Lurasidone as add-on to fluoxetine in obsessive-compulsive disorder with comorbid restrictive anorexia: a case report

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a pervasive disabling disorder that may overlap with other psychiatric conditions, including anorexia nervosa. Recent guidelines recommend low doses of second-generation antipsychotics as add-on therapy to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for those patients presenting OCD who display residual symptomatology. Here we report a clinical case of a 45-years-old woman affected by severe OCD in comorbidity with anorexia nervosa, restrictive type (AN-r), treated with fluoxetine (titrated up to 40 mg/day) in augmentation with low doses of lurasidone (37 mg/day). At baseline and during a 6 months-follow-up we administered Clinical Global Impression-Severity, Symptom Checklist-90 items, Y-BOCS-II (Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale) and EDI-3 (Eating Disorder Inventory). After 1 month of augmentation treatment, a clinically significant response was observed on obsessive symptoms at Y-BOCS-II (≥35% Y-BOCS reduction) and eating symptomatology at EDI-3. Full remission was reported after 3 months (Y-BOCS scoring ≤14) ( P  < 0.01). Further longitudinal and real-world effectiveness studies should be implemented to confirm these novel results, to investigate the potential of lurasidone as add-on strategy to SSRI in poor responder OCD patients, including treatment-resistant-OCD (tr-OCD), as well as in improving eating disorder symptomatology, whereas there is comorbidity with AN-r.

Pharmacodynamic properties of lumateperone and its efficacy in acute bipolar depression: a mechanistic hypothesis based on data

The treatment of bipolar depression is one of the most challenging needs in contemporary psychiatry. Currently, only quetiapine, olanzapine-fluoxetine combination, lurasidone, cariprazine, and recently lumateperone have been FDA-approved to treat this condition. The neurobiology of bipolar depression and the possible mechanistic targets of bipolar antidepressant therapy remain elusive. The current study investigated whether the pharmacodynamic properties of lumateperone fit into a previously developed model which was the first to be derived based on the strict combination of clinical and preclinical data. The authors performed a systematic review of the literature to identify the pharmacodynamic properties of lumateperone. The original model suggests that a constellation of effects on different receptors is necessary, but refinements, including the present study, suggest that the inhibition of the serotonin reuptake at the first level, the 5HT-2A blockade at the second level, and the norepinephrine alpha-1 receptors blockade at a third level in combination with D1 blockade contribute to the antidepressant effect in acute bipolar depression. The D2 blockade acts as a protective mechanism and reduces the risk of switching to mania/hypomania.

Umbrella Review: Association Between Antipsychotic Drugs and Metabolic Syndrome Hallmarks in Children and Adolescents

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the available evidence on metabolic parameters indicating metabolic adverse effects and risk of metabolic syndrome in children and adolescents treated with antipsychotics, following a pre-specified protocol (PROSPERO ID 252336).

METHOD

We searched PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO until May 14, 2021, to identify systematic reviews (SR), meta-analyses (MA) and network meta-analyses (NMA) examining symptoms associated to metabolic syndrome in patients <18 years of age who required treatment with oral antipsychotic drugs. Evidence from quantitative analyses for all outcomes related to anthropometric, glyco-metabolic, and blood pressure parameters (measured from baseline to intervention-end and/or follow-up, in subjects exposed to antipsychotics and placebo) was reported on the basis of their metrics (median difference [medianD], mean difference [MD], standardized mean difference [SMD], odds ratio [OR], risk ratio ([RR]). A qualitative synthesis was also made. A formal quality assessment of the included studies was carried out by using the AMSTAR 2. We also provided a hierarchical stratification of the evidence from meta-analyses based on the class of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 23 articles (13 MA, 4 NMA and 6 SR) were included for review. As compared with placebo, an increase in triglyceride levels was associated with olanzapine (medianD [95% CI]: 37 [12.27, 61.74] mg/dL; MD [95% CI]: 38.57 [21.44, 55.77] mg/dL) and quetiapine (medianD [95% CI]: 21.58 [95% CI]: 4.27, 38.31 mg/dL; MD [95% CI]: 34.87 [20.08, 49.67] mg/dL; SMD [95% CI]: 0.37 [0.06, 0.068]), whereas decreased triglyceride levels were found for lurasidone. Increased total cholesterol level was associated with asenapine (medianD [95% CI]: 9.1 [1.73, 16.44] mg/dL), quetiapine (medianD [95% CI]: 15.60 [7.30, 24.05] mg/dL; olanzapine (MD [95% CI] from 3.67 [1.43, 5.92] mg/dL to 20.47 [13.97, 26.94] mg/dL]; and lurasidone (medianD [95% CI]: 8.94 [1.27, 16.90] mg/dL). Change in glucose levels did not differ among antipsychotics or placebo. Lurasidone, molindone, and ziprasidone were the best tolerated in terms of weight gain. According to the AMSTAR 2 scoring system, 13 (56.5%) reviews were rated as very low quality. According to classes of evidence, most MA were level 4, especially because of their limited total sample size.

CONCLUSION

By collating meta-analyses assessing biochemical markers of metabolic syndrome in antipsychotic-treated children, we conclude that olanzapine should not be the antipsychotic of choice in patients at risk for hypertriglyceridemia or hypercholesterolemia. Aripiprazole and lurasidone appear to be better tolerated in terms of metabolic adverse events. Insufficient meta-analytic data are available to provide a precise risk estimate of metabolic syndrome, and, overall, the quality of evidence is low.

STUDY REGISTRATION INFORMATION

Association between the use of antipsychotic drugs and alterations of the parameters defining the Metabolic Syndrome (MetS) in children and adolescents: an umbrella review; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/; CRD42021252336.

A systematic review of the real-world effectiveness and economic and humanistic outcomes of selected oral antipsychotics among patients with schizophrenia in the United States: Updating the evidence and gaps

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is a chronic, relapsing, and burdensome psychiatric disorder affecting approximately 0.25%-0.6% of the US population. Oral antipsychotic treatment (OAT) remains the cornerstone for managing schizophrenia. However, nonadherence and high treatment failure lead to increased disease burden and medical spending. Cost-effective management of schizophrenia requires understanding the value of current therapies to facilitate better planning of management policies while addressing unmet needs.

OBJECTIVE

To review existing evidence and gaps regarding real-world effectiveness and economic and humanistic outcomes of OATs, including asenapine, brexpiprazole, cariprazine, iloperidone, lumateperone, lurasidone, olanzapine/samidorphan, paliperidone, and quetiapine.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search using PubMed, American Psychological Association PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), and the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature from January 2010 to March 2022 as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. English-language articles describing adults with schizophrenia receiving at least 1 of the selected OATs and reporting real-world effectiveness, direct or indirect costs, humanistic outcomes, behavioral outcomes, adherence/persistence patterns, or product switching were identified.

RESULTS

We identified 25 studies from a total of 24,190 articles. Real-world effectiveness, cost, and adherence/persistence outcomes were reported for most OATs that were selected. Humanistic outcomes and product switching were reported only for lurasidone. Behavioral outcomes (eg, interpersonal relations and suicide ideation) were not reported for any OAT. The key economic outcomes across studies were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, cost per quality-adjusted life-years, and health care costs. In studies that compared long-acting injectables (LAIs) with OATs, LAIs had a higher pharmacy and lower medical costs, while total health care cost was similar between LAIs and OATs. Indirect costs associated with presenteeism, absenteeism, or work productivity were not reported for any of the selected OATs. Overall, patients had poor adherence to OATs, ranging between 20% and 61% across studies. Product switching did not impact the all-cause health care costs before and after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings showed considerable gaps exist for evidence on behavioral outcomes, humanistic outcomes, medication switching, and adherence/persistence across OATs. Our findings also suggest an unmet need regarding treatment nonadherence and lack of persistence among patients receiving OATs. We identified a need for research addressing OATs' behavioral and humanistic outcomes and evaluating the impact of product switching in adults with schizophrenia in the United States, which could assist clinicians in promoting patient-centered care and help payers understand the total value of new antipsychotic drugs.

Therapeutic monitoring of antipsychotics with a focus on lurasidone and its dosing

Dose-response relationships are not fully understood for antipsychotics. Especially in the case of multimodal antipsychotics, these relationships cannot be simplified to the level of dopaminergic receptor occupancy alone. In general, for most antipsychotics, there is no linear dose-response relationship. Reasons for this include, among others, pharmacokinetic factors affecting plasma levels. Based on meta-analyses, the doseresponse curve appears to be bell-shaped. However, in the case of some antipsychotics, it appears that even increasing the dose beyond the recommended range could yield further increases in efficacy. It should be stressed that this is an off-label procedure and cannot generally be recommended and there is not enough valid information for general conclusions for these antipsychotics either. Mini-invasive sampling and alternative matrices such as saliva or dry blood spots could open the way to more frequent monitoring of antipsychotics and a better understanding of doseresponse relationships.

Therapeutic monitoring of antipsychotics with a focus on lurasidone and its dosing

Dose-response relationships are not fully understood for antipsychotics. Especially in the case of multimodal antipsychotics, these relationships cannot be simplified to the level of dopaminergic receptor occupancy alone. In general, for most antipsychotics, there is no linear dose-response relationship. Reasons for this include, among others, pharmacokinetic factors affecting plasma levels. Based on meta-analyses, the doseresponse curve appears to be bell-shaped. However, in the case of some antipsychotics, it appears that even increasing the dose beyond the recommended range could yield further increases in efficacy. It should be stressed that this is an off-label procedure and cannot generally be recommended and there is not enough valid information for general conclusions for these antipsychotics either. Mini-invasive sampling and alternative matrices such as saliva or dry blood spots could open the way to more frequent monitoring of antipsychotics and a better understanding of doseresponse relationships.

Effectiveness of atypical antipsychotics for unipolar and bipolar depression in adolescents and young adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic medications are increasingly used for difficult-to-treat depression in young people. However, the evidence-base for this is unclear. Our aim was to assess the evidence for the efficacy of atypical antipsychotics in treating unipolar and bipolar depression in adolescents and young adults.

METHOD

We conducted a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-control-trial studies (RCTs) of antipsychotic medications for 10- to 25-year-olds with unipolar and bipolar depression. The primary outcome of interest was change in depressive symptoms from baseline to trial endpoint.

RESULTS

No studies were identified that evaluated the use of antipsychotics in the treatment of unipolar depression. However, we identified four studies, of quetiapine, lurasidone and olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, comprising a total of 866 randomized patients, that evaluated treatment of bipolar depression. All studies used the Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R). Our meta-analysis revealed the weighted mean difference (WMD) was -4.58 (95 % CI, -6.59 to -2.57) between antipsychotic and placebo-treated groups. Response and remission rates were also significantly in favor of antipsychotic treatment.

LIMITATIONS

There were few studies, several did not address risk-of-bias domains and there was a lack of non-industry sponsored studies.

CONCLUSION

There is an absence of evidence for the use of antipsychotic medications in treatment of youth unipolar depression, and no recommendations can be made. There is some evidence for the efficacy of antipsychotics, specifically lurasidone and olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, in the treatment of young people with bipolar depression. However, this evidence is limited and more studies investigating the use of these medications in young people are needed.

Antidepressant efficacy of cariprazine in bipolar disorder and the role of its pharmacodynamic properties: A hypothesis based on data

The treatment of bipolar depression is one of the most challenging needs in contemporary psychiatry. Currently, only quetiapine, olanzapine-fluoxetine combination, lurasidone, cariprazine, and recently lumateperone have been FDA-approved to treat this condition. The neurobiology of bipolar depression and the possible targets of bipolar antidepressant therapy remain elusive. The current study investigated whether the pharmacodynamic properties of cariprazine fit into a previously developed model which was the first to be derived based on the strict combination of clinical and preclinical data. The authors performed a systematic review of the literature to identify the pharmacodynamic properties of cariprazine. The original model suggests that a constellation of effects on different receptors is necessary and that serotonin reuptake inhibition does not appear to play a significant role in acute bipolar depression. On the contrary, norepinephrine activity seems to be necessary. Probably the early antidepressant effect can be achieved through an agonistic activity at 5HT-1A and antagonism at alpha1 noradrenergic and 5-HT2A receptors, but the presence of a norepinephrine reuptake inhibition appears essential to sustain it. Overall, the properties of cariprazine fit well the proposed model and add to its validity. A point that needs further clarification is norepinephrine reuptake inhibition which is not yet fully studied for cariprazine.

Cognitive Effects of Lurasidone and Cariprazine: A Mini Systematic Review

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

CONCLUSION

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

Impact of lurasidone on health-related quality of life in adults with bipolar depression: a post-hoc analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this post-hoc analysis was to assess the impact of lurasidone monotherapy on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in adults with bipolar depression.

METHODS

Data were analyzed from a 6-week randomized, double-blind (DB), placebo-controlled trial of lurasidone monotherapy (NCT00868699) and a 6-month open label extension (OLE; NCT00868959). Patients who received lurasidone monotherapy or placebo during the DB trial were eligible to continue or switch to lurasidone monotherapy during the OLE. The 16-item Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire-Short Form (Q-LES-Q-SF) was collected at DB baseline, DB week 6/OLE baseline, OLE month 3, and OLE month 6. Effect size (ES) and mean changes from baseline were reported for Q-LES-Q-SF total and item scores during the DB trial and OLE, respectively.

RESULTS

Of 485 patients in the DB trial (lurasidone monotherapy: n = 323; placebo: n = 162), 316 patients continued or switched to lurasidone monotherapy during the OLE. Significant improvements in Q-LES-Q-SF scores in lurasidone vs. placebo were reported for 13 of 16 items (all p < .05) at DB week 6. The greatest improvements were overall life satisfaction (ES = 0.57), social relationships (0.55), medication satisfaction (0.48), family relationships (0.46), and ability to function in daily life (0.45, all p < .001). Improvements in Q-LES-Q-SF total and item scores were sustained at OLE month 6.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with lurasidone provided a significant improvement across HRQoL items including overall life satisfaction, social and family relationships, medication satisfaction, and ability to function in daily life. Improvements were sustained during the 6-month OLE.

In Silico Drug Repurposing of FDA-Approved Drugs Highlighting Promacta as a Potential Inhibitor of H7N9 Influenza Virus

Influenza virus infections continue to be a significant and recurrent public health problem. Although vaccine efficacy varies, regular immunisation is the most effective method for suppressing the influenza virus. Antiviral drugs are available for influenza, although two of the four FDA-approved antiviral treatments have resulted in significant drug resistance. Therefore, new treatments are being sought to reduce the burden of flu-related illness. The time-consuming development of treatments for new and re-emerging diseases such as influenza and the high failure rate are increasing concerns. In this context, we used an in silico-based drug repurposing method to repurpose FDA-approved drugs as potential therapies against the H7N9 virus. To find potential inhibitors, a total of 2568 drugs were screened. Promacta, tucatinib, and lurasidone were identified as promising hits in the DrugBank database. According to the calculations of MM-GBSA, tucatinib (−54.11 kcal/mol) and Promacta (−56.20 kcal/mol) occupied the active site of neuraminidase with a higher binding affinity than the standard drug peramivir (−49.09 kcal/mol). Molecular dynamics (MD) simulation studies showed that the C-α atom backbones of the complexes of tucatinib and Promacta neuraminidase were stable throughout the simulation period. According to ADME analysis, the hit compounds have a high gastrointestinal absorption (GI) and do not exhibit properties that allow them to cross the blood–brain barrier (BBB). According to the in silico toxicity prediction, Promacta is not cardiotoxic, while lurasidone and tucatinib show only weak inhibition. Therefore, we propose to test these compounds experimentally against the influenza H7N9 virus. The investigation and validation of these potential H7N9 inhibitors would be beneficial in order to bring these compounds into clinical settings.

Perinatal use of lurasidone for the treatment of bipolar disorder

Atypical antipsychotics are commonly prescribed for the treatment of severe mental illnesses during pregnancy. Evidence regarding the impact of physiologic changes during pregnancy on the concentration of atypical antipsychotics is limited, specifically in the case of lurasidone. Data to guide dosing in pregnancy that maximizes efficacy and minimizes adverse effects are lacking. This case report presents perinatal changes in the concentration of lurasidone and the implications for Bipolar Disorder (BD) illness course in a primiparous woman. Monitoring of lurasidone serum concentrations and recurrence of BD symptoms after the second trimester of pregnancy until the third postpartum month was completed. Lurasidone serum concentrations ranged from 0 to 4.7 ng/mL during pregnancy and increased to 10-12 ng/mL postpartum. The subject presented with worsening anxiety and depressive symptoms during the second trimester of pregnancy which resulted in a 40 mg daily dose increase during the second half of her pregnancy. Despite the decrease in lurasidone to the preconception dose post-delivery, the concentrations were higher postpartum compared to pregnancy. The decrease in lurasidone serum concentrations during pregnancy may increase the risk of worsening BD symptoms and suggests the need for determination of whether therapeutic monitoring and dose titration during pregnancy decreases illness exacerbation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Antipsychotic medication for women with schizophrenia spectrum disorders

There are significant differences between men and women in the efficacy and tolerability of antipsychotic drugs. Here, we provide a comprehensive overview of what is currently known about the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of antipsychotics in women with schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSDs) and translate these insights into considerations for clinical practice. Slower drug absorption, metabolism and excretion in women all lead to higher plasma levels, which increase the risk for side-effects. Moreover, women reach higher dopamine receptor occupancy compared to men at similar serum levels, since oestrogens increase dopamine sensitivity. As current treatment guidelines are based on studies predominantly conducted in men, women are likely to be overmedicated by default. The risk of overmedicating generally increases when sex hormone levels are high (e.g. during ovulation and gestation), whereas higher doses may be required during low-hormonal phases (e.g. during menstruation and menopause). For premenopausal women, with the exceptions of quetiapine and lurasidone, doses of antipsychotics should be lower with largest adjustments required for olanzapine. Clinicians should be wary of side-effects that are particularly harmful in women, such as hyperprolactinaemia which can cause oestrogen deficiency and metabolic symptoms that may cause cardiovascular diseases. Given the protective effects of oestrogens on the course of SSD, oestrogen replacement therapy should be considered for postmenopausal patients, who are more vulnerable to side-effects and yet require higher dosages of most antipsychotics to reach similar efficacy. In conclusion, there is a need for tailored, female-specific prescription guidelines, which take into account adjustments required across different phases of life.

The impact of lurasidone on functioning and indirect costs in adults with bipolar depression: a post-hoc analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this post-hoc analysis was to assess the impact of lurasidone monotherapy on functional impairment, productivity, and associated indirect costs in patients with bipolar depression.

METHODS

Data were analyzed from a 6-week randomized, double-blind (DB; NCT00868699), placebo-controlled trial of lurasidone monotherapy and a 6-month open label extension (OLE; NCT00868959) study. Patients with bipolar depression who completed the 6-week DB trial were subsequently enrolled in the OLE. Analysis of the OLE was limited to patients who either continued lurasidone (LUR-LUR) or switched from placebo to lurasidone monotherapy (PBO-LUR). The Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), which measures functional impairment and productivity, was collected at DB baseline, DB week 6/OLE baseline, OLE month 3, and OLE month 6. Annual indirect costs were calculated based on days lost or unproductive from work/school due to symptoms. Effect sizes (ES) in functioning and days lost/unproductive were reported for the DB trial and mean changes for the OLE.

RESULTS

A total of 485 patients were enrolled in the DB trial (lurasidone: n = 323; placebo: n = 162) and 316 were in the lurasidone monotherapy group during the OLE (LUR-LUR: n = 210; PBO-LUR: n = 106). In the DB trial, improvements in functioning (work: ES = 0.36, p = .0071; social: ES = 0.55, p < .0001; family: ES = 0.50, p < .0001) were significantly greater for lurasidone compared to placebo. Reductions in days lost (ES = 0.33, p = .0050) and unproductive (ES = 0.45, p = .0001) were significantly higher for lurasidone vs. placebo. This resulted in a greater reduction in indirect costs for lurasidone vs. placebo (least squares mean (standard error) = -$32,322 ($2,100) vs. -$20,091 ($2,838)). Improvements in functioning and productivity were sustained during the 6-month OLE for both LUR-LUR and PBO-LUR.

CONCLUSIONS

Lurasidone monotherapy for the treatment of bipolar depression significantly improved functioning and reduced indirect costs vs. placebo at week 6. Significant improvements in functioning and productivity were sustained for 6 months for both LUR-LUR and PBO-LUR.

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

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

Hospitalization risk in pediatric patients with bipolar disorder treated with lurasidone vs. other oral atypical antipsychotics: a real-world retrospective claims database study

BACKGROUND

Real-world evidence on atypical antipsychotic (AAP) use in pediatric bipolar disorder is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the risk of all-cause and psychiatric hospitalization among pediatric patients with bipolar disorder when treated with lurasidone versus other atypical antipsychotics (AAPs).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used commercial claims data (January 1, 2011 to June 30, 2017) to identify pediatric patients (age ≤17 years) with bipolar disorder treated with oral atypical antipsychotics (N = 16,201). The date of the first claim for an AAP defined the index date, with pre- and post-index periods of 180 days. Each month of the post-index period was categorized as monotherapy treatment with lurasidone, aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, or risperidone, no/minimal treatment, or other. The risk of all-cause and psychiatric hospitalizations (defined by a psychiatric diagnosis on the facility claim) was analyzed based on treatment in the current month, time-varying covariates (prior treatment-month classification, hospitalization in the prior month, emergency room visit in the prior month), and fixed covariates (age, gender, pervasive development disorder/mental retardation, disruptive behavior/conduct disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, depression, anxiety, adjustment disorder, obesity, diabetes, antidepressants, anxiolytics, other co-medication) using a marginal structural model.

RESULTS

Treatment with aripiprazole (OR = 1.60, 95% CI: 1.08-2.36) and olanzapine (OR = 1.68, CI: 1.03-2.71) was associated with significantly higher odds of all-cause hospitalizations compared to lurasidone, but treatment with quetiapine (OR = 1.03, CI: 0.69-1.54) or risperidone (OR = 1.02, CI: 0.68-1.53) was not. Similarly, treatment with aripiprazole (OR = 1.61, 95% CI: 1.08-2.38) and olanzapine (OR = 1.73, CI: 1.06-2.80) was associated with significantly higher odds of psychiatric hospitalizations compared to lurasidone, but treatment with quetiapine (OR = 1.02, CI: 0.68-1.54) or risperidone (OR = 1.01, CI: 0.67-1.51) was not.

CONCLUSION

In usual clinical care, pediatric patients with bipolar disorder treated with lurasidone had a significantly lower risk of all-cause and psychiatric hospitalizations when compared to aripiprazole and olanzapine, but not quetiapine or risperidone.

Healthcare resource utilization, costs and treatment patterns in patients with bipolar disorder treated with lurasidone or cariprazine

OBJECTIVE

To compare healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), costs, and treatment adherence and persistence for patients with bipolar disorder treated with lurasidone or cariprazine.

METHODS

Adult patients with bipolar disorder who initiated lurasidone or cariprazine as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy between 1 January 2016 and 30 June 2019 were identified from the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Database. The date of the first claim for lurasidone or cariprazine was defined as the index date. A difference-in-difference (DID) analysis, which mitigated bias by using each cohort as its own control, compared the changes in HCRU and costs from 6-months pre-treatment (baseline) to 6-months post-treatment (follow-up) between the two cohorts. Treatment adherence (medication possession ratio and proportion of days covered) and persistence (time to discontinuation) were assessed during the 6-month post-treatment period. Adjusted analyses were conducted using inverse probability of treatment weighting on HCRU, costs, and time to discontinuation.

RESULTS

A total of 16,683 patients treated with lurasidone and 4,128 patients treated with cariprazine were identified. Average age (39-40) and proportion female (68-71%) were similar between cohorts. Both cohorts had reductions in hospitalizations from baseline to follow-up, and the decrease was significantly greater for the lurasidone cohort compared to the cariprazine cohort (change in the proportions of patients with all-cause hospitalizations: -5.3% vs. -2.5%, DID = -2.8%, p<.001). The total healthcare costs increased from baseline to follow-up in both cohorts, and the increase was significantly lower for the lurasidone cohort (change in total all-cause healthcare cost per person: $3,413 vs. $4,642, DID=-$1,228, p = .022). The lurasidone cohort had significantly lower risk of discontinuing treatment (hazard ratio = 0.86, p<.001) than the cariprazine cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with bipolar disorder treated with lurasidone had greater reductions in hospitalizations from 6-months pre-treatment to 6-months post-treatment and had a lower increase in total costs compared to patients treated with cariprazine.

Lurasidone in Children and Adolescents with Bipolar Depression Presenting with Mixed (Subsyndromal Hypomanic) Features: Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial

Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lurasidone in the treatment of children and adolescents with bipolar depression presenting with mixed (subsyndromal hypomanic) features. Methods: Patients, 10-17 years of age, with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed. (DSM-5), diagnosis of bipolar I depression were randomized to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with once-daily flexible doses of lurasidone 20-80 mg or placebo. The presence of mixed (subsyndromal hypomanic) features in this pediatric bipolar depression trial was defined as a Young Mania Rating Scale score of 5 or greater at study baseline. Key efficacy measures included change from baseline to week 6 in the Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R) score (primary endpoint) and Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar Severity (CGI-BP-S) score, using a mixed model for repeated measures analysis. Results: At baseline, subsyndromal hypomanic features were present in 54.2% of patients. Treatment with lurasidone (vs. placebo) was associated with significantly greater reductions in CDRS-R scores at week 6, independent of the presence (-21.5 vs. -15.9, p < 0.01; effect size d = 0.43) or absence (-20.5 vs. -14.9, p < 0.01; d = 0.44) of subsyndromal hypomanic features. Likewise, lurasidone (vs. placebo) was associated with significantly greater reductions in CGI-BP-S scores at week 6, independent of the presence (-1.6 vs. -1.1, p < 0.001, d = 0.51) or absence (-1.3 vs. -1.0, p = 0.05; d = 0.31) of these subsyndromal hypomanic features. Rates of protocol-defined treatment-emergent hypomania or mania were similar for lurasidone and placebo in patients with (lurasidone 8.2% vs. placebo 9.0%) or without subsyndromal hypomanic features (lurasidone 1.3% vs. placebo 3.7%). Conclusions: In this post hoc analysis of a randomized placebo-controlled trial, lurasidone was found to be efficacious in the treatment of child and adolescent patients with bipolar depression who presented with mixed (subsyndromal hypomanic) features. No differences in safety profile, including the risk of treatment-emergent mania, were observed in patients with or without subsyndromal hypomanic features in this study.

Health Care Cost in Patients With Schizophrenia Treated With Brexpiprazole Versus Other Oral Atypical Antipsychotic Therapy

PURPOSE

Brexpiprazole is an oral atypical antipsychotic (OAA) for the treatment of schizophrenia (SCZ). This study compared all-cause and psychiatric inpatient hospitalization and medical costs in adult patients with SCZ newly treated with brexpiprazole versus other US Food and Drug Administration-approved OAAs in a real-world setting.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study analyzed data from: (1) the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases, and the MarketScan Multi-State Medicaid database; and (2) the de-identified Optum Clinformatics Datamart. Adult patients were identified if they had SCZ and initiated either brexpiprazole or another OAA during the study identification period (July 1, 2015, to September 30, 2016, for MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental and for Optum; July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2016, for MarketScan Multi-State Medicaid) and had ≥12 months of continuous enrollment before (baseline) and after (follow-up) the first treatment date. Linear regression analyses were performed to test associations between treatment groups (brexpiprazole vs another OAA) and costs (total and medical); negative binomial regression models were used to estimate number of hospitalizations per year, adjusting for baseline characteristics and medication adherence to index treatment during the 12-month follow-up.

FINDINGS

The final study sample consisted of 6254 patients with SCZ: 176 initiated brexpiprazole; 391, ziprasidone; 453, paliperidone; 523, lurasidone; 786, aripiprazole; 1234, quetiapine; 1264, olanzapine; and 1427, risperidone. Controlling for baseline characteristics and medication adherence, the adjusted number of hospitalizations (both all-cause and psychiatric), all-cause total costs, and all-cause medical costs did not differ across groups. Brexpiprazole users had the lowest mean psychiatric costs among all OAA users ($12,013; 95% bootstrap CI, 7488-16,538). Compared with brexpiprazole users, paliperidone (incidence rate ratio [95% CI], 1.52 [1.05-2.19]; P = 0.027) and quetiapine (incidence rate ratio [95% CI], 1.47 [1.04-2.07]; P = 0.029) users had more psychiatric hospitalizations per year. Paliperidone had higher psychiatric costs than brexpiprazole (total, $32,066 [95% bootstrap CI, 28,779-35,353] vs $23,851 [18,907-28,795]; medical, $19,343 [16,294-22,392] vs $12,013 [7488-16,538]). Psychiatric medical costs were also $6744 higher in olanzapine users (95% bootstrap CI, 1694-11,795; P = 0.009) than in brexpiprazole users.

IMPLICATIONS

Patients with SCZ treated with brexpiprazole had fewer psychiatric hospitalizations and lower psychiatric costs than those treated with paliperidone. Differences in the number of all-cause hospitalizations and medical costs among treatments were not statistically significant. Although treatment decisions are driven by a number of factors (eg, clinical circumstances and drug costs), choice of OAA may affect health care costs.

Hospitalization risk in patients with schizophrenia treated with dose-equivalent antipsychotics

This study compared the risk of hospitalization among adults with schizophrenia being treated with equivalent dose ranges of lurasidone versus aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, or risperidone. Administrative claims data for this analysis came from the IBM MarketScan Commercial, Medicare Supplemental, and Multi-State Medicaid databases between January 2011 and June 2017. The study included adults with schizophrenia who initiated treatment with an antipsychotic and were continuously enrolled for 360 days prior to and following the date of the initial antipsychotic prescription. Risk of all-cause and schizophrenia-related hospitalization among patients who received lurasidone monotherapy versus aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, or risperidone in equivalent dose ranges were assessed. Marginal structural models that accounted for preindex characteristics, changes in antipsychotic treatment, and time-varying covariates assessed differences between lurasidone and other second-generation antipsychotics on all-cause and schizophrenia-related hospitalizations. A sensitivity analysis was conducted without the dose-equivalence requirement. A total of 20,212 patients met the study inclusion criteria. Compared with those treated with lurasidone monotherapy, the adjusted risk of all-cause hospitalization was significantly higher among patients treated with olanzapine (adjusted rate ratio [aRR], 1.49; P = .04), quetiapine (aRR, 1.64; P = .01), or risperidone (aRR, 1.47; P = .04), but not aripiprazole (aRR, 1.24; P = .28). A similar, non-statistically significant pattern of adjusted risks of schizophrenia-related hospitalizations was observed. A sensitivity analysis without the dose-equivalence requirement produced consistent results. As hospitalization is a major cost driver of direct healthcare cost, lurasidone may be a cost-saving treatment option for patients with schizophrenia.

Modulation of anterior cingulate cortex reward and penalty signalling in medication-naive young-adult subjects with depressive symptoms following acute dose lurasidone

BACKGROUND

Aberrations in reward and penalty processing are implicated in depression and putatively reflect altered dopamine signalling. This study exploits the advantages of a placebo-controlled design to examine how a novel D2 antagonist with adjunctive antidepressant properties modifies activity in the brain's reward network in depression.

METHODS

We recruited 43 medication-naïve subjects across the range of depression severity (Beck's Depression Inventory-II score range: 0-43), including healthy volunteers, as well as people meeting full-criteria for major depressive disorder. In a double-blind placebo-controlled cross-over design, all subjects received either placebo or lurasidone (20 mg) across two visits separated by 1 week. Functional magnetic resonance imaging with the Monetary Incentive Delay (MID) task assessed reward functions via neural responses during anticipation and receipt of gains and losses. Arterial spin labelling measured cerebral blood flow (CBF) at rest.

RESULTS

Lurasidone altered fronto-striatal activity during anticipation and outcome phases of the MID task. A significant three-way Medication-by-Depression severity-by-Outcome interaction emerged in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) after correction for multiple comparisons. Follow-up analyses revealed significantly higher ACC activation to losses in high- v. low depression participants in the placebo condition, with a normalisation by lurasidone. This effect could not be accounted for by shifts in resting CBF.

CONCLUSIONS

Lurasidone acutely normalises reward processing signals in individuals with depressive symptoms. Lurasidone's antidepressant effects may arise from reducing responses to penalty outcomes in individuals with depressive symptoms.

Hospitalization risk in bipolar disorder patients treated with lurasidone versus other atypical antipsychotics

OBJECTIVE

This observational study compared the risk of hospitalization for patients with bipolar disorder when treated with lurasidone versus other oral atypical antipsychotics.

METHODS

This US commercial claims analysis (4 April 2010 through 24 September 2014) used the Optum Research Database to identify adult patients with bipolar disorder treated with oral atypical antipsychotics (N = 11,132). The first claim for an atypical antipsychotic defined the index date, with pre-index and post-index periods of 180 and 360 days, respectively. Every month of the post-index period was categorized as monotherapy treatment with lurasidone, aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, ziprasidone, no/minimal treatment or other. Starting with the initial month of treatment, the risk of psychiatric or all-cause hospitalization in the subsequent month was examined based on treatment in the current month and pre-index covariates (age, gender, hospitalizations, emergency room visits, diagnoses for anxiety, alcohol abuse, substance abuse, hypertension, type 2 diabetes and obesity) and time-varying versions of the pre-index covariates using a marginal structural model.

RESULTS

After controlling for covariates, relative to lurasidone, the odds of psychiatric and all-cause hospitalization, respectively, were 2-3 times higher for olanzapine (odds ratio [OR] = 2.78, CI 1.09, 7.08, p = .032; OR = 3.20, CI 1.24, 8.26, p = .016), quetiapine (OR = 2.80, CI 1.13, 6.95, p = .026; OR = 3.23, CI 1.29, 8.11, p = .013), risperidone (OR = 2.50, CI 1.01, 6.21, p = .048; OR = 2.79, CI 1.11, 7.02, p = .029), aripiprazole (OR = 2.13, CI 0.87, 5.20, p = .097; OR = 2.57, CI 1.04, 6.37, p = .041) and ziprasidone (OR =2.31, CI 0.91, 5.85, p = .079; OR = 2.49, CI 0.97, 6.40, p = .058).

CONCLUSIONS

In this claims database analysis, lurasidone-treated patients with bipolar disorder had a significantly lower risk of psychiatric hospitalization compared to quetiapine, olanzapine and risperidone, but not aripiprazole or ziprasidone. Lurasidone-treated patients had a significantly lower risk of all-cause hospitalization compared to quetiapine, olanzapine, risperidone and aripiprazole, but not ziprasidone.

Changes in healthcare resource use and costs associated with early versus delayed initiation of atypical antipsychotic adjunctive treatment in major depressive disorder

AIMS

The study compared all-cause and major depressive disorder (MDD)-related healthcare resource use (HRU) and costs in patients with MDD treated with atypical antipsychotic (AAP) adjunctive therapy early or later in treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Adults with MDD and antidepressant treatment (ADT) who newly initiated adjunctive aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, lurasidone, or quetiapine between October 1, 2014 and September 30, 2015 were identified in the IQVIA Real-World Data Adjudicated Claims database; the index date was the date of the first AAP claim. Patients were stratified into three cohorts: AAP initiated in the first year (Y1); in the second year (Y2); and more than 2 years (Y3) of first ADT use. Within each cohort, HRU and costs were compared between the 12 months before and after the index date. Pre-post changes in HRU and costs were then compared between cohorts.

RESULTS

Five hundred and six (36.7%) patients were categorized as Y1; 252 (18.3%) as Y2; and 622 (45.1%) as Y3. AAP use was associated with significantly decreased rates of all-cause and MDD-related hospitalization and emergency department visits, and increased rates of pharmacy fills and physician office visits; and the magnitude of changes was largest in cohort Y1. Cohort Y1 had the largest reductions in mean (±SD) all-cause medical costs per patient (-$10,496 ± $85,022, p = .015) compared to Y2 (-$2,474 ± $85,022, p = .572) and Y3 (-$472 ± $31,334, p = .823), mainly due to the reduction in hospitalization. After adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics, the largest reductions in hospitalization and medical costs were observed in cohort Y1. Similar increases in all-cause pharmacy costs were seen in all cohorts. A similar trend in costs was observed in MDD-related healthcare services.

LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

AAP treatment was associated with reductions in all-cause and MDD-related medical costs, primarily in decreased hospitalization. The reductions were largest among patients who initiated treatment in the first year.

Efficacy and Safety of Lurasidone in Adolescents with Schizophrenia: A 6-Week, Randomized Placebo-Controlled Study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lurasidone in acutely symptomatic adolescent patients with schizophrenia.

METHODS

Patients aged 13-17 years were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of double-blind, fixed-dose lurasidone (40 or 80 mg/day) or placebo. Primary and key secondary efficacy measures were change from baseline to week 6 in the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS) total score and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) score, respectively, using mixed model for repeated measurement (MMRM) analysis. The proportion of patients achieving treatment response at endpoint, based on ≥20% reduction in PANSS total score, was analyzed using a logistic regression model.

RESULTS

Least-squares (LS) mean change in PANSS total score from baseline to week 6 was -18.6 with lurasidone 40 mg/day (N = 108; p < 0.001 vs. placebo; effect size = 0.51), -18.3 with lurasidone 80 mg/day (N = 106; p < 0.001 vs. placebo; effect size = 0.48), and -10.5 with placebo (N = 112). Similarly, LS mean change in CGI-S score from baseline to week 6 was significantly greater with lurasidone 40 mg/day (-1.0; p < 0.001; effect size = 0.49) and 80 mg/day (-0.9; p = 0.0015; effect size = 0.45) compared with placebo (-0.5). A significantly higher proportion of patients met responder criteria on lurasidone 40 and 80 mg/day versus placebo (63.9% and 65.1% vs. 42.0%; p < 0.001 for both comparisons). The rate of study discontinuation was 10.3% in lurasidone-treated and 17.7% in placebo-treated patients. The most common adverse events (incidence ≥5% in either lurasidone dose group and at least twice the rate of placebo) for lurasidone 40 mg/day, 80 mg/day, and placebo, respectively, were nausea (12.7%, 14.4%, and 2.7%), somnolence (9.1%, 11.5%, and 5.4%), akathisia (9.1%, 8.7%, and 1.8%), vomiting (8.2%, 6.7%, and 1.8%), and sedation (5.5%, 1.9%, and 1.8%). Treatment with lurasidone was not associated with clinically meaningful effects on body weight, lipids, measures of glycemic control, or prolactin.

CONCLUSIONS

In this 6-week study, lurasidone at doses of 40 and 80 mg/day demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful symptom improvement in adolescent patients with schizophrenia. Lurasidone was generally well tolerated with few effects on weight and metabolic parameters, consistent with findings in adult patients with schizophrenia.

Real-world adherence assessment of lurasidone and other oral atypical antipsychotics among patients with schizophrenia: an administrative claims analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare adherence with lurasidone to other oral atypical antipsychotics among Medicaid and commercially insured patients with schizophrenia.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Administrative claims of patients with schizophrenia treated with atypical antipsychotics (lurasidone, aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, or ziprasidone) from October 2010 to September 2011 were identified from MarketScan Commercial and Medicaid Databases, and were classified by the first (index) antipsychotic. Patients were 18-64 years, had insurance coverage 12 months pre- and 6 months post-index, and no pre-index use of the index drug.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Medication possession ratio (MPR), discontinuation rate, and mean time to discontinuation were assessed post-index. Pairwise comparisons (lurasidone versus each drug) were conducted using chi-square tests and Student's t-tests.

RESULTS

There were 146 Medicaid (mean age 43.5 years, 47.9% female) and 63 commercial (mean age 40.0 years, 42.9% female) patients treated with lurasidone. In the Medicaid population, the MPR for patients treated with lurasidone was 0.60, versus 0.41-0.48 for patients treated with other antipsychotics (all p < .05). Patients treated with lurasidone exhibited a lower discontinuation rate compared to patients treated with all other antipsychotics (49.3% versus 62.3%-68.3%, all p < .05). The mean time to discontinuation with lurasidone was significantly longer than with ziprasidone (p < .05). In the commercial population, the MPR for patients treated with lurasidone (0.61) was higher compared to patients treated with quetiapine (0.44) and ziprasidone (0.43) (both p < .05). The discontinuation rate (44.4%) was lower for patients treated with lurasidone compared to patients treated with all other antipsychotics except risperidone (p < .05). The mean time to discontinuation was longer for lurasidone than with other antipsychotics.

CONCLUSIONS

In Medicaid and commercial populations, patients treated with lurasidone demonstrated greater adherence compared to patients treated with other atypical antipsychotics. Limitations of using administrative claims data include potential errors or inconsistencies in coding, and lack of complete clinical information.

Designing and analysing clinical trials in mental health: an evidence synthesis approach

OBJECTIVE

When planning a clinical study, evidence on the treatment effect is often available from previous studies. However, this evidence is mostly ignored for the analysis of the new study. This is unfortunate, since using it could lead to a smaller study without compromising power. We describe a design that addresses this issue.

METHODS

We use a Bayesian meta-analytic model to incorporate the available evidence in the analysis of the new study. The shrinkage estimate for the new study integrates the evidence from the other studies. At the planning phase of the study, it allows a statistically justified reduction of the sample size.

RESULTS

The design is illustrated using data from an Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review of lurasidone for the treatment of schizophrenia. Three studies inform the meta-analysis before the new study is conducted. Results from an additional phase III study, which were not available at the time of the FDA review, are then used for the actual analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

In the presence of reliable and relevant evidence, the design offers a way to conduct a smaller study without compromising power. It therefore fills a gap between the assessment of evidence and its actual use in the design and analysis of studies.

Lurasidone for schizophrenia

Lurasidone (Latuda-Sunovion) is a new oral second-generation antipsychotic licensed for treating adults with schizophrenia. Although less likely to cause extrapyramidal adverse effects than first-generation antipsychotics, some second-generation antipsychotics cause weight gain that may increase the risk of diabetes, hypertension and raised lipid levels.1,2 Lurasidone is promoted as offering a balance between efficacy and tolerability, with reported negligible effects on weight and minimal effects on glucose and cholesterol.3 Here we review evidence for lurasidone's efficacy and safety, and consider how it compares with other antipsychotics.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Lurasidone Versus Aripiprazole in Adults with Schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

In 2014, lurasidone, an atypical antipsychotic, was approved for the treatment of schizophrenia in adults. It is an alternative treatment option to aripiprazole, and when compared with aripiprazole, lurasidone was associated with improved symptom reduction and reduced risk of weight gain and relapse. We conducted a cost-utility analysis of lurasidone versus aripiprazole from the perspective of healthcare services, using Scotland and Wales as specific case studies.

METHODS

A 10-year Markov model, incorporating a 6-week acute phase and a maintenance phase across three health states (discontinuation, relapse, death) was constructed. Six-week probabilities of discontinuation and adverse events were based on a published independent mixed-treatment comparison; long-term risks of relapse and discontinuation were from an indirect comparison. Costs included drug therapy, relapse, and outpatient, primary and residential care. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5 %. Utility estimates were taken from published literature, and cost effectiveness was expressed as total 10-year incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).

RESULTS

Lurasidone yielded a cost saving of £3383 and an improvement of 0.005 QALYs versus aripiprazole, in Scotland. Deterministic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that results were sensitive to relapse rates, while probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that lurasidone had the highest expected net benefit at willingness-to-pay thresholds of £20,000-30,000 per QALY. The probability that lurasidone was a cost-effective treatment strategy was approximately 75 % at all willingness-to-pay thresholds, with similar results being obtained for the Welsh analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests that lurasidone would provide an effective, cost-saving alternative for the healthcare service in the treatment of adult patients with schizophrenia.

Health Care Utilization and Treatment Persistence Associated with Oral Paliperidone and Lurasidone in Schizophrenia Treatment

BACKGROUND

Oral paliperidone and lurasidone are new second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs). Empirical evidence on the comparative costs and persistence of these 2 agents are absent in the literature.

OBJECTIVE

To assess health care use and persistence associated with the 2 new agents oral paliperidone and lurasidone and other SGAs.

METHODS

Schizophrenia patients who initiated SGA therapy were identified in the January 2007-June 2013 claims databases of a large managed care organization. Multivariate regressions using aripiprazole as the comparator were conducted. Ordinary least squares regressions were used to estimate the total medical and pharmacy costs associated with each drug. Poisson regressions were conducted to evaluate the frequency of hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits associated with each drug. A censored regression model was used to evaluate the comparative persistence. Sensitivity analyses using generalized linear models, two-part models, hurdle models, and instrumental variable regressions were also performed.  

RESULTS

Compared with aripiprazole, paliperidone was not associated with significantly different total costs, yet lurasidone was associated with lower total costs (-$7,052; 95% CI = -$9,221, -$4,882). Lurasidone was also associated with significantly lower medical services costs (-$5,025; 95% CI = -$7,096, -$2,955), drug costs (-$2,026; 95% CI = -$2,695, -$1,357), hospital costs (-$3,026; 95% CI = -$4,731, -$1,321), outpatient costs (-$1,999; 95% CI = -$2,536, -$1,463), and ED costs (-$2,284; 95% CI = -$3,069, -$1,499), whereas paliperidone did not have significant effects on any types of costs. Paliperidone users had fewer ED visits (-0.25; 95% CI = -0.42, -0.08), while lurasidone users had fewer hospitalizations (-5.98; 95% CI = -6.61, -5.35) and fewer ED visits (-2.51; 95% CI = -2.92, -2.10). Both paliperidone and lurasidone were associated with lower levels of treatment persistence.

CONCLUSIONS

Paliperidone does not associate with lower total costs compared with commonly used SGAs, whereas lurasidone is associated with lower total health costs. Thus, high access fees of lurasidone are not necessarily a major concern in prescription.

Efficacy and tolerability of treatments for bipolar depression

BACKGROUND

Depression in bipolar disorder is a major therapeutic challenge associated with disability and excess mortality.

METHODS

We reviewed findings from randomized placebo-controlled trials concerning efficacy and adverse effects of treatments for acute bipolar depression, including anticonvulsants, antidepressants, lithium, and modern antipsychotics, to compare numbers-needed-to-treat (NNT) versus -to-harm (NNH).

RESULTS

Included were data from 22 reports involving 33 drug-placebo pairs. Antidepressants (especially modern drugs) had the most favorable (highest) risk/benefit ratio (pooled NNH/NNT=18.1). Anticonvulsants were effective agents (pooled NNT=5.06), but carbamazepine and valproate were not as well tolerated (NNH<10) as lamotrigine, and they had an unfavorable pooled NNH/NNT (3.75). Some antipsychotics (lurasidone, olanzapine+fluoxetine, and quetiapine (NNT all < 10) were effective though aripiprazole and ziprasidone were not (NNT≥45); olanzapine alone was weakly effective (NNT=11.3), and all but lurasidone (NNH=20.2) were not well tolerated (NNH≤4.18). Lithium appeared to be poorly effective but well tolerated in only one trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Some anticonvulsants and antipsychotics seemed effective for acute bipolar depression, but most antipsychotics were not well tolerated. Antidepressants were effective and well-tolerated; lithium remains inadequately tested.

LIMITATIONS

There are remarkably few short-term treatment trials (2.75/12 treatments), and fewer long-term trials for bipolar depression, possibly arising from exaggerated concerns about inducing mania.

Cost-effectiveness of lurasidone vs quetiapine extended-release (XR) in patients with bipolar depression

OBJECTIVE

Bipolar disorder imposes a high economic burden on patients and society. Lurasidone and quetiapine extended-release (XR) are atypical antipsychotic agents indicated for monotherapy treatment of bipolar depression. Lurasidone is also indicated as adjunctive therapy with lithium or valproate for depressive episodes associated with bipolar disorder. The objective of this analysis was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of lurasidone and quetiapine XR in patients with bipolar depression.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness model was developed to compare lurasidone to quetiapine XR. The model was based on a US third-party payer perspective over a 3-month time horizon. The effectiveness measure in the model was the percentage of patients achieving remission (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] total score ≤12 by weeks 6-8). The comparison of remission rates was made through an adjusted indirect treatment comparison of lurasidone and quetiapine XR pivotal trials using placebo as the common comparator. Resource utilization for remission vs no remission was estimated from published expert panel data, and resource costs were obtained from a retrospective database study of bipolar I depression patients. Drug costs were estimated using the mean dose from clinical trials and wholesale acquisition costs.

RESULTS

Over the 3-month model time period, lurasidone and quetiapine XR patients, respectively, had similar mean numbers of emergency department visits (0.48 vs 0.50), inpatient days (2.1 vs 2.2), and office visits (9.3 vs 9.6). More lurasidone than quetiapine XR patients achieved remission (52.0% vs 43.2%) with slightly higher total costs ($4982 vs $4676), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $3474 per remission. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed lurasidone had an 86% probability of being cost-effective compared to quetiapine XR at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $10,000 per remission.

CONCLUSIONS

Lurasidone may be a cost-effective option when compared to quetiapine XR for the treatment of adults with bipolar depression.