Basic auditory processing deficits and their association with auditory emotion recognition in schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with schizophrenia are impaired in their ability to recognize emotions based on vocal cues and these impairments are associated with poor global outcome. Basic perceptual processes, such as auditory pitch processing, are impaired in schizophrenia and contribute to difficulty identifying emotions. However, previous work has focused on a relatively narrow assessment of auditory deficits and their relation to emotion recognition impairment in schizophrenia. METHODS: We have assessed 87 patients with schizophrenia and 73 healthy controls on a comprehensive battery of tasks spanning the five empirically derived domains of auditory function. We also explored the relationship between basic auditory processing and auditory emotion recognition within the patient group using correlational analysis. RESULTS: Patients exhibited widespread auditory impairments across multiple domains of auditory function, with mostly medium effect sizes. Performance on all of the basic auditory tests correlated with auditory emotion recognition at the p < .01 level in the patient group, with 9 out of 13 tests correlating with emotion recognition at r = 0.40 or greater. After controlling for cognition, many of the largest correlations involved spectral processing within the phase-locking range and discrimination of vocally based stimuli. CONCLUSIONS: While many auditory skills contribute to this impairment, deficient formant discrimination appears to be a key skill contributing to impaired emotion recognition as this was the only basic auditory skill to enter a step-wise multiple regression after first entering a measure of cognitive impairment, and formant discrimination accounted for significant unique variance in emotion recognition performance after accounting for deficits in pitch processing.

The Research and Evaluation of Antipsychotic Treatment in Community Behavioral Health Organizations, Outcomes (REACH-OUT) study: real-world clinical practice in schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Outpatient facilities, such as community behavioral health organizations (CBHOs), play a critical role in the care of patients with serious mental illness, but there is a paucity of "real-world" patient outcomes data from this health care setting. Therefore, we conducted The Research and Evaluation of Antipsychotic Treatment in Community Behavioral Health Organizations, Outcomes (REACH-OUT) trial, a real-world, prospective, noninterventional observational study of patients with mental illness treated at CBHOs across the United States. We describe demographic and clinical characteristics, antipsychotic therapy (APT) treatment patterns, and health care resource utilization in patients with schizophrenia undergoing medical care as usual. METHODS: This study enrolled adults with schizophrenia or bipolar I disorder who initiated APT treatment at various time points: 1) within 8 weeks of initiating risperidone long-acting injectables (RLAIs) or other APTs except paliperidone palmitate (PP), 2) after more than 24 weeks of continuous RLAI treatment, or 3) at any time after initiating PP LAI treatment (schizophrenia only). Study assessments were performed via participant interview, medical chart abstraction, and clinical survey at enrollment and at month 12. RESULTS: A total of 1065 patients from 46 CBHOs were enrolled. Of these, 944 (88.6%) had a diagnosis of schizophrenia and 121 (11.4%) had bipolar I disorder. At enrollment, 599 (63.5%) of patients with schizophrenia were receiving RLAIs or PP LAI, 281 (29.8%) were receiving oral APTs, and 64 (6.8%) were receiving other injectable APTs. A number of differences in patient characteristics and outcomes were observed between patients in the LAI APT cohort and the oral APT cohort. CONCLUSION: Descriptive analyses from this observational study suggest differences in the patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and clinical and economic outcomes among those with schizophrenia treated at CBHOs with LAI APT or oral APTs. Additional analyses will be conducted to delineate the impact of LAI APT versus oral APTs on patient outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial Registry: NCT01181960 . Registered 12 August 2010.

An 8-Week Randomized, Double-Blind Trial Comparing Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of 3 Vilazodone Dose-Initiation Strategies Following Switch From SSRIs and SNRIs in Major Depressive Disorder.

INTRODUCTION: Vilazodone, a selective and potent 5-HT1A partial agonist and 5-HT reuptake inhibitor, has been approved for treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults. The primary objective of the study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of switching to 3 different doses of vilazodone from an equivalent dose range of generic selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) in adult subjects with MDD. METHOD: This was an 8-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 3-arm trial to compare vilazodone 10 mg/d, 20 mg/d, and 40 mg/d as starting doses. Data were collected from December 2012 to December 2013. There was no washout phase, prior medications were stopped at the baseline visit, and vilazodone was started the next day in adults with MDD (DSM-IV criteria). The 10-mg/d and 20-mg/d dose was increased to 40 mg/d by week 3 and week 1, respectively, and the 40-mg/d initiation dose continued unchanged. The primary efficacy measure was change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score between the 3 dose groups. The secondary efficacy measures were changes in Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S), CGI-Improvement (CGI-I), and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS) scores. Safety measures were obtained by spontaneously reported adverse events, vital signs recording, and laboratory tests. Multivariate tests were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Seventy subjects were randomized, and 60 subjects completed the study (n = 20 in each group). Overall, there was a significant reduction in MADRS score from baseline (26.08 ± 1.1) to week 8 (9.86 ± 1.2) in the entire sample (P < .001). Similarly, there was a significant improvement in CGI-S (P < .001), CGI-I (P < .001) and HDRS (P < .001) scores from baseline to the end of the trial. There were no significant differences between the 3 vilazodone dose-initiation groups in changes in MADRS scores (P = .95) or changes in CGI-S (P = .83), CGI-I (P = .51), or HARS scores (P = .61). Dry mouth (n = 55), nausea (n = 10), and diarrhea (n = 5) were the most common side effects, with diarrhea reported in 5 subjects in the 40-mg/d initiation group. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The present study indicates the potential benefit of switching to vilazodone in patients with MDD who are inadequate responders to SSRIs or SNRIs. There were no meaningful differences in efficacy or tolerability between the 3 different dose-initiation strategies with vilazodone; however, diarrhea appeared to be more frequently reported with the 40-mg/d dose. Given the modest sample size, larger studies are required to confirm our findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02015546 and NCT01473381.

Quantitative levels of aripiprazole parent drug and metabolites in urine.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess urine levels of aripiprazole and metabolites among patients receiving steady-state dosing of aripiprazole. METHODS: One hundred fifty adults, judged compliant with a stable aripiprazole regimen, had observed dosing for 5 consecutive days. Urine specimens, obtained on days 1, 4, and 5, were analyzed for pH, creatinine, specific gravity, and for aripiprazole, OPC3373, and dehydroaripiprazole. Linear regression was used to assess the association between unadjusted urine levels of each drug/metabolite and dose taken, and linear stepwise multiple regression was performed to identify variables that added to the explanation of the variance. RESULTS: OPC3373 was found in 97 % of urine samples, whereas unchanged aripiprazole and dehydroaripiprazole were found in only 58 and 39 % of samples, respectively. Variance in urine metabolite levels accounted for by medication dose was relatively low for each individual drug/metabolite, r (2) only 0.13 to 0.23. However, when OPC3373 was adjusted for age, weight, sex, and urine creatinine values, the r (2) improved to 0.63, and further improved to 0.70, when height, urine specific gravity, and the presence of dehydroaripiprazole were added in a stepwise multiple regression model. CONCLUSIONS: Unadjusted urine levels of aripiprazole and metabolites are not strongly related to aripiprazole dosing, however, accounting for key variables yields a strong relationship between measurable urine parameters and dose taken. By defining the expected range of adjusted urine levels for each dose, the potential exists for a clinical test to identify partially nonadherent individuals who would not have been identified by conventional "present vs. absent" urine drug testing.

Effects of milnacipran on neurocognition, pain, and fatigue in fibromyalgia: a 13-week, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether milnacipran is safe and effective in improving cognitive function in patients with fibromyalgia. METHOD: Patients were randomly assigned to receive milnacipran or placebo for 6 weeks, followed by a 1-week washout and then crossover to the other arm for another 6 weeks. The overall trial lasted 13 weeks and was conducted between July 2011 and May 2013. Assessments were performed at each visit. Neurocognition was measured by the Brief Assessment of Cognition (BAC) and MATRICS. Pain was assessed by the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Global assessment of fibromyalgia symptoms was measured by the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) and tender point examination. Depression was assessed by the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). Fatigue was assessed by the Fatigue Severity Scale. Functional outcome was evaluated by the Health Assessment Questionnaire. The Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) and Improvement (CGI-I) scales and the Patients Clinical Global Impression of Change were used to measure the global impression of severity and improvement. RESULTS: 26 subjects were screened, and 20 subjects completed the trial. The change in verbal memory (P = .001) and the composite T score (P = .044) of the BAC and the change in the attention-vigilance domain T score (P = .042) were significantly improved, but there were no differences between the drug and placebo groups. The changes in the CGI-S scores were not significant, but the changes in the Clinical Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) scores showed worsening in the placebo group at week 1 (P = .032), week 2 (P = .024), week 4 (P = .024), and week 6 (P = .60) compared to baseline. The change in FIQ scores was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Milnacipran may have a potential role in the improvement of pain, disability, and mood. The effect of milnacipran on cognition in fibromyalgia needs further research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01829243.