Association of C-reactive protein and metabolic risk with cognitive effects of lurasidone in patients with schizophrenia

BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence has implicated insulin resistance and inflammation in the pathophysiology of cognitive impairments associated with neuropsychiatric disorders. This post-hoc analysis based on a placebo-controlled trial investigated the effect of inflammation (indexed by CRP) and metabolic risk factors on cognitive performance in patients with schizophrenia treated with lurasidone. METHODS: Acutely exacerbated patients with schizophrenia were randomized to lurasidone (80 or 160 mg/day), quetiapine XR 600 mg/day, or placebo. A wide range CRP test and a cognitive assessment using the CogState computerized battery were performed at baseline and week 6 study endpoint. Associations between log-transformed CRP, high density lipoprotein (HDL), homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) and treatment response were evaluated. RESULTS: CRP combined with HDL, triglyceride-to-HDL (TG/HDL) ratio, or HOMA-IR at study baseline were significant moderators of the improvement in cognitive performance associated with lurasidone 160 mg/day (vs. placebo) treatment (p \u3c .05). Greater placebo-corrected treatment effect size on the CogState composite score was observed for patients in the lurasidone 160 mg/day treatment group who had either low CRP and high HDL (d = 0.43), or low CRP and low HOMA-IR (d = 0.46). Interactive relationships between CRP, HDL, TG/HDL, HOMA-IR and the antipsychotic efficacy of lurasidone or quetiapine XR were not significant. There were no significant associations between antipsychotic treatment and changes in CRP level at study endpoint. CONCLUSIONS: Findings of this post-hoc analysis based on a placebo-controlled trial in patients with schizophrenia suggest that baseline CRP level combined with measures of metabolic risk significantly moderated the improvement in cognitive performance associated with lurasidone 160 mg/day (vs. placebo) treatment. Our findings underscore the importance of maintaining a low metabolic risk profile in patients with schizophrenia

Augmentation treatment in major depressive disorder: focus on aripiprazole.

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a disabling psychiatric condition for which effective treatment remains an outstanding need. Antidepressants are currently the mainstay of treatment for depression; however, almost two-thirds of patients will fail to achieve remission with initial treatment. As a result, a range of augmentation and combination strategies have been used in order to improve outcomes for patients. Despite the popularity of these approaches, limited data from double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies are available to allow clinicians to determine which are the most effective augmentation options or which patients are most likely to respond to which options. Recently, evidence has shown that adjunctive therapy with atypical antipsychotics has the potential for beneficial antidepressant effects in the absence of psychotic symptoms. In particular, aripiprazole has shown efficacy as an augmentation option with standard antidepressant therapy in two, large, randomized, double-blind studies. Based on these efficacy and safety data, aripiprazole was recently approved by the FDA as adjunctive therapy for MDD. The availability of this new treatment option should allow more patients with MDD to achieve remission and, ultimately, long-term, successful outcomes

Augmentation treatment in major depressive disorder: focus on aripiprazole

J Craig Nelson1, Andrei Pikalov2, Robert M Berman31University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA; 2Otsuka Pharmaceutical Inc., Rockville, MD, USA; 3Bristol-Myers Squibb, Wallingford, CT, USAAbstract: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a disabling psychiatric condition for which effective treatment remains an outstanding need. Antidepressants are currently the mainstay of treatment for depression; however, almost two-thirds of patients will fail to achieve remission with initial treatment. As a result, a range of augmentation and combination strategies have been used in order to improve outcomes for patients. Despite the popularity of these approaches, limited data from double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies are available to allow clinicians to determine which are the most effective augmentation options or which patients are most likely to respond to which options. Recently, evidence has shown that adjunctive therapy with atypical antipsychotics has the potential for beneficial antidepressant effects in the absence of psychotic symptoms. In particular, aripiprazole has shown efficacy as an augmentation option with standard antidepressant therapy in two, large, randomized, double-blind studies. Based on these efficacy and safety data, aripiprazole was recently approved by the FDA as adjunctive therapy for MDD. The availability of this new treatment option should allow more patients with MDD to achieve remission and, ultimately, long-term, successful outcomes.Keywords: major depression, antipsychotic, mood disorder, aripiprazol

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

BACKGROUND: Patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia are at an increased risk for developing metabolic syndrome, which is associated with greater cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Treatment with some commonly used antipsychotic medications may increase the risk of developing metabolic syndrome. The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety of lurasidone in patients who continued lurasidone or switched from risperidone to lurasidone. A secondary aim was assessment of the effect of long-term lurasidone on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). METHODS: The treatment sample in the current study consisted of clinically stable patients with schizophrenia (N = 223) who had completed a 12-month, double-blind study of lurasidone vs. risperidone. In the current extension study, all patients received 6 months of open-label treatment with lurasidone, either continuing lurasidone assigned during the preceding double-blind trial, or switching from double-blind risperidone to lurasidone. Safety and tolerability parameters included body weight, prolactin, and metabolic laboratory tests. RESULTS: Six months of OL treatment with lurasidone was generally well-tolerated, with a low incidence of parkinsonism (4.5%) and akathisia (3.1%). Overall, few adverse events were rated as severe (4.9%), and discontinuation due to an adverse event was low in the lurasidone continuation vs. risperidone switch groups (3.7% vs. 6.9%). In the lurasidone continuation versus risperidone switch groups, change from OL baseline to 6-month endpoint (observed case) was observed in mean body weight (- 0.6 vs. -2.6 kg), median total cholesterol (- 4.0 vs. + 4.5 mg/dL), triglycerides (- 4.5 vs. -5.5 mg/dL), glucose (0.0 vs. -3.0 mg/dL) and prolactin (males, + 0.15 vs. -11.2 ng/mL; females, + 1.3 vs. -30.8 ng/mL). Improvement in PANSS total score was maintained, from OL baseline to endpoint in the continuation vs. switch groups (+ 1.0 vs. -1.0; OC). CONCLUSIONS: In this 6-month extension study, lurasidone treatment was generally well-tolerated and associated with minimal effects on weight, metabolic parameters, and prolactin levels. Patients who switched from risperidone to lurasidone experienced reductions in weight, metabolic parameters and prolactin levels commensurate with increases in these safety parameters experienced during the previous 12 months of treatment with risperidone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00641745 (Date of Registration: March 24, 2008)

Assessing the Benefit-Risk Ratio of Approved Treatments for Bipolar Depression Using Likelihood to Be Helped or Harmed (LHH) Analyses

Background Four medications are FDA approved for bipolar depression: lurasidone (LUR), cariprazine (CAR), quetiapine IR & XR (QUE), and olanzapine-fluoxetine combination (OFC). Indirect comparisons for efficacy using Number Needed to Treat (NNT) and for tolerability using Number Needed to Harm (NNH) can be useful clinical benchmarks to aid treatment decisions. Benefit and risk may also be examined using the Likelihood to be Helped or Harmed (LHH). In this post-hoc analysis, we examined the benefit-risk ratio of the four treatments using LHH. Method Individual and pooled monotherapy data from short-term clinical registration trials of patients with bipolar depression were assessed for LUR, CAR, pooled QUE (300 and 600 mg), and pooled OFC (considered as monotherapy for this study at fixed doses of 6/25, 6/50, 12/50 mg) data. NNT estimates were calculated using the proportions of MADRS responders (defined as ≥ 50% improvement at study endpoint) and MADRS remitters (defined as a score of ≤ 10 [for LUR and CAR] and ≤ 12 [for QUE and OFC]) at study endpoint. NNH data were calculated for the proportions of patients who discontinued due to an adverse event (AE) and for individual AEs commonly associated with each treatment. LHH was calculated as the ratio of NNH/NNT to determine the benefit-risk ratio. Results The NNT estimates for response vs. placebo were: 5 for both LUR 20–60 mg and 80–120 mg; 10 for both CAR 1.5 mg and 3.0 mg; 6 for QUE; and 4 for OFC. The NNTs for remission vs placebo were: 7 for LUR 20–60 mg and 9 for LUR 80–120 mg; 10 for CAR 1.5 mg and 13 for CAR 3.0 mg; 6 for QUE; and 5 for OFC. The NNH estimates for discontinuations due to AEs were: 642 for LUR 20–60 mg and −151 for LUR 80–120 mg; 298 for CAR 1.5 mg and 31 for CAR 3.0 mg; 10 for QUE; and −37 for OFC. NNH values that were negative were assigned a value of 1000 to permit LHH to be calculated. The LHHs for response vs discontinuation due to an AE were: 128.4 for LUR 20–60 mg and 200 for LUR 80–120 mg; 29.8 for CAR 1.5 mg and 3.1 for CAR 3.0 mg; 1.7 for QUE; and 250 for OFC. The LHHs for response vs akathisia were: 3.6 for LUR 20–60 mg and 2.4 for LUR 80–120 mg; 3.6 for CAR 1.5 mg and 1.3 for CAR 3.0 mg; 34 for QUE; and not available (NA) for OFC. The LHHs for response vs EPS were: 8 for LUR 20–60 mg and 3.2 for LUR 80–120 mg; 5 for CAR 1.5 mg and 2.5 for CAR 3.0 mg; NA for QUE; and NA for OFC. The LHH for response vs weight gain was 5.8 for LUR 20–60 mg and 1110 for LUR 80–120 mg; 5 for both doses of CAR; 2.7 for QUE; and 1.5 for OFC. Conclusions LHH can illustrate the trade-offs regarding potential benefits versus potential harms. Across a variety of measures, the lower-dose groups for both LUR and CAR generally evidenced a better benefit-risk profile than the higher-dose groups. While quetiapine and OFC demonstrated robust efficacy, their reduced tolerability resulted in a more marginal benefit-risk ratio for some of the outcomes