Esketamine versus placebo on time to remission in major depressive disorder with acute suicidality

BACKGROUND

Esketamine (ESK) nasal spray, taken with oral antidepressant therapy, is approved for the treatment of depressive symptoms in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) with acute suicidal ideation or behavior. In pooled analyses of two pivotal phase 3 studies, ASPIRE I and II, remission rates were consistently higher among patients with MDD with active suicidality who were treated with ESK + standard of care (SOC) versus placebo (PBO) + SOC at all time points in the double-blind and most time points in the follow-up phases. The current analysis of the ASPIRE data sets assessed the effect of ESK + SOC versus PBO + SOC on additional remission-related endpoints: time to achieving remission and consistent remission, proportion of patients in remission and consistent remission, and days in remission.

METHODS

Post hoc analysis of pooled data from ASPIRE I and II (N = 451). Remission and consistent remission were defined as Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score ≤ 12 at any given visit or two consecutive visits, respectively. Combined endpoints utilizing Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Suicidality-revised version [CGI-SS-r] ≤ 1 (i.e., not suicidal/questionably suicidal) along with the remission and consistent remission definitions (i.e., MADRS total score ≤ 12) were also examined.

RESULTS

The median times to remission and consistent remission of MDD were significantly shorter in ESK + SOC versus PBO + SOC (15 versus 23 [p = 0.005] and 23 versus 50 days [p = 0.007], respectively) and a greater proportion of patients in ESK + SOC achieved remission and consistent remission by Day 25 (65.2% versus 55.5% and 54.2% versus 39.8%, respectively). Similar results were obtained using the combined endpoint for both remission definitions. The median percent of days in remission during the double-blind treatment phase was significantly greater in ESK + SOC (27.1% or 5 days) versus PBO + SOC (8.3% or 2 days; p = 0.006), and the significant difference was maintained during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with ESK + SOC versus PBO + SOC resulted in significantly shorter time to remission, greater proportion of patients in remission, and greater percent of days in remission using increasingly rigorous definitions of remission. These findings underscore the clinical benefits of ESK for adults with MDD with suicidality.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov registry NCT03039192 (registered February 1, 2017) and NCT03097133 (registered March 31, 2017).

Commentary on Cochrane review: "Ketamine and other glutamate receptor modulators for depression in adults with unipolar major depressive disorder"

BACKGROUND

Cochrane recently published a review of esketamine and other glutamate receptor modulators in depression.

AIM

To address the limitations of the review, analyses of esketamine data were conducted to provide additional perspective to the reviewers' interpretation of their findings.

METHODS

Response rate, remission rate, and change from baseline in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score were determined using data from all esketamine phase 2/3 registration studies of treatment-resistant depression (TRD) and, separately, all esketamine phase 2/3 registration studies of major depressive disorder (MDD) and active suicidal ideation with intent. Outcomes were assessed at all timepoints (i.e., 24 h, 72 h (MDD with active suicidal intent only), and 1, 2, and 4 weeks). Enrollment criteria of the TRD studies were different than those of the studies of MDD and active suicidal ideation with intent, resulting in differences in patients' clinical characteristics and depression severity between the cohorts. Thus, we did not compare results between these cohorts (as was done in the Cochrane review).

RESULTS/OUTCOMES

In the combined TRD studies, a statistically significant between-group difference favored esketamine plus antidepressant over antidepressant plus placebo at 24 h (based on response, remission, and change in MADRS score), 1 week (change in MADRS score), 2 weeks (response and change in MADRS score), and 4 weeks (response, remission, and change in MADRS score). In the combined studies of MDD and active suicidal ideation with intent, the between-group difference was statistically different, favoring esketamine plus standard-of-care over placebo plus standard-of-care, at 24 h (response, remission, and change in MADRS score), 72 h and 1 week (change in MADRS score), 2 weeks (response), and 4 weeks (response, remission, and change in MADRS score). For both study types, the between-group difference in outcomes was not statistically significant at the other timepoints.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Esketamine improves response, remission, and depressive symptoms as early as 24 h post-first dose among patients with TRD and among patients with MDD and active suicidal ideation with intent.

Clinical consensus regarding the importance of rapid reduction in depressive symptoms in major depressive disorder with acute suicidal ideation or behavior (MDSI)

Introduction

Patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) with acute suicidal ideation or behavior (MDSI) require immediate intervention. Though oral antidepressants can be effective at reducing depressive symptoms, they can take 4–6 weeks to reach full effect.

Objectives

This study aimed to identify unmet needs in the treatment of patients with MDSI, specifically exploring the potential clinical benefits of rapid reduction of depressive symptoms.

Methods

A Delphi panel consisting of practicing psychiatrists (n=12) from the US, Canada and EU was conducted between December 2020–June 2021. Panelists were screened to ensure they had sufficient experience with managing patients with MDD and MDSI. Panelists completed two survey rounds, and a virtual consensus meeting.

Results

This research confirmed current unmet needs in the treatment of patients with MDSI.

Hopelessness, functional impairment, worsening of MDD symptoms, recurrent hospitalization and higher risk of suicide attempt were considered as key consequences of the slow onset of action of oral antidepressants.

Treatment with rapid acting antidepressant was anticipated by panelists to provide short-term benefit such as rapid reduction of core MDD symptoms which may contribute to shorter hospital stays and improved patient engagement/compliance, allowing for earlier interventions and improved patient outcomes. For long-term benefits, panelists agreed that improved daily functioning and increased trust/confidence in treatment options, constitute key benefits of rapid-acting treatments

Conclusions

There is need for rapid-acting treatments which may help address key unmet needs and provide clinically meaningful benefits driven by the rapid relief of depressive symptoms particularly in patients with MDSI.

Disclosure

SB, ED, KJ, MO’H, QZ, MM, MH, SR, JA and DZ are employees of Janssen and hold stock in Johnson & Johnson Inc. AN is currently employed by Neurocrine Biosciences Inc. RP is an employee of Adelphi Values PROVE hired by Janssen.

Patient profiles, initial hospital encounter characteristics, and hospital re-encounters of patients with a hospital emergency department visit or inpatient admission for major depressive disorder

OBJECTIVES

To gain a better understanding of the characteristics of patients with a hospital encounter for major depressive disorder (MDD) and evaluate associated hospital resource utilization, hospital charges and costs, and hospital re-encounters.

METHODS

Adult patients with a hospital encounter (i.e. emergency department [ED] visit only or inpatient admission) with MDD as the primary discharge diagnosis (index event) during July 2018‒March 2019 were selected from the Premier Healthcare Database. Patient characteristics, hospital resource utilization, and hospital charges and costs were evaluated during index events. During a 12-month follow-up, hospital re-encounters (MDD-related and all-cause ED visit only or inpatient readmissions) were examined.

RESULTS

The study population included 77,178 patients with an index hospital encounter (ED visit only: 49.9%; inpatient admission: 50.1%) for MDD. The most common secondary mental health-related diagnosis was suicidal ideation/behavior, which was recorded in 51.8% of patients. The mean age was 38.2 years, 53.0% were female, and 72.1% were Caucasian. Among patients with an ED visit only, the mean index hospital charges and costs were $3,608 and $639, respectively. Among those with inpatient admissions, the mean length of stay was 4.9 days, and the mean index hospital charges and costs were $17,107 and $6,095, respectively. During the 12-month follow-up, 13.3% of patients in the overall study population had an MDD-related hospital re-encounter (primary or secondary discharge diagnosis code indicating MDD); nearly one-third (31.3%) occurred within 30 days post-discharge. During the follow-up, 28.1% had an all-cause hospital re-encounter with 29.7% having occurred within 30 days post-discharge.

LIMITATIONS

Due to constraints of the Premier Healthcare Database, healthcare resource utilization and costs outside of the hospital could not be evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a hospital encounter for MDD are relatively young, commonly have suicidal ideation/behavior, utilize substantial hospital resources, and have a high risk for a hospital re-encounter in the 30 days post-discharge.

Use of Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) to Assess Response to Antidepressant Treatment in Patients with Treatment-Resistant Depression

BACKGROUND

This post-hoc analysis evaluated the agreement between Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) score- and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score-based assessment of response in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) treated with esketamine nasal spray plus a newly initiated oral antidepressant (ESK-NS + AD).

METHODS

Data were analyzed from a phase 3, randomized, double-blind study (TRANSFORM-2) of flexibly dosed esketamine or placebo nasal spray plus a newly initiated oral-AD in adults with moderate-to-severe TRD. Patients with ≥50% reduction in MADRS from baseline at the end of the 4-week acute treatment phase were defined as responders. For the CGI-S-based assessment of response, patients with ≥2 points decrease from baseline or a CGI-S score of ≤3 (mildly depressed to normal) were considered responders. Cohen's kappa coefficient was calculated to assess level of agreement between MADRS and CGI-S-based assessments.

RESULTS

At the end of 4-week treatment, the proportion of responders among all study patients (n=201) was similar when assessed using the MADRS (61%) and CGI-S (62%) methods, with substantial agreement (Cohen's kappa=0.76; sensitivity=92%; specificity=84%) between both methods. When restricting analysis to ESK-NS + AD-treated patients (n=101) who had a higher response rate (on MADRS: 69%; on CGI-S: 68%), the agreement remained substantial (Cohen's kappa=0.75; sensitivity=91%; specificity=84%).

CONCLUSION

The CGI-S may be a practical and reliable alternative to the MADRS to assess response to ESK-NS + AD in patients with TRD and can be used in real-world practice to support informed treatment decisions.

Relapse and Treatment Adherence in Patients with Schizophrenia Switching from Paliperidone Palmitate Once-Monthly to Three-Monthly Formulation: A Retrospective Health Claims Database Analysis

PURPOSE

Relapse and treatment adherence to paliperidone palmitate once-monthly (PP1M) and three-monthly (PP3M) formulations in patients with schizophrenia were evaluated and compared using health claims data.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data (June 2015─June 2018) obtained from the MarketScan® Multi-State Medicaid Database were retrospectively analyzed. Patients aged ≥18 years with ≥1 claim for schizophrenia diagnosis prior to and/or at index date (i.e., date of first PP3M prescription record for PP3M patients and same month/year as the matched PP3M patients for PP1M patients) and continuous enrollment in the insurance plan for ≥12 months prior to index date (baseline) were included. PP1M cohort included patients who received ≥4 PP1M doses. PP3M patients were matched with PP1M patients (1:3) using propensity score matching and prevalent new user design. Outcome measures were relapse rate, time to relapse, proportion of days covered (PDC), and level of treatment adherence defined by PDC in five levels. Time to relapse was compared by Kaplan-Meier survival curves and log-rank test with the hazard ratio calculated using Cox proportion hazards model; PDC by t-test, and relapse rate and PDC categories by chi-square test.

RESULTS

A total of 1564 patients (428 PP3M and 1136 PP1M) were included. Relapse rate was lower in PP3M cohort (10.5%) compared with PP1M cohort (15.7%). Incidence rate of relapse was 8.98/100 person-years (PY) in PP3M cohort and 13.81/100 PY in PP1M cohort. After a mean (SD) follow-up of 456.1 (240.28) days in PP3M cohort and 465.4 (237.95) days in PP1M cohort, PP3M patients had a significantly lower relapse risk (hazard ratio: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.47, 0.90) than PP1M patients. Treatment adherence was significantly (p<0.0001) higher in PP3M versus PP1M cohort.

CONCLUSION

Risk of relapse was significantly lower, and treatment adherence was significantly higher in PP3M cohort compared with PP1M cohort. Higher treatment adherence was associated with lower relapse rate.

Comments to Drs. Bahji, Vazquez, and Zarate

In the absence of head-to-head studies directly comparing the efficacy of intranasal esketamine to that of intravenous ketamine, valid conclusions regarding comparative efficacy cannot be made based on the existing data from trials using markedly differing study designs and patient populations.

Pharmacokinetic Characteristics of Long-Acting Injectable Antipsychotics for Schizophrenia: An Overview

The availability of long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia provides clinicians with options that deliver continuous drug exposure and may improve adherence compared with daily oral antipsychotics. However, all LAI antipsychotics have unique formulations and pharmacokinetic characteristics that have implications for medication selection, administration interval, and injection site. This review outlines key differences in drug formulations and pharmacokinetics among LAI antipsychotics. A systematic search of the PubMed database was conducted to identify physical and formulation properties and pharmacokinetic data of commercially available LAI antipsychotics, including flupentixol decanoate, fluphenazine decanoate, haloperidol decanoate, zuclopenthixol decanoate, aripiprazole monohydrate, aripiprazole lauroxil, olanzapine pamoate, paliperidone palmitate, risperidone microspheres, and risperidone polymeric microspheres. Additional information was obtained from package inserts and product monographs. Relevant data on drug properties, administration details, pharmacokinetic parameters, and oral dose equivalencies of LAI antipsychotics are summarized. Based on our analysis, formulation characteristics (e.g., vehicle medium) and administration characteristics (e.g., injection site) can affect rate of absorption and adverse effects and may factor into whether oral supplementation or an additional injection is needed. Dose adjustments may be necessary based on potential drug-drug interactions, and approximate dose equivalence with oral formulations can help inform titration when switching from oral to LAI formulations. Clinicians administering LAI antipsychotics should consider these formulation and pharmacokinetic factors to maximize clinical impact and to adjust to an individual patient's needs and treatment goals.

Effect of Concomitant Benzodiazepine Use on Efficacy and Safety of Esketamine Nasal Spray in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder and Acute Suicidal Ideation or Behavior: Pooled Randomized, Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

The impact of benzodiazepines on the efficacy and safety of esketamine as a rapid-acting antidepressant remains unclear.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from two identically designed, randomized double-blind studies were pooled and analyzed on a post-hoc basis. In both studies, adults with major depressive disorder with acute suicidal ideation or behavior were randomized to placebo or esketamine 84 mg nasal spray twice-weekly for 4 weeks, each with comprehensive standard-of-care (initial hospitalization and newly initiated or optimized oral antidepressant[s]). Efficacy and safety were analyzed in two groups based on whether patients used concomitant benzodiazepines, which were prohibited within 8 hours before and 4 hours after the first dose of esketamine and within 8 hours of the primary efficacy assessment at 24 hours. The primary efficacy endpoint - change from baseline to 24 hours post-first dose in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score - was analyzed using ANCOVA.

RESULTS

Most patients (309/451, 68.5%) used concomitant benzodiazepines. Greater decrease in MADRS total score was observed with esketamine (mean [SD]: -16.1 [11.73]) versus placebo (-12.6 [10.56]) at 24 hours (least-squares mean difference: -3.7, 95% CI: -5.76, -1.59). The differences between the esketamine and placebo groups were clinically meaningful, irrespective of benzodiazepine use (benzodiazepine: -4.3 [-6.63, -1.89]; no benzodiazepine: -3.1 [-6.62, 0.45]). Among patients taking esketamine, change in MADRS total score was not significantly different between patients taking benzodiazepines (-15.8 [11.27]) versus those not taking benzodiazepines (-16.8 [12.82]) (least-squares mean difference: 1.1, [-2.24, 4.45]). Among esketamine-treated patients, the incidence of sedation was higher with benzodiazepine use, whereas dissociation was similar.

CONCLUSION

Benzodiazepines do not meaningfully affect the rapid-acting antidepressant effect of esketamine at 24 hours post-first dose among patients with MDD and acute suicidal ideation or behavior.

Effect of Sleep Disturbance on Efficacy of Esketamine in Treatment-Resistant Depression: Findings from Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

To evaluate the relationship of sleep disturbance to the antidepressant effects of esketamine.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two double-blind, 4-week studies randomized adults with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) to placebo or esketamine nasal spray, each with newly initiated antidepressant. Sleep was assessed using Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) item 4. Change in response (≥50% decrease in MADRS total score) and remission (total MADRS score ≤12) at day 28 was examined by presence/absence of baseline sleep disturbance using logistic regression models. Impact on reported sleep disturbance (MADRS item 4 score) was examined using ANCOVA models.

RESULTS

At baseline, most patients reported disturbed sleep - moderate/severe (65.3%, 369/565), mild (25.3%, 143/565), or none/slightly (9.4%, 53/565) - with similar distribution between treatment groups. A higher proportion of esketamine-treated patients achieved response (OR = 2.05; 95% CI: 1.40-3.02; P < 0.001) and remission (OR = 1.81; 95% CI: 1.23-2.66; P = 0.003) at day 28 compared to antidepressant plus placebo, regardless of presence/severity of sleep disturbance. Consistent with this, sleep (MADRS item 4 score) improved in both groups after the first dose, more so with esketamine by day 8 (between-group difference: P ≤ 0.02 at all time points). Across both treatment groups, 1-point improvement in sleep at day 8 increased the probability of antidepressant response on day 28 by 26% (OR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.12-1.42; P < 0.001), and remission by 28% (OR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.14-1.43; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Antidepressant efficacy of esketamine was demonstrated in patients with TRD, regardless of the presence of sleep disturbance. After 8 days of treatment and thereafter, significantly more esketamine-treated patients reported improvement in sleep versus antidepressant plus placebo.

Effect of Paliperidone Palmitate 3-Month Formulation on Goal Attainment and Disability After 52 Weeks' Treatment in Patients with Clinically Stable Schizophrenia

PURPOSE

This pragmatic clinical study aimed to assess goal attainment among patients with schizophrenia treated with paliperidone palmitate 3-monthly (PP3M) and its relation to their level of disability, and whether patients achieved symptomatic remission at the study endpoint.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Goal attainment was assessed as a secondary endpoint using Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) within a 52-week, prospective, single-arm, non-randomized, open-label, international, multicenter study evaluating the impact of transitioning stable patients with schizophrenia from paliperidone palmitate 1-monthly (PP1M) to PP3M. Additional exploratory analyses were performed to investigate the relationship between disability and functioning as measured by the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS), Version 2.0, symptomatic remission, and goal attainment.

RESULTS

Overall, 305 patients were enrolled, of whom 281 (92.1%) provided GAS data at baseline. Of these, 160 achieved symptomatic remission at the last observation carried forward (LOCF) endpoint. The most common category of goals was "self" related, of which work-related was most frequent. Two-thirds of patients (67.7%) achieved at least one goal at the LOCF endpoint. Goal achievement was positively associated with lower baseline symptoms and symptomatic remission at LOCF endpoint, and with lower WHODAS scores at baseline and LOCF endpoint and greater WHODAS score improvements from baseline. Age, duration of disease, and duration of PP1M treatment before the switch did not impact goal setting and goal attainment. The proportion of patients with remunerated work status increased by 11.3% at LOCF endpoint.

CONCLUSION

The results of this secondary endpoint analysis indicate that continued treatment of patients with schizophrenia with PP3M following stabilization with PP1M may facilitate attainment of patients' personal goals and reduce disability, especially, but not exclusively, in patients with symptomatic remission achieved at LOCF.

Evaluation of paliperidone palmitate long-acting injectable antipsychotic therapy as an early treatment option in patients with schizophrenia

AIM

This exploratory post hoc analysis of a randomized, double-blind (DB), multicentre, non-inferiority study (NCT01515423) evaluated the effects of the long-acting injectable antipsychotic therapies once-monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP1M) and once-every-3-months paliperidone palmitate (PP3M) on symptom severity and functional remission in patients with schizophrenia with differing durations of illness (≤5, 6-10 and >10 years).

METHODS

Endpoints included Personal and Social Performance (PSP) scale and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total scores during the DB phase (DB baseline and DB endpoint) and the proportion of patients meeting PSP or PANSS remission criteria at any time during the open-label (OL) or DB phases that were maintained for ≥3, ≥6, ≥9 or ≥12 months.

RESULTS

In both the OL and DB phases, significant improvements in PSP scale and PANSS scores were observed from baseline in all duration-of-illness groups, with significantly greater improvements observed in the ≤5-year and 6-10-year groups compared with the >10-year group. The proportion of patients who maintained PSP or PANSS remission criteria for ≥3, ≥6, ≥9 and ≥12 months was higher in the ≤5-year and 6-10-year groups than in the >10-year group. Safety profiles were similar across duration-of-illness groups in the DB phase.

CONCLUSIONS

Symptomatic and functional improvements were observed with PP1M/PP3M in patients with differing durations of schizophrenia, but the magnitude of the effects was greater in those with early illness vs chronic illness. These findings advocate implementation of PP1M and PP3M in all stages of schizophrenia, including early illness.

Efficacy and safety of paliperidone palmitate 3-month formulation in Latin American patients with schizophrenia: A subgroup analysis of data from two large phase 3 randomized, double-blind studies

Objective:

To analyze the efficacy and safety of paliperidone palmitate 3-monthly (PP3M) in Latin American patients with schizophrenia vs. rest-of-world (ROW).

Methods:

We analyzed data from two multinational, double-blind (DB), randomized, controlled phase 3 studies including patients with schizophrenia (DSM-IV-TR) previously stabilized on PP1M/PP3M (open-label [OL] phase). Patients were randomized to PP3M or PP1M (noninferiority study A) and PP3M or placebo (study B) in DB phase. The subgroup analysis included Latin American (Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico) patients. Primary efficacy endpoints were relapse-free rates (study A) and time-to-relapse (study B).

Results:

In study A, 63/71 (88.7%) and in study B 38/43 (88.4%) Latin American patients completed the DB phase. In study A, relapse-free percentage was similar in Latin America (PP3M: 97%, PP1M: 100%) and ROW (PP3M: 91%, PP1M: 89%). In study B, median time-to-relapse was not estimable in the Latin American subgroup for either placebo or PP3M groups, nor for the ROW PP3M group; the median time-to-relapse in the ROW placebo group was 395 days. Caregiver burden improved in patients switching from oral antipsychotics (OL baseline) to PP3M/PP1M in DB phase (Involvement Evaluation Questionnaire score mean ± SD change, -9.4±15.16; p < 0.001). Treatment emergent adverse events with PP3M during DB phase were similar in Latin America (study A: 24/34 [70.6%]; study B: 15/21 [71.4%]) and ROW (study A: 318/470 [67.7%]; study B: 84/139 [60.4%]) subgroups.

Conclusion:

PP3M was efficacious and showed no new safety concerns in patients with schizophrenia from Latin America, corroborating ROW findings.

Clinical trial registration:

NCT01515423, NCT01529515

Comparison of Relapse Prevention with 3 Different Paliperidone Formulations in Patients with Schizophrenia Continuing versus Discontinuing Active Antipsychotic Treatment: A Post-Hoc Analysis of 3 Similarly Designed Randomized Studies

BACKGROUND

Sudden discontinuation from antipsychotic treatment is a common occurrence in patients with schizophrenia. Lower rates of relapse could be expected for patients discontinuing treatment from longer-acting formulations vs their shorter-acting equivalents.

OBJECTIVE

To compare relapse rates and time-to-relapse between the active (analogous to adherent patients) and placebo (analogous to non-adherent patients in the real-world) arms of three different formulations of paliperidone (oral paliperidone extended release [paliperidone ER], paliperidone palmitate once monthly [PP1M], and paliperidone palmitate three monthly [PP3M] long-acting injectables).

METHODS

Data from three similarly designed, randomized relapse prevention studies in adult patients with schizophrenia were analyzed.

RESULTS

In total, 922 patients were included (active treatment: 473, placebo: 449). Lowest percentage of patients experienced relapse with PP3M <PP1M <paliperidone and ER, in both the active treatment (PP3M, 9% <PP1M, 18% <paliperidone ER, 22%) and placebo (PP3M, 29% <PP1M, 48% <paliperidone ER, 52%) groups. The post-discontinuation median-time-to-relapse was significantly longer with PP3M (395 days [274 days to "not-reached"])> PP1M (172 days [134-222 days])> paliperidone ER (58 days [42-114 days]) and was "not-estimable" in the active treatment group due to low relapse rates. Hazard ratios (HR) of the three paliperidone formulations relative to their respective placebos were PP3M ([HR: 3.81; 95% CI: 2.08, 6.99; P< 0.0001]> PP1M [HR: 3.60; 95% CI: 2.45, 5.28; P<0.0001]> paliperidone ER [HR: 2.83; 95% CI: 1.73, 4.63; P<0.001]).

CONCLUSION

The lower percentage of relapse during active treatment and longer time to relapse after discontinuing active treatment with longer-duration antipsychotic formulations suggests the benefit of longer-acting over shorter-acting formulations, especially in patients susceptible to poor adherence.Clinical trial registration: paliperidone ER (NCT00086320), PP1M (NCT00111189), and PP3M (NCT01529515).

Stable patients with schizophrenia switched to paliperidone palmitate 3-monthly formulation in a naturalistic setting: impact of patient age and disease duration on outcomes

BACKGROUND

Paliperidone palmitate 3-monthly (PP3M) is a second-generation, long-acting injectable antipsychotic formulation indicated for the maintenance treatment of adults with schizophrenia first stabilized with paliperidone palmitate 1-monthly (PP1M). This exploratory post hoc subgroup analysis of the 52-week, phase 3b REMISSIO study analysed outcomes according to patient age and disease duration in a naturalistic clinical setting.

METHODS

Outcomes of patients with schizophrenia were analysed according to age [<35 years (n = 123) versus ⩾35 years (n = 182)] and disease duration [⩽3 years (n = 72) versus >3 years (n = 233)]. The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of patients achieving symptomatic remission according to the Andreasen criteria. Adverse events were monitored throughout the study.

RESULTS

At endpoint (last observation carried forward), 60.7% (95% CI: 51.4%, 69.4%) of younger patients and 54.1% of older patients (95% CI: 46.6%, 61.6%) achieved symptomatic remission. The proportions for patients with disease duration ⩽3 years and >3 years were similar: 57.8% (45.4%, 69.4%) versus 56.5% (49.8%, 62.9%). Functional remission was reached by 45.4% (36.2%, 54.8%) of patients aged <35 years and 36% (28.9%, 43.6%) of patients aged ⩾35 years with a similar pattern when analysed by disease duration. PP3M had a favourable safety profile and was generally well tolerated in both age groups.

CONCLUSION

Patients with schizophrenia, previously stabilized on PP1M, may benefit from PP3M treatment with some additional potential improvements if started early in the disease course.

CLINICAL TRIALSGOV

NCT02713282.

Improvement of Negative Symptoms in Schizophrenia with Paliperidone Palmitate 1-Month and 3-Month Long-Acting Injectables: Results from a Phase 3 Non-Inferiority Study

BACKGROUND

Negative symptoms in schizophrenia are associated with impairments in social and cognitive functioning leading to substantial long-term disability. Available antipsychotic treatments have demonstrated only modest benefit in the improvement of negative symptoms.

OBJECTIVE

To compare improvements in negative symptoms among patients treated with paliperidone palmitate 3-month (PP3M) or paliperidone palmitate 1-month (PP1M) long-acting injectable (LAI) formulations.

METHODS

Data from a randomized double-blind (DB), phase-3, non-inferiority study in patients with schizophrenia were analyzed. Following screening, patients entered a 17-week open-label (OL) phase to receive flexibly dosed PP1M followed by a 48-week DB phase where patients were randomized (1:1) to receive either PP1M or PP3M. Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total scores with emphasis on 7-item negative subscale scores for PP1M vs PP3M were assessed.

RESULTS

Of 1429 patients enrolled, 1016 were randomized to receive PP3M (n=504) or PP1M (n=512). At baseline, mean (SD) PANSS negative subscale was 23.2 (4.60) and negative symptom factor score was 22.3 (4.87), indicating moderate-to-severe negative symptoms. Negative subscale and symptoms factor scores showed continuous improvements throughout OL (15.9 [4.99]) and DB (14.9 [4.81]) phases. Mean (SD) changes from DB baseline in the PANSS negative subscale score were comparable between PP1M (-1.4 [3.67]) and PP3M (-1.4 [3.63]) treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with PP3M or PP1M demonstrated comparable improvement in negative symptoms in patients with moderate-to-severe negative symptoms and in patients with prominent negative symptoms. Long-term treatment with PP3M demonstrated benefit, suggesting that continuous antipsychotic medication treatment for >1 year is needed to achieve greater benefit for negative symptoms.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01515423.

Patients' Preference for Long-Acting Injectable versus Oral Antipsychotics in Schizophrenia: Results from the Patient-Reported Medication Preference Questionnaire

INTRODUCTION

Understanding patients' preferences for long-acting injectable (LAI) or oral antipsychotics (pills) could help reduce potential barriers to LAI use in schizophrenia.

METHODS

Post hoc analyses were conducted from a double-blind, randomized, non-inferiority study (NCT01515423) of 3-monthly vs 1-monthly paliperidone palmitate in patients with schizophrenia. Data from the Medication Preference Questionnaire, administered on day 1 (baseline; open-label stabilization phase), were analyzed. The questionnaire includes four sets of items: 1) reasons for general treatment preference based on goals/outcomes and preference for LAI vs pills based on 2) personal experience, 3) injection-site (deltoid vs gluteal), 4) dosing frequency (3-monthly vs 1-monthly). A logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the effect of baseline variables on preference (LAIs or pills).

RESULTS

Data from 1402 patients were available for analysis. Patients who preferred LAIs recognized these outcomes as important: "I feel more healthy" (57%), "I can get back to my favorite activities" (56%), "I don't have to think about taking my medicines" (54%). Most common reasons for medication preference (LAI vs pills) were: "LAIs/pills are easier for me" (67% vs 18%), "more in control/don't have to think about taking medicine" (64% vs 14%), "less pain/sudden symptoms" (38% vs 18%) and "less embarrassed" (0% vs 46%). Majority of patients (59%) preferred deltoid over gluteal injections (reasons: faster administration [63%], easier [51%], less embarrassing [44%]). In total, 50% of patients preferred 3-monthly over 1-monthly (38%) or every day (3%) dosing citing reasons: fewer injections [96%], fewer injections are less painful [84%], and fewer doctor visits [80%]. From logistic regression analysis, 77% of patients preferred LAI over pills; culture and race appeared to play a role in this preference.

CONCLUSION

Patients who preferred LAI antipsychotics prioritized self-empowerment and quality-of-life-related goals. When given the option, patients preferred less-frequent, quarterly injections over monthly injections and daily oral medications.

A post hoc analysis on hospitalization risk in Asian patients with schizophrenia switching to once-monthly paliperidone palmitate from oral antipsychotics

Background: In this post hoc analysis in patients recently diagnosed (≤5 years) with schizophrenia, the effect on hospitalization risk after switching from oral antipsychotic to once-monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP1M) was evaluated. Research design and methods: Change in hospitalization risk following PP1M initiation among patients switching from oral antipsychotics was assessed using prescription sequence symmetry analysis. Hospitalization risk was expressed as an adjusted sequence ratio (ASR) of the number of patients hospitalized prior to PP1M initiation/post PP1M initiation. Cumulative distribution of the time to hospitalization was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and symmetry of distribution was assessed using log-rank test. Hazard ratio and 95% CI were calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model. Results: The number of patients hospitalized after switching to PP1M: no change, 203/300 (67.7%); increase, 18/300 (6.0%); and decrease, 79/300 (26.3%). Following PP1M initiation, ASR (95% CI) was 3.56 (2.67, 5.33) suggesting asymmetry and a significant decline in hospitalization risk. Asymmetry in distribution of hospitalization events with significant (p ≤ 0.001) delay in time to hospitalization was also observed. Conclusion: Switching to PP1M treatment from oral antipsychotics is likely to be associated with a significant reduction in hospitalization risk along with a delay in time to hospitalization and rehospitalization.

Clinical relevance of paliperidone palmitate 3-monthly in treating schizophrenia

Antipsychotics are the mainstay in schizophrenia management, and long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics contribute to the successful maintenance of treatment by improving non-adherence and preventing relapses. Paliperidone palmitate 3-monthly (PP3M) formulation is the only available LAI antipsychotic that offers an extended 3-month window of stable plasma drug concentration, enabling only four injections per year. This paper summarizes clinically relevant endpoints from available evidence for PP3M to bridge translational research gaps and provide measurable outcomes that can be interpreted in clinical practice. Low number-needed-to-treat (NNT) for relapse prevention (NNT [95% CI] 6-month estimate: 4.8 [3.2; 10.0]; 12-month estimate: 3.4 [2.2; 7.0]), and high number-needed-to-harm (NNH [95% CI] akathisia, 27.1 [12.3; -667.1]; tremor, 80.0 [22.5; 67.3]; dyskinesia, -132.6 [44.5; -23.2]; parkinsonism, 160.0 [28.9; -49.8]) quantify the relative benefits and low propensity for adverse events with PP3M. Symptom remission and reductions in positive and negative symptoms indicate treatment stability. Additionally, meaningful functional remission, reduced dosing frequency, and freedom from daily negotiations favorably impact patient preference and attenuate burdensome aspects of caregiving, representing important healthcare determinants that enhance prospects of treatment continuity in schizophrenia. This information can potentially improve clinicians' judgment of treatment choices, clinical response, and patient selection in routine care. Taken together, PP3M is a valuable antipsychotic treatment option, meriting consideration for a broader role in the long-term management of schizophrenia; its utility should not be limited to patients with poor adherence or when oral antipsychotics have failed.

Predictors of achieving remission in schizophrenia patients treated with paliperidone palmitate 3-month formulation

PURPOSE

Long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic paliperidone palmitate 3-month formulation (PP3M) is indicated in the United States for the treatment of schizophrenia only after adequate treatment with paliperidone palmitate 1-month formulation (PP1M) for ≥4 months. This analysis aimed to identify patient and disease characteristics during PP1M treatment associated with greater likelihood of achieving remission after transition to PP3M.

METHODS

A post hoc analysis of a randomized, Phase III, double-blind, noninferiority trial of PP3M vs PP1M (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01515423) was conducted in adult patients with schizophrenia. Patients achieving clinical stability after 17 weeks of open-label PP1M were randomized to 48 weeks of double-blind treatment with PP3M or PP1M. The primary objective of this exploratory post hoc analysis was to identify demographic and/or clinical variables associated with persistent remission after treatment with PP3M. Multiple logistic regression analysis identified the following significant predictors of remission: Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) Marder negative symptom factor score, Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) total score, and Personal and Social Performance (PSP) total score.

RESULTS

At double-blind baseline, a 1-point reduction in Marder negative symptom factor score was associated with a 20% increase in the odds of achieving remission after PP3M treatment; 1-point reduction in CGI-S was associated with a doubling in remission odds; and 7- and 10-point improvements in PSP scores, respectively, were associated with 42% and 65% increases in remission odds.

CONCLUSION

Patients with early clinically meaningful improvements in disease symptoms and severity while establishing stable PP1M dosage are more likely to achieve remission after transition to PP3M.

Paliperidone Palmitate 3-Monthly Versus 1-Monthly Injectable in Patients With Schizophrenia With or Without Prior Exposure to Oral Risperidone or Paliperidone: A Post Hoc, Subgroup Analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Paliperidone palmitate 3-monthly (PP3M) injectable formulation offers an advantage of improved medication adherence and lower relapse risk in patients with schizophrenia. This post hoc analysis compared outcomes following PP3M versus paliperidone palmitate 1-monthly (PP1M) treatment in patients with schizophrenia treated/untreated with oral risperidone/paliperidone (RIS/PALI).

METHODS

Patients were treated with PP1M (50, 75, 100, or 150 mg equivalent [eq.]) for 17 weeks during an open-label (OL) phase and randomized (1:1) to PP3M (175, 263, 350, or 525 mg eq.) or PP1M (50, 75, 100, or 150 mg eq.) during a 48-week double-blind phase. Efficacy outcomes were compared based on prior oral RIS/PALI exposure: recent (≥ 28 days of oral RIS/PALI exposure with last dose within 14 days before study entry); or no (no oral RIS/PALI exposure within 60 days before study entry).

RESULTS

A total of 452 OL patients received recent oral RIS/PALI (n = 323 [71%], randomized to PP3M = 166; PP1M = 157), and 709 OL patients were without recent oral RIS/PALI (n = 506 [71%], randomized to PP3M = 254; PP1M = 252). Improvements in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) scores (OL baseline-to-endpoint) were similar in recent-RIS/PALI (mean [standard deviation]:18.3 [17.96]) and no-RIS/PALI (- 21.1 [16.40]) subgroups. Relapse-free rates were comparable between recent-RIS/PALI (relapse-free rate [95% confidence interval for difference]: 2.6 [- 4.7 to 10.0]; PP3M: 90%; PP1M: 87%) and no-RIS/PALI subgroups (0.8 [- 4.5 to 6.0]; PP3M: 92%; PP1M: 91%). Weight gain was the most common (> 5% incidence) treatment-emergent adverse event in both subgroups irrespective of the prior treatment.

CONCLUSION

Patients with schizophrenia, irrespective of prior treatment with RIS/PALI, had comparable treatment outcomes and tolerability following PP3M or PP1M treatment.

REGISTRATION

This study is registered at the EU clinical trial registry (EudraCT Number: 2011-004889-15) and ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT01515423).

An assessment of injection site reaction and injection site pain of 1-month and 3-month long-acting injectable formulations of paliperidone palmitate

PURPOSE

To evaluate injection site reactions and pain following paliperidone palmitate 1-month (PP1M) and 3-month (PP3M) administration using safety data of double-blind (DB), noninferiority study.

METHODS

Patients (n = 1,429) with schizophrenia, treated with PP1M (50-150 mg-eq, 17-week open-label [OL] phase) were randomized to PP1M or PP3M in 48-week DB phase.

FINDINGS

PP1M and PP3M injections were well tolerated. Incidence of induration, redness, and swelling were low in both phases (OL: 9-12%; DB: 7-13%), and were mostly mild in both groups. Mean (SD) visual analog scale scores decreased from OL-baseline (22.0 [21.6]) to DB-baseline (19.5 [20.6] vs. 18.4 [20.4]) and DB-endpoint (15.6 [17.9] vs. 15.5 [18.3]).

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Injection site reactions and pain were low and similar between both treatments, regardless of administration site and dose.

Maintenance dose conversion between oral risperidone and paliperidone palmitate 1 month: Practical guidance based on pharmacokinetic simulations

AIM

We assessed the dosage strengths of paliperidone palmitate 1-month (PP1M) long-acting injectable resulting in similar steady-state (SS) exposures to the dosage strengths of oral risperidone using pharmacokinetic (PK) simulations.

METHODS

Population PK simulations of SS PK were performed using the PK models of oral risperidone and PP1M. The concentrations of active moiety (risperidone + paliperidone) from risperidone were compared to paliperidone concentrations resulting from PP1M administration. Similarity was assessed via graphical evaluation of median and 90% prediction intervals of SS PK profiles over 28 days.

RESULTS

Oral risperidone doses of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 mg/d are expected to result in similar SS PK as PP1M doses of 25, 50, 75, 100, and 150 mg eq. (which correspond to 39, 78, 117, 156, and 234 mg of paliperidone palmitate) respectively (ie 25-fold dose conversion factor from oral risperidone to PP1M).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides clinicians with a practical guidance to establish suitable maintenance dose levels of PP1M and oral risperidone when transitioning patients from one formulation to another.

Impact of time of initiation of once-monthly paliperidone palmitate in hospitalized Asian patients with acute exacerbation of schizophrenia: a post hoc analysis from the PREVAIL study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the differences in efficacy and safety outcomes in acute exacerbating schizophrenia patients between 2 subgroups (≤1 week and >1 week), differing in time interval from hospitalization to time of initiation of once-monthly paliperidone palmitate.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

PREVAIL was a multicenter, single-arm, open-label, prospective Phase IV study in hospitalized Asian patients (either sex, aged 18-65 years) diagnosed with schizophrenia (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition). Change from baseline to week 13 in primary (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale [PANSS] total score), secondary endpoints (PANSS responder rate, PANSS subscale, PANSS Marder factor, Clinical Global Impression-Severity, and Personal and Social Performance scale scores, readiness for hospital discharge questionnaire) and safety were assessed in this post hoc analysis.

RESULTS

Significant mean reduction from baseline to week 13 in the PANSS total score, 30% PANSS responder rates (P≤0.01), PANSS subscales (positive and general psychopathology; all P≤0.01), PANSS Marder factor (positive symptoms, uncontrolled hostility, and excitement and anxiety/depression; all P≤0.01), Personal and Social Performance scale scores (P≤0.05) and Clinical Global Impression-Severity categorical summary (P≤0.05) were significantly greater in the ≤1 week subgroup versus >1 week subgroup (P≤0.05). The readiness for hospital discharge questionnaire improved over time for the overall study population, but remained similar between subgroups at all-time points. Treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between the subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Early initiation of once-monthly paliperidone palmitate in hospitalized patients with acute exacerbation of schizophrenia led to greater improvements in psychotic symptoms with comparable safety than treatment initiation following 1 week of hospitalization.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Asenapine Maintenance Therapy in Adults With an Acute Manic or Mixed Episode Associated With Bipolar I Disorder

OBJECTIVE

The authors determined the efficacy and safety of asenapine in preventing recurrence of any mood episode in adults with bipolar I disorder.

METHOD

Adults with an acute manic or mixed episode per DSM-IV-TR criteria were enrolled in this randomized, placebo-controlled trial consisting of an initial 12- to 16-week open-label period and a 26-week double-blind randomized withdrawal period. The target asenapine dosage was 10 mg b.i.d. in the open-label period but could be titrated down to 5 mg b.i.d. After completing the open-label period, subjects meeting stabilization/stable-responder criteria were randomized to asenapine or placebo treatment in the double-blind period. The primary efficacy endpoint was time to recurrence of any mood event during the double-blind period. Kaplan-Meier estimation was performed, and 95% confidence intervals were determined. Safety was assessed throughout.

RESULTS

A total of 549 subjects entered the open-label period, of whom 253 enrolled in the double-blind randomized withdrawal period (127 in the placebo group; 126 in the asenapine group). Time to recurrence of any mood episode was statistically significantly longer for asenapine- than placebo-treated subjects. In post hoc analyses, significant differences in favor of asenapine over placebo were seen in time to recurrence of manic and depressive episodes. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were somnolence (10.0%), akathisia (7.7%), and sedation (7.7%) in the open-label period and mania (11.9% of the placebo group compared with 4.0% of the asenapine group) and bipolar I disorder (6.3% compared with 1.6%) in the double-blind period.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term treatment with asenapine was more effective than placebo in preventing recurrence of mood events in adults with bipolar I disorder and was generally well-tolerated.

Time to onset and time to resolution of extrapyramidal symptoms in patients with exacerbated schizophrenia treated with 3-monthly vs once-monthly paliperidone palmitate

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of 3-monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP3M) vs once-monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP1M) treatment with regard to extrapyramidal symptom (EPS)-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in patients with schizophrenia, previously stabilized on PP1M treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data on overall incidence, time to onset (TTO), and time to resolution (TTR) of EPS-related TEAEs (overall, subclasses such as dyskinesia, dystonia, hyperkinesia, parkinsonism, and tremor) from a randomized double-blind (DB) non-inferiority study were compared between PP3M and PP1M. Subgroup analysis was performed by age (18-25, 26-50, and 50+ years) and final open-label (OL) dose (50/75, 100, and 150 mg eq.).

RESULTS

Overall incidence of spontaneously reported EPS-related TEAEs decreased from 12.6% (PP1M) in OL phase to 8.3% (PP3M) and 7.4% (PP1M) in the DB phase; overall median TTO and TTR values were comparable between both groups. Among patients with reported EPS-related TEAEs, the median TTO for all EPS-related TEAEs was 17 days (PP1M) in OL phase and 115 days (PP3M) and 98.5 days (PP1M) in DB phase; median TTR was 36.5 days (PP1M) in OL phase and 91 days (PP3M) and 85.5 days (PP1M) in DB phase. No clear dose- or age-related differences in TTO and TTR of EPS-related TEAEs were noted.

CONCLUSION

Despite differences in apparent half-life and pharmacokinetic profiles (peak plasma exposure of PP3M formulation is 70% higher than that of PP1M formulation), both PP3M and PP1M formulations exhibited comparable incidence of EPS-related TEAEs, TTO, and TTR in patients with schizophrenia.

Once-monthly injection of paliperidone palmitate in patients with recently diagnosed and chronic schizophrenia: a post-hoc comparison of efficacy and safety

BACKGROUND

The use of long-acting injectable antipsychotics in recently diagnosed schizophrenia remains less explored. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of paliperidone palmitate once-monthly (PP1M) treatment in adult patients with recently diagnosed vs. chronic schizophrenia.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

These post-hoc analyses included two multicenter studies. Study 1 (NCT01527305) enrolled recently diagnosed (≤5 years) and chronic (>5 years) patients; Study 2 (NCT01051531) enrolled recently diagnosed patients only. Recently diagnosed patients were further sub-grouped into ≤2 years or 2-5 years. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score.

RESULTS

In Study 1, 41.5% patients had recent diagnosis (≤2 years: 56.8%; 2-5 years: 43.2%); 58.5% had chronic schizophrenia. In Study 2, 52.8% and 47.2% patients were grouped into ≤2 years and 2-5 years, respectively. PANSS total score showed significantly greater improvement in patients with recently diagnosed vs. chronic schizophrenia. Similar results were obtained for PANSS responder rate, improvements in PANSS, and CGI-S scores.

CONCLUSION

PP1M was efficacious in both recently diagnosed and chronic schizophrenia, with the benefits being more pronounced in patients with recently diagnosed schizophrenia. This adds to growing evidence recommending long-acting antipsychotic interventions at early stages of schizophrenia.

Effect of Two Long-acting Treatments, The Paliperidone Palmitate 1-month and 3-month Formulations on Caregiver Burden in European patients with Schizophrenia

Introduction

Schizophrenia puts a significant burden on caregivers.

Objectives

To explore the effects of two long-acting treatments (LAT), paliperidone palmitate 1-month and 3-month formulations on caregiver burden (CGB) in European patients with schizophrenia using the Involvement Evaluation Questionnaire (IEQ)

Aims

To conduct a subgroup analysis of two randomized, double-blind studies (NCT01515423 and NCT01529515).

Methods

Caregivers (≥ 1 h of contact/week with the patients) were offered to complete the IEQ (31 items, each scoring: 0–4; total score: sum of 27 items [0–108]).

Results

Among 756 European caregivers (53% parents, 18% spouse/partner or girl/boyfriend, 10% sister/brother), 60% reported a CGB of ≥ 32 hours/week at open-label baseline (BL-OL). CGB reduced significantly for patients with both BL-OL and at least one double-blind IEQ sum-score (n = 433): mean improvement [SD] (9.9 [12.66], P < 0.001) from BL-OL (mean [SD] 26.0 [13.30]) to study end (16.0 [10.47]); (reduction in burden associated with worrying [2.9 points] and urging [4.3 points]). CGB significantly improved in patients on prior oral antipsychotics post-switching to LAT with less leisure days impacted and less hours spent in caregiving (P < 0.001). There was significant relationship between improvements and relapse status, patient age (P < 0.001), age at diagnosis (P < 0.002), and number of prior psychiatric hospitalizations in the last 24 months (P < 0.05). Prior use of long-acting antipsychotics other than paliperidone palmitate 1-month or 3-month formulations at BL-OL and duration of prior psychiatric hospitalizations in the last 24 months did not show significant effect on improvements.

Conclusion

Switching from an oral antipsychotic to an LAT can provide a meaningful and significant improvement in caregiver burden.

Disclosure of interest

All authors are employees of Janssen Research & Development, LLC and hold stocks in the company.

Abstract PD8-01: Race and age differences in PAM50 biomarker status in the Carolina breast cancer study

Background: African American breast cancer patients have lower relative frequency of hormone receptor (HR)-positive/HER2-negative disease and higher subtype-specific mortality. However, few population-based studies have RNA-based subtyping data, and racial differences in the biology of HR-positive/HER2-negative tumors are not well understood.

Methods: Using data and biospecimens from the Carolina Breast Cancer Study (CBCS) Phase 3 (2008-2013), we classified approximately 1,000 invasive breast cancers according to PAM50 subtype and two risk of recurrence scores (ROR-P and ROR-PT). Relative frequency of Luminal A, Luminal B, Her2-enriched, and Basal-like subtypes and ROR scores (low/medium/high) were compared by race (blacks vs. whites) and age (≤50 years vs. &gt;50 years), overall and among HR-positive/HER2-negative cases.

Results: Black women of all ages had significantly higher relative frequency of Basal-like breast cancer (36 and 31% in blacks vs. 18 and 15% in whites; younger and older, respectively) and lower frequency of Luminal A breast cancer (26 and 34% in blacks vs. 43 and 52% in whites; younger and older, respectively). Frequency of Luminal B and HER2-enriched breast cancer did not vary by race or age. Among clinically HR-positive, HER2-negative cases, Luminal A subtype comprised only half of the cases among black women, and was significantly less common than among white women (51% vs 60% in whites, p&lt;0.05). Black women with HR-positive/HER2-negative disease also had significantly higher ROR scores (ROR-P medium or high 82% vs. 66% in whites, p=0.01; ROR-PT medium or high 85% vs. 69% in whites, p&lt;0.01).

Conclusions: Multi-gene assays highlight disparities in frequency of aggressive, poorer prognosis tumor subtypes and implicate differences in tumor biology as an important contributor to mortality disparities among HR-positive/HER2-negative patients.

Citation Format: Troester MA, Sun X, Allott EH, Kit C-K, Thorne L, Mathews M, Cohen SM, Geradts J, Kirk E, Li Y, Hu Z, Robinson W, Hoadley KA, Reeder-Hayes K, Earp S, Olshan AF, Carey LA, Perou CM. Race and age differences in PAM50 biomarker status in the Carolina breast cancer study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD8-01.

Efficacy and safety of paliperidone palmitate three-monthly formulation in East Asian patients with schizophrenia: subgroup analysis of a global, randomized, double-blind, Phase III, noninferiority study

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate the efficacy and safety of paliperidone palmitate three-monthly (PP3M) formulation in an East Asian population with schizophrenia by subgroup analysis of a double-blind (DB), multicenter, noninferiority study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Of 1,429 patients who entered the open-label (OL) phase, 510 were East Asian (China: 296 [58%], Japan: 175 [34%], South Korea: 19 [4%] and Taiwan: 20 [4%]). In the 17-week OL phase, patients received paliperidone palmitate once-monthly (PP1M) formulation on day 1 (150 mg eq.), day 8 (100 mg eq.) and once-monthly thereafter (50-150 mg eq., flexible). Following the OL phase, patients (n=344 East Asian) entered DB phase and were randomized (1:1) to PP1M (n=174) or PP3M (n=170). Primary efficacy endpoint was the percentage of patients who remained relapse free at the end of the 48-week DB phase, using Kaplan-Meier cumulative survival estimate. Secondary efficacy endpoints included change from DB baseline to endpoint in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, Clinical Global Impression Severity, Personal and Social Performance scores and symptomatic remission. Additional assessments included caregiver burden and safety.

RESULTS

A total of 285/344 (83%) randomized East Asian patients completed the DB phase. The percentage of patients who had a relapse event was similar on comparing PP3M (17 [10.2%]) to PP1M (20 [11.8%]), and also for Japan (PP3M: 9 [17.6%], PP1M: 13 [23.2%]) and China (PP3M: 6 [5.9%], PP1M: 7 [6.9%]). Mean change from baseline in secondary efficacy parameters was similar to the global population, regardless of treatment. Symptomatic remission was attained by 50% of the treated patients. Caregiver burden was significantly reduced (P<0.001) following treatment with PP3M/PP1M. Frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events in PP3M group during DB phase was greater in the East Asian subgroup (81%) than the global population (68%) and was higher in Japan (92%) than China (75%).

CONCLUSION

Results suggest that PP3M is efficacious in the East Asian subgroup. Although treatment-emergent adverse events were slightly higher in the East Asian subgroup versus the global population, no new safety signals were identified.

Exploring the long-term safety of asenapine in adults with schizophrenia in a double-blind, fixed-dose, extension study

PURPOSE

The primary objective of this study was to assess long-term safety with sublingual asenapine 2.5 or 5 mg twice daily (BID) in patients with schizophrenia.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Actively treated patients on asenapine 2.5 mg BID, asenapine 5 mg BID, or olanzapine 15 mg once daily (QD) who completed a 6-week randomized, double-blind, placebo- and olanzapine-controlled study continued lead-in treatment in this 26-week, multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, olanzapine-controlled Phase IIIB extension study; placebo patients were assigned to asenapine 2.5 mg BID treatment. Safety analyses were based on the all treated set (patients who received one or more doses of extension trial medication); change from baseline analyses used the acute study baseline. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and changes in laboratory parameters were monitored; weight change for asenapine versus olanzapine was the key secondary objective. Descriptive statistics were used; weight change was analyzed using a mixed-model repeated-measure approach.

RESULTS

Of the 120 patients in the all-treated set, 60% completed treatment (asenapine 2.5 mg BID 66.1% overall, asenapine 5 mg BID 52.4%, olanzapine 15 mg QD 56.3%). The incidence of TEAEs was higher for placebo patients from the lead-in study who switched to asenapine 2.5 mg BID for extension treatment (71.0%) versus patients continuing asenapine 2.5 mg BID (38.7%), asenapine 5 mg BID (38.1%), or olanzapine 15 mg QD (25.0%). The most common TEAE (≥5% in every group) was worsening of schizophrenia. Least squares mean change in body weight from the acute study baseline to week 26 was +0.6 kg for overall asenapine 2.5 mg BID, +0.8 kg for asenapine 5 mg BID, and +1.2 kg for olanzapine 15 mg QD. There were no clinically relevant changes in metabolic parameters; values were generally similar across treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Asenapine 2.5 mg BID and 5 mg BID were generally well tolerated in long-term treatment. Weight gain was less for overall asenapine 2.5 mg BID and 5 mg BID than for olanzapine 15 mg QD.

Long-term safety and tolerability of asenapine: A double-blind, uncontrolled, long-term extension trial in adults with an acute manic or mixed episode associated with bipolar I disorder

BACKGROUND

Asenapine (ASN) is approved in the United States as monotherapy and adjunctive therapy (to lithium or valproate) in adults with bipolar mania, and as monotherapy in pediatric patients with bipolar mania. This is the first long-term study evaluating safety and tolerability of ASN fixed doses in this population.

METHODS

After completing a 3-week, randomized, placebo (PBO)-controlled acute trial, patients could enroll in this 26-week, fixed-dose (5 or 10mg twice daily), double-blind extension study. Select predefined treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and metabolic parameters were reported.

RESULTS

Overall, 164 patients were treated; 88 completed the study. The incidence of ≥1 TEAE was greater for PBO/ASN 5mg (68.3%) versus ASN 5mg/ASN 5mg (54.7%) and ASN 10mg/ASN 10mg (51.0%) with sedation, headache, somnolence, akathisia, and dizziness occurring as the most prevalent TEAEs. Predefined TEAEs were more common for PBO/ASN 5mg (33.3%) versus ASN 5mg/ASN 5mg (15.1%) and ASN 10mg/ASN 10mg (15.7%). Weight gain (≥7% increase from baseline to endpoint) was more frequent for ASN 10mg/ASN 10mg (16.3%) versus ASN 5mg/ASN 5mg (13.7%) and PBO/ASN 5mg (8.9%). No clinically significant metabolic changes were observed. The incidence of serious AEs was low and primarily related to underlying bipolar I disorder.

LIMITATIONS

This study lacked a comparator group and was not powered for direct comparisons of ASN regimens. Results may not be applicable to the general bipolar population.

CONCLUSIONS

ASN was generally safe and well tolerated in adults with an acute manic or mixed episode associated with bipolar I disorder.

Efficacy and Safety of Vilazodone in Patients With Generalized Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Flexible-Dose Trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of vilazodone as an acute treatment for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). Vilazodone is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and 5-HT1A receptor partial agonist approved for the treatment of major depressive disorder in adults.

METHODS

This was a randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter, flexible-dose study conducted from May 2013-March 2014. Adult patients (18-70 years, inclusive) who met DSM-IV-TR criteria for GAD were randomized (1:1) to placebo or vilazodone 20-40 mg/d for 8 weeks of double-blind treatment. Primary and secondary efficacy parameters were change from baseline to week 8 in the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS) total score and in the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) total score, respectively, analyzed using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures approach on a modified intent-to-treat population. Safety outcomes were summarized descriptively.

RESULTS

Efficacy analyses were based on 400 patients (placebo = 200, vilazodone = 200); 76% completed the study (placebo = 81%, vilazodone = 71%). The least squares mean difference (95% CI) in total score change from baseline to week 8 was statistically significant for vilazodone versus placebo on the HARS (-2.20 [-3.72 to -0.68]; P = .0048) and on the SDS (-1.89 [-3.52 to -0.26]; P = .0236). Treatment-emergent adverse events reported in ≥ 5% of vilazodone patients and at least twice the rate of placebo were nausea, diarrhea, dizziness, fatigue, delayed ejaculation, and erectile dysfunction.

CONCLUSION

Statistically significant differences in favor of vilazodone 20-40 mg/d versus placebo were seen on all measures of anxiety and functional impairment in patients with GAD. Vilazodone was generally well tolerated, and no new safety concerns were noted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01844115.

Paliperidone palmitate: Japanese postmarketing mortality results in patients with schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

Paliperidone palmitate once-monthly injectable (PP1M) is approved in Japan and other countries for the treatment of schizophrenia. During the 6 month Japanese early postmarketing phase vigilance (EPPV) period, 32 deaths were reported. This report reviews potential contributing factors to the fatal outcomes in the PP1M-treated population.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

All spontaneously reported adverse events following PP1M use received during EPPV from 19 November 2013 to 18 May 2014 were entered into the global safety database and these events were analyzed.

RESULTS

During the EPPV period, 10,962 patients were estimated to have been treated with PP1M in Japan. The mortality reporting rate during this EPPV period was higher than that observed in the US or globally after PP1M launch (5.84, 0.43, and 0.38 per 1000 patient-years, respectively), but was consistent with the mortality incidence rates (10.2 per 1000 person-years) observed during interventional clinical studies in Japan and in observational patient cohorts. Of the 32 deaths reported during the Japanese PP1M EPPV period, 19/32 (59.4%) were in patients over 50 years of age, 23/32 (71.9%) reported cardiovascular risk factors and 25/32 (78.1%) received antipsychotic polypharmacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this review of the 32 fatal cases in the PP1M EPPV period, the observed death rate does not necessarily result from a risk with PP1M treatment in Japanese patients. The higher mortality reporting rates in Japan may be attributed to a variety of factors: the effectiveness of mortality reporting in the unique Japanese EPPV program, the advanced age of the fatal cases, high cardiovascular risk factors, multiple underlying diseases and high antipsychotic polypharmacy among the cases with fatal outcomes.

Post Hoc Analyses of Anxiety Measures in Adult Patients With Generalized Anxiety Disorder Treated With Vilazodone

Objective

To investigate vilazodone, currently approved for major depressive disorder in adults, for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD).

Method

Three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies showing positive results for vilazodone (2,040 mg/d) in adult patients with GAD (DSM-IV-TR) were pooled for analyses; data were collected from June 2012 to March 2014. Post hoc outcomes in the pooled intent-to-treat population (n = 1,462) included mean change from baseline to week 8 in Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS) total score, psychic and somatic anxiety subscale scores, and individual item scores; HARS response (≥ 50% total score improvement) and remission (total score ≤ 7) at week 8; and category shifts, defined as HARS item score ≥ 2 at baseline (moderate to very severe symptoms) and score of 0 at week 8 (no symptoms).

Results

The least squares mean difference was statistically significant for vilazodone versus placebo in change from baseline to week 8 in HARS total score (−1.83, P < .0001) and in psychic anxiety (−1.21, P < .0001) and somatic anxiety (−0.63, P < .01) subscale scores; differences from placebo were significant on 11 of 14 HARS items (P < .05). Response rates were higher with vilazodone than placebo (48% vs 39%, P < .001), as were remission rates (27% vs 21%, P < .01). The percentage of patients who shifted to no symptoms was significant for vilazodone on several items: anxious mood, tension, intellectual, depressed mood, somatic-muscular, somatic-sensory, cardiovascular, respiratory, and autonomic symptoms (P < .05).

Conclusions

Treatment with vilazodone versus placebo was effective in adult GAD patients, with significant differences between treatment groups found on both psychic and somatic HARS items.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01629966, NCT01766401, NCT01844115.

Asenapine: Efficacy and safety of 5 and 10mg bid in a 3-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in adults with a manic or mixed episode associated with bipolar I disorder

BACKGROUND

Asenapine is an atypical antipsychotic for acute treatment of manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder in adults. The recommended asenapine starting dose is 10mg bid with the option to reduce the dose to 5mg bid if needed due to adverse effects/tolerability.

METHODS

Phase IIIb, international, double-blind, fixed-dose, parallel-group, 3-week placebo-controlled trial of asenapine 5 and 10mg bid in adults with an acute bipolar I disorder manic or mixed episode. Primary outcome was difference in asenapine versus placebo in mean change from baseline to day 21 in the Young-Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score. Others included difference in asenapine versus placebo in the Clinical Global Impression Scale for Bipolar Severity (CGI-BP-S) and rate of YMRS responders.

RESULTS

Both asenapine doses were statistically superior to placebo in mean change from baseline to day 21 in YMRS total score (-10.9, -14.4, and -14.9 for placebo, asenapine 5mg bid, 10mg bid, respectively). Both asenapine doses had statistically superior improvement in mean change in CGI-BP-S score at day 21. Neither asenapine dose had significantly more YMRS responders at day 21 than placebo.

LIMITATIONS

Results may not be generalizable to the entire population with bipolar I disorder owing to strict inclusion criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

This study evaluated, by a fixed-dose design, the efficacy and safety of asenapine versus placebo in patients with bipolar I disorder. Both asenapine 5 and 10mg bid were efficacious in treating mania associated with bipolar I disorder and were generally well tolerated.

Safety and Efficacy from an 8 Week Double-Blind Trial and a 26 Week Open-Label Extension of Asenapine in Adolescents with Schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of asenapine in adolescents with schizophrenia.

METHODS

In an 8 week, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial, subjects (12-17 years of age) meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed., Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) criteria for schizophrenia were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo, asenapine 2.5 mg b.i.d., or asenapine 5 mg b.i.d. Subjects who completed the 8 week acute study could participate in a 26 week flexible-dose asenapine-only open-label extension (OLE).

RESULTS

A similar percentage of subjects completed treatment on day 56 (2.5 mg b.i.d. (n=98): 83%; 5 mg b.i.d. [n=106]: 79%; placebo [n=102]: 79%). In the mixed model for repeated measures analysis of the primary end-point (with Hochberg correction for multiplicity), least squares (LS) mean differences between asenapine and placebo on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score at day 56 were not significant (-4.8 for 2.5 mg b.i.d., p=0.070; -5.6 for 5 mg b.i.d., p=0.064). Significant improvement in the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity score was observed in the 5 mg b.i.d. group versus placebo on day 56 (LS mean -0.3, p=0.024). In the acute phase, ≥7% weight gain and the composite event of somnolence, sedation, and hypersomnia were more common in both asenapine groups than in the placebo group. Akathisia, fasting glucose elevation, and extrapyramidal syndrome were more common in the 5 mg b.i.d. group than in the placebo group. There were no unexpected adverse events in the OLE, and PANSS total scores decreased by -16.1 points in the group previously treated with placebo (n=62) and by -11.2 points in the continuous asenapine group (n=131) from OLE baseline to week 26.

CONCLUSIONS

Although improvements in PANSS total score at day 56 of the acute phase were numerically greater for both asenapine 2.5 and 5 mg b.i.d. than for placebo and were maintained in the OLE, the primary end-point did not achieve statistical significance in the acute phase. No new or unexpected safety concerns were detected during the acute phase or after an additional 26 weeks of asenapine treatment in the adolescent population with schizophrenia.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY

NCT01190254 and NCT1190267 at ClinicalTrials.gov.

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, fixed-dose phase III study of vilazodone in patients with generalized anxiety disorder

BACKGROUND

Vilazodone, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and 5-HT1A receptor partial agonist, is approved for treating major depressive disorder in adults. This study (NCT01629966 ClinicalTrials.gov) evaluated the efficacy and safety of vilazodone in adults with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD).

METHODS

A multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, fixed-dose study in patients with GAD randomized (1:1:1) to placebo (n = 223), or vilazodone 20 mg/day (n = 230) or 40 mg/day (n = 227). Primary and secondary efficacy parameters were total score change from baseline to week 8 on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAMA) and Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), respectively, analyzed using a predefined mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM). Safety outcomes were presented by descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

The least squares mean difference (95% confidence interval) in HAMA total score change from baseline (MMRM) was statistically significant for vilazodone 40 mg/day versus placebo (-1.80 [-3.26, -0.34]; P = .0312 [adjusted for multiple comparisons]), but not for vilazodone 20 mg/day versus placebo. Mean change from baseline in SDS total score was not significantly different for either dose of vilazodone versus placebo when adjusted for multiplicity; significant improvement versus placebo was noted for vilazodone 40 mg/day without adjustment for multiplicity (P = .0349). The incidence of adverse events was similar for vilazodone 20 and 40 mg/day (∼71%) and slightly lower for placebo (62%). Nausea, diarrhea, dizziness, vomiting, and fatigue were reported in ≥5% of patients in either vilazodone group and at least twice the rate of placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Vilazodone was effective in treating anxiety symptoms of GAD. No new safety concerns were identified.

Patient-expressed perceptions of wait-time causes and wait-related satisfaction

BACKGROUND

This study set out to identify patterns in the causes of waits and wait-related satisfaction.

METHODS

We conducted qualitative interviews with urban, semi-urban, and rural patients (n = 60) to explore their perceptions of the waits they experienced in the detection and treatment of their breast, prostate, lung, or colorectal cancer. We asked participants to describe their experiences from the onset of symptoms to the start of treatment at the cancer clinic and their satisfaction with waits at various intervals. Interview transcripts were coded using a thematic approach.

RESULTS

Patients identified five groups of wait-time causes: Patient-related (beliefs, preferences, and non-cancer health issues)Treatment-related (natural consequences of treatment)System-related (the organization or functioning of groups, workforce, institution, or infrastructure in the health care system)Physician-related (a single physician responsible for a specific element in the patient's care)Other causes (disruptions to normal operations of a city or community as a whole) With the limited exception of physician-related absences, the nature of the cause was not linked to overall satisfaction or dissatisfaction with waits.

CONCLUSIONS

Causes in themselves do not explain wait-related satisfaction. Further work is needed to explore the underlying reasons for wait-related satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Although our findings shed light on patient experiences with the health system and identify where interventions could help to inform the expectations of patients and the public with respect to wait time, more research is needed to understand wait-related satisfaction among cancer patients.

Evaluating the efficacy of vilazodone in achieving remission in patients with major depressive disorder: post-hoc analyses of a phase IV trial

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of vilazodone using different definitions of remission. Post-hoc analyses were carried out using data from an 8-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of vilazodone 40 mg/day in adults with major depressive disorder (NCT01473394). The primary efficacy endpoint was a mean change in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score; additional measures included the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) and Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAMA) scores. In addition to treatment response (MADRS≥50% improvement), post-hoc analyses were carried out for remission of depressive symptoms [MADRS score≤10; MADRS≤5 (complete remission)], anxiety symptoms (HAMA≤7), and combined depression and anxiety symptoms (MADRS/HAMA≤10/≤7), as well as for overall symptom severity (CGI-S=1). Odds ratios (ORs) and numbers needed to treat (NNTs) were also calculated. Significant outcomes were obtained with vilazodone versus placebo for MADRS response (50.6 vs. 33.3%, OR=2.04, P<0.001, NNT=6), remission (34.0 vs. 21.8%, OR=1.82, P=0.003, NNT=9), and complete remission (18.2 vs. 8.3%, OR=2.42, P=0.002, NNT=11). More patients receiving vilazodone rather than placebo also met remission criteria for HAMA (48.8 vs. 35.2%, OR=1.82, P=0.002, NNT=8), MADRS/HAMA (32.1 vs. 20.4%, OR=1.83, P=0.004, NNT=9), and CGI-S (24.1 vs. 11.5%, OR=2.41, P<0.001, NNT=8). Treatment with vilazodone 40 mg/day may help adult patients with major depressive disorder achieve remission of depression and/or anxiety symptoms.

Efficacy and safety of vilazodone 20 and 40 mg in major depressive disorder: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Vilazodone is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and 5-HT1A partial agonist approved for major depressive disorder (MDD) treatment in adults. This was a 10-week, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled and active-controlled, fixed-dose trial (NCT01473381). Adult patients with MDD (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed., text revision criteria) were randomized 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 to vilazodone 20 or 40 mg/day, citalopram 40 mg/day, or placebo. Primary efficacy: Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS); secondary efficacy: Clinical Global Impressions-Severity and sustained response (MADRS total score≤12 for at least the last two consecutive double-blind visits). The intent-to-treat population comprised 1133 patients, (placebo=281; vilazodone 20 mg/day=288; vilazodone 40 mg/day=284; citalopram=280). MADRS and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity score change from baseline to week 10 was significantly greater for vilazodone 20 mg/day, vilazodone 40 mg/day, and citalopram versus placebo. Sustained response rates were numerically higher, but not significantly different, in all active treatment groups versus placebo. The most common adverse events (≥5% of vilazodone patients, twice the rate of placebo) were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting (vilazodone 40 mg/day only), and insomnia. Improved sexual function (Changes in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire scores) was seen in all groups; between-group differences were not significant. Vilazodone 20 and 40 mg/day demonstrated efficacy and tolerability in the treatment of MDD.

Efficacy and safety of vilazodone in major depressive disorder: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Vilazodone is a potent serotonin (5-HT) reuptake inhibitor and 5-HT₁A receptor partial agonist approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults. This study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of vilazodone in the treatment of MDD.

METHOD

This 8-week, randomized (1:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, fixed-dose study conducted from January 2012 to February 2013 compared vilazodone 40 mg/d with placebo in outpatients with DSM-IV-TR-diagnosed MDD. The primary efficacy measure was Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score change from baseline to week 8 analyzed by a mixed-effects model for repeated measures on the intent-to-treat population (placebo = 252, vilazodone = 253). Secondary efficacy outcomes were Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) Scale score change from baseline and MADRS sustained response rate (total score ≤ 12 for at least the last 2 consecutive double-blind visits).

RESULTS

Approximately 83% of patients completed the study. Least squares mean differences (95% CI) were statistically significant for vilazodone versus placebo on MADRS (-5.117 [-6.886 to -3.347], P < .00001) and CGI-S (-0.622 [-0.845 to -0.399], P < .00001) change from baseline; statistically significant improvements versus placebo occurred at week 2 and persisted for the study duration. The MADRS sustained response rate was 17% for placebo and 27% for vilazodone (P < .01). Patients taking vilazodone versus placebo had higher rates of diarrhea and nausea; most incidences were mild in severity. Weight increase and sexual dysfunction adverse events were low in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A large and significant treatment effect on the MADRS and statistically significant improvement on the CGI-S demonstrated meaningful depressive symptom improvements. Vilazodone was generally well tolerated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01473394.