Optimization of Lurasidone HCl-Loaded PLGA Nanoparticles for Intramuscular Delivery: Enhanced Bioavailability, Reduced Dosing Frequency, Pharmacokinetics, and Therapeutic Outcomes

This study aimed to develop a nanoparticle drug delivery system using poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) for enhancing the therapeutic efficacy of lurasidone hydrochloride (LH) in treatment of schizophrenia through intramuscular injection. LH-loaded PLGA nanoparticles (LH-PNPs) were prepared using the nanoprecipitation technique and their physicochemical characteristics were assessed. Particle size (PS), zeta potential, morphology, % encapsulation efficiency, % drug loading, drug content, and solid-state properties were analyzed. Stability, in vitro release, and in vivo pharmacokinetic studies were conducted to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of the developed LH-PNPs. The optimized batch of LH-PNPs exhibited a narrow and uniform PS distribution before and after lyophilization, with sizes of 112.7 ± 1.8 nm and 115.0 ± 1.3 nm, respectively, and a low polydispersity index. The PNPs showed high drug entrapment efficiency, drug loading, and drug content uniformity. Solid-state characterization indicated good stability and compatibility, with a nonamorphous state. The drug release profile demonstrated sustained release behavior. Intramuscular administration of LH-PNPs in rats resulted in a significantly prolonged mean residence time compared with the drug suspension. These findings highlight that intramuscular delivery of the LH-PNP formulation is a promising approach for enhancing the therapeutic efficacy of LH in treatment of schizophrenia.

Hot "Dissolving" Extrusion of Lurasidone with Natural Liquid Small Molecule for Amorphous Solid Dispersion Based Self-Assembled Submicron Emulsion

Nowadays, ≈90% of new drug candidates under development are poorly bioavailable due to their low solubility and/or permeability. Herein, a natural liquid small molecule trans-anethole (TA) is introduced into the drug-polymer system lurasidone (LUS)-poly (1-vinylpyrrolidone-co-vinyl acetate) (VA64), notably improving the compatibility of components for the successful preparation of amorphous solid dispersion (ASD) and facilitating the formation of self-emulsifying drug delivery system (SEDDS) during dissolution. LUS-TA-VA64 ASD shows enhanced supersaturation with a long maintenance time of at least 24 h over pure LUS. The strong non-covalent force between VA64 (as emulsifier) and TA (as oil phase)/ water promotes the self-assembly of submicron emulsion and ensures its stability for at least 10 h. Compared to the commercial salt form of LUS, the ASD shows twofold increase in peak plasma concentration (Cmax ) and area under plasma concentration-time profiles (AUC), 1.5-fold increase in peak time (Tmax ), and twofold decrease in AUC-based coefficient of variation (CV) (59%→26%) after a single oral dose to a rabbit.

Separation and characterization of related substances of Lurasidone hydrochloride by LC-QTOF-MS techniques

In the present study, a reliable LC-QTOF-MS method was developed and employed for the separation and characterization of process-related substances and forced degradation products of Lurasidone hydrochloride. The chromatographic separation was carried out using an Agilent Poroshell 120 Bonus-RP C18 column (100 mm × 4.6 mm, 2.7 µm) and a mobile phase consisting of a gradient elution of 10 mM ammonium formate solution and methanol. The degradation studies followed the guidelines outlined in ICH Q1A (R2). It was observed that Lurasidone hydrochloride exhibited instability under photolytic, alkaline, and oxidative stress conditions, while remaining relatively stable under acidic and thermal stresses. Through positive ESI-QTOF mass spectrometric analysis, fourteen related compounds in total, including both process-related and stress degradation products, were identified based on the accurate masses of parent and product ions and calculated elemental compositions. Amongst these substances, nine had not been previously reported, and their formation mechanisms were speculated. The process-related substances were further confirmed by NMR spectra determination, and suggestions were proposed to eliminate them. This study highlights the potential for monitoring and controlling related substances during the manufacturing processes, providing valuable insights for process optimization and quality control of Lurasidone hydrochloride.

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.

Bioanalytical liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method development and validation for quantification of lurasidone in rat plasma using ion pairing agent

A bioanalytical method was developed and validated for determining lurasidone (LUR) in rat plasma. The analyte and internal standard were extracted from rat plasma using a liquid-liquid extraction method. The mobile phase consisted of methanol, acetonitrile and water, with an ion pairing agent, 0.1% heptafluorobutyric acid, added to minimise the matrix effect. The detection was achieved using a tandem mass spectrometer (API 2000) in positive ion multiple reaction monitoring mode. All parameters were validated, including selectivity, specificity, carry-over effect, linearity, precision, accuracy, matrix effect, sensitivity and stability. The linearity range was from 5.0 to 1200.0 ng/mL with a correlation coefficient of >0.99. The accuracy ranged from 100.00% to 110.22% across the quality control range. The mean absolute recovery from matrix samples for LUR and the internal standard was found to be 68.46% and 67.25%, respectively, and the relative recovery was found to be 73.89% and 77.44%, respectively. This method can determine LUR concentrations in rat plasma samples up to 12 h after oral administration, aiding in LUR pharmacokinetic (PK) investigations in rats. The method's reproducibility on a conventional LC-MS/MS system and a shorter run time of 3.0 min make it an appealing bioanalytical method for quantifying LUR in PK studies.

Development, validation and application of a liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method for quantifying lurasidone in dried blood spot samples

Background: A liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method for quantifying lurasidone in rat dried blood spot (DBS) samples was developed. Method: The analyte was extracted from DBSs using the liquid-liquid extraction method. Chromatographic separation was achieved using a C18, Phenomenex, 150 × 4.6 mm, 3.0 μm column. The mobile phase composed of methanol, acetonitrile and water (70:10:20 v/v/v) with 0.1% heptafluorobutyric acid performed well in terms of reducing the matrix effect and achieving shorter retention time. Result: The method was validated over a concentration range of 5.0 to 1200.0 ng/ml and supported by the evaluation of various validation parameters. Conclusion: This simple, sensitive and specific method proved to be a viable alternative sampling method with reduced logistics and blood sample storage expenses despite analytical challenges.

NRX-101, a Rapid-Acting Anti-Depressant, Does Not Cause Neurotoxicity Following Ketamine Administration in Preclinical Models

Agents that act at the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR), such as ketamine, have gained increasing attention as rapid-acting antidepressants; however, their use has been limited by potential neurotoxicity. Recent FDA guidance requires a demonstration of safety on histologic parameters prior to the initiation of human studies. D-cycloserine (DCS) is a partial NMDA agonist that, along with lurasidone, is being investigated as a treatment for depression. The current study was designed to investigate the neurologic safety profile of DCS. To this end, female Sprague Dawley rats (n = 106) were randomly divided into 8 study groups. Ketamine was administered via tail vein infusion. DCS and lurasidone were administered via oral gavage in escalating doses to a maximum of 2000 mg/kg DCS. To ascertain toxicity, dose escalation with 3 different doses of D-cycloserine/lurasidone was given in combination with ketamine. MK-801, a known neurotoxic NMDA antagonist, was administered as a positive control. Brain tissue was sectioned and stained with H&E, silver, and Fluoro-Jade B stains. No fatalities were observed in any group. No microscopic abnormalities were found in the brain of animal subjects given ketamine, ketamine followed by DCS/lurasidone, or DCS/lurasidone alone. Neuronal necrosis, as expected, was seen in the MK-801 (positive control) group. We conclude that NRX-101, a fixed-dose combination of DCS/lurasidone, when administered with or without prior infusion of IV ketamine was tolerated and did not induce neurotoxicity, even at supratherapeutic doses of DCS.

Comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological interventions for acute bipolar depression in adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Bipolar depression constitutes a major public health problem due to its substantial burden of disease. Although pharmacological interventions are available, guidelines required updated evidence synthesis to improve their current recommendations. In order to inform evidence-based prescribing, we investigated the comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological interventions for acute bipolar depression.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis. We searched for randomised controlled trials comparing pharmacological interventions with each other or placebo in adults with acute bipolar depression (type I, type II, or not otherwise specified), excluding those with substance misuse, unipolar depression, or schizophrenia, in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, Web of Knowledge, CINAHL, and LILACS from database inception up to April 13, 2023. Criteria for eligibility were a duration of 2-16 weeks with masked outcome assessments, and we included combination, add-on design, and monotherapy studies. The co-primary outcomes were depressive symptoms, examined with standardised mean differences (SMDs), and manic switch, examined with odds ratios (ORs). We also investigated dropouts due to any reason, inefficacy, adverse events, and important side-effects as secondary outcomes. The confidence in the evidence was evaluated using Confidence-In-Network-Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020171726.

RESULTS

We analysed data from 101 randomised controlled trials covering 20 081 participants, 8063 men (41·7%) and 11 263 women (58·3%; sex not available in four studies), mean age 41·0 years (range of means 28·7-53·6 years), and 68 medications and placebo. Ethnicity data were not available. With moderate confidence in the evidence, olanzapine plus fluoxetine, quetiapine, olanzapine, lurasidone, lumateperone, cariprazine, and lamotrigine were more efficacious than placebo in reducing depressive symptoms, with SMDs ranging from 0·41 (95% CI 0·19-0·64) for olanzapine plus fluoxetine to 0·16 (0·03-0·29) for lamotrigine. Several other drugs might also be efficacious, but the confidence in the evidence was very low to low. Antidepressants as a class seem to be efficacious, but had a higher risk for manic switch compared to antipsychotics. Medications differed in their side-effect profiles.

INTERPRETATION

This is, to our knowledge, the largest network meta-analysis of pharmacotherapy for bipolar depression to date. Olanzapine plus fluoxetine, quetiapine, olanzapine, lurasidone, lumateperone, cariprazine, and lamotrigine were found to be more efficacious than placebo in adults with acute bipolar depression, with good confidence in the evidence, and to differ in their side-effect profiles. These findings can inform evidence-based care and the development of treatment guidelines internationally.

FUNDING

None.

Structural elucidation of two novel degradants of lurasidone and their formation mechanisms under free radical-mediated oxidative and photolytic conditions via liquid chromatography-photodiode array/ultraviolet-tandem mass spectrometry and one-dimensional/two-dimensional nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy

Lurasidone is an antipsychotic drug clinically used for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. During a mechanism-based forced degradation study of lurasidone, two novel degradation products were observed under free radical-mediated oxidative (via AIBN) and solution photolytic conditions. The structures of the two novel degradants were identified through an approach combining HPLC, LC-MSⁿ (n = 1, 2), preparative HPLC purification and NMR spectroscopy. The degradant formed under the free radical-mediated condition is an oxidative degradant with half of the piperazine ring cleaved to form two formamides; a mechanism is proposed for the formation of the novel N,N'-diformyl degradant, which should be readily applicable to other drugs that contain a piperazine moiety that is widely present in drug molecules. The degradant observed under the solution photolytic condition is identified as the photo-induced isomer of lurasidone with the benzisothiazole ring altered into a benzothiazole ring.

Harnessing the potential of nanostructured formulations to mimic the food effect of lurasidone

Lurasidone is an important antipsychotic drug indicated for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, with an oral bioavailability of 9-19% owing to its poor aqueous solubility. Additionally, lurasidone exhibits a 2-fold positive food effect, such that patients must administer their medication with a meal, leading to significant non-compliance. The aim of this research was to evaluate the in vitro and in vivo performance of lurasidone when engineered as nanostructured systems. Specifically, a nanosuspension, nano-emulsion and silica-lipid hybrid (SLH) microparticles were formulated and the influence of composition and nanostructure on the mechanism of solubilisation was compared. Formulations were shown to enhance fasted state solubilisation levels in vitro by up to 5.9-fold, compared to pure drug. Fed- and fasted-state solubilisation profiles revealed that in contrast to the nanosuspension and nano-emulsion, lurasidone SLH mitigated the positive pharmaceutical effect of lurasidone. In vivo pharmacokinetic evaluations revealed that the nanosuspension, nano-emulsion and SLH enhanced the bioavailability of lurasidone by 3-fold, 2.4-fold and 8.8-fold, respectively, compared to pure drug after oral administration. For lurasidone, the combination of lipid-based nanostructure and porous silica nanostructure (SLH) led to optimal fasted state bioavailability which can ultimately result in enhanced treatment efficacy, easier dosing regimens and improved patient outcomes.

Lurasidone drug-drug interaction studies: a comprehensive review

BACKGROUND

To evaluate potential drug-drug interactions with the atypical antipsychotic lurasidone.

METHODS

Seven phase I studies were conducted to investigate the effects of repeated dosing of ketoconazole, diltiazem, rifampin, or lithium on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of single oral doses of lurasidone, or the effects of repeated dosing of lurasidone on the PK of digoxin, midazolam, or the oral contraceptive norgestimate/ethinyl estradiol. Two 6-week, phase III studies included evaluation of the potential for interaction between lurasidone and lithium or valproate. Maximum serum or plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) were calculated.

RESULTS

Concomitant ketoconazole administration resulted in a 6.8-fold increase in lurasidone Cmax and a 9.3-fold increase in lurasidone AUC; concomitant diltiazem administration resulted in 2.1- and 2.2-fold increases, respectively. Rifampin decreased lurasidone Cmax and AUC (one-seventh and one-fifth of lurasidone alone, respectively). Steady-state dosing with lurasidone increased Cmax and AUC0-24 (AUC from time 0 to 24 h postdose) of digoxin by 9% and 13%, respectively, and of midazolam by 21% and 44%, respectively. There were no significant interactions between lurasidone and lithium, valproate, ethinyl estradiol, or norelgestromin (the major active metabolite of norgestimate).

CONCLUSIONS

Lurasidone PK is altered by strong cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 inhibitors or inducers, and coadministration is contraindicated; whereas moderate CYP3A4 inhibitors have less effect, and lurasidone dosage restrictions are recommended. No dose adjustment for lurasidone is needed when administered with lithium or valproate. Dose adjustment is not required for lithium, valproate, digoxin (a P-glycoprotein substrate), or midazolam or oral contraceptives (CYP3A4 substrates) when coadministered with lurasidone.

An evaluation of the effects of the novel antipsychotic drug lurasidone on glucose tolerance and insulin resistance: a comparison with olanzapine

Over the past two decades, there has been a notable rise in the use of antipsychotic drugs, as they are used to treat an increasing number of neuropsychiatric disorders. This rise has been led predominantly by greater use of the second generation antipsychotic (SGA) drugs, which have a low incidence of neurological side-effects. However, many SGAs cause metabolic dysregulation, including glucose intolerance and insulin resistance, thus increasing the risk of cardiometabolic disorders. The metabolic effects of the novel SGA lurasidone, which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2010, remain largely unknown. As rodent models accurately predict the metabolic effects of SGAs in humans, the aim of the present study was to use sophisticated animal models of glucose tolerance and insulin resistance to measure the metabolic effects of lurasidone. In parallel, we compared the SGA olanzapine, which has established metabolic effects. Adult female rats were treated with vehicle, lurasidone (0.2, 0.8 or 2.0 mg/kg, s.c.) or olanzapine (10.0 mg/kg, s.c.) and subjected to the glucose tolerance test (GTT). Separate groups of rats were treated with vehicle, lurasidone (0.2, 0.8 or 2.0 mg/kg, s.c.) or olanzapine (1.5 and 15 mg/kg, s.c.) and tested for insulin resistance with the hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp (HIEC). Compared to vehicle treated animals, lurasidone caused mild glucose intolerance in the GTT with a single dose, but there was no effect on insulin resistance in the GTT, measured by HOMA-IR. The HIEC also confirmed no effect of lurasidone on insulin resistance. In contrast, olanzapine demonstrated dose-dependent and potent glucose intolerance, and insulin resistance in both tests. Thus, in preclinical models, lurasidone demonstrates mild metabolic liability compared to existing SGAs such as olanzapine. However, confirmation of these effects in humans with equivalent tests should be confirmed.

Anatomical specificity in the modulation of activity-regulated genes after acute or chronic lurasidone treatment

Lurasidone is a novel second generation antipsychotic drug characterized by a multi-receptor profile. Besides the high affinity for 5-HT2A and D2 receptors, it is also characterized by potent 5-HT7 receptor antagonism, which may be beneficial for mood and cognition. Considering that dose-dependent changes in receptor occupancy may differentially impact gene transcription, we aimed at investigating the effects of acute and chronic treatments with different doses of lurasidone (1, 3 and 10mg/kg) in rats on the expression of the activity-regulated genes Arc, Zif268 and Npas4, which are markers of neuronal activation and are also associated with neuroadaptive mechanisms. Our results show dose-dependent and anatomically-selective differences after acute and chronic lurasidone treatment. Indeed, the effects produced by acute treatment seem to reflect the modulatory activity of lurasidone at selected neurotransmitter receptors. In fact, low doses of the drug acted in the hippocampus, while high doses acted in the striatum, reflecting the high predominance of D2 receptor expression in this brain region. On the contrary, chronic treatment with lurasidone revealed a different profile of IEGs modulation, possibly reflecting neuroadaptive changes set in motion in response to repetitive drug exposure. In summary, the multi-receptor profile of lurasidone leads to the recruitment of different brain structures in a dose-related manner and this may be important for its therapeutic properties, particularly with respect to antidepressant activity and cognition.

Health-related quality of life among patients treated with lurasidone: results from a switch trial in patients with schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Patients with schizophrenia frequently switch between antipsychotics, underscoring the need to achieve and maintain important treatment outcomes such as health-related quality of life (HRQoL) following the switch. This analysis evaluated HRQoL changes among patients with schizophrenia switched from their current antipsychotic to lurasidone.

METHODS

Stable but symptomatic outpatients with schizophrenia were switched from their current antipsychotic to lurasidone in a six-week, open-label trial. HRQoL was assessed using two validated patient-reported measures, the Personal Evaluation of Transitions in Treatment (PETiT) scale and the Short-Form 12 (SF-12). Total and domain scores (psychosocial function and adherence-related attitude) were assessed using the PETiT scale; patients' mental and physical component summary scores (MCS and PCS) were assessed using the SF-12. Changes in HRQoL from baseline to study endpoint were compared using ANCOVA, with baseline score, treatment, and pooled site as covariates. Changes were assessed among all patients and those switched from specific antipsychotics to lurasidone.

RESULTS

The analysis included 235 patients with data on the PETiT and SF-12 who had received ≥ 1 dose of lurasidone. Statistically significant improvements were observed from baseline to study endpoint on the PETiT total (mean change [SD]: 3.2 [8.5]) and psychosocial functioning (2.5 [6.9]) and adherence-related attitude (0.7 [2.6]) domain scores (all p ≤ 0.002). When examined by preswitch antipsychotic, significant improvements in PETiT total scores were observed in patients switched from quetiapine, risperidone, aripiprazole, and ziprasidone (all p < 0.03) but not olanzapine (p = 0.893). Improvements on the SF-12 MCS score were observed for all patients (mean change [SD]: 3.7 [11.5], p < 0.001) and for those switched from quetiapine or aripiprazole (both p < 0.03). The SF-12 PCS scores remained comparable to those at baseline in all patient groups.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicate that patients switching from other antipsychotics to lurasidone experienced statistically significant improvement of HRQoL, based on PETiT scores, within six weeks of treatment. Patient health status remained stable with respect to the SF-12 physical component and showed improvement on the mental component. Changes in HRQoL varied based on the antipsychotic used before switching to lurasidone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01143077.

Clinical assessment of lurasidone benefit and risk in the treatment of bipolar I depression using number needed to treat, number needed to harm, and likelihood to be helped or harmed

BACKGROUND

Prior to recent FDA approval of lurasidone for treatment of bipolar depression there were only two approved treatments for this condition (quetiapine and olanzapine-fluoxetine combination), and these were as likely to provide therapeutic benefit as adverse effects. We assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of lurasidone for major depressive episodes associated with bipolar I disorder, using number needed to treat (NNT, for benefits), number needed to harm (NNH, for harms), and likelihood of being helped or harmed (LHH, ratio of NNH to NNT, for trade-offs between benefits vs. harms).

METHODS

Data was collected from two 6-week multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, flexibly-dosed acute bipolar I depression studies, one using lurasidone monotherapy at 20-60mg/d or 80-120mg/d, and the other using lurasidone 20-120mg/d adjunctive to lithium or valproate. The NNT or NNH was calculated for lurasidone vs. placebo for the following dichotomous outcomes: response (≥50% reduction from baseline on Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score); remission (final MADRS total score ≤12); discontinuation due to an adverse event (AE); weight gain ≥7% from baseline; incidence of spontaneously reported AEs; and incidence of total cholesterol ≥240mg/dl, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥160mg/dl, fasting triglycerides ≥200mg/dl and glucose ≥126mg/dl post-baseline.

RESULTS

NNT vs. placebo for response was 5 for lurasidone monotherapy (both dose ranges) and 7 for adjunctive therapy. NNT vs. placebo for remission for lurasidone monotherapy was 6 for 20-60mg/d and 7 for 80-120mg/d and 7 for adjunctive lurasidone. NNH vs. placebo for discontinuation due to an AE for lurasidone monotherapy was 642 for 20-60mg/d and -181 for 80-120mg/d, and for adjunctive lurasidone was -54 (negative NNH denotes an advantage for lurasidone). Lurasidone was not associated with any clinically meaningful mean weight or metabolic changes compared to placebo; NNH vs. placebo for weight gain ≥7% was 29 for 20-60mg/d and 5550 for 80-120mg/d and 42 for adjunctive lurasidone. The three most frequently occurring AEs with the largest difference in incidence for lurasidone vs. placebo were nausea, akathisia, and somnolence, with NNH values for lurasidone vs. placebo ranging from 11 (nausea with lurasidone monotherapy 80-120mg/d) to 130 (somnolence with lurasidone monotherapy 20-60mg/d). LHH was substantially and consistently >1 (indicating benefit being more likely than harm) when contrasting response or remission vs. AEs or weight gain.

LIMITATIONS

Additional studies, including longer-term and open-label, "real world" data is needed to confirm the results reported here.

CONCLUSIONS

NNT, NNH, and LHH help quantify relative benefits (efficacy) and harms (side effects), thus placing lurasidone findings in research studies into clinical perspective. Lurasidone, compared to other treatments approved for bipolar depression, yielded comparable benefits (all had single-digit NNT vs. placebo for response or remission), and less risk of harm (double-digit or greater NNHs with lurasidone compared to single-digit NNHs for sedation with quetiapine and for ≥7% weight gain with olanzapine-fluoxetine combination), and thus a substantially more favorable LHH (> or >>1) with lurasidone monotherapy and adjunctive therapy, compared to quetiapine and olanzapine-fluoxetine combination (LHH<or ~1).

Annual cost of relapses and relapse-related hospitalizations in adults with schizophrenia: results from a 12-month, double-blind, comparative study of lurasidone vs quetiapine extended-release

PURPOSE

To model the economic impact of annual relapses/relapse-related hospitalizations among adults with schizophrenia treated with lurasidone or quetiapine extended-release (XR).

METHODS

A probabilistic model estimating per-patient-per-year (PPPY) direct mental healthcare (MH) cost differences due to relapses/relapse-related hospitalizations was developed using relapse and relapse-related hospitalization rates from a 12-month, double-blind, parallel-group, global comparison study of lurasidone vs quetiapine XR (all patients previously treated with lurasidone or quetiapine XR for 6 weeks). Analyses were conducted for both all subjects and clinical responders. Direct costs associated with inpatient and outpatient mental healthcare-related services were obtained from a large, prospective, observational study of schizophrenia treatment in usual-care settings for relapsing and non-relapsing patients, including psychiatric hospitalizations, emergency services, medication management, and outpatient individual therapy. Model robustness was tested using univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Model-estimated PPPY MH cost savings associated with relapse-related hospitalization rates in all subjects were $3276 for lurasidone vs quetiapine XR. Lurasidone resulted in PPPY MH cost savings of $2702 vs quetiapine XR in all subjects, using relapse rates. Sensitivity analyses indicated lurasidone had lower 1-year MH costs than quetiapine XR in 100% and 99.7% of simulations, using relapse-related hospitalization rates and relapse rates, respectively, in all subjects. Similar results were seen in clinical responders.

LIMITATIONS

The model represents a simplification of treatment patterns and response to treatment. Cost of treatment with lurasidone and quetiapine XR was not included in the model. Estimates of cost savings are likely conservative, as the model did not assess the impact of long-term cardiometabolic consequences. Indirect costs associated with relapses and non-mental health-related costs were also excluded from the model.

CONCLUSION

Adults treated for schizophrenia with lurasidone are predicted to have lower 12-month MH costs compared to those treated with quetiapine XR due to fewer relapses and relapse-related hospitalizations.

Cost-effectiveness of lurasidone vs aripiprazole among patients with schizophrenia who have previously failed on an atypical antipsychotic: an indirect comparison of outcomes from clinical trial data

OBJECTIVE

Compare long-term costs and outcomes of lurasidone to aripiprazole among adults with schizophrenia in the US who previously failed ≥1 atypical antipsychotic (olanzapine, risperidone, quetiapine, or ziprasidone) based on an indirect comparison of outcomes data from clinical trials.

METHODS

A 5-year Markov cohort model was developed to compare long-term effectiveness of lurasidone to aripiprazole, including total discontinuations, relapse rates, and hospitalization rates. Cost inputs included pharmacy, mental health, and medical costs associated with cardiometabolic risks (diabetes and cardiovascular [CV] events). Effectiveness inputs were derived from an indirect comparison of aripiprazole and lurasidone using common comparators from CATIE. Cardiometabolic risks were derived from claims data analysis for diabetes, weight change and CV events, and Framingham body mass index (BMI) risk equation. Cost inputs were derived from published sources and Red Book. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% and tested with sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Over 5 years, total discounted costs for lurasidone and aripiprazole patients were $86,480 and $90,500, respectively. During this period, the number of relapses per patient, hospitalizations per patient, diabetes rates, and CV events per 1000 patients, respectively, were estimated to be lower for lurasidone (0.442, 0.245, 7.29%, and 37.3) than aripiprazole (0.478, 0.369, 7.36%, and 37.8). Results were sensitive to lurasidone and aripiprazole hospitalization rates. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per hospitalization avoided, lurasidone had a 100% probability of being more cost-effective than aripiprazole.

LIMITATIONS

The model was based on results from various comparative clinical trials. Differences in patient population and study methods may change estimates from the model. The model does not account for patient heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this model, when switching from another atypical antipsychotic, lurasidone had fewer relapses and hospitalizations with a lower incidence of diabetes and CV events than aripiprazole. Additionally, lurasidone may be less costly than aripiprazole among adults with schizophrenia.

Binding of lurasidone, a novel antipsychotic, to rat 5-HT7 receptor: analysis by [3H]SB-269970 autoradiography

Lurasidone is a novel antipsychotic agent with high affinity for dopamine D(2) and serotonin 5-HT(7), 5-HT(2A), and 5-HT(1A) receptors. We previously reported that in addition to its antipsychotic action, lurasidone shows beneficial effects on mood and cognition in rats, likely through 5-HT(7) receptor antagonistic actions. In this study, we evaluated binding of lurasidone to 5-HT(7) receptors in the rat brain by autoradiography using [(3)H]SB-269970, a specific radioligand for 5-HT(7) receptors. Brain slices were incubated with 4 nM [(3)H]SB-269970 at room temperature and exposed to imaging plates for 8 weeks before phosphorimager analysis. Using this method, we first investigated 5-HT(7) receptor distribution. We found that 5-HT(7) receptors are abundantly localized in brain limbic structures, including the lateral septum, thalamus, hypothalamus, hippocampus, and amygdala. On the other hand, its distribution was moderate in the cortex and low in the caudate putamen and cerebellum. Secondly, binding of lurasidone, a selective 5-HT(7) receptor antagonist SB-656104-A and an atypical antipsychotic olanzapine to this receptor was examined. Lurasidone, SB-656104-A (10–1000 nM), and olanzapine (100–10,000 nM) showed concentration-dependent inhibition of [(3)H]SB-269970 binding with IC(50) values of 90, 49, and 5200 nM, respectively. Similar inhibitory actions of these drugs were shown in in vitro [(3)H]SB-269970 binding to 5-HT(7) receptors expressed in Chinese hamster ovary cells. Since there was no marked species difference in rat and human 5-HT(7) receptor binding by lurasidone (K(i) = 1.55 and 2.10 nM, respectively), these findings suggest that binding to 5-HT(7) receptors might play some role in its beneficial pharmacological actions in schizophrenic patients.

Lurasidone in schizophrenia: new information about dosage and place in therapy

Lurasidone is a newer "atypical" or "secondgeneration" antipsychotic that has received regulatory approval in the US and Canada for the treatment of schizophrenia. Recent changes in lurasidone product labeling include an expansion of the recommended dose range from 40-80 mg/day to 40-160 mg/day, administered once-daily with food. The recommended starting dose is 40 mg/day. Initial dose titration is not required. Efficacy for the treatment of acute episodes of schizophrenia was established in five, 6-week, fixed-dose, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Additional short-term studies in patients with schizophrenia include a 3-week, randomized, double-blind trial comparing lurasidone with ziprasidone on safety and tolerability outcomes, and a 6-week, randomized, open-label switch study. Available long-term data includes a 12-month, doubleblind safety and tolerability study comparing lurasidone with risperidone; a 6-month, openlabel extension study for one of the shortterm registration studies where patients were initially randomized to receive lurasidone, olanzapine, or placebo; and a 12-month, doubleblind extension study comparing lurasidone with quetiapine extended-release after having received lurasidone, quetiapine extendedrelease, or placebo for 6 weeks. The totality of the evidence supports the overall tolerability of lurasidone, with minimal weight gain and no clinically-meaningful alterations in glucose, lipids, or the electrocardiogram corrected QT (ECG QTc) interval. The most commonly encountered adverse events that can be observed with lurasidone are somnolence, akathisia, nausea, and parkinsonism. Additional clinical trials are underway for the use of lurasidone in patients with bipolar disorder, including major depressive episodes in patients with bipolar I disorder, and in bipolar and schizophrenia maintenance. Principal advantages over some other second-generation antipsychotics are lurasidone's highly favorable metabolic profile and once-daily dosing regimen. Additional studies are desirable to directly compare and contrast lurasidone's efficacy with other antipsychotic agents.

Lurasidone for schizophrenia: a review of the efficacy and safety profile for this newly approved second-generation antipsychotic

OBJECTIVE

To describe the efficacy and safety of lurasidone for the treatment of schizophrenia.

DATA SOURCES

The pivotal registration trials were accessed by querying the literature databases PubMed, EMBASE, ISI Web of Knowledge, as well as http://www.fda.gov and http://www.clinicaltrials.gov for the search term 'lurasidone'. Product labelling provided additional information.

STUDY SELECTION

All available clinical reports of studies were identified.

DATA EXTRACTION

Descriptions of the principal results and calculation of number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH) for relevant dichotomous outcomes were extracted from the available study reports, abstracts and posters. Additional safety outcomes subject to NNH analysis were obtained from product labelling.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Lurasidone is a second-generation antipsychotic approved for the treatment of schizophrenia at a recommended starting dose of 40 mg/day administered once daily with food (≥350 calories). The maximum recommended dose is 80 mg/day. Regulatory approval was based primarily on a clinical trial programme that included four 6-week randomised clinical trials demonstrating efficacy vs. placebo in acute patients with schizophrenia. One additional Phase II clinical trial was considered a failed study because neither lurasidone nor the active control, haloperidol, separated from placebo on the primary outcome measure. One additional Phase III study was completed after the new drug application was submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration. Efficacy outcomes appear consistently in favour of lurasidone 80 mg/day vs. placebo on multiple measures of psychopathology, however, at least two studies also demonstrated efficacy for the doses of 40 and 120 mg/day. NNT vs. placebo was 3-6 for response as defined by ≥20% reduction in psychopathological rating scale total scores from baseline, depending on the study and the dose. Response as defined by a ≥30% improvement yielded NNTs ranging from 7 to 13. The most common adverse events in the clinical trials were somnolence (broadly defined), akathisia, nausea, parkinsonism and agitation. As estimated from product labelling, NNH vs. placebo was dose dependent for somnolence, with a NNH of 6 for lurasidone 120 mg/day, compared with NNHs of 8, 11 and 20, for 80, 40 and 20 mg/day, respectively. For akathisia NNH was 6 for lurasidone 120 mg/day, compared to NNHs of 9, 13 and 34 for 80, 40 and 20 mg/day, respectively. Lurasidone is associated with minimal weight gain and no clinically meaningful alterations in glucose, lipids, prolactin or the ECG QT interval.

CONCLUSIONS

Lurasidone 40 and 80 mg/day appear efficacious and tolerable in the treatment of schizophrenia. Doses above 80 mg/day do not appear to confer added benefit and may be associated with a dose-related increase in certain adverse reactions. Principal advantages over some other second-generation antipsychotics are lurasidone's highly favourable metabolic profile and once-daily dosing regimen. Additional data regarding long-term efficacy and effectiveness will help characterise this new agent when used in maintenance treatment.

Lurasidone for schizophrenia: a brief review of a new second-generation antipsychotic

Lurasidone is a second-generation antipsychotic newly approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of schizophrenia. Similar to most other second-generation antipsychotics, lurasidone is a full antagonist at dopamine D2 and serotonin 5HT2A receptors. Efficacy within the dose range of 40-120 mg/d was established in four 6-week, randomized, controlled trials. The recommended starting dose is 40 mg/d and the maximum recommended dose is 80 mg/d. Doses above 80 mg/d do not appear to confer added benefit and may be associated with a dose-related increase in certain adverse reactions such as somnolence and akathisia. Lurasidone is administered once daily with at least 350 calories of food in order to optimize bioavailability. Lurasidone is primarily metabolized in the liver through the CYP3A4 enzyme system, and coadministration with drugs that are strong inhibitors of CYP3A4 (such as ketoconazole) or strong inducers (such as rifampin) are contraindicated. Lurasidone is associated with minimal weight gain and no clinically meaningful alterations in glucose, lipids, or the ECG QT interval.

Lurasidone reverses MK-801-induced impairment of learning and memory in the Morris water maze and radial-arm maze tests in rats

We have previously shown that lurasidone, a novel atypical antipsychotic, potently reverses learning impairment induced by the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist MK-801 in the rat passive avoidance test. However, the effects of lurasidone in other learning and memory tasks remain to be investigated. We investigated the effects of lurasidone and other marketed antipsychotics (risperidone, clozapine, aripiprazole, and haloperidol) on MK-801-induced impairment of learning and memory in the Morris water maze (MWM) and radial-arm maze (RAM) tests in rats. Learning and memory impairment in the MWM test, as measured by escape latency, escape distance, and diving behavior, and in the RAM test, as measured by reference and working memory errors, was induced by MK-801 (i.p.) at doses of 0.15 and 0.2 mg/kg, respectively. In the MWM test, lurasidone (1 and 3 mg/kg p.o.) potently reversed MK-801-induced learning impairment. In the RAM test, lurasidone (1 and 3 mg/kg p.o.) potently reversed MK-801-induced reference memory impairment and moderately but not significantly attenuated MK-801-induced working memory impairment. Risperidone (0.3 and 1mg/kg p.o.), clozapine (3 and 10 mg/kg p.o.), aripiprazole (0.3 and 1mg/kg p.o.), and haloperidol (0.3 and 1mg/kg p.o.) did not reverse MK-801-induced impairment of learning and memory in both tasks. Lurasidone, but not the other antipsychotics tested in this study, reverses MK-801-induced impairment of learning and memory in both the MWM test and the RAM test. These results suggest that lurasidone would be more effective in treating schizophrenics with cognitive dysfunction than current antipsychotics.

Lurasidone (SM-13496), a novel atypical antipsychotic drug, reverses MK-801-induced impairment of learning and memory in the rat passive-avoidance test

Lurasidone (SM-13496) is a novel atypical antipsychotic with high affinities to dopamine D2, serotonin 5-HT7, 5-HT2A, 5-HT1A receptors and alpha2C adrenoceptor. In this study, the effects of lurasidone on the rat passive-avoidance response and its impairment by the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist MK-801 (dizocilpine) were evaluated and compared with those of other antipsychotics. The passive-avoidance response was examined by measuring the step-through latency, 1 day after the animals received foot-shock training. When given before the training session, lurasidone did not affect the passive-avoidance response at any dose tested (1-30 mg/kg, p.o.). All the other atypical antipsychotics examined (i.e., risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, clozapine and aripiprazole), however, significantly reduced the step-through latency at relatively high doses. A pre-training administration of lurasidone significantly and dose-dependently reversed the MK-801-induced impairment of the passive-avoidance response. At doses lower than those that affected the passive-avoidance response, risperidone, quetiapine, and clozapine partially reduced the MK-801-induced impairment, whereas haloperidol, olanzapine, and aripiprazole were inactive. In addition, the post-training administration of lurasidone was as effective in countering the MK-801 effect as the pre-training administration, suggesting that lurasidone worked, at least in part, by restoring the memory consolidation process disrupted by MK-801. These results suggest that lurasidone is superior to other antipsychotics in improving the MK-801-induced memory impairment and may be clinically useful for treating cognitive impairments in schizophrenia.