Development of a straightforward and sensitive scale for MCI and early AD clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Although the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes score (CDR-SB) is a widely accepted and commonly used global scale, validated clinical endpoints of cognitive changes are unavailable in the predementia stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD), and a new clinical assessment with reliability and sensitivity is needed in the mild cognitive impairment (MCI) population. METHODS: Using Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI)-1/GO data, signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) were calculated to quantify the sensitivity of a measure for detecting disease progression and hypothetical treatment effects. All possible combinations of selected sensitive measures were assessed for developing composite scores. The analyses were performed in the MCI population and subpopulations enriched by apolipoprotein E4 (APOE ε4), hippocampal volume, and cerebrospinal fluid ß-amyloid. RESULTS: The best composite score was "Word Recall + Delayed Word Recall + Orientation + CDR-SB + FAQ", more sensitive than 13-item Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale or CDR-SB. CONCLUSION: The proposed composite score derived from the existing clinical endpoints demonstrated higher sensitivity in the MCI population and is easy to implement and standardize across studies.

Perspectives on clinical trial data transparency and disclosure.

The increased demand for transparency and disclosure of data from clinical trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies poses considerable challenges and opportunities from a statistical perspective. A central issue is the need to protect patient privacy and adhere to Good Clinical and Statistical Practices, while ensuring access to patient-level data from clinical trials to the wider research community. This paper offers options to navigate this dilemma and balance competing priorities, with emphasis on the role of good clinical and statistical practices as proven safeguards for scientific integrity, the importance of adopting best practices for reporting of data from secondary analyses, and the need for optimal collaboration among stakeholders to facilitate data sharing.

Effects of high-dose ziprasidone and haloperidol on the QTc interval after intramuscular administration: a randomized, single-blind, parallel-group study in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic agents have been associated with a prolonged QT interval. Data on the effects of ziprasidone and haloperidol on the QTc interval are lacking. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to characterize the effects of 2 high-dose intramuscular injections of ziprasidone and haloperidol on the QTc interval at T(max). METHODS: This randomized, single-blind study enrolled patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder in whom long-term antipsychotic therapy was indicated. Patients were randomized to receive 2 high-dose intramuscular injections of ziprasidone (20 and 30 mg) or haloperidol (7.5 and 10 mg) separated by 4 hours. The primary outcome measure was the mean change from baseline in QTc at the T(max) of each injection. Each dose administration was followed by serial ECG and blood sampling for pharmacokinetic determinations. Twelve-lead ECG data were obtained immediately before and at predetermined times after injections. ECG tracings were read by a blinded central reader. Blood samples were obtained immediately before and after injections. Point estimates and 95% CIs for mean QTc and changes from baseline in QTc were estimated. No between-group hypothesis tests were conducted. For the assessments of tolerability and safety profile, patients underwent physical examination, including measurement of vital signs, clinical laboratory evaluation, and monitoring for adverse events (AEs) using spontaneous reporting. RESULTS: A total of 59 patients were assigned to treatment, and 58 received study medication (ziprasidone, 31 patients; haloperidol, 27; age range, 21-72 years; 79% male). After the first injection, mean (95% CI) changes from baseline were 4.6 msec (0.4-8.9) with ziprasidone (n = 25) and 6.0 msec (1.4-10.5) with haloperidol (n = 24). After the second injection, these values were 12.8 msec (6.7-18.8) and 14.7 msec (10.2-19.2), respectively. Mild and transient changes in heart rate and blood pressure were observed with both treatments. None of the patients had a QTc interval >480 msec. Two patients in the ziprasidone group experienced QTc prolongation >450 msec (457 and 454 msec) and QTc changes that exceeded 60 msec (62 and 76 msec) relative to the time-matched baseline values. With haloperidol, QTc interval values were <450 msec with no changes >60 msec. Treatment-emergent AEs were reported in 29 of 31 patients (93.5%) in the ziprasidone group and 25 of 27 patients (92.6%) in the haloperidol group; most events were of mild or moderate severity. Frequently reported AEs were somnolence (90.3% and 81.5%, respectively), dizziness (22.6% and 7.4%), anxiety (16.1% and 7.4%), extrapyramidal symptoms (6.5% and 33.3%), agitation (6.5% and 18.5%), and insomnia (0% and 14.8%). CONCLUSIONS: In this study of the effects of high-dose ziprasidone and haloperidol in patients with schizophrenic disorder, none of the patients had a QTc interval >480 msec, and changes from baseline QTc interval were clinically modest with both drugs. Both drugs were generally well tolerated.

The anxiolytic effect of the novel antipsychotic ziprasidone compared with diazepam in subjects anxious before dental surgery.

The novel atypical antipsychotic ziprasidone has a pharmacologic profile notable for potent agonism of serotonin (5-HT)1A receptors, antagonism at 5-HT1D receptors, and reuptake inhibition of norepinephrine. 5-HT1A receptor agonism, in particular, suggests anxiolytic activity, and ziprasidone has shown preliminary efficacy in treating the symptoms of anxiety associated with psychotic disorders. In this study, the anxiolytic efficacy of ziprasidone was evaluated in nonpsychotic subjects who were anxious before undergoing minor dental surgery. We compared a single oral dose of 20 mg ziprasidone (N = 30) with that of 10 mg diazepam (N = 30) and placebo (N = 30) in a randomized, parallel-group, double-blind study. The peak anxiolytic effect of ziprasidone compared with that of placebo was similar to that of diazepam but had a later onset. At 3 hours postdose, the anxiolytic effect of ziprasidone was significantly greater than that of placebo (p < 0.05) and somewhat greater than that of diazepam. Diazepam showed a significantly greater anxiolytic effect than placebo at 1 hour (p < 0.05) but not at 3 hours. The sedative effect of ziprasidone was never greater than that of placebo, whereas that of diazepam was significantly greater than that of placebo 1 to 1.5 hours postdose. Ziprasidone was generally well tolerated. Only one patient reported treatment-related adverse events (nausea and vomiting) and, unlike diazepam, ziprasidone did not cause reductions in blood pressure. Dystonia, extrapyramidal syndrome, akathisia, and postural hypotension were not seen with ziprasidone. Thus, ziprasidone may possess anxiolytic effects in addition to its antipsychotic properties.