Innovative Technologies in CNS Trials: Promises and Pitfalls for Recruitment, Retention, and Representativeness.

Objective: Recruitment of a sufficiently large and representative patient sample and its retention during central nervous system (CNS) trials presents major challenges for study sponsors. Technological advances are reshaping clinical trial operations to meet these challenges, and the COVID-19 pandemic further accelerated this development. Method of Research: The International Society for CNS Clinical Trials and Methodology (ISCTM; www.isctm.org) Innovative Technologies for CNS Trials Working Group surveyed the state of technological innovations for improved recruitment and retention and assessed their promises and pitfalls. Results: Online advertisement and electronic patient registries can enhance recruitment, but challenges with sample representativeness, conversion rates from eligible prescreening to enrolled patients, data privacy and security, and patient identification remain hurdles for optimal use of these technologies. Electronic medical records (EMR) mining with artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) methods is promising but awaits translation into trials. During the study treatment phase, technological innovations increasingly support participant retention, including adherence with the investigational treatment. Digital tools for adherence and retention support take many forms, including patient-centric communication channels between researchers and participants, real-time study reminders, and digital behavioral interventions to increase study compliance. However, such tools add technical complexities to trials, and their impact on the generalizability of results are largely unknown. Conclusion: Overall, the group found a scarcity of systematic data directly assessing the impact of technological innovations on study recruitment and retention in CNS trials, even for strategies with already high adoption, such as online recruitment. Given the added complexity and costs associated with most technological innovations, such data is needed to fully harness technologies for CNS trials and drive further adoption.

Adding eptinezumab to brief patient education to treat chronic migraine and medication-overuse headache: Protocol for RESOLUTION-A phase 4, multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

Introduction: Migraine is a highly prevalent and disabling neurological disease. Excessive use of acute medications can lead to medication-overuse headache (MOH), occurring when a patient experiences an increasing number of headache and migraine days, despite taking greater amounts of acute medication. To treat MOH, a preventive migraine treatment and/or withdrawal of the overused medication(s) are advised. Brief Educational Intervention (BEI) has been shown to be an effective tool with promising results for MOH. Here, we report the design of a clinical trial that aims to evaluate the efficacy of eptinezumab, an anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide preventive migraine treatment, as an add-on to BEI for treatment of MOH in those with chronic migraine. Methods and analysis: RESOLUTION will be a phase 4, multi-national, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. This study will enroll approximately 570 participants with dual diagnoses of chronic migraine and MOH. Eligible patients will be randomly allocated to one of two treatment groups, BEI and eptinezumab (100 mg; n = 285) or BEI and placebo (n = 285), in a 1:1 ratio. The primary endpoint is the change from baseline in monthly migraine days over weeks 1-4. Secondary and exploratory endpoints will assess monthly migraine days over weeks 1-12, MOH remission, transition from chronic to episodic migraine, health-related quality of life, work productivity, and the safety and tolerability of eptinezumab in this patient population. Ethics and dissemination: This study will be conducted in accordance with good clinical practice. All patients will be fully informed about the study, including the risks and benefits of participation, and all participants will provide informed consent for participation in the trial and dissemination of results.

Efficacy and safety of Lu AF35700 in treatment-resistant schizophrenia: A randomized, active-controlled trial with open-label extension.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment resistance constitutes the highest burden of disease within schizophrenia. We hypothesized that the synergistic activity of Lu AF35700 at dopamine D1 and D2 receptors might provide superior antipsychotic effects versus first-line antipsychotic therapy in patients with treatment resistant schizophrenia (TRS), with a benign tolerability profile. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial (NCT02717195) followed by a one year open-label safety extension (NCT02892422). Following prospective confirmation of treatment resistance, patients were randomized (1:1:1) to 10 weeks double-blind treatment with Lu AF35700 10 mg or 20 mg, or active comparator (risperidone or olanzapine). RESULTS: 1628 patients were screened for TRS, of which 1092 entered the prospective confirmation period. Of these, 697 were randomized (Lu AF35700 10 mg n = 235, 20 mg n = 232, comparator n = 230) and 395 discontinued before randomization, including 264 (24 %) who responded to treatment. 586 patients completed the double-blind phase, of which 524 entered the open-label extension and 318 completed 1-year of open-label treatment. At the end of the double-blind phase, the mean ± SE change in positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) total score was -10.1 ± 0.96 for Lu AF35700 10 mg, -8.22 ± 0.98 for Lu AF35700 20 mg, and - 9.90 ± 0.97 for the comparator group. Treatment differences [95 % CI] versus comparator treatment were non-significant (-0.12 [-2.37; 2.13] and 1.67 [-0.59; 3.94], respectively). The most common adverse events with Lu AF35700 were increased weight and headache. Prolactin values decreased by ≥50 % in both sexes treated with Lu AF35700. CONCLUSIONS: Despite evidence of antipsychotic efficacy, treatment with Lu AF35700 failed to differentiate from conventional antipsychotic treatment for patients with TRS.

Chronobiologic parameter changes in patients with major depressive disorder and sleep disturbance treated with adjunctive brexpiprazole: An open-label, flexible-dose, exploratory substudy.

BACKGROUND: Circadian rhythm disturbances have been reported in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). Among these is an increased phase angle between peak cortisol concentration and dim-light melatonin onset (DLMO). The aim of this study was to evaluate changes in chronobiologic parameters of sleep in patients with MDD receiving adjunctive brexpiprazole. METHODS: This was an interventional, multicenter, open-label, flexible-dose, exploratory study in patients with MDD and inadequate response to antidepressant treatment who were experiencing sleep disturbances. Patients received adjunctive brexpiprazole 2-3 mg/day for 8 weeks. Outcome measures included cortisol and melatonin levels, used to calculate phase angle, and the Biological Rhythms Interview of Assessment in Neuropsychiatry (BRIAN). RESULTS: The mean (standard error) phase angle between peak cortisol and DLMO increased by 108 (61) minutes from baseline to Week 8 (n = 9). BRIAN Total score changed (improved) by -14.6 (4.6) points from baseline to Week 8 (n = 9). Change in phase angle and BRIAN Total score showed a moderate-to-high correlation (Pearson coefficient: 0.68; 95% confidence limits: 0.04, 0.93; p = 0.040). LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by its small sample size, and its single-arm, open-label design. CONCLUSIONS: The findings provide a preliminary indication that the phase angle between peak cortisol and DLMO is of interest as a potential biomarker for depression and therapeutic response. Adjunctive brexpiprazole may represent a strategy for correcting circadian dysfunction in patients with MDD and inadequate response to antidepressant treatment. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01942733.

Effects of Adjunctive Brexpiprazole on Sleep Disturbances in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder: An Open-Label, Flexible-Dose, Exploratory Study.

BACKGROUND: Brexpiprazole is a serotonin-dopamine activity modulator. We evaluated the effects of adjunctive treatment with brexpiprazole on sleep disturbances in patients with DSM-IV-TR major depressive disorder (MDD) and inadequate response to antidepressant treatment. METHODS: This study was conducted between September 27, 2013, and August 19, 2014. Patients with inadequate response to antidepressant treatment and sleep disturbances continued treatment with their current antidepressant for 2 weeks. Patients still having inadequate response and sleep efficiency less than 85% measured by baseline polysomnography (PSG) received 8-week open-label treatment with their current antidepressant treatment and adjunctive brexpiprazole (target dose: 3 mg/d). Assessments included PSG recordings and scales of insomnia severity, depressive symptoms, and daytime alertness and functioning. Changes from baseline to week 8 were analyzed. RESULTS: Forty-four patients were treated. Improvements (P < .05) measured by PSG and Consensus Sleep Diary for Morning, respectively, were observed in sleep efficiency (10.4 and 15.4 percentage points), total sleep time (49.0 and 84.5 min), sleep onset latency (-19.7 and -42.6 min), wake-time after sleep onset (-26.4 and -48.0 min), and latency to persistent sleep (-24.9 min, PSG only). Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) total score was improved (-9.2), as was daytime sleepiness (-2.1) as measured by the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) total score and morning sleepiness (-9.2) as measured by the Bond-Lader Visual Analog Scale (all P < .05). Reaction time was slightly decreased (-0.2 sec-1) by treatment (P < .05). Depressive symptoms improved (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS]: -16.0 and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity [CGI-S]: -1.8), as did functioning (-8.4) assessed by the Massachusetts General Hospital-Cognitive and Physical Functioning Questionnaire (all P < .05). Improvements in depressive symptoms were dependent on sleep (as assessed by ISI) (P < .0001) and improvements in daytime alertness (as assessed by ESS) were dependent on improvements in ISI (P = .009). No new safety concerns were observed compared to previous brexpiprazole studies. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with inadequate response to antidepressant treatment and sleep disturbances treated with adjunctive brexpiprazole, physiologic measures of sleep and daytime alertness were improved. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01942733.

Cardiac effects of sertindole and quetiapine: analysis of ECGs from a randomized double-blind study in patients with schizophrenia.

The QT interval is the most widely used surrogate marker for predicting TdP; however, several alternative surrogate markers, such as Tpeak-Tend (TpTe) and a quantitative T-wave morphology combination score (MCS) have emerged. This study investigated the cardiac effects of sertindole and quetiapine using the QTc interval and newer surrogate markers. Data were derived from a 12 week randomized double-blind study comparing flexible dosage of sertindole 12-20mg and quetiapine 400-600mg in patients with schizophrenia. ECGs were recorded digitally at baseline and after 3, 6 and 12 weeks. Between group effects were compared by using a mixed effect model, whereas assessment within group was compared by using a paired t-test. Treatment with sertindole was associated with QTcF and QTcB interval prolongation and an increase in MCS, T-wave asymmetry, T-wave flatness and TpTe. The mean increase in QTcF from baseline to last observation was 12.1ms for sertindole (p<0.001) and -0.5ms for quetiapine (p=0.8). Quetiapine caused no increase in MCS, T-wave asymmetry, T-wave flatness or TpTe compared to baseline. In the categorical analysis, there were 11 patients (9.6%) receiving quetiapine who experienced more than 20ms QTcF prolongation compared with 36 patients (33.3%) in the sertindole group. Sertindole (12-20mg) was associated with moderate QTc prolongation and worsening of T-wave morphology in a study population of patients with schizophrenia. Although, quetiapine (400-600mg) did not show worsening of repolarization measures some individual patients did experience significant worsening of repolarization. Clinical Trials NCT00654706.

Exploring the potential prognostic effect of various country-specific health service data on all-cause mortality using data from a large prospective study in schizophrenia.

PURPOSE: To explore whether the presence of specific health services impact the time to death in schizophrenia. METHODS: Cox's proportional hazard model was used to assess the effect of country-specific health care variables (total health care expenditure, public health care expenditure, number of hospital beds, number of physicians, and World Health Organization ranking) on time to death in schizophrenia patients from a large multinational study. Baseline patient characteristics (history of suicide attempts and monotherapy or polytherapy at the time of study entry) were also included in the model. RESULTS: The number of physicians per 10,000 persons was the only health service variable associated with time to death. Each increase of one physician increased the hazard of dying by approximately 2% (95%CI, from 0.1 to 4.1%; p = 0.044) in Europe, whereas in Asia, it seemed to decrease the hazard of dying by approximately 3.6% (95%CI, from 9.9% decrease to 3% increase; p = 0.28). The effect of region as a function of the number of physicians indicated a turning point at 23 physicians per 10,000 persons: With fewer than 23 physicians per 10,000 persons, the risk of death was higher in Asia than that in Europe (hazard ratio > 1), whereas with more than 23 physicians per 10,000 persons, it was lower in Asia than that in Europe (hazard ratio < 1). CONCLUSIONS: Some health services may have a significant prognostic effect on time to death in patients treated for schizophrenia, especially in Europe. The reasons for this need to be identified.

The efficacy and safety of 12 weeks of treatment with sertindole or olanzapine in patients with chronic schizophrenia who did not respond successfully to their previous treatments: a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, flexible-dose study.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of sertindole in comparison with olanzapine in patients with chronic schizophrenia who did not respond successfully to their previous treatments. Patients with schizophrenia who were at least moderately ill and had failed to respond to previous antipsychotic treatment were randomized to double-blind sertindole or olanzapine treatment. A total of 389 patients were treated, 196 with sertindole (mean dose=17 mg/day) and 193 with olanzapine (mean dose=16 mg/day). Both drugs improved all the efficacy scale scores including the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score. Although sertindole failed to prove noninferiority to olanzapine in terms of reduction in PANSS total score with the last-observation-carried-forward analysis, this can be attributed to the higher withdrawal rate in the sertindole group by day 16 by which sertindole was up-titrated to the effective dose. On excluding early withdrawals, the noninferiority criterion was fulfilled, as also in the observed-case analysis. They had similar safety profiles with respect to the total incidence of adverse events. The incidence of asymptomatic QT prolongation was higher in the sertindole group. Sertindole has an efficacy and safety profile that is comparable to that of olanzapine. The slow titration schedule and lack of sedating effect of sertindole should be considered when initiating treatment with this drug.

Metabolic parameters in the short- and long-term treatment of schizophrenia with sertindole or risperidone.

The presence of the metabolic syndrome is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease and diabetes. The short- and long-term metabolic safety of sertindole was compared to that of risperidone in a subset of patients enrolled in the sertindole cohort prospective (SCoP) study, an open randomized study. In 261 randomized patients, there were moderate increases in mean weight, BMI, and waist circumference during treatment with either sertindole or risperidone; after 12 weeks, the increase in weight was 1.3 and 1.1 kg, respectively, and after 36 weeks, it was 2.2 and 2.0 kg, respectively. From baseline to last assessment (up to 60 weeks), weight gains of 1.8 and 1.7 kg for sertindole and risperidone, respectively, were observed. Similar proportions of patients (sertindole: 17% versus risperidone: 16%) had weight increases ≥7% from baseline to last assessment. The mean changes from baseline in triglycerides, total cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, plasma glucose and blood pressure were small and not clinically relevant in both treatment groups. No patient in either of the groups developed type 2 diabetes during the study. At last assessment, the prevalence of metabolic syndrome (International Diabetes Federation) was 17% in the sertindole group and 26% in the risperidone group and the incidence of metabolic syndrome was 7% in the sertindole group and 10% in the risperidone group. Treatment with either sertindole or risperidone did not appear to be associated with an increased comparative risk of developing metabolic syndrome. In general, the metabolic effects of sertindole and risperidone were similar.

The Sertindole Cohort Prospective (SCoP) study: rationale, design and methodology.

PURPOSE: To describe the rationale and methodology of the Sertindole Cohort Prospective (SCoP) study. METHODS: The SCoP study was a prospective, randomized, partially blinded, active-controlled, multinational trial. It was designed to assess the safety of the antipsychotic sertindole in the treatment of schizophrenia under normal conditions of use. Risperidone, a widely used antipsychotic, not associated with major safety concerns, served as comparator drug. Inclusion criteria were deliberately broad in order to ensure high external validity, but patients had to be eligible for treatment with both drugs. The first primary endpoint was all-cause mortality, a measure highly resistant to bias, and the second was hospitalization with arrhythmia. Secondary endpoints comprised cause-specific fatal events, hospitalizations, suicide attempts and treatment duration. An Independent Safety Committee (ISC) classified the events using blinded data and provided advice to an Independent Management Committee (IMC) that was overseeing the trial. It was calculated that 3800 person years of exposure were needed in each treatment arm to obtain a power of 80%. This makes the SCoP study one of the largest post-authorization trials ever conducted in schizophrenia research. RESULTS: This report describes the design of the study, its rationale and the methods used. CONCLUSIONS: Naturalistic estimates of drug safety constitute essential information when prescribing antipsychotic medication. In the SCoP study, data were collected prospectively in a randomized, controlled manner and under normal conditions of use. Such a design ensured the high quality of data needed to adequately evaluate the 'real-world' safety of sertindole treatment.