (3.7% vs. 6.9%). In the lurasidone continuation versus risperidone switch groups, change from OL baseline to 6-month endpoint (observed case) was observed in mean body weight (- 0.6 vs. -2.6 kg), median total cholesterol (- 4.0 vs. + 4.5 mg/dL), triglycerides (- 4.5 vs. -5.5 mg/dL), glucose (0.0 vs. -3.0 mg/dL) and prolactin (males, + 0.15 vs. -11.2 ng/mL; females, + 1.3 vs. -30.8 ng/mL). Improvement in PANSS total score was maintained, from OL baseline to endpoint in the continuation vs. switch groups (+ 1.0 vs. -1.0; OC).

CONCLUSIONS

In this 6-month extension study, lurasidone treatment was generally well-tolerated and associated with minimal effects on weight, metabolic parameters, and prolactin levels. Patients who switched from risperidone to lurasidone experienced reductions in weight, metabolic parameters and prolactin levels commensurate with increases in these safety parameters experienced during the previous 12 months of treatment with risperidone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00641745 (Date of Registration: March 24, 2008).

Efficacy of lurasidone across five symptom dimensions of schizophrenia: Pooled analysis of short-term, placebo-controlled studies

Objective:

To evaluate the efficacy of lurasidone for schizophrenia using an established five-factor model of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS).

Methods:

Patient-level data were pooled from five randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 6-week studies of lurasidone (fixed doses, 40–160 mg/d) for patients with an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia. Changes in five established PANSS factors were assessed using mixed-model repeated measures analysis.

Results:

Compared with placebo (n = 496), lurasidone (n = 1029, dose groups pooled) significantly improved the PANSS total score at Week 6 (−22.6 vs. −12.8; P < 0.001; effect size, 0.45), as well as all factor scores (P < 0.001 for each): positive symptoms (−8.4 vs. −6.0; effect size, 0.43), negative symptoms (−5.2 vs. −3.3; effect size, 0.33), disorganized thought (−4.9 vs. −2.8; effect size, 0.42), hostility/excitement (−2.7 vs. −1.6; effect size, 0.31), and depression/anxiety (−3.2 vs. −2.3; effect size, 0.31). Separation from placebo occurred at Week 1 for the positive symptoms, disorganized thought, and hostility/excitement factors and at Week 2 for the other factors.

Conclusions:

In this pooled analysis of short-term studies in patients with acute schizophrenia, lurasidone demonstrated significant improvement for each of the five PANSS factor scores, indicating effectiveness across the spectrum of schizophrenia symptoms.

Safety and effectiveness of lurasidone for the treatment of schizophrenia in Asian patients: Results of a 26-week open-label extension study

INTRODUCTION

This study was designed to evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of lurasidone in the treatment of schizophrenia among Asian patients.

METHODS

Patients (N = 281) with schizophrenia who had completed a randomized, double-blind (DB), 6-week comparison of lurasidone (40 and 80 mg/day) and placebo were enrolled in a 26-week extension study in which all patients received open-label (OL), flexible doses of lurasidone (40 or 80 mg/day). Effectiveness was measured using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) scale.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven percent of patients completed the OL extension study; 16.7% discontinued early due to lack of effectiveness; and 10.3% due to adverse events. The most common adverse events were insomnia (11.3%), akathisia (11.0%), and nasopharyngitis (10.6%). Adverse events related to weight gain, metabolic parameters, prolactin, and ECG measures were uncommon. Mean change in the PANSS total score from the DB baseline to OL endpoint was -28.4, with mean improvement of -7.5 observed from baseline to OL endpoint, and with a PANSS responder rate of 73.7%.

DISCUSSION

The results of the current 26-week extension study found lurasidone to be a generally safe, well-tolerated, and effective long-term treatment for schizophrenia in Asian patients.

[Effect of Lurasidone on symptoms of schizophrenia in five-factor dimensional model: pooled analysis of two short-term, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in patients from Russia and Ukraine]

AIM

Evaluation of a new five-factor dimensional model of schizophrenia in recent revisions of classifications of mental disorders (DSM-5 and ICD-11) dictates the need to use this approach in conducting a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of new antipsychotic agents, including ethnically homogeneous populations of patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Post-hoc analysis of pooled data from two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 6-week clinical studies (RCTs) of lurasidone (fixed doses, 40, 80, 120 or 160 mg/d) in patients experiencing an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia. Changes in PANSS total score, CGI-S score and five established PANSS factors were assessed using mixed-model repeated measures analysis.

RESULTS

Lurasidone (n=162, dose groups pooled) compared with placebo (n=68), significantly improved the PANSS total score at Week 6 (-23.0 vs. -10.5; p<0.001; effect size 0.82) as well as all PANSS factor scores: positive symptoms (-8.5 vs. -4.2; p<0.001; effect size 0.88), negative symptoms (-4.4 vs. -2.8; p=0.011, effect size 0.44), disorganized thoughts (-4.4 vs. -2.1; p<0.001; effect size 0.70), hostility/excitement (-2.7 vs. -0.7; p<0.001; effect size 0.66), and depression/anxiety (-3.5 vs. -2.2; p=0.002; effect size 0.53).

CONCLUSION

Lurasidone demonstrated significant improvement for both PANSS total score and each of the five PANSS factor scores, indicating effectiveness across the broad spectrum of schizophrenia symptoms. Effect size for both PANSS total score and each of the five PANSS factor scores for the local population was higher than for the wider population, which included patients from various countries.

Evaluation of Differences in Individual Treatment Response in Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders: A Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

An assumption among clinicians and researchers is that patients with schizophrenia vary considerably in their response to antipsychotic drugs in randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the overall variation in individual treatment response from random variation by comparing the variability between treatment and control groups.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Schizophrenia, MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL, BIOSIS Previews, ClinicalTrials.gov, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from January 1, 1955, to December 31, 2016.

STUDY SELECTION

Double-blind, placebo-controlled, RCTs of adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia spectrum disorders and prescription for licensed antipsychotic drugs.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Means and SDs of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale pretreatment and posttreatment outcome difference scores were extracted. Data quality and validity were ensured by following the PRISMA guidelines.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The outcome measure was the overall variability ratio of treatment to control in a meta-analysis across RCTs. Individual variability ratios were weighted by the inverse-variance method and entered into a random-effects model. A personal element of response was hypothesized to be reflected by a substantial overall increase in variability in the treatment group compared with the control group.

RESULTS

An RCT was simulated, comprising 30 patients with schizophrenia randomized to either the treatment or the control group. The different components of variation in RCTs were illustrated with simulated data. In addition, we assessed the variability ratio in 52 RCTs involving 15 360 patients with a schizophrenia or schizoaffective diagnosis. The variability was slightly lower in the treatment compared with the control group (variability ratio = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99; P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, no evidence was found in RCTs that antipsychotic drugs increased the outcome variance, suggesting no personal element of response to treatment but instead indicating that the variance was slightly lower in the treatment group than in the control group; although the study cannot rule out that subsets of patients respond differently to treatment, it suggests that the average treatment effect is a reasonable assumption for the individual patient.

Novel antipsychotics specificity profile: A clinically oriented review of lurasidone, brexpiprazole, cariprazine and lumateperone

Second generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are effective options in the treatment of schizophrenia and mood disorders, each with characteristic efficacy and safety features. In order to optimize the balance between efficacy and side effects, it is of upmost importance to match compound specificity against patient clinical profile. As the number of SGAs increased, this review can assist physicians in the prescription of three novel SGAs already on the market, namely lurasidone, brexpiprazole, cariprazine, and lumateperone, which is in the approval phase for schizophrenia treatment at the FDA. Besides schizophrenia, EMA and/or FDA approved lurasidone for bipolar depression, brexpiprazole as augmentation in major depressive disorder and cariprazine for the acute treatment of manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder. These new antipsychotics were developed with the aim of improving efficacy on negative and depressive symptoms and reducing metabolic and cardiovascular side effects compared to prior SGAs, while keeping the risk of extrapyramidal symptoms low. They succeeded quite well in containing these side effects, despite weight gain during acute treatment remains a possible concern for brexpiprazole, while cariprazine and lurasidone show higher risk of akathisia compared to placebo and other SGAs such as olanzapine. The available studies support the expected benefits on negative symptoms, cognitive dysfunction and depressive symptoms, while the overall effect on acute psychotic symptoms may be similar to other SGAs such as quetiapine, aripiprazole and ziprasidone. The discussed new antipsychotics represent useful therapeutic options but their efficacy and side effect profiles should be considered to personalize prescription.

Meta-analysis of Dropout Rates in Placebo-Controlled Randomized Clinical Trials of Atypical Antipsychotics Assessed by PANSS

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Subject dropout rates in placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of antipsychotics are high. The missing values due to dropout represent a potential source of bias in clinical trials. We aimed to identify the potential factors affecting subject dropout in atypical antipsychotics RCTs by conducting a meta-analysis.

METHODS

Placebo-controlled RCTs for atypical antipsychotics using positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) as a psychiatric assessment scale were selected by database search. The potential factors affecting subject dropout, such as publication year, study design, and operational factors, were analyzed by meta-regression.

RESULTS

Forty-seven placebo controlled RCTs of atypical antipsychotics of which results were published between 1993 and 2018 were identified through the database search. In the multivariate meta-regression analysis, earlier publication year, older age of subjects, and longer study duration were significantly associated with high subject dropout rates in placebo-controlled clinical trials of atypical antipsychotics.

CONCLUSION

Subject dropout rates in clinical trials of atypical antipsychotics published between 1993 and 2018 year decreased over time. Study duration should be taken into consideration when designing future studies, where short study periods yet appropriate for evaluating the efficacy of new atypical antipsychotics are preferable. Additionally, previous medications and the degree of subject satisfaction with antipsychotics might affect subject dropout rate.

Lurasidone in the treatment of schizophrenia: Results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in Asian patients

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate efficacy and safety of lurasidone for the treatment of Asian patients with schizophrenia.

METHODS

Patients with schizophrenia from Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, and Taiwan were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with 40 or 80 mg/d of lurasidone or placebo. The primary efficacy measure was change from baseline to week 6 on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score. Efficacy was evaluated using a mixed-model repeated-measures (MMRM) analysis in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population.

RESULTS

On the basis of the analysis for the mITT population, the estimated difference score for lurasidone 40 and 80 mg/d vs placebo was -4.8 (P = 0.050) and -4.2 (P = 0.080). For the full intention-to-treat (ITT) population, the difference score for lurasidone 40 and 80 mg/d vs placebo was -5.8 (P = 0.017) and -4.2 (P = 0.043). The most frequent adverse events in the lurasidone 40 and 80 mg/d and placebo groups, respectively, were akathisia (7.3%, 10.4%, 3.3%), somnolence (6.0%, 2.6%, 0.7%), and vomiting (6.0%, 5.8%, 2.0%). The proportion of patients experiencing clinically significant weight gain (≥7%) was 5.3% for lurasidone 40 mg/d, 1.3% for 80 mg/d, and 1.4% for placebo. End point changes in metabolic parameters and prolactin were comparable for both lurasidone groups and placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

In the ITT (but not the mITT) population, treatment with lurasidone was associated with significant improvement in the PANSS total score in patients with schizophrenia. Lurasidone was generally well tolerated with minimal impact on weight and metabolic parameters.

Medication-Induced Akathisia with Newly Approved Antipsychotics in Patients with a Severe Mental Illness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Akathisia is a common and distressing movement disorder that can be associated with the use of antipsychotics. It is characterized by a subjective (inner restlessness) and an objective (excessive movements) component. Akathisia can have a negative impact on clinical outcome and even lead to treatment discontinuation. Although medication-induced akathisia is more commonly associated with the use of first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs), it also occurs with second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs), including the newly approved antipsychotics (NAPs) asenapine, lurasidone, iloperidone, cariprazine, and brexpiprazole. Until now, no meta-analysis has been published on the risk of akathisia for all NAPs, as monotherapy or adjunctive treatment, in patients with a severe mental illness.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to (i) compare akathisia incidence rates of the NAPs, as monotherapy or adjunctive treatment, in adult patients with a severe mental illness (i.e., schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depressive disorder), using data from published and unpublished randomized controlled trials; and (ii) examine the role of several study characteristics explaining differences in akathisia incidence rates between studies.

METHODS

A systematic literature search, using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases (until October 2018), was conducted for English-language placebo- as well as active-controlled clinical trials, including subjective (percentage of patients reporting akathisia) and/or scale-defined medication-induced akathisia incidence rates with NAPs (as monotherapy or as adjunctive treatment) in adult patients with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depressive disorder. Additional unpublished clinical trials were identified through the ClinicalTrials.gov electronic database. Two meta-analyses (incidence rates and odds ratio [OR] [placebo vs. active] of medication-induced akathisia with NAPs) were performed to obtain an optimal estimation of akathisia risks of adult patients with a severe mental illness under these treatment conditions and to assess the role of study characteristics.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirteen reports were selected as potentially eligible for our meta-analysis. Of these, 48 met the inclusion criteria. Eight records, identified through the ClinicalTrials.gov database and cross-referencing, and which fulfilled the inclusion criteria, were added, resulting in a total of 56 records (iloperidone = 5, asenapine = 11, lurasidone = 15, brexpiprazole = 13, cariprazine = 12). The estimated weighted mean incidence rate of akathisia was 7.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.5-9.1), with estimates being 3.9% (95% CI 2.4-6.3) for iloperidone, 6.8% (95% CI 5.1-9.0) for asenapine, 10.0% (95% CI 7.4-13.5) for brexpiprazole, 12.7% (95% CI 10.1-16.1) for lurasidone, and 17.2% (95% CI 13.4-22.1) for cariprazine. After Tukey-adjustment for multiple testing, the incidence rate of akathisia was significantly (p < 0.05) lower for iloperidone than for brexpiprazole, lurasidone, and cariprazine. In addition, the incidence rate of akathisia was significantly (p < 0.05) lower for asenapine than for lurasidone and cariprazine. Finally, the incidence rate of akathisia was significantly (p < 0.05) lower for brexpiprazole than for cariprazine. Type of medication (p < 0.0001), diagnosis (p = 0.02), and race (p = 0.0003) significantly explained part of the heterogeneity of the incidence estimates of akathisia between studies. The estimated weighted OR of akathisia under medication, compared with placebo, was 2.43 (95% CI 1.91-3.10). The OR was smallest for iloperidone (OR 1.20; 95% CI 0.42-3.45) and increased for brexpiprazole (OR 2.04; 95% CI 1.09-3.83), asenapine (OR 2.37; 95% CI 1.32-4.27), lurasidone (OR 3.74; 95% CI 2.32-6.02), and cariprazine (OR 4.35; 95% CI 2.80-6.75). Only type of medication (p = 0.03) explained systematic differences in the OR for akathisia between placebo versus active treatment across studies. After Tukey-adjustment for multiple testing, no significant differences between these ORs were found. The severity of akathisia with NAPs generally is mild to moderate, only leading to treatment discontinuation in a minority of cases (< 5%).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a NAP raises the akathisia risk more than two-fold when compared with patients receiving placebo. Although distinctions between the different NAPs were not clear in placebo-controlled trials, the results of our meta-analyses and systematic review generally indicate that these differences more than likely reflect real differences, with iloperidone showing the most and cariprazine showing the least benign akathisia profile. Moreover, due to patient characteristics and methodological issues, incidence rates of akathisia with NAPs found in this meta-analysis may even be an underestimation of true incidence rates.