Diagnostic Trends and Prescription Patterns in Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder and Bipolar Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Disruptive mood dysregulation disorder (DMDD) was introduced in DSM-5 to distinguish a subset of chronically irritable youth who may be incorrectly diagnosed and/or treated for pediatric bipolar disorder (BPD). This study characterized the rate of new treatment episodes and treated prevalence of BPD and DMDD from a longitudinal electronic health record database and examined the impact of DMDD on prescription trends. METHOD: A retrospective cohort study using 2008-2018 Optum electronic health record data was conducted. Youth aged 10 to < 18 years with ≥ 183 days of database enrollment before the study cohort entry were included. Annual new treatment episode rates per 1,000 patient-years and treated prevalence (%) were estimated. Prescriptions for medications, concomitant diagnoses, and acute mental health service use for 2016-2018 were evaluated. RESULTS: There were 7,677 youths with DMDD and 6,480 youths with BPD identified. Mean age (13-15 years) and ethnicity were similar for both groups. A rise in new treatment episode rates (0.87-1.75 per 1,000 patient-years, p < .0001) and treated prevalence (0.08%-0.35%, p < .0001) of DMDD diagnoses (2016-2018) following diagnosis inception was paralleled by decreasing new treatment episode rates (1.22-1.14 per 1,000 patient-years, p < .01) and treated prevalence (0.42%-0.36%, p < .0001) of BPD diagnoses (2015-2018). More youth in the DMDD group were prescribed medications compared with the BPD group (81.9% vs 69.4%), including antipsychotics (58.9% vs 51.0%). Higher proportions of youth with DMDD vs youth with BPD had disruptive behavior disorders (eg, 35.9% vs 20.5% had oppositional defiant disorder), and required inpatient hospitalization related to their mental health disorder (45.0% vs 33.0%). CONCLUSION: Diagnosis of DMDD has had rapid uptake in clinical practice but is associated with increased antipsychotic and polypharmacy prescriptions and higher rates of comorbidity and inpatient hospitalization in youth with a DMDD diagnosis compared with a BPD diagnosis.

Lack of an Effect of Supratherapeutic Dose of Venlafaxine on Cardiac Repolarization in Healthy Subjects.

This single-center, randomized, 3-way crossover thorough QT study evaluated the effect of steady-state supratherapeutic venlafaxine (Effexor) on cardiac repolarization. Fifty-four healthy adults received double-blinded extended-release venlafaxine 450 mg/d and placebo and open-label positive-control moxifloxacin 400 mg. The postdose QT intervals corrected for heart rate using the Fridericia formula (QTcF) were assessed on day 14 with an analysis of covariance using a mixed-effects model. At each time, the upper bound of the 2-sided 90%CI for time-matched least-squares (LS) mean difference between venlafaxine and placebo did not exceed the predefined cutoff of 10 milliseconds; the highest 90%CI upper bound was 5.8 milliseconds 24 hours postdose, demonstrating the lack of effect of venlafaxine on the QTc interval (primary objective). Assay sensitivity was established because the lower bound of the 2-sided 90%CI for LS mean difference in QTcF between moxifloxacin and placebo was 7.413 milliseconds on day 14 (postdose 3 hours). The exposure-response analysis demonstrated no evidence of increase in QTcF with increase in venlafaxine and desvenlafaxine concentrations. Also, supratherapeutic venlafaxine was found to be safe and well tolerated. Overall, the results demonstrated the lack of significant prolongation of the QTc interval with supratherapeutic venlafaxine 450 mg/d.

A Thorough QT Study to Evaluate the Effects of a Supratherapeutic Dose of Sertraline on Cardiac Repolarization in Healthy Subjects.

The effect of steady-state supratherapeutic sertraline (Zoloft) on QT interval was assessed in a single-center, randomized, 3-way crossover, double-blind, placebo- and moxifloxacin-controlled thorough QT study. Healthy adults received sertraline 400 mg/day, moxifloxacin 400 mg, and placebo, with a washout period (≥14 days) between treatments. A 12-lead electrocardiogram was recorded in triplicate before dosing and at selected time points up to 72 hours after dosing. Analysis of covariance using a mixed-effect model with sequence, period, treatment, time, and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects; subject within sequence as a random effect; and baseline QT corrected for heart rate using Fridericia formula (QTcF) as a covariate was conducted. A 90% confidence interval for the least squares (LS) mean difference in QTcF between active treatment and placebo was computed for each postdose time point. Exposure-response was assessed using linear mixed-effect modeling. Fifty-four subjects were enrolled. Over 24 hours after dosing, the LS mean difference in QTcF for sertraline versus placebo ranged from 5.597 milliseconds to 9.651 milliseconds. The upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the LS mean difference exceeded a predefined 10-millisecond significance threshold at the 4-hour postdose time point only (LS mean, 9.651 milliseconds [90% confidence interval, 7.635-11.666]). In the exposure-response analysis, QTcF values increased significantly with increasing sertraline concentration (slope = 0.036 milliseconds/ng/mL; P < .0001). Predicted change from baseline in QTcF at therapeutic maximum plasma sertraline concentration was 3.57 milliseconds. This thorough QTc study demonstrated a positive signal for QTc prolongation for sertraline at the steady-state 400-mg/day dose.

Assessment of Suicidal Ideation and Behavior: Report of the International Society for CNS Clinical Trials and Methodology Consensus Meeting.

OBJECTIVE: To develop consensus recommendations for assessment of suicidal ideation/suicidal behavior (SI/SB) in clinical trials. PARTICIPANTS: Stakeholders from academia, industry, regulatory agencies, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Mental Health, and patient advocacy organizations participated in a consensus meeting that was sponsored by the International Society for CNS Clinical Trials and Methodology and held November 17-18, 2015. Prior to the meeting, teams of experts identified key areas of consensus and dissent related to SI/SB. The most critical issues were presented and discussed in the consensus meeting. EVIDENCE: Literature reviews and a pre-meeting survey were conducted. Findings were discussed in pre-meeting working group sessions and at the consensus meeting. CONSENSUS PROCESS: Five pre-meeting working groups reviewed (1) nomenclature and classification schemes for SI/SB, (2) detection and assessment of SI/SB, (3) analysis of SI/SB data, (4) design of clinical trials for new treatments of SI/SB, and (5) public health approaches to SI/SB. A modification of the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to combine review of scientific evidence with the collective views of experts and stakeholders to reach the final consensus statements. After discussion, all attendees voted using an electronic interactive audience response system. Areas of agreement and areas of continuing dissent were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: All 5 working groups agreed that a major barrier to advancement of the field of SI/SB research and the development of new treatments for SI/SB remains the lack of a universally accepted standardized nomenclature and classification system. Achieving alignment on definitions and classification of suicide-related phenomena is critical to improving the detection and assessment of SI/SB, the design of clinical trials for new treatments, and effective public health interventions.

Prospective assessment of suicidal ideation and behavior: an internet survey of pharmaceutical sponsor practices.

OBJECTIVE: To survey the current approaches of clinical trial sponsors in prospective suicidal ideation and behavior assessments and challenges encountered. DESIGN: An internet-based survey. SETTING: Inclusion of prospective assessments of suicidal ideation and behavior in industry-sponsored clinical studies were required following the release of the September 2010 United States Federal Drug Administration draft guidance. The International Society for CNS Clinical Trials and Methodology Suicidal Ideation and Behavior Assessment Workgroup conducted an online survey to understand industry practices and experiences in implementing suicidal ideation and behavior assessments in clinical trials. PARTICIPANTS: The survey was sent to 1,447 industry employees at 178 pharmaceutical companies. A total of 89 evaluable responses, representing 39 companies, were obtained. MEASUREMENTS: A 30-item internet survey was developed asking about potential challenges and issues in implementing prospective suicidal ideation and behavior assessments. RESULTS: Common factors in deciding whether to include suicidal ideation and behavior assessments in a clinical trial were psychiatric or neurologic drug product (95%); central nervous system activity (78%); disease (74%) and patient population (71%); and regulatory announcements and policies (74%). The most common challenges in implementing suicidal ideation and behavior assessments included cross-cultural differences in acceptance of SIB assessments (40%); obtaining adequate baseline history (36.8%); obtaining translations (35%); investigator/rater discomfort with asking about suicidal ideation and behavior (32%); and inadequate training of raters to administer suicidal ideation and behavior ratings (30%). CONCLUSION: Among sponsors surveyed, the implementation rate of suicidal ideation and behavior assessment in central nervous systems studies is very high. Most have used the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale. Challenges regarding standardization of retrospective assessment timeframes and differing approaches to summarizing and analyzing suicidal ideation and behavior-related study data were frequently reported. These results suggest that inconsistent reports of suicidal ideation and behavior within study datasets may occur and that integration of data across studies remains a concern.

Study Site Experiences and Attitudes Toward Prospective Assessments of Suicidal Ideation and Behavior in Clinical Trials: Results of an Internet-based Survey.

OBJECTIVE: The International Society for CNS Clinical Trials and Methodology Suicidal Ideation and Behavior Assessment Working Group conducted an online survey regarding clinical trial site experiences and attitudes toward suicidal ideation and behavior data collection following the 2010 release of the initial United States Food and Drug Administration draft guidance on prospective assessment of suicidal ideation and behavior in clinical trials. Sites that had participated in at least one central nervous system clinical trial in the prior two years (N=6,058) were invited, via email, to complete a 20-item online assessment survey. RESULTS: Nine hundred and seventy-nine evaluable responses were collected (42% United States). Respondents included principal investigators (36%), raters (28%), coordinators (25%), and others (10%). The majority were psychiatrists (43%) and reported using suicidal ideation and behavior assessments across many indications. Most respondents (80%) personally conducted suicidal ideation and behavior assessments. Overall, respondents indicated that suicidal ideation and behavior assessments were readily incorporated into the conduct of clinical trials and improved subject safety. The greatest challenge was obtaining an accurate baseline lifetime history (51%), while the greatest benefit was identifying subjects at risk of suicide (84%). Approximately a quarter of respondents reported implementation challenges such as training. Differences based on geographical region, respondents' roles, and responsibility for assessments were observed. Open-ended responses revealed additional challenges, e.g., use in cognitively impaired populations. CONCLUSION: Prospective suicidal ideation and behavior monitoring was generally viewed positively, though specific challenges were identified. Limitations include self-report survey methodology and recruitment of only central nervous system clinical trials sites. These findings may help guide development of better methodologies for suicidal ideation and behavior assessment in clinical trials.

Efficacy and safety of adjunctive oral ziprasidone for acute treatment of depression in patients with bipolar I disorder: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess efficacy and safety of adjunctive ziprasidone in subjects with bipolar depression treated with lithium, lamotrigine, or valproate. METHOD: 298 adult outpatients with bipolar I disorder (DSM-IV criteria) were randomized to receive ziprasidone, 20-80 mg twice a day, or placebo twice a day for 6 weeks plus their preexisting mood stabilizer. The primary efficacy variable was change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total scores from baseline to 6 weeks. The key secondary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 6 in Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) scores. Computer-administered assessments for diagnostic confidence were included for quality control and to evaluate study performance. The study was conducted between October 2007 and December 2008. RESULTS: The mean ± SD daily dose of ziprasidone was 89.8 ± 29.1 mg. Least squares mean ± standard error changes from baseline to week 6 on MADRS total score for ziprasidone and placebo treatment groups were -13.2 ± 1.2 and -12.9 ± 1.1, respectively, with a 2-sided P value of .792. There was no significant difference on the key secondary variable (CGI-S). Adjunctive ziprasidone was well tolerated. Poor quality ratings at baseline were associated with a trend for better improvement on placebo than ziprasidone. Among 43 placebo-treated subjects with poor baseline quality ratings, 29 (67.4%) had baseline MADRS scores > 10 points higher on the computer-administered assessment than the MADRS administered by the site-based rater. The response favoring placebo over ziprasidone observed in this subgroup suggests that poor signal detection in some clinical trials can be a consequence of "subject inflation" as well as "rater inflation." CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive ziprasidone treatment failed to separate from mood stabilizer alone on primary and secondary endpoints. Possible contributions to this result include enrollment of a substantial number of subjects with low diagnostic confidence, low quality ratings on the MADRS, and overzealous reporting of symptoms by subjects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinical trials.gov Identifier: NCT00483548.

Acute changes in cerebrospinal fluid 5-HIAA following oral paroxetine challenge in healthy humans.

A number of studies have reported decreased human lumbar cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) concentrations of the major serotonin metabolite, 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA), following chronic administration of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). This decrease has been thought to be a consequence of elevated extracellular serotonin and to be mediated through terminal autoreceptor feedback inhibition of serotonin turnover. We wished to study the previously unexamined acute effects of SSRI administration on human CSF 5-HIAA. A serial lumbar puncture (LP) procedure was used to collect CSF samples before and after a single oral 40 mg dose of the SSRI paroxetine (PAR) or matching placebo in eight healthy adult humans in a randomized, double-blind fashion. CSF 5-HIAA concentrations did not change following placebo, but showed a statistically significant 27% mean increase 3 h following PAR. Our findings stand in contrast to the decreases reported for CSF 5-HIAA after chronic SSRI treatment in humans and the decreases seen in brain extracellular 5-HIAA after acute or chronic administration of SSRIs to animals.