Efficacy and safety of aticaprant, a kappa receptor antagonist, adjunctive to oral SSRI/SNRI antidepressant in major depressive disorder: results of a phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

This was a double-blind, randomized, phase 2 study of adults (18-64 years) with DSM-5 diagnosis of major depressive disorder (MDD), with moderate-to-severe episode severity (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] ≥25) despite an adequate course with ongoing antidepressant for ≥6 weeks to ≤12 months. Following a double-blind placebo lead-in period (up to 3 weeks), participants were randomized to receive once daily aticaprant 10 mg or continue placebo, added to their ongoing treatment, for 6 weeks. Of 184 participants enrolled, 169 were included in safety analyses (aticaprant n = 85, placebo n = 84) and 166 in full intent-to-treat (fITT) efficacy analyses; 121 placebo lead-in non-responders (<30% reduction in MADRS total score) in fITT were included in enriched ITT (eITT) analyses. Improvement (least squares mean difference [upper limit 1-sided 80% CI] versus placebo) in MADRS total score at week 6 for aticaprant was significant versus placebo (eITT: -2.1 [-1.09], 1-sided p = 0.044; effect size (ES) 0.23; fITT -3.1 [2.21], 1-sided p = 0.002; ES 0.36). The between-group difference was larger among participants with Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale (SHAPS) score greater/equal to versus less than baseline median SHAPS. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events reported for aticaprant (versus placebo) were headache (11.8% versus 7.1%), diarrhea (8.2% versus 2.4%), nasopharyngitis (5.9% versus 2.4%), and pruritus (5.9% versus 0%). One participant (1.2%) in each arm discontinued treatment due to an adverse event. In this study of participants with MDD and inadequate response to SSRI/SNRI, adjunctive treatment with aticaprant significantly reduced depressive symptoms versus placebo, without resulting in significant safety signals, supporting further investigation in larger trials.

A Meta-Analysis of the Antidepressant Responses in Pivotal Trials on Esketamine Nasal Spray and Atypical Antipsychotics

Purpose

This meta-analysis assessed whether atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) and esketamine nasal spray (ESK-NS), which are mechanistically distinct, differ in antidepressant outcomes.

Patients and Methods

Data were extracted from 12 trials of ESK-NS or AAPs in depressed patients (4276) with inadequate response or resistance to conventional antidepressants. Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score reductions from baseline and response rates (≥50% reduction) were analyzed.

Results

At endpoint, the estimated MADRS score reduction of pooled ESK-NS arms was greater than pooled AAP arms (+9.16 points, p < 0.0001). The reduction also was greater in the pooled control arms of the ESK-NS trials than the pooled control arms of the AAP trials (+7.57 points, p < 0.0001). The mean difference in the reductions between pooled ESK-NS and control arms was 1.87 points greater than that between pooled AAP and control arms, but this difference was not significant (95% CI: -4.49, 0.74, p = 0.16). Relative to their respective control arms, the mean difference in response rates was 25% for the pooled ESK-NS and 9% for the pooled AAP arms; the mean response rate was 16% greater in the pooled ESK-NS studies than the pooled AAP studies (p = 0.0004). Comparisons against specific AAPs showed mean differences in the MADRS score reductions at 1 week between the experimental and control arms that were numerically larger in the ESK-NS trials than in the aripiprazole trials (mean difference of 1.71 points, p = 0.06) and the brexpiprazole trials (mean difference of 2.05 points, p = 0.02).

Conclusion

The ESK-NS arms showed numerically larger MADRS score reductions at week-1 and endpoint, and a significantly larger response rate compared with AAP arms. Prospective studies involving direct comparisons are warranted to compare the relative efficacy between these treatment regimens.

Effects of esketamine on patient-reported outcomes in major depressive disorder with active suicidal ideation and intent: a pooled analysis of two randomized phase 3 trials (ASPIRE I and ASPIRE II)

PURPOSE

To assess the effect of esketamine nasal spray on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with major depressive disorder having active suicidal ideation with intent (MDSI).

METHODS

Patient-level data from two phase 3 studies (ASPIRE I; ASPIRE II) of esketamine + standard of care (SOC) in patients (aged 18-64 years) with MDSI, were pooled. PROs were evaluated from baseline through end of the double-blind treatment phase (day 25). Outcome assessments included: Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS), Quality of Life (QoL) in Depression Scale (QLDS), European QoL Group-5-Dimension-5-Level (EQ-5D-5L), and 9-item Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM-9). Changes in BHS and QLDS scores (baseline to day 25) were analyzed using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).

RESULTS

Pooled data for esketamine + SOC (n = 226; mean age: 40.5 years, 59.3% females) and placebo + SOC (n = 225; mean age: 39.6 years, 62.2% females) were analyzed. Mean ± SD change from baseline to day 25, esketamine + SOC vs placebo + SOC (least-square mean difference [95% CI] based on MMRM): BHS total score, - 7.4 ± 6.7 vs - 6.8 ± 6.5 [- 1.0 (- 2.23, 0.21)]; QLDS score, - 14.4 ± 11.5 vs - 12.2 ± 10.8 [- 3.1 (- 5.21, - 1.02)]. Relative risk (95% CI) of reporting perceived problems (slight to extreme) in EQ-5D-5L dimensions (day 25) in esketamine + SOC vs placebo + SOC: mobility [0.78 (0.50, 1.20)], self-care [0.83 (0.55, 1.27)], usual activities [0.87 (0.72, 1.05)], pain/discomfort [0.85 (0.69, 1.04)], and anxiety/depression [0.90 (0.80, 1.00)]. Mean ± SD changes from baseline in esketamine + SOC vs placebo + SOC for health status index: 0.23 ± 0.21 vs 0.19 ± 0.22; and for EQ-Visual Analogue Scale: 24.0 ± 27.2 vs 19.3 ± 24.4. At day 25, mean ± SD in domains of TSQM-9 scores in esketamine + SOC vs placebo + SOC were: effectiveness, 67.2 ± 25.3 vs 56.2 ± 26.8; global satisfaction, 69.9 ± 25.2 vs 56.3 ± 27.8; and convenience, 74.0 ± 19.4 vs 75.4 ± 18.7.

CONCLUSION

These PRO data support the patient perspective of the effect associated with esketamine + SOC in improving health-related QoL in patients with MDSI.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: ASPIRE I, NCT03039192 (Registration date: February 1, 2017); ASPIRE II, NCT03097133 (Registration date: March 31, 2017).

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS/OUTCOMES

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

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

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

Suicide-specific mortality among patients with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder, major depressive disorder with prior suicidal ideation or suicide attempts, or major depressive disorder alone

BACKGROUND

The impact of treatment-resistant depression (TRD) or prior suicidal ideation/suicide attempt (SI/SA) on mortality by suicide among patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) is not well known. This retrospective, observational, descriptive cohort study characterized real-world rates of suicide-specific mortality among patients with MDD with or without TRD or SI/SA.

METHODS

Adult patients with MDD among commercially insured and Medicare enrollees in Optum Research Database were included and assigned to three cohorts: those with treatment-resistant MDD (TRD), those with MDD and SI/SA (MDD+SI/SA), and those with MDD without TRD or SI/SA (MDD alone). Suicide-specific mortality was obtained from the National Death Index. The effects of demographic characteristics and SI/SA in the year prior to the end of observation on suicide-specific mortality were assessed.

RESULTS

For the 139,753 TRD, 85,602 MDD+SI/SA, and 572,098 MDD alone cohort patients, mean age ranged from 55 to 59 years and the majority were female. At baseline, anxiety disorders were present in 53.92%, 44.11%, and 21.72% of patients with TRD, MDD+SI/SA, and MDD alone, respectively. Suicide-mortality rates in the three cohorts were 0.14/100 person-years for TRD, 0.27/100 person-years for MDD+SI/SA, and 0.04/100 person-years for MDD alone. SI/SA during the year prior to the end of observation, younger age, and male sex were associated with increased suicide risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with TRD and MDD+SI/SA have a heightened risk of mortality by suicide compared with patients with MDD alone. Suicide rates were higher in patients with recent history versus older or no history of SI/SA, men versus women, and those of young age versus older age.

Genome-wide association study meta-analysis of suicide death and suicidal behavior

Suicide is a worldwide health crisis. We aimed to identify genetic risk variants associated with suicide death and suicidal behavior. Meta-analysis for suicide death was performed using 3765 cases from Utah and matching 6572 controls of European ancestry. Meta-analysis for suicidal behavior using data across five cohorts (n = 8315 cases and 256,478 psychiatric or populational controls of European ancestry) was also performed. One locus in neuroligin 1 (NLGN1) passing the genome-wide significance threshold for suicide death was identified (top SNP rs73182688, with p = 5.48 × 10^-8 before and p = 4.55 × 10^-8 after mtCOJO analysis conditioning on MDD to remove genetic effects on suicide mediated by MDD). Conditioning on suicidal attempts did not significantly change the association strength (p = 6.02 × 10^-8), suggesting suicide death specificity. NLGN1 encodes a member of a family of neuronal cell surface proteins. Members of this family act as splice site-specific ligands for beta-neurexins and may be involved in synaptogenesis. The NRXN-NLGN pathway was previously implicated in suicide, autism, and schizophrenia. We additionally identified ROBO2 and ZNF28 associations with suicidal behavior in the meta-analysis across five cohorts in gene-based association analysis using MAGMA. Lastly, we replicated two loci including variants near SOX5 and LOC101928519 associated with suicidal attempts identified in the ISGC and MVP meta-analysis using the independent FinnGen samples. Suicide death and suicidal behavior showed positive genetic correlations with depression, schizophrenia, pain, and suicidal attempt, and negative genetic correlation with educational attainment. These correlations remained significant after conditioning on depression, suggesting pleiotropic effects among these traits. Bidirectional generalized summary-data-based Mendelian randomization analysis suggests that genetic risk for the suicidal attempt and suicide death are both bi-directionally causal for MDD.

SIBAT-A Computerized Assessment Tool for Suicide Ideation and Behavior: Development and Psychometric Properties

OBJECTIVE

Most assessments of suicidal ideation and behavior (SIB) are limited by reliance on a single assessor, typically a clinician or patient, with scant detail on patient-related drivers of SIB and inability to detect rapid change in SIB. Furthermore, many techniques do not include a semistructured interview, increasing rater variability. The Suicide Ideation and Behavior Assessment Tool (SIBAT) addresses these limitations.

DESIGN

More than 30 experts in scale development, statistics, and clinical management of suicidal patients collaborated over a greater than four-year period to develop the SIBAT. Input for content and validity was received from patients, clinicians, and regulatory authorities in the United States (US) and Europe. Psychometric properties of the SIBAT were evaluated in validation studies.

RESULTS

The SIBAT is organized into eight independent patient- or clinician-rated modules with branching logic and scoring algorithms, which necessitates computerization. Patient-reported information is first captured in Modules 1 to 5. Thereafter, an experienced clinician reviews the patient's report, conducts a semistructured interview (Module 6), and assesses the patient's suicide risk (Module 7) and optimal antisuicide management (Module 8). Input from cognitive interviews of diverse adult, adolescent, and clinician participants was incorporated into the final version of the SIBAT. Psychometric testing demonstrated good inter-rater reliability (intraclass coefficient range: 0.68-0.82), intra-rater reliability (weighted-kappa range: 0.64-0.76), and concurrent validity with other instruments for assessing SIB.

CONCLUSION

Patient- and clinician-based assessments and the psychometric studies summarized in this report support the validity and reliability of the SIBAT for capturing critical information related to assessment of SIB in adolescents and adults at risk for suicide.

Efficacy and safety of esketamine nasal spray by sex in patients with treatment-resistant depression: findings from short-term randomized, controlled trials

The objective of this analysis was to determine if there are sex differences with esketamine for treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Post hoc analyses of three randomized, controlled studies of esketamine in patients with TRD (TRANSFORM-1, TRANSFORM-2 [18-64 years], TRANSFORM-3 [≥ 65 years]) were performed. In each 4-week study, adults with TRD were randomized to esketamine or placebo nasal spray, each with a newly initiated oral antidepressant. Change from baseline to day 28 in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score was assessed by sex in pooled data from TRANSFORM-1/TRANSFORM-2 and separately in data from TRANSFORM-3 using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures. Use of hormonal therapy was assessed in all women, and menopausal status was assessed in women in TRANSFORM-1/TRANSFORM-2. Altogether, 702 adults (464 women) received ≥ 1 dose of intranasal study drug and antidepressant. Mean MADRS total score (SD) decreased from baseline to day 28, more so among patients treated with esketamine/antidepressant vs. antidepressant/placebo in both women and men: TRANSFORM-1/TRANSFORM-2 women-esketamine/antidepressant -20.3 (13.19) vs. antidepressant/placebo -15.8 (14.67), men-esketamine/antidepressant -18.3 (14.08) vs. antidepressant/placebo -16.0 (14.30); TRANSFORM-3 women-esketamine/antidepressant -9.9 (13.34) vs. antidepressant/placebo -6.9 (9.65), men-esketamine/antidepressant -10.3 (11.96) vs. antidepressant/placebo -5.5 (7.64). There was no significant sex effect or treatment-by-sex interaction (p > 0.35). The most common adverse events in esketamine-treated patients were nausea, dissociation, dizziness, and vertigo, each reported at a rate higher in women than men. The analyses support antidepressant efficacy and overall safety of esketamine nasal spray are similar between women and men with TRD. The TRANSFORM studies are registered at clinicaltrials.gov (identifiers: NCT02417064 (first posted 15 April 2015; last updated 4 May 2020), NCT02418585 (first posted 16 April 2015; last updated 2 June 2020), and NCT02422186 (first posted 21 April 2015; last updated 29 September 2021)).

Esketamine Nasal Spray for the Rapid Reduction of Depressive Symptoms in Major Depressive Disorder With Acute Suicidal Ideation or Behavior

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND

Numerous health authority approvals of esketamine nasal spray, combined with oral antidepressant, to treat depressive symptoms in adults with major depressive disorder and acute suicidal ideation or behavior were based on 2 identically designed, double-blind, phase 3 studies.

METHODS/PROCEDURES

Across both ASPIRE studies (NCT03039192, NCT03097133), patients (N = 456) were randomized to esketamine 84 mg or placebo nasal spray twice weekly for 4 weeks plus comprehensive standard of care, including hospitalization and newly initiated or optimized antidepressant(s). In post hoc analyses of pooled data, changes from baseline at 24 hours after the first dose in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score and Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Suicidality-Revised, in the full cohort and in subgroups, were analyzed using analysis of covariance.

FINDINGS/RESULTS

Esketamine plus standard of care demonstrated significantly greater improvement in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score versus placebo plus standard of care at 24 hours (least square mean difference [95% confidence interval], -3.8 [-5.75 to -1.89]) and at earlier (4 hours: -3.4 [-5.05 to -1.71]) and later time points (day 25: -3.4 [-5.36 to -1.36]). The between-group difference (95% confidence interval) for change in Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Suicidality-Revised at 24 hours was -0.20 (-0.43 to 0.04) for all patients and -0.31 (-0.61 to -0.01) for those with a history of suicide attempt. Common adverse events (≥20%) during esketamine treatment were dizziness, dissociation, nausea, somnolence, and headache.

IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS

Esketamine plus comprehensive standard of care rapidly reduces depressive symptoms in patients with major depressive disorder who have acute suicidal ideation or behavior, especially in those with a history of suicide attempt, providing a new treatment option for this particularly ill and vulnerable population.

At baseline patients treated with esketamine have higher burden of disease than other patients with treatment resistant depression: Learnings from a population based study

INTRODUCTION

It is critical to assess who is being treated with a new marketed drug like esketamine to understand how it is used in the real-world setting and the effects of the medication.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis using two large U.S. health care databases that included commercially insured and Medicaid patients. Patients treated with esketamine were identified and their baseline characteristics described and compared with the baseline characteristics of patients with treatment resistant depression (TRD) and with patients undergoing transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). To quantify the differences, standardized mean differences were calculated.

RESULTS

In the commercially insured database, 418 patients were treated with esketamine and 830,047 patients were in the TRD group. Large differences in baseline characteristics were observed. Patients in the esketamine group were more likely to have severe depression, suicidal thoughts, and prior treatments with TMS or electroconvulsive therapy than the TRD control group. Patients in the esketamine group had more comorbid psychiatric conditions (anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress disorders, substance use disorders) and higher exposure to antipsychotics, antiepileptics, hypnotics and sedatives. In terms of general health, patients in the esketamine group had many more outpatient visits, were more likely to have chronic pain and higher Charlson comorbidity scores, a predicator of mortality. Results were similar for both the Medicaid and TMS populations.

CONCLUSION

Patients treated with esketamine have a higher burden of disease than other patients with TRD. In any real-world comparative effectiveness or safety study these differences need to be understood and accounted for to produce valid results.

Comments to Drs. Bahji, Vazquez, and Zarate

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

Suicide Ideation and Behavior Assessment Tool (SIBAT): Evaluation of Intra- and Inter-Rater Reliability, Validity, and Mapping to Columbia Classification Algorithm of Suicide Assessment

The psychometric properties of the Suicide Ideation and Behavior Assessment Tool (SIBAT) were evaluated in 130 participants with varying levels of suicidality. Inter- and intra-rater reliability were assessed for clinician-rated outcomes, including the revised Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) of severity of suicidality (CGI-SS-r). Concurrent validity of patient-reported modules with Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression scale and Sheehan-Suicidality Tracking Scale Clinically Meaningful Change Measure (S-STS CMCM), and concordance between Columbia Classification Algorithm of Suicide Assessment (C-CASA) mappings for SIBAT, S-STS CMCM and Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) were assessed. 52/130 participants (mean [SD] age: 38.3 [17.77] years) consented for multiple interviews (C-CASA mappings: n=52; rater-reliability: n=25/52). SIBAT demonstrated good intra-rater reliability (weighted-kappa range:0.64-0.76; CGI-SS-r, 0.75) and adequate inter-rater reliability (ICC range:0.68-0.82; CGI-SS-r, 0.81). There were strong correlations between PROMIS depression scores and SIBAT Module 5 ratings (Spearman correlations, r=0.64-0.74) and moderate correlations (r=0.29-0.72) between S-STS CMCM and SIBAT Modules 2, 3 and 5 ratings. Moderate agreement was noted between SIBAT C-CASA mappings and corresponding mappings from S-STS CMCM (weighted kappa: 0.54) and C-SSRS (weighted kappa: 0.56). Thus, the SIBAT provided valid assessment of suicidal ideation and behavior that could be reliably rated and adequately mapped to the C-CASA.

Esketamine Nasal Spray for Rapid Reduction of Depressive Symptoms in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder Who Have Active Suicide Ideation With Intent: Results of a Phase 3, Double-Blind, Randomized Study (ASPIRE II)

BACKGROUND

Patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) having active suicidal ideation with intent require immediate treatment.

METHODS

This double-blind study (ASPIRE II) randomized adults (aged 18-64 years) with MDD having active suicidal ideation with intent to esketamine 84 mg or placebo nasal spray twice weekly for 4 weeks, given with comprehensive standard of care (hospitalization ≥5 days and newly initiated or optimized oral antidepressant[s]). Change from baseline to 24 hours post-first dose in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score (primary efficacy endpoint) was analyzed using ANCOVA. Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Suicidality-revised (key secondary endpoint) was analyzed using ANCOVA on ranks of change.

RESULTS

Of 230 patients who were randomized (115 per arm), 227 received study drug and were included in efficacy/safety analyses; 184 (80.0%) completed double-blind treatment. Greater improvement in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score was observed with esketamine (mean [SD]: -15.7 [11.56]) vs placebo (-12.4 [10.43]), each with standard of care, at 24 hours (least-squares mean difference [SE]: -3.9 [1.39], 95% CI: -6.60, -1.11; 2-sided P = .006). This was also noted at the earlier (4-hour) timepoint (least-squares mean difference -4.2, 95% CI: -6.38, -1.94). Patients in both treatment groups experienced rapid reduction in Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Suicidality-revised score; the between-group difference was not statistically significant. The most common adverse events among esketamine-treated patients were dizziness, dissociation, nausea, dysgeusia, somnolence, headache, and paresthesia.

CONCLUSION

This study confirmed rapid and robust reduction of depressive symptoms with esketamine nasal spray in severely ill patients with MDD who have active suicidal ideation with intent. Trial Registration: Clinical Trials.gov identifier: NCT03097133.

Esketamine Nasal Spray for Rapid Reduction of Major Depressive Disorder Symptoms in Patients Who Have Active Suicidal Ideation With Intent: Double-Blind, Randomized Study (ASPIRE I)

OBJECTIVE

To compare esketamine to placebo, each in addition to standard-of-care treatment, for rapidly reducing major depressive disorder symptoms, including suicidal ideation.

METHODS

This phase 3, double-blind, multicenter study (ASPIRE I), conducted between June 2017 and December 2018, enrolled 226 adults having major depressive disorder based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fifth edition (DSM-5) criteria, active suicidal ideation with intent, and need for psychiatric hospitalization. Patients were randomized 1:1 to esketamine 84 mg or placebo nasal spray twice-weekly for 4 weeks, each with comprehensive standard-of-care treatment (initial psychiatric hospitalization and newly initiated or optimized oral antidepressant[s] therapy). Change from baseline to 24 hours post-first dose in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score (primary endpoint) was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), and change in Clinical Global Impression of Severity of Suicidality Revised version (CGI-SS-r; key secondary endpoint) score was analyzed using ANCOVA on ranks with treatment difference estimated using the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.

RESULTS

Greater improvement in MADRS total score was observed with esketamine + standard-of-care versus placebo + standard-of-care at 24 hours (least-squares mean difference [SE]: -3.8 [1.39]; 95% CI, -6.56 to -1.09; 2-sided P = .006), as well as at earlier (4 hours) and later time points during 4-week double-blind treatment. The difference between groups in the severity of suicidality was not statistically significant (median of treatment difference [95% CI]: 0.0 [-1.00 to 0.00]; 2-sided P = .107). The most common adverse events among esketamine-treated patients were dizziness, dissociation, headache, nausea, and somnolence.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings demonstrate rapid and robust efficacy of esketamine nasal spray in reducing depressive symptoms in severely ill patients with major depressive disorder who have active suicidal ideation with intent.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03039192.

Efficacy and Safety of Intranasal Esketamine for the Rapid Reduction of Symptoms of Depression and Suicidality in Patients at Imminent Risk for Suicide: Results of a Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study

(Reprinted with permission from AmJ Psychiatry 2018; 175:620-630).

Efficacy and Safety of Intranasal Esketamine for the Rapid Reduction of Symptoms of Depression and Suicidality in Patients at Imminent Risk for Suicide: Results of a Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study

OBJECTIVE

The authors compared the efficacy of standard-of-care treatment plus intranasal esketamine or placebo for rapid reduction of symptoms of major depression, including suicidality, among individuals at imminent suicide risk.

METHOD

In a double-blind, multicenter, proof-of-concept study, 68 participants were randomly assigned to receive esketamine (84 mg) or placebo twice weekly for 4 weeks, in addition to comprehensive standard-of-care treatment. The primary efficacy endpoint was change in score from baseline to 4 hours after initial dose on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Clinician global judgment of suicide risk (from the Suicide Ideation and Behavior Assessment Tool) was also assessed. Secondary endpoints included these measures at 24 hours and double-blind endpoint at day 25.

RESULTS

A significantly greater improvement in MADRS score was observed in the esketamine group compared with the placebo group at 4 hours (least-square mean difference=-5.3, SE=2.10; effect size=0.61) and at ∼24 hours (least-square mean difference=-7.2, SE=2.85; effect size=0.65), but not at day 25 (least-square mean difference=-4.5, SE=3.14; effect size=0.35). Significantly greater improvement was also observed in the esketamine group on the MADRS suicidal thoughts item score at 4 hours (effect size=0.67), but not at 24 hours (effect size=0.35) or at day 25 (effect size=0.29). Between-group reductions in clinician global judgment of suicide risk scores were not statistically different at any time point. The most common adverse events among participants in the esketamine group were nausea, dizziness, dissociation, unpleasant taste, and headache.

CONCLUSIONS

These preliminary findings indicate that intranasal esketamine compared with placebo, given in addition to comprehensive standard-of-care treatment, may result in significantly rapid improvement in depressive symptoms, including some measures of suicidal ideation, among depressed patients at imminent risk for suicide.

Paliperidone palmitate once-monthly reduces risk of relapse of psychotic, depressive, and manic symptoms and maintains functioning in a double-blind, randomized study of schizoaffective disorder

OBJECTIVE

Schizoaffective disorder is a complex illness for which optimal treatment is not well established. Results of the first controlled, relapse-prevention study of paliperidone palmitate once-monthly injectable (paliperidone monthly) in schizoaffective disorder are presented.

METHOD

The study was conducted between September 20, 2010, and October 22, 2013. Patients with schizoaffective disorder (confirmed by the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders) experiencing acute exacerbation of psychotic and depressive/manic symptoms were stabilized with paliperidone monthly as monotherapy or as adjunctive therapy to mood stabilizers or antidepressants and randomly assigned (1:1) to paliperidone monthly or placebo in a 15-month, double-blind, relapse-prevention phase. Randomization was stratified by administration as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy and by study center. The primary endpoint was time to relapse.

RESULTS

334 patients were evaluated. Paliperidone monthly significantly delayed time to relapse for psychotic, depressive, and manic symptoms compared with placebo (P < .001, log-rank test). Relapse risk was 2.49 times greater for placebo (hazard ratio = 2.49; 95% CI, 1.55 to 3.99; P < .001, Cox proportional hazards model). Overall relapse rates were 33.5% for placebo and 15.2% for paliperidone monthly. For monotherapy, relapse risk was 3.38 times greater with placebo (P = .002), and for adjunctive treatment it was 2.03 times greater with placebo (P = .021). Paliperidone monthly was superior to placebo in maintaining functioning as measured by the Personal and Social Performance scale (P = .014, mixed-model repeated-measures analysis). The most common adverse events (placebo, paliperidone monthly) were increased weight (4.7%, 8.5%), insomnia (7.1%, 4.9%), schizoaffective disorder (5.9%, 3.0%), headache (3.5%, 5.5%), and nasopharyngitis (3.5%, 5.5%). Incidence of any extrapyramidal-related adverse event was 7.1% for placebo and 8.5% for paliperidone monthly.

CONCLUSIONS

Paliperidone monthly as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy significantly delayed psychotic, depressive, and/or manic relapses; reduced their risk; and better maintained functioning in patients with schizoaffective disorder. Results support the value of maintenance treatment with paliperidone monthly in schizoaffective disorder.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01193153.

Safety of paliperidone extended-release in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and hepatic disease

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Patients with schizophrenia often suffer from comorbid hepatic disease. This multicenter, open-label, single-arm, crossover study evaluated the safety and efficacy of paliperidone extended-release (ER) in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and hepatic disease.

METHODS

The study comprised a screening period, followed by 9 weeks' open-label treatment, divided into 2 phases. Phase 1 (4 weeks) was a continuation of usual antipsychotic treatment (UAT); phase 2 (5 weeks) consisted of a 1-week cross-titration from UAT to flexibly dosed paliperidone ER (3-12 mg/d), followed by 4 weeks of paliperidone ER alone. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), including those considered more relevant to antipsychotic treatment (prespecified adverse events [AEs]), were analyzed.

RESULTS

Although more subjects reported TEAEs during the paliperidone ER alone period than during the UAT period, no significant differences occurred in prespecified AE rates. No new safety signals were detected, and minimal shifts in liver function test values were observed. Improvements in psychiatric symptoms and functioning were observed after 4 weeks' paliperidone ER treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that paliperidone ER is well tolerated in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and hepatic disease. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest prospective study to date in this population.

Antipsychotics in the treatment of bipolar disorder

Atypical antipsychotics have an important role in the acute and maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder. While robust evidence supports the efficacy of these agents in the treatment of mania and in the prevention of manic relapse, few atypical antipsychotics have shown efficacy in the treatment or prevention of depressive episodes. These agents pose a lower risk of extrapyramidal side effects compared to typical neuroleptics, but carry a significant liability for weight gain and other metabolic side effects such as hyperglycemia and hyperlipidemia. More comparative effectiveness studies are needed to assess the optimal treatment regimens, including the relative benefits and risks of antipsychotics versus mood stabilizers. The exploration of the molecular mechanisms of antipsychotics has helped to shed further light on the underlying neurobiology of bipolar disorder, since these compounds target systems thought to be key to the pathophysiology of bipolar disorder. In addition to modulating monoaminergic neurotransmission, atypical antipsychotics appear to share properties with mood-stabilizing agents known to alter intracellular signal transduction leading to changes in neuronal activity and gene expression. Atypical antipsychotic drugs have been shown to exhibit neuroprotective properties that are mediated by upregulation of trophic and cellular resilience factors. Building on our understanding of existing therapeutics, especially as it relates to underlying disease pathology, newer "plasticity enhancing" strategies hold promise for future treatments of bipolar disorder.

Development and psychometric evaluation of a clinical global impression for schizoaffective disorder scale

OBJECTIVE

The Clinical Global Impression for Schizoaffective Disorder scale is a new rating scale adapted from the Clinical Global Impression scale for use in patients with schizoaffective disorder. The psychometric characteristics of the Clinical Global Impression for Schizoaffective Disorder are described.

DESIGN

Content validity was assessed using an investigator questionnaire. Inter-rater reliability was determined with 12 sets of videotaped interviews rated independently by two trained individuals. Test-retest reliability was assessed using 30 randomly selected raters from clinical trials who evaluated the same videos on separate occasions two weeks apart. Convergent and divergent validity and effect size were evaluated by comparing scores between the Clinical Global Impression for Schizoaffective Disorder and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, and Young Mania Rating Scale scales using pooled patient data from two clinical trials. Clinical Global Impression for Schizoaffective Disorder scores were then linked to corresponding Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale scores.

RESULTS

Content validity was strong. Inter-rater agreement was good to excellent for most scales and subscales (intra-class correlation coefficient ≥ 0.50). Test-retest showed good reproducibility, with intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.444 to 0.898. Spearman correlations between Clinical Global Impression for Schizoaffective Disorder domains and corresponding symptom scales were 0.60 or greater, and effect sizes for Clinical Global Impression for Schizoaffective Disorder overall and domain scores were similar to Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale Young Mania Rating Scale, and 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression scores. Raters anticipated that the scale might be less effective in distinguishing negative from depressive symptoms, and, in fact, the results here may reflect that clinical reality.

CONCLUSION

Multiple lines of evidence support the reliability and validity of the Clinical Global Impression for Schizoaffective Disorder for studies in schizoaffective disorder.

Role of paliperidone extended-release in treatment of schizoaffective disorder

Schizoaffective disorder is characterized by the presence of symptoms of both schizophrenia and a major mood disorder. The coexistence of these symptoms can be difficult to manage, and these patients are generally treated with antipsychotics as well as mood stabilizers and/or antidepressants. Additionally, no established treatment guidelines exist for this disorder. This review describes the combined results of two international, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical studies of paliperidone extended-release (ER), an atypical antipsychotic recently approved in the US for the treatment of schizoaffective disorder. Subjects in these six-week trials were aged 18-65 years, had a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder based on the Structural Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition) Disorders, and were experiencing an acute exacerbation. The subjects from these studies had significant symptomatology as evidenced by a mean (standard deviation) baseline Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score of 92.8 (13.0). Based on Young Mania Rating Scale and/or a 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score of ≥16 at baseline, 79.5% and 66.9% of subjects presented with prominent manic and depressive symptoms, respectively, and 46.4% presented with mixed symptoms. Approximately half (45%) of subjects were taking adjunctive mood stabilizers and/or antidepressants. Paliperidone ER was found to be effective in improving psychotic and mood symptoms in these subjects. Paliperidone ER was also effective as monotherapy or adjunctive to mood stabilizers and/or antidepressants for subjects with prominent manic, depressive, or mixed symptoms at baseline. No new tolerability signals were observed in this population. To the best of our awareness, these pooled data provide the largest data set of patients with schizoaffective disorder, and extend our knowledge of disease characteristics and treatment response.

Predicting hospital admission and discharge with symptom or function scores in patients with schizophrenia: pooled analysis of a clinical trial extension

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate relationships between hospital admission or discharge and scores for symptom or functioning in patients with schizophrenia.

METHODS

Data were from three 52-week open-label extensions of the double-blind pivotal trials of paliperidone extended-release (ER). Symptoms and patient function were measured every 4 weeks using the Personal and Social Performance (PSP) scale and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). The intent-to-treat analysis set was defined as open-label patients who had at least one post-baseline PSP and PANSS measurement. Time until first hospitalization was evaluated using the Cox proportional hazard model with categorical time-dependent measures for the PSP (1 to 30, 31 to 70, 71 to 100) or PANSS (< 75, >/= 75 to < 95, >/= 95), as well as age, gender, schizophrenia duration, and country. Similar analyses were performed for time to discharge.

RESULTS

Of the 1,077 enrolled patients, 1,028 (95.5%) met study criteria; of these, 382 (37.2%) were hospitalized at open-label baseline. Compared with patients with PSP >/= 71 group, the hazard for new hospitalization was 8.351 times greater (P = 0.0001) for patients with the poorest functioning (PSP 1 to 30) and 1.977 times greater (P = 0.0295) for patients with PSP of 31-70 compared to the >/= 71 group. The hazard for new hospitalization was 5.457 times greater (P < 0.0001) for patients PANSS >/= 95 and 2.316 times greater (P = 0.0027) for the >/= 75 to < 95 group compared with the < 75 group. For patients hospitalized at baseline, the PANSS >/= 95 patients had a discharge hazard that was 0.456 times lower than for the < 75 patients (P < 0.0001). The hazard for discharge was 0.646 times lower (P = 0.0012) for the PANSS >/= 75 to < 95 group compared with the < 75 group. A patient's country was a significant predictor variable, with US patients being admitted and discharged faster.

CONCLUSIONS

Better functioning or being less symptomatic is associated with reduced risk for hospitalization and greater chance for early discharge. Treatments or programs that reduce symptoms or improve function decrease the risk of hospitalization in community patients or increase the chance of discharge for hospitalized patients.

Psychometric evaluation of the Medication Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) to assess satisfaction with antipsychotic medication among schizophrenia patients

The Medication Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) is a single-item questionnaire which evaluates satisfaction with antipsychotic medication in schizophrenia patients. This study evaluated the reliability and validity for its use in research and clinical settings. Data pooled across treatment groups (control vs. Paliperidone ER) from a randomized 6-week study were used to conduct four psychometric assessments of the MSQ: (1) test-retest reliability, (2) convergent validity, (3) known-groups validity, and (4) minimally important difference (MID). This analysis included 191 randomized subjects. Test-retest reliability was evaluated for patients with no change in satisfaction from weeks 2 to 4 and weeks 4 to 6 (ICC=0.80; 0.83, respectively). Convergent validity was demonstrated through large correlations with Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) global score (r=0.72-0.77), and through small correlations with variables measuring clinical symptoms and functioning (e.g., Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score [r=-0.30 to -0.17], CGI-S [r=-0.35 to -0.27], SF-36 Physical Functioning Score [r=0.18] and side effects and extrapiramidal measures (including UKU, ESRS-A, SAS). Mean MSQ scores were significantly different between those who completed and discontinued the study, and between different satisfaction groups based on TSQM, demonstrating good known-groups validity. MID estimates for the MSQ ranged from 0.47 (standard error of measurement) to 0.58 (anchor-based method). Results suggest that the MSQ has acceptable reliability and validity, making this single-item questionnaire appropriate and easy to use in clinical research and potentially in clinical practice. A 1-point change on the MSQ may be considered clinically meaningful.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 2 dose ranges of paliperidone extended-release in the treatment of subjects with schizoaffective disorder

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to assess efficacy and safety of paliperidone extended-release (ER) in patients with schizoaffective disorder.

METHOD

A randomized, 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted. Subjects with a Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score >or= 60, score >or= 4 on >or= 2 PANSS items (hostility, excitement, tension, uncooperativeness, poor impulse control), and Young Mania Rating Scale and/or Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, 21-item version scores >or= 16 were eligible. Subjects received higher-dose (12 mg/d) or lower-dose (6 mg/d) paliperidone ER. Dose adjustments by 3-mg increments were allowed until day 15. The study was conducted from October 2006 through February 2008.

RESULTS

A total of 316 subjects were randomly assigned to paliperidone ER lower dose (n = 109), higher dose (n = 100), or placebo (n = 107). Mean +/- SD modal dose in lower- and higher-dose groups: 5.7 +/- 0.9 and 11.6 +/- 1.0 mg/d, respectively. Mean +/- SE PANSS total score (primary outcome) improved significantly with higher-dose paliperidone ER versus placebo (-32.4 +/- 2.1 versus -24.1 +/- 2.1; P = .003). Change with lower-dose paliperidone ER (-27.7 +/- 2.1) was not significantly different from placebo (P = .187). No new safety issues were identified; common adverse events were headache (placebo: 16.8%; paliperidone ER: lower dose, 13.9%, higher dose, 13.3%) and tremor (3.7%, 12.0%, 11.2%, respectively). Mean prolactin and weight changes were greater with active treatment than placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher-dose paliperidone ER was effective and well tolerated in patients with acute schizoaffective disorder. These findings and those from a companion study constitute the first registration program for antipsychotic treatment in schizoaffective disorder.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clincaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00397033.

Paliperidone extended-release tablets in patients with recently diagnosed schizophrenia

AIM

Effective early and persistent antipsychotic treatment in recently diagnosed schizophrenia may positively impact long-term outcomes. Paliperidone extended-release (ER) was assessed in this population.

METHODS

Post hoc analysis of pooled data from three 6-week, double-blind (DB), placebo-controlled, and three 1-year open-label (OL) studies of paliperidone ER in schizophrenia patients. Data stratified by time since diagnosis (< or =3 vs. >3 years).

RESULTS

At DB (n = 1193) and OL baselines (n = 744), 259 (21.9%) and 188 (25.3%) patients were diagnosed < or =3 years. At DB end point, both populations improved with paliperidone ER versus placebo on Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total, Clinical Global Impressions-Severity and Personal and Social Performance (PSP) scale scores (all P < 0.05). At OL end point, there were significant improvements from DB baseline in both populations on these scales (P < 0.0001), with greater improvement in the < or =3-year population on PANSS total (P < 0.001) and PSP (P < 0.001) scores. During DB treatment, only the < or =3-year population reported adverse events (AEs) in > or =5% (placebo-adjusted rate) of subjects receiving paliperidone ER: akathisia, extrapyramidal disorder not otherwise specified and somnolence. During OL treatment, akathisia and somnolence occurred more frequently (> or =5%) in the < or =3- versus >3-year population. OL study completion rates were 51.1% in < or =3-year, and 48.2% in >3-year subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

Paliperidone ER significantly improved symptoms and functioning in schizophrenia patients, regardless of time since diagnosis. Recently diagnosed patients who continued treatment exhibited greater symptom reduction and functional benefit over the long term. Results also suggest that these patients may be more susceptible to certain AEs.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of paliperidone extended-release and quetiapine in inpatients with recently exacerbated schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

The authors compared paliperidone extended-release and quetiapine in patients with recently exacerbated schizophrenia requiring hospitalization.

METHOD

In a 6-week double-blind study, inpatients with a recent exacerbation of schizophrenia were randomly assigned to treatment with paliperidone extended-release, quetiapine, or placebo. A 2-week monotherapy phase was followed by a 4-week additive-therapy phase. Target doses were at the upper end of recommended ranges: paliperidone extended-release, 9 or 12 mg/day, and quetiapine, 600 or 800 mg/day. The primary endpoint was the difference in mean total change score on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) between paliperidone extended-release and quetiapine at the 2-week monotherapy phase endpoint.

RESULTS

Six-week completion rates were 77.5% (124/160) with paliperidone extended-release, 66.7% (106/159) quetiapine, and 63.8% (51/80) placebo. Improvement in mean PANSS total change score was greater with paliperidone extended-release than with quetiapine from day 5 (-11.4 versus -8.2) through the monotherapy phase endpoint (-23.4 versus -17.1). Only paliperidone extended-release showed significantly greater PANSS improvement compared with placebo at 2 weeks. At the 6-week study endpoint, there was a significantly greater improvement with paliperidone extended-release compared with quetiapine despite similar use of additive therapy (predominantly other antipsychotics). Common adverse events with paliperidone extended-release, quetiapine, and placebo, respectively, were tremor (13.9%, 5.0%, 7.5%), somnolence (8.9%, 11.9%, 1.3%), insomnia (10.1%, 9.4%, 11.3%), and headache (12.0%, 7.5%, 13.8%). Six-week adverse event-related discontinuation rates were 6.3%, 10.1%, and 6.3%, respectively, in the paliperidone extended-release, quetiapine, and placebo groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with quetiapine, paliperidone extended-release improved symptoms earlier and to a greater degree in patients with recently exacerbated schizophrenia requiring hospitalization, with no unexpected tolerability findings.

Psychotic symptoms in patients with bipolar mania

BACKGROUND

Psychosis has been identified in as many as 68% of patients with bipolar mania. This analysis identified psychotic symptoms in these patients.

METHODS

Data were from two placebo-controlled, 3-week studies in patients with an acute episode of bipolar mania. Symptoms were identified by the 30-item Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS; item ratings, 1 = absent to 7 = extremely severe), the Young Mania Rating Scale, and the Global Assessment Scale.

RESULTS

Psychotic features at study entry were diagnosed in 264 (51.3%) of the 515 patients. At baseline, these patients had significantly more severe scores on the PANSS, Young Mania Rating Scale, and Global Assessment Scale than patients without psychotic features. Patients with psychotic features had mean (+/-SD) scores of mild (3) or greater on six PANSS items: grandiosity (4.5+/-1.4), delusions (4.4+/-1.4), lack of judgment/insight (4.1+/-1.5), excitement (3.9+/-1.3), suspiciousness/persecution (3.1+/-1.6), and hostility (3.1+/-1.5). Grandiosity symptoms of delusional proportions (scores > or = 4) were noted in 205 (78%) of patients with a diagnosis of psychotic features and in 113 (45%) patients without the diagnosis.

LIMITATIONS

The study was not specifically designed to assess patients with psychotic features and the PANSS was developed to evaluate symptoms of schizophrenia.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support prior reports indicating high rates of psychosis in patients with bipolar mania and identify the most prominent symptoms in these patients.

Direct and indirect effects of paliperidone extended-release tablets on negative symptoms of schizophrenia

Direct and indirect effects of the new psychotropic paliperidone extended-release (paliperidone ER) tablets on negative symptom improvement in schizophrenia were investigated using path analysis. A post hoc analysis of pooled data from three 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of paliperidone ER in patients experiencing acute exacerbation was conducted. Regression analysis explored relationships between baseline/study characteristics and negative symptoms. Change in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) negative factor score at endpoint was the dependent variable; explanatory variables included demographic and clinical characteristics. Path analysis determined direct and indirect effects of treatment on negative symptom change. Indirect mediators of negative symptom change in the model included changes in positive symptoms, anxiety/depression symptoms and movement disorders. Path analysis indicated that up to 33% of negative symptom improvement was a direct treatment effect. Indirect effects on negative symptoms were mediated through changes in positive symptoms (51%) and anxiety/depression symptoms (18%), whereas changes in movement disorders had a 2.1% inverse effect. Path analysis indicated that paliperidone ER has a direct effect on negative symptoms. Negative symptom improvement also was indirectly mediated via changes in positive and depressive symptoms.

Dimensions of psychosis in patients with bipolar mania as measured by the positive and negative syndrome scale

BACKGROUND

Psychosis is present in 50% or more of patients with bipolar mania and is commonly evaluated in clinical research by means of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). The aim of the present analysis was to investigate the psychotic dimensions of bipolar disorder and its contributing symptoms based on a factor analysis of baseline PANSS scores and to compare them with those identified in studies of patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

SAMPLING AND METHODS

Baseline data were analyzed from two 3-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of risperidone monotherapy for acute mania associated with bipolar I disorder (n = 535). Inclusion criteria were a DSM-IV diagnosis of bipolar I disorder with manic features, with or without psychotic features, age > or =18 years, and mean baseline Young Mania Rating Scale scores > or =20. A principal component analysis of the 30 PANSS item scores of the 535 patients with a diagnosis of a manic episode at baseline was conducted.

RESULTS

Five factors were extracted by the analysis: anxiety (13.4% of the variance), negative symptoms (12.3%), depression (10.5%), excitement (10.3%), and positive symptoms (8.7%). Similar factors, in particular the negative, excitement, and positive factors, have been identified in patients with schizophrenia. There was an absence of a cognitive factor supporting the notion that bipolar patients may present fewer cognitive symptoms.

CONCLUSION

The results of the present analysis and those of other studies indicate similarities in psychotic symptom domains, as measured by the PANSS, in patients with bipolar mania and schizophrenia. Future analyses will address the effects of treatment on the identified factors.

Risperidone for treatment-refractory major depressive disorder: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder has high prevalence, morbidity, and mortality. Inadequate results with antidepressants have prompts addition of a nonstandard treatment (augmentation therapy).

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether augmentation therapy with risperidone reduces symptoms and increases response to antidepressant therapy and remission of depression in adults.

DESIGN

Multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial conducted from 19 October 2004 to 17 November 2005.

SETTING

75 primary care and psychiatric centers.

PATIENTS

274 outpatient adults with major depressive disorder that was suboptimally responsive to antidepressant therapy.

INTERVENTION

After a 4-week run-in period to ensure insufficient response to standard antidepressants, patients were randomly assigned to receive risperidone, 1 mg/d, or placebo for 6 weeks. After 4 weeks, the dosage of risperidone was increased to 2 mg/d in some cases.

MEASUREMENTS

Symptoms were measured by using the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-17). Other outcomes were response to therapy, remission of depression, and various clinician- and patient-rated assessments.

RESULTS

Of the intention-to-treat population (268 patients), 81% (111 of 137) who received risperidone and 87.8% (115 of 131) who received placebo completed 6 weeks of double-blind treatment. Mean (+/-SE) HRSD-17 scores improved more in the risperidone augmentation group than in the placebo group (13.4 +/- 0.54 vs. 16.2 +/- 0.53; difference, -2.8 +/- 0.72 [95% CI, -4.2 to -1.4]; P <0.001). More risperidone recipients than placebo recipients experienced remission of depression (24.5% [26 of 106] vs. 10.7% [12 of 112]; P = 0.004) and had a response (46.2% [49 of 106] vs. 29.5% [33 of 112]; P = 0.004). Headache (8.8% of risperidone recipients vs. 14.5% of placebo recipients), somnolence (5.1% vs. 1.5%), and dry mouth (5.1% vs. 0.8%) were the most frequently reported adverse events.

LIMITATIONS

Patients were receiving many different antidepressants, and the duration of augmentation therapy was limited.

CONCLUSION

Risperidone augmentation produced a statistically significant mean reduction in depression symptoms, substantially increased remission and response, and improved other patient- and clinician-rated measures. ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00095134.

Adjunctive risperidone in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder: a double-blind, prospective, placebo-controlled, randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Residual symptoms despite treatment are common in generalized anxiety disorders (GAD). The Patient-Rated Troubling Symptoms for Anxiety (PaRTS-A) is a newly created and validated instrument that measures the symptoms most troublesome to each individual patient and was used to test the hypothesis that adjunctive risperidone improves residual GAD symptoms.

METHODS

Primary care and psychiatry clinicians enrolled adults (n = 417) with GAD and a Clinical Global Impressions of Severity rating ≥ 4 despite ≥ 8 weeks of anxiolytic treatment. Subjects were randomized to adjunctive risperidone or placebo. The primary endpoint was change from baseline to week 4 endpoint in PaRTS-A.

RESULTS

Improvement from baseline to week 4 endpoint in PaRTS-A total score (mean +/-SE) was similar between treatment groups (-8.54 [0.63] and -7.61 [0.64] for adjunctive risperidone and placebo, respectively; P = .265). Patients in each treatment group exhibited significant improvements from baseline in nearly all patient- and clinician-rated measures. A post-hoc analysis of PaRTS-A symptoms of moderate to severe severity at baseline suggested greater improvement with risperidone than placebo (P = .04). Headache, weight increase, and increased appetite were the most frequently reported adverse events in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Residual GAD symptoms assessed by the PaRTS-A improved with either adjunctive risperidone or placebo. Alternative analyses or scoring approaches may improve the ability of the PaRTS-A to provide clinically meaningful information on patient-rated symptoms. Further exploration of the benefits of risperidone in patients with more severe GAD may be indicated.

Gender and schizophrenia

What are the important gender differences seen in men and women with schizophrenia? Although schizophrenia affects men and women with equal frequency, the illness is expressed differently between the sexes. Women with schizophrenia tend to have better premorbid functioning, a later age at onset, a distinct symptom profile and better course of illness, and different structural brain abnormalities and cognitive deficits. Additionally, premenopausal women appear to have a superior response to typical antipsychotics compared to men and postmenopausal women. These gender differences are thought to arise from the interplay between hormonal and psychosocial factors. It has been hypothesized that estrogen, with effects on both neurodevelopment and neurotransmission, may play a protective role in women with schizophrenia and account for some of the gender differences observed in the disorder. Despite the potential benefit of estrogen in this population, women with schizophrenia appear to be at risk for hypoestrogenism, either as a consequence of antipsychotic-induced hyperprolactinemia or, possibly, as a manifestation of the illness itself. The mechanism and consequences of hypoestrogenism in women with schizophrenia, as well as the role for hormonal therapies in this population, require further study.

Effects of risperidone augmentation in patients with treatment-resistant depression: Results of open-label treatment followed by double-blind continuation

Approximately one-third of persons with depression do not respond to antidepressant monotherapy. Studies suggest that atypical antipsychotic augmentation may benefit these patients. We investigated the longer-term efficacy of risperidone augmentation of serotonin-selective reuptake inhibitor treatment for resistant depression. In 57 in- and outpatient centers in three countries, we conducted a three-phase study with 4-6 weeks of open-label citalopram monotherapy, 4-6 weeks of open-label risperidone augmentation, and a 24-week double-blind, placebo-controlled discontinuation phase. A total of 489 patients with major depressive disorder and 1-3 documented treatment failures entered the citalopram monotherapy phase (20-60 mg/day). Patients with <50% reduction in HAM-D-17 scores entered the risperidone augmentation phase (0.25-2.0 mg/day). Patients with HAM-D-17< or =7 or CGI-S < or = 2 were randomized to risperidone or placebo augmentation. The primary outcome was time to relapse during the double-blind phase. During citalopram monotherapy, 434 patients had <50% HAM-D-17 reduction; 299 (68.9%) were fully nonresponsive (<25% reduction) and 135 were partially nonresponsive (25-49% reduction). Of the 386 nonresponders who entered the augmentation phase, 243 remitted and 241 entered the double-blind phase. Median time to relapse was 102 days with risperidone augmentation and 85 days with placebo (NS); relapse rates were 53.3 and 54.6%, respectively. In a post hoc analysis of patients fully nonresponsive to citalopram monotherapy, median time to relapse was 97 days with risperidone augmentation and 56 with placebo (p = 0.05); relapse rates were 56.1 and 64.1%, respectively (p < or = 0.05). Open-label risperidone augmentation substantially enhanced response in treatment-resistant patients, but the longer-term benefits of augmentation were not demonstrated in this study.

An open-label extension trial of risperidone monotherapy in the treatment of bipolar I disorder

The primary objective of this 9-week open-label extension trial was to assess the effects of risperidone monotherapy in patients with acute bipolar I disorder who completed treatment in two preceding 3-week double-blind trials. Patients with DSM-IV bipolar I disorder, experiencing an acute manic episode, received a flexible dose of risperidone (1-6 mg/day) or placebo in two independent double-blind, randomized, 3-week monotherapy trials. Completers who required ongoing treatment were eligible to enter this open-label 9-week extension trial during which all patients received risperidone. The primary efficacy measure was the mean change in the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score. Secondary efficacy measures included the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity Scale, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and Global Assessment Scale. Safety assessments included adverse event reports, laboratory tests, and the Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale (ESRS). Of the 283 patients who entered the extension study, 160 had previously received risperidone (RIS/RIS) in the acute treatment trial and 123 had received placebo (PLA/RIS). This study was completed by 71% of these patients. The mean+/-SE modal dose of risperidone was 4.6+/-1.5 mg/day. Patients in both the RIS/RIS and PLA/RIS groups improved significantly at the endpoint of the 9-week open-label study compared to their open-label baseline scores (-5.2+/-0.69, P<0.001 and -9.12+/-1.44, P<0.001, respectively) on the YMRS. Furthermore, changes from double-blind baseline to open-label endpoint were -29.4+/-1.0 in the RIS/RIS group and -23.9+/-1.4 in the PLA/RIS group. Significant improvements from both double-blind and open-label baseline were seen at week 1 of the open-label trial (P<0.001) and at each subsequent timepoint. A similar pattern was observed on the secondary measures of efficacy. Most frequent adverse events were extrapyramidal disorder (18%) and somnolence (12%). Most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. The mean score for the Parkinsonism subscale of the ESRS was 1.1 at open-label baseline, and decreased by 0.1 at endpoint. Mean increase in body weight from open-label baseline was 0.6 kg in patients treated with placebo in the preceding double-blind trial and 1.2 kg in patients previously treated with risperidone. Risperidone treatment was well tolerated and resulted in further improvement during the 9-week extension, beyond the 3 weeks of acute treatment. Patients switched from placebo to risperidone improved markedly. Risperidone treatment did not induce depression.

Detection and management of comorbidity in patients with schizophrenia

Approximately half of patients with schizophrenia have at least one comorbid psychiatric or medical condition, worsening prognosis and contributing to the high rate of morbidity and mortality. Depression is associated with suicide, the leading cause of premature death in patients with schizophrenia; obsessive-compulsive symptoms may worsen prognosis; alcohol and substance use disorders are associated with a poor outcome; and comorbid medical conditions, including cardiac and pulmonary disease, infectious diseases, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypogonadism, and osteoporosis, are often underrecognized and undertreated. The new generation of antipsychotic medications has improved the potential outcome of patients with schizophrenia. Providing optimal treatment for patients and fully realizing the potential of these new agents require focused attention on detection, recognition, and treatment of comorbid psychiatric and medical conditions in patients with schizophrenia.

Antipsychotic medication, prolactin elevation, and ovarian function in women with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder

Some, but not all, antipsychotics elevate serum prolactin. Antipsychotic-induced hyperprolactinemia is thought to account for high rates of menstrual dysfunction and diminished estrogen levels in women with schizophrenia. However, few studies have directly assessed the relationships between prolactin, menstrual function, and ovarian hormone levels in this population. Sixteen premenopausal women with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder, eight treated with an antipsychotic with prolactin-elevating potential (five with typical antipsychotics and three with risperidone) and eight treated with an antipsychotic with prolactin-sparing potential (seven with olanzapine and one with clozapine), were studied for eight weeks. Data were collected on menstrual functioning and on serum prolactin, estradiol, and progesterone levels, and were compared between subjects who received an antipsychotic with prolactin-elevating potential and an antipsychotic with prolactin-sparing potential, and between subjects with hyperprolactinemia (N=6) and normoprolactinemia (N=10). Additionally, peak ovarian hormone levels were compared to normal values. While mean prolactin levels of subjects who received an antipsychotic with prolactin-elevating potential were significantly greater than those of subjects who received an antipsychotic with prolactin-sparing potential, there were no differences in rates of menstrual dysfunction or in ovarian hormone values between the two groups. Additionally, similar rates of menstrual dysfunction and ovarian hormone values were observed between the hyperprolactinemic and normoprolactinemic subjects. Moreover, irrespective of medication type or prolactin status, most subjects had peak estradiol levels below normal reference values for the periovulatory phase of the menstrual cycle. While our sample size is small, warranting the need for further investigation, the findings of this preliminary study suggest that antipsychotic-induced hyperprolactinemia, alone, may not adequately explain the observed ovarian dysfunction in women with schizophrenia.

Clozapine restores water balance in schizophrenic patients with polydipsia-hyponatremia syndrome

Hyponatremia/hypoosmolemia causes marked morbidity and prolongs hospital stays in a significant subset of schizophrenic patients. Case reports with methodological limitations suggest clozapine ameliorates this water imbalance. To more conclusively assess this possibility, we completed a 24-week open-label study in 8 male polydipsic hypoosmolemic schizophrenic inpatients. Subjects were treated initially for 6 weeks with a conventional neuroleptic, which was replaced by 300, 600, and 900 (if tolerated) mg/day of clozapine for sequential 6-week periods. On clozapine, mean plasma osmolality rose an average of 15.2 mosm/kg (95% CI: 5.5-25.0). Dosage of 300 mg/day of clozapine was sufficient to normalize plasma osmolality and was generally well tolerated. Clozapine appears to be the first effective pharmacotherapy for severe water imbalance in schizophrenia.

The evaluation of women with schizophrenia

Schizophrenia affects approximately 1 percent of the population worldwide. Its manifestation and response to treatment are often different in women and men and sex hormones, such as estrogen, may help to explain some of these phenomenological and clinical differences. This article reviews important sex differences in symptom expression and treatment response of schizophrenia and focuses on gender-specific factors, such as motherhood, that require specific methods of assessment in women with the disorder. The evaluation of suicide risk, substance abuse, and medical comorbidity in women with schizophrenia is also addressed. Particular attention is paid to the evaluation needs of women receiving antipsychotics, some of which elevate serum prolactin levels.

Does minimizing neuroleptic dosage influence hyponatremia?

Neuroleptic dosage was reduced by 10% every 2 weeks in five male hyponatremic polydipsic patients with schizophrenia. Mean dose fell from 1980 +/- 1289 to 631 +/- 135 chlorpromazine equivalents/day over a mean of 12.2 weeks until behavioral relapse occurred. During this time, serum sodium did not vary from baseline levels (132.9 +/- 4.9 mEq/1), suggesting that minimizing neuroleptic dose does not alter the severity of hyponatremia in these patients.