A Randomized Trial of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells for Moderate to Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome from COVID-19.

Rationale: There are limited therapeutic options for patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-related acute respiratory distress syndrome with inflammation-mediated lung injury. Mesenchymal stromal cells offer promise as immunomodulatory agents. Objectives: Evaluation of efficacy and safety of allogeneic mesenchymal cells in mechanically-ventilated patients with moderate or severe COVID-19-induced respiratory failure. Methods: Patients were randomized to two infusions of 2 million cells/kg or sham infusions, in addition to the standard of care. We hypothesized that cell therapy would be superior to sham control for the primary endpoint of 30-day mortality. The key secondary endpoint was ventilator-free survival within 60 days, accounting for deaths and withdrawals in a ranked analysis. Measurements and Main Results: At the third interim analysis, the data and safety monitoring board recommended that the trial halt enrollment as the prespecified mortality reduction from 40% to 23% was unlikely to be achieved (n = 222 out of planned 300). Thirty-day mortality was 37.5% (42/112) in cell recipients versus 42.7% (47/110) in control patients (relative risk [RR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.21; P = 0.43). There were no significant differences in days alive off ventilation within 60 days (median rank, 117.3 [interquartile range, 60.0-169.5] in cell patients and 102.0 [interquartile range, 54.0-162.5] in control subjects; higher is better). Resolution or improvement of acute respiratory distress syndrome at 30 days was observed in 51/104 (49.0%) cell recipients and 46/106 (43.4%) control patients (odds ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-3.21). There were no infusion-related toxicities and overall serious adverse events over 30 days were similar. Conclusions: Mesenchymal cells, while safe, did not improve 30-day survival or 60-day ventilator-free days in patients with moderate and/or severe COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Mesenchymal stromal cell therapy for acute respiratory distress syndrome due to coronavirus disease 2019.

BACKGROUND AIMS: The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) resulting from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with a massive release of inflammatory cytokines and high mortality. Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) have anti-inflammatory properties and have shown activity in treating acute lung injury. Here the authors report a case series of 11 patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS (CARDS) requiring mechanical ventilation who were treated with remestemcel-L, an allogeneic MSC product, under individual patient emergency investigational new drug applications. METHODS: Patients were eligible if they were mechanically ventilated for less than 72 h prior to the first infusion. Patients with pre-existing lung disease requiring supplemental oxygen or severe liver or kidney injury were excluded. Each patient received two infusions of remestemcel-L at a dose of 2 million cells/kg per infusion given 48-120 h apart. RESULTS: Remestemcel-L infusions were well tolerated in all 11 patients. At the end of the 28-day follow-up period, 10 (91%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 59-100%) patients were extubated, nine (82%, 95% CI, 48-97%) patients remained liberated from mechanical ventilation and were discharged from the intensive care unit and two (18%, 95 CI%, 2-52%) patients died. The median time to extubation was 10 days. Eight (73%, 95% CI, 34-100%) patients were discharged from the hospital. C-reactive protein levels significantly declined within 5 days of MSC infusion. CONCLUSIONS: The authors demonstrate in this case series that remestemcel-L infusions to treat moderate to severe CARDS were safe and well tolerated and resulted in improved clinical outcomes.

GBR 830, an anti-OX40, improves skin gene signatures and clinical scores in patients with atopic dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: GBR 830 is a humanized mAb against OX40, a costimulatory receptor on activated T cells. OX40 inhibition might have a therapeutic role in T cell-mediated diseases, including atopic dermatitis (AD). OBJECTIVE: This exploratory phase 2a study investigated the safety, efficacy, and tissue effects of GBR 830 in patients with AD. METHODS: Patients with moderate-to-severe AD (affected body surface area, ≥10%; Eczema Area and Severity Index score, ≥12; and inadequate response to topical treatments) were randomized 3:1 to 10 mg/kg intravenous GBR 830 or placebo on day 1 (baseline) and day 29. Biopsy specimens were collected (n = 40) at days 1, 29, and 71. Primary end points included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and changes from baseline in biomarkers (epidermal hyperplasia/cytokines) at days 29 and 71. RESULTS: GBR 830 was well tolerated, with equal TEAE distribution (GBR 830, 63.0% [29/46]; placebo, 63.0% [10/16]). One serious TEAE in the GBR 830 group was deemed unrelated to study drug. At day 71, the proportion of intent-to-treat subjects achieving 50% or greater improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index score was greater with GBR 830 (76.9% [20/26]) versus placebo (37.5% [3/8]). GBR 830 induced significant progressive reductions in TH1 (IFN-γ/CXCL10), TH2 (IL-31/CCL11/CCL17), and TH17/TH22 (IL-23p19/IL-8/S100A12) mRNA expression in lesional skin. Significant progressive reductions until day 71 in the drug group were seen in OX40+ T cells and OX40L+ dendritic cells (P < .001). Hyperplasia measures (thickness/keratin 16/Ki67) showed greater reductions with GBR 830 (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Two doses of GBR 830 administered 4 weeks apart were well tolerated and induced significant progressive tissue and clinical changes until day 71 (42 days after the last dose), highlighting the potential of OX40 targeting in patients with AD.

Review of outcomes associated with restricted access to atypical antipsychotics.

OBJECTIVES: Cost containment policies, such as prior authorization (PA), have increasingly been used by formulary decision makers to manage drug spending of the atypical antipsychotic (AAP) drug class. However, these drug cost containment policies may result in cost shifting rather than cost savings. Given the interest in coordination of care, the objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of restricted access to AAPs on healthcare costs and health outcomes in individuals with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. STUDY DESIGN: Narrative literature review. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE (via PubMed) for studies published between January 1993 and December 2013. RESULTS: A total of 15 published studies were identified that evaluated restricted access to AAPs in regard to healthcare costs or health outcomes: 11 studies assessed PAs, 2 studies assessed carve-outs, 1 study assessed a payment limit (cap), and 1 study assessed Medicare Part D cost sharing. Among 8 studies evaluating changes in pharmacy costs and clinical outcomes, 5 studies reported that formulary restrictions were associated with pharmacy cost savings and increases in healthcare utilization or treatment discontinuation. Of the 4 studies that measured overall cost changes, 3 studies reported increases in overall cost burden and 1 study showed modest cost savings associated with formulary restrictions. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings revealed there exists a gap in the literature as to whether restricted access to AAPs results in overall cost savings or, rather, shifts the cost burden from pharmacy spending to other parts of the healthcare system, such as service utilization.

Cost-effectiveness of lurasidone vs aripiprazole among patients with schizophrenia who have previously failed on an atypical antipsychotic: an indirect comparison of outcomes from clinical trial data.

OBJECTIVE: Compare long-term costs and outcomes of lurasidone to aripiprazole among adults with schizophrenia in the US who previously failed ≥1 atypical antipsychotic (olanzapine, risperidone, quetiapine, or ziprasidone) based on an indirect comparison of outcomes data from clinical trials. METHODS: A 5-year Markov cohort model was developed to compare long-term effectiveness of lurasidone to aripiprazole, including total discontinuations, relapse rates, and hospitalization rates. Cost inputs included pharmacy, mental health, and medical costs associated with cardiometabolic risks (diabetes and cardiovascular [CV] events). Effectiveness inputs were derived from an indirect comparison of aripiprazole and lurasidone using common comparators from CATIE. Cardiometabolic risks were derived from claims data analysis for diabetes, weight change and CV events, and Framingham body mass index (BMI) risk equation. Cost inputs were derived from published sources and Red Book. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% and tested with sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Over 5 years, total discounted costs for lurasidone and aripiprazole patients were $86,480 and $90,500, respectively. During this period, the number of relapses per patient, hospitalizations per patient, diabetes rates, and CV events per 1000 patients, respectively, were estimated to be lower for lurasidone (0.442, 0.245, 7.29%, and 37.3) than aripiprazole (0.478, 0.369, 7.36%, and 37.8). Results were sensitive to lurasidone and aripiprazole hospitalization rates. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per hospitalization avoided, lurasidone had a 100% probability of being more cost-effective than aripiprazole. LIMITATIONS: The model was based on results from various comparative clinical trials. Differences in patient population and study methods may change estimates from the model. The model does not account for patient heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this model, when switching from another atypical antipsychotic, lurasidone had fewer relapses and hospitalizations with a lower incidence of diabetes and CV events than aripiprazole. Additionally, lurasidone may be less costly than aripiprazole among adults with schizophrenia.

Risperidone in the treatment of acute mania: double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Severe mania is life-threatening, carries an increased risk of suicide and has a serious impact on patients and their families. Efficient and rapid control of episodes of acute mania is needed. AIMS: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of risperidone monotherapy for acute mania. METHOD: In a 3-week, randomised, double-blind trial, 290 in-patients with bipolar I disorder with current manic or mixed episode and a baseline Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score of 20 or more received flexible doses of risperidone (1-6 mg per day) or placebo. RESULTS: Risperidone was received by 146 patients and placebo by144. Their mean baseline YMRS score was 37.2 (s.e.=0.5). Significantly greater improvements were observed with risperidone than with placebo at weeks 1 and 2 and at end-point (total YMRS: P <0.01). Extrapyramidal symptoms were the most frequently reported adverse events in the risperidone group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe manic symptoms, risperidone produced significant improvements in YMRS scores as early as week 1 and substantial changes at end-point. Treatment was well tolerated.

Acute and continuation risperidone monotherapy in bipolar mania: a 3-week placebo-controlled trial followed by a 9-week double-blind trial of risperidone and haloperidol.

In a randomized, double-blind trial, patients with acute bipolar mania received 1-6 mg/day of risperidone, 2-12 mg/day of haloperidol, or placebo for 3 weeks, followed by double-blind risperidone or haloperidol for 9 weeks. Of 438 patients, 154 were randomized to risperidone, 144 to haloperidol, and 140 to placebo. The mean+/-S.D. modal doses were 4.2+/-1.7 mg/day of risperidone and 8.0+/-3.6 mg/day of haloperidol during the initial 3-week phase and 4.1+/-1.8 and 7.4+/-3.7 mg/day during the 12-week period. At week 3, mean Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score reductions from baseline were significantly greater in patients receiving risperidone than placebo (p<0.001). Differences between risperidone and haloperidol on this efficacy measure were not significant. Further reductions in YMRS scores were seen in patients receiving risperidone or haloperidol during the subsequent 9 weeks. No unexpected adverse events were reported. Extrapyramidal disorder and hyperkinesias, the most commonly reported adverse events with antipsychotic use, occurred less frequently with risperidone than haloperidol. We conclude that risperidone monotherapy was an effective and well-tolerated treatment for bipolar mania and that efficacy was maintained over the long term.

Rapid antimanic effect of risperidone monotherapy: a 3-week multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of risperidone monotherapy in the treatment of acute bipolar mania. METHOD: Patients with DSM-IV bipolar I disorder experiencing an acute manic episode (baseline Young Mania Rating Scale score >/==" BORDER="0">20) were randomly assigned to 3 weeks of treatment with risperidone (flexible dose: 1-6 mg/day) or placebo. The primary efficacy measure was the mean baseline-to-endpoint change in total score on the Young Mania Rating Scale. Secondary efficacy measures included the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) severity rating and scores on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, and Global Assessment Scale (GAS). Safety assessments consisted of monitoring adverse events, vital signs, electrocardiogram and laboratory results, and scores on the Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale. RESULTS: Subjects (N=259) received treatment with either risperidone (N=134) or placebo (N=125). The mean modal dose of risperidone was 4.1 mg/day. Improvement in mean Young Mania Rating Scale total score (adjusted for covariates) was significantly greater in the risperidone than in the placebo group at endpoint (mean change=-10.6 [SD=9.5] versus -4.8 [SD=9.5], respectively), with significant between-group differences seen as early as 3 days after start of treatment (change with risperidone: mean=-6.8 [SD=5.8]; change with placebo: mean=-4.0 [SD=5.8]) and continuing throughout all time points. Improvements in CGI severity ratings and scores on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, and GAS were also significantly greater among patients receiving risperidone than those given placebo. The most common adverse event reported among risperidone patients was somnolence. While Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale scores were significantly greater in patients receiving risperidone, mean total and subscale scores were low. CONCLUSIONS: Risperidone monotherapy was significantly more efficacious than placebo in the treatment of acute mania and demonstrated a rapid onset of action. Risperidone was well tolerated by patients in this study.

Risperidone in combination with mood stabilizers: a 10-week continuation phase study in bipolar I disorder.

BACKGROUND: Combination therapy (risperidone and a mood stabilizer) for patients with a history of bipolar disorder (DSM-IV) and hospitalized for treatment of a manic episode was assessed in a 13-week study. METHOD: Subjects received flexible doses of a mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) plus placebo, risperidone, or haloperidol in a 3-week double-blind study. They could then enter a 10-week open-label study during which they received risperidone combined with a mood stabilizer. RESULTS: Of the 156 patients enrolled in the 3-week study, 85 entered the 10-week open-label extension, of whom 48 completed 10 weeks of treatment. The mean +/- SE doses of risperidone were 3.8 +/- 0.3 mg/day during the 3-week study and 3.1 +/- 0.2 mg/day during the 10-week study. At double-blind endpoint, mean reductions in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) scores were significantly greater in patients receiving risperidone plus mood stabilizer than in those receiving placebo plus mood stabilizer (-14.3 vs. -8.2, p <.001). Further significant (p <.001) reductions were seen during the 10 weeks of treatment with risperidone plus mood stabilizer. Symptom remission (YMRS score

International multisite double-blind trial of the atypical antipsychotics risperidone and olanzapine in 175 elderly patients with chronic schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: The authors compared the effects of the two most commonly used atypical antipsychotics, risperidone and olanzapine, in elderly patients with schizophrenia. METHODS: In an 8-week, international, double-blind study, patients (outpatients, hospital inpatients, and residents of nursing or boarding homes) were randomly assigned to receive risperidone (1 mg to 3 mg/day) or olanzapine (5 mg to 20 mg/day). The main outcome measures were changes in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total scores and rates of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS). RESULTS: Subjects were 175 patients age 60 years or over with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. The mean duration of illness was 36.5 years. Median doses were 2 mg/day of risperidone and 10 mg/day of olanzapine. PANSS total scores and four of the five PANSS factor scores (positive symptoms, negative symptoms, disorganized thoughts, and anxiety/depression) improved significantly at all time-points and at endpoint in both groups; between-treatment differences were not significant. EPS-related adverse events were reported by 9.2% of patients in the risperidone group and 15.9% in the olanzapine group; the between-treatment difference was not significant. Total scores on the Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale were reduced in both groups at endpoint; between-treatment differences were not significant. Clinically relevant weight gain was seen in both groups, but was significantly less frequent in risperidone patients than in olanzapine patients. CONCLUSIONS: Stable elderly patients with chronic schizophrenia receiving appropriate doses of risperidone or olanzapine over an 8-week period experienced significant reductions in the severity of psychotic and extrapyramidal symptoms, with a relatively low risk of side effects.

A randomized placebo-controlled trial of risperidone for the treatment of aggression, agitation, and psychosis of dementia.

BACKGROUND: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial examined the efficacy and safety of risperidone in the treatment of aggression, agitation, and psychosis in elderly nursing-home patients with dementia. METHOD: Elderly patients with a DSM-IV diagnosis of dementia of the Alzheimer's type, vascular dementia, or a combination of the 2 (i.e., mixed dementia) and significant aggressive behaviors were randomized to receive, for a period of 12 weeks, a flexible dose of either placebo or risperidone solution up to a maximum of 2 mg/day. Outcome measures were the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI), the Behavioral Pathology in Alzheimer's Disease (BEHAVE-AD) rating scale, and the Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S) and of Change (CGI-C) scales. RESULTS: A total of 345 patients were randomized to treatment with risperidone or placebo, and 337 patients received at least one dose of study drug. The trial was completed by 67% of patients in the placebo group and 73% of patients in the risperidone group. The mean +/- SE dose of risperidone was 0.95 +/- 0.03 mg/day. The primary endpoint of the study, the difference from baseline to endpoint in CMAI total aggression score, showed a significant reduction in aggressive behavior for risperidone versus placebo (p <.001). A similar improvement was also seen for the CMAI total non-aggression subscale (p <.002) and for the BEHAVE-AD total (p <.001) and psychotic symptoms subscale (p =.004). At endpoint, the CGI-S and the CGI-C scores indicated a significantly greater improvement with risperidone compared with placebo (p <.001). Overall, 94% and 92% of the risperidone and placebo groups, respectively, reported at least 1 adverse event. Somnolence and urinary tract infection were more common with risperidone treatment, whereas agitation was more common with placebo. There was no significant difference in the number of patients who reported extrapyramidal symptoms between the risperidone (23%) and placebo (16%) groups. CONCLUSION: Treatment with low-dose (mean = 0.95 mg/day) risperidone resulted in significant improvement in aggression, agitation, and psychosis associated with dementia.

Mood stabilisers plus risperidone or placebo in the treatment of acute mania. International, double-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Few double-blind trials have examined the efficacy of a combination of a mood stabiliser and an atypical antipsychotic in acute mania. AIMS: To determine the efficacy of risperidone in combination with a mood stabiliser in acute mania. METHOD: Patients taking a mood stabiliser were randomised to 3 weeks' treatment with risperidone (n=75) or placebo (n=76). RESULTS: Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) scores improved rapidly with significantly greater reductions at week 1 in the risperidone group compared with the placebo group. At end-point YMRS scores decreased by 14.5 and 10.3 points in the risperidone and placebo groups, respectively. Significant improvements v. placebo (P<0.05) were noted in the risperidone group on several other clinically meaningful measures. Additionally, a post hoc analysis excluding carbamazepine-treated patients (plasma concentrations of risperidone active moiety were 40% lower in this group) revealed significantly greater reductions (P=0.047) in YMRS scores in the risperidone group than in the placebo group. Incidence of adverse events was similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Risperidone is superior to placebo when used in combination with lithium or divalproex in acute mania.

Combination of a mood stabilizer with risperidone or haloperidol for treatment of acute mania: a double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison of efficacy and safety.

OBJECTIVE: The study assessed the efficacy and safety of risperidone as an adjunctive agent to mood stabilizers in the treatment of acute mania. METHOD: This 3-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study included 156 bipolar disorder patients with a current manic or mixed episode who received a mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) and placebo, risperidone, or haloperidol. The primary efficacy measure was the Young Mania Rating Scale. Other assessments used the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, the Clinical Global Impression scale, and safety measures. RESULTS: The trial was discontinued by 25 (49%) of the 51 placebo group patients, 18 (35%) of the 52 risperidone group patients, and 28 (53%) of the 53 haloperidol group patients. Mean modal doses were 3.8 mg/day (SD=1.8) of risperidone and 6.2 mg/day (SD=2.9) of haloperidol. Significantly greater reductions in Young Mania Rating Scale scores at endpoint and over time were seen in the risperidone group and in the haloperidol group, compared with the placebo group. Young Mania Rating Scale total scores improved with risperidone and with haloperidol both in patients with psychotic features and in those without psychotic features at baseline. Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale total scores at endpoint were significantly higher in the haloperidol patients than in the placebo patients. Antiparkinsonian medications were received by 8%, 17%, and 38% of patients in the placebo, risperidone, and haloperidol groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Risperidone plus a mood stabilizer was more efficacious than a mood stabilizer alone, and as efficacious as haloperidol plus a mood stabilizer, for the rapid control of manic symptoms and was well tolerated.