Differences in imeglimin response in subgroups of patients with type 2 diabetes stratified by data-driven cluster analysis: A post-hoc analysis of imeglimin clinical trial data.

AIM: To explore differences in imeglimin response among type 2 diabetes (T2D) patient clusters using data-driven cluster analysis. METHODS: Data-driven cluster analysis (non-hierarchical k-means clustering) was performed on randomized, double-blind, imeglimin monotherapy and adjunctive (to insulin) therapy trials based on four baseline variables: (1) disease duration; (2) body mass index (BMI); (3) HbA1c; and (4a) homeostatic model assessment of ß-cell function (HOMA-ß) (monotherapy trials) or (4b) insulin total daily dose (adjunctive trial). RESULTS: Four clusters were identified with distinct clinical characteristics in both monotherapy (1-4) and adjunctive therapy (I-IV) trials; clusters 1 and I had lower values across all four indices versus the overall population, clusters 2 and II had a longer diabetes duration, cluster 3 had higher baseline BMI and HOMA-ß, and cluster III had higher baseline BMI and insulin total daily dose, while clusters 4 and IV had higher baseline HbA1c. Between-group differences in HbA1c change (95% confidence interval) and effect size (ES) at week 24 varied considerably by cluster (cluster 1: -0.82 [-1.00, -0.63], ES = 1.47; cluster 2: -0.64 [-0.89, -0.39], ES = 1.18; cluster 3: -0.86 [-1.38, -0.33], ES = 0.84; cluster 4: -1.27 [-1.73, -0.82], ES = 1.44). For imeglimin adjunctive therapy, HbA1c improvements were significant versus placebo at week 16, excluding cluster III (cluster I: -0.63 [-0.95, -0.31], ES = 0.88; cluster II: -0.66 [-1.02, -0.30], ES = 1.13; cluster III: -0.31 [-0.73, 0.11], ES = 0.46; cluster IV: -0.82 [-1.29, -0.35], ES = 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Differences in imeglimin response were observed among T2D patient clusters. Patient stratification may help with selection of those most probable to respond to imeglimin.

Factors contributing to the clinical effectiveness of imeglimin monotherapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: To investigate the effect of patient characteristics on imeglimin effectiveness in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were pooled from two randomized, placebo-controlled, 24-week, double-blind studies of imeglimin monotherapy in Japanese adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus, with the proportion of responders (glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c] < 7.0%) and sustained responders (i.e., achieved and maintained response) in the imeglimin 1,000 mg twice daily group calculated at each visit. Patient factors significantly (P < 0.05) correlated with response were explored through multivariate logistic regression. Subgroup analyses compared the efficacy of imeglimin in patients with a HbA1c improvement less than or equal to -0.3% (early responders) versus greater than -0.3% (early non-responders) at week 4. RESULTS: A total of 38.0% of imeglimin-treated patients and 7.2% of placebo-treated patients were responders (P < 0.001, number needed to treat = 4). The proportion of sustained responders at weeks 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 was 10.6, 19.0, 24.0, 25.7 and 29.1%, respectively (>70% of responders at each visit). Improvements in HbA1c and fasting glucose were significantly greater in early responders versus early non-responders from week 4; between-group differences remained significant to week 24. Older age (odds ratio 1.09, 95% confidence interval 1.04-1.14; P < 0.001); treatment-naïve status vs previous treatment (odds ratio 3.70, 95% confidence interval 1.55-8.82; P = 0.003), and lower baseline HbA1c (odds ratio 0.06, 95% confidence interval 0.02-0.16; P < 0.001) predicted response. CONCLUSIONS: A significantly higher proportion of patients receiving imeglimin 1,000 mg twice daily monotherapy were responders versus placebo. Most (>70%) were sustained responders, suggesting that response is fairly predictable. Older age, treatment-naïve status and early treatment response significantly predicted imeglimin effectiveness.

Telepsychiatry versus face-to-face treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed healthcare significantly and telepsychiatry is now the primary means of treatment in some countries. AIMS: To compare the efficacy of telepsychiatry and face-to-face treatment. METHOD: A comprehensive meta-analysis comparing telepsychiatry with face-to-face treatment for psychiatric disorders. The primary outcome was the mean change in the standard symptom scale scores used for each psychiatric disorder. Secondary outcomes included all meta-analysable outcomes, such as all-cause discontinuation and safety/tolerability. RESULTS: We identified 32 studies (n = 3592 participants) across 11 mental illnesses. Disease-specific analyses showed that telepsychiatry was superior to face-to-face treatment regarding symptom improvement for depressive disorders (k = 6 studies, n = 561; standardised mean difference s.m.d. = -0.325, 95% CI -0.640 to -0.011, P = 0.043), whereas face-to-face treatment was superior to telepsychiatry for eating disorder (k = 1, n = 128; s.m.d. = 0.368, 95% CI 0.018-0.717, P = 0.039). No significant difference was seen between telepsychiatry and face-to-face treatment when all the studies/diagnoses were combined (k = 26, n = 2290; P = 0.248). Telepsychiatry had significantly fewer all-cause discontinuations than face-to-face treatment for mild cognitive impairment (k = 1, n = 61; risk ratio RR = 0.552, 95% CI 0.312-0.975, P = 0.040), whereas the opposite was seen for substance misuse (k = 1, n = 85; RR = 37.41, 95% CI 2.356-594.1, P = 0.010). No significant difference regarding all-cause discontinuation was seen between telepsychiatry and face-to-face treatment when all the studies/diagnoses were combined (k = 27, n = 3341; P = 0.564). CONCLUSIONS: Telepsychiatry achieved a symptom improvement effect for various psychiatric disorders similar to that of face-to-face treatment. However, some superiorities/inferiorities were seen across a few specific psychiatric disorders, suggesting that its efficacy may vary according to disease type.

Efficacy, safety and tolerability of imeglimin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety/tolerability of imeglimin, a novel oral antihyperglycemic agent, administered as monotherapy and adjunctive therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Parallel-group randomized controlled trials comparing imeglimin with placebo in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus were included. Risk ratios or weighted mean differences (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random effects models. The primary outcome for efficacy was the change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Secondary outcomes included other efficacy-related outcomes, specific adverse events, and changes in body weight and lipid parameters. RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trials (n = 1,655) were included. When analyzed by dose, there was a significant difference in glycated hemoglobin (%) between imeglimin monotherapy and placebo at doses >1,000 mg twice daily (1,000 mg: studies N = 3, patients n = 517, WMD = -0.714, P < 0.001; 1,500 mg: N = 5, n = 448, WMD = -0.531, P = 0.020; 2,000 mg: N = 1, n = 149, WMD = -0.450, P = 0.005). Imeglimin adjunctive therapy significantly improved glycated hemoglobin over placebo at doses of 1,000 mg (N = 1, n = 214, WMD = -0.600, P < 0.001) and 1,500 mg (N = 2, n = 324, WMD = -0.576, P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis of the primary outcome showed that imeglimin was effective regardless of chronic kidney disease category, with studies carried out in Japan and in patients with lower body mass index showing a trend toward improved imeglimin efficacy. There were no significant differences between imeglimin and placebo in the risk of all-cause discontinuation and the proportion of patients who presented with at least one adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Imeglimin is efficacious, safe, and well tolerated as monotherapy and adjunctive therapy.

Effect of patient characteristics on the efficacy and safety of imeglimin monotherapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A post-hoc analysis of two randomized, placebo-controlled trials.

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: Substantial variability in demographic and clinical characteristics exists among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, which may impact treatment. This post-hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of imeglimin 1,000 mg twice daily (BID) monotherapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients according to demographic and clinical characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were pooled from two placebo-controlled, 24 week, randomized, double-blind studies in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Outcomes (least squares mean [LSM] change in HbA1c from baseline to week 24, and safety) were analyzed according to subgroups based on demographics, clinical characteristics, and comorbidities. RESULTS: The difference in LSM change in HbA1c from baseline to week 24 was statistically significant for imeglimin vs placebo in all patient subgroups analyzed (P < 0.05 each), including demographics (age, body mass index), clinical characteristics (duration of type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease [CKD] stage, and prior medication use) and comorbidities (hypertension, dyslipidemia, risk of hepatic fibrosis and liver function parameter status). A statistically significant separation from placebo in HbA1c was observed at week 4 and maintained through week 24. No new safety concerns were identified with imeglimin in any patient subpopulations. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and safety of imeglimin was demonstrated across patient subgroups, irrespective of baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. Our findings confirm the efficacy and safety of imeglimin across a broad spectrum of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Efficacy and safety/tolerability of antipsychotics in the treatment of adult patients with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotics are widely used in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), but there has been no comprehensive meta-analytic assessment that examined their use as monotherapy and adjunctive therapy. METHODS: A systematic review and a meta-analysis were conducted on randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) that reported on the efficacy and safety/tolerability of antipsychotics for the treatment of adults with MDD. Data of both monotherapy and adjunctive antipsychotic use were extracted, but analyzed separately using a random-effects model. Co-primary outcomes were study-defined-treatment response and intolerability-related discontinuation. We also illustrated the risk/benefit balance of antipsychotics for MDD, using two-dimensional graphs representing the primary efficacy and safety/tolerability outcome. Secondary outcomes included psychopathology, remission, all-cause-discontinuation, inefficacy-related discontinuation, and adverse events. RESULTS: Forty-five RCTs with 12 724 patients were included in the analysis. In monotherapy (studies = 13, n = 4375), amisulpride [1.99 (1.55-2.55)], sulpiride [1.50 (1.03-2.17)], and quetiapine [1.48 (1.23-1.78)] were significantly superior to placebo regarding treatment response. However, intolerability-related discontinuations were significantly higher compared to placebo with amisulpride and quetiapine. In adjunctive therapy (studies = 32, n = 8349), ziprasidone [1.80 (1.07-3.04)], risperidone [1.59 (1.19-2.14)], aripiprazole [1.54 (1.35-1.76)], brexpiprazole [1.41 (1.21-1.66)], cariprazine [1.27 (1.07-1.52)], and quetiapine [1.23 (1.08-1.41)] were significantly superior to placebo regarding treatment response. However, of these antipsychotics that were superior to placebo, only risperidone was equivalent to placebo regarding discontinuation due to intolerability, while the other antipsychotics were inferior. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that there are significant differences regarding the risk/benefit ratio among antipsychotics for MDD, which should inform clinical care.

Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis: Efficacy and Safety of Second-Generation Antipsychotics in Youths With Bipolar Depression.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the relative efficacy and safety of second-generation antipsychotics for treating major depressive episodes in youths with bipolar disorder. METHOD: A systematic literature review using PRISMA guidelines and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of second-generation antipsychotics for bipolar depression in youths 10 to 18 years of age was conducted. Efficacy measures included Children's Depression Rating Scale, Revised (CDRS-R) and Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar Disorder-Severity Depression (CGI-BP-S-depression) and Overall (CGI-BP-S-overall) scores. Available safety outcomes included discontinuations (all-cause, lack of efficacy, adverse events), metabolic parameters (weight change, cholesterol, triglycerides, glucose), changes in prolactin, and somnolence. Results from the NMA were reported as mean changes from baseline or odds ratios (OR) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). RESULTS: Four RCTs comparing placebo to lurasidone, quetiapine (1 each for immediate- and extended-release), and the olanzapine-fluoxetine combination (OFC) met all of the inclusion criteria. Lurasidone and OFC demonstrated similar and statistically significant improvements in CDRS-R, but quetiapine did not (lurasidone: -5.70 [-8.66, -2.76]; OFC: -5.01 [-8.63, -1.38]; quetiapine: -1.85 [-5.99, 2.27]). Lurasidone was associated with smaller changes in weight, cholesterol, and triglycerides from baseline compared to OFC and quetiapine. There were no differences in changes in glucose levels among antipsychotics. In addition, lurasidone was associated with smaller change in prolactin levels compared to OFC but not quetiapine. CONCLUSION: Evidence from 4 studies in this NMA indicated that lurasidone and OFC, but not quetiapine, were efficacious for the treatment of bipolar depression in youths. Lurasidone was associated with less weight gain and smaller impacts on cholesterol and triglycerides compared with quetiapine and OFC.

Lurasidone in the long-term treatment of Japanese patients with bipolar I disorder: a 52 week open label study.

BACKGROUND: The current study evaluated the long-term (52 week) safety and impact on symptom measures of lurasidone (with or without lithium or valproate) for the treatment of bipolar I disorder in Japanese patients. METHODS: Bipolar patients for this open-label flexibly dosed lurasidone (20-120 mg/day) study were recruited from those with a recent/current depressive episode who completed an initial 6 week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, lurasidone study (depressed group), and those with a recent/current manic, hypomanic, or mixed episode (non-depressed group) who agreed to enroll directly into the long-term study. Measures of adverse events and safety included treatment-emergent adverse events, vital signs, body weight, ECG, laboratory tests, and measures of suicidality and extrapyramidal symptoms. Symptom measures included Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS). RESULTS: The most common adverse events associated with lurasidone were akathisia (30.7%), nasopharyngitis (26.6%), nausea (12.1%), and somnolence (12.1%). Minimal changes in lipids and measures of glycemic control occurred. Mean change in body weight was + 1.0 kg in the non-depressed group and - 0.8 kg in the depressed group. MADRS total scores declined by a mean (SD) of 2.0 (14.7) points from long-term baseline to endpoint in the depressed group who had received placebo in the prior 6 week trial. The depressed group that had received lurasidone during the prior 6 week study maintained their depressive symptom improvements. For the non-depressed group, YMRS total scores decreased over time. LIMITATIONS: No control group was included, treatment was open-label, and 49.7% of patients completed the 52 week study. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term treatment with lurasidone 20-120 mg/day for Japanese patients with bipolar disorder maintained improvements in depressive symptoms for depressed patients who were treated in a prior 6 week trial and led to improvements in manic symptoms among a newly recruited subgroup of patients with a recent/current manic, hypomanic, or mixed episode. Few changes in weight or metabolic parameters were evident. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: JapicCTI-132319, clinicaltrials.gov-NCT01986114.

Efficacy and tolerability of atypical antipsychotics for acute bipolar depression: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: While clinical trial evidence has firmly established the efficacy of several atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) for treating bipolar depression, no randomized controlled trials (RCT's) comparing AAPs have been conducted. This Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) compared the relative efficacy and tolerability of AAP monotherapy in adults with bipolar depression. METHODS: Efficacy measures included change in Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Clinical Global Improvement - Bipolar Disorder (CGI-BP), response, and remission. Multiple tolerability outcomes were examined. Results from random effects models were reported as difference in change from baseline for continuous variables or odds ratios for dichotomous variables. Treatments were ranked using the surface under the curve cumulative ranking probabilities. Number needed to treat (NNT) and harm (NNH) were calculated. RESULTS: Eighteen RCT's met inclusion criteria of the systematic literature review. On change in MADRS, lurasidone (- 4.71 [95% Crl - 6.98, - 2.41]), quetiapine (- 4.80 [- 5.93, - 3.72]), olanzapine (- 4.57 [- 5.92, - 3.20]), and cariprazine (- 2.29 [- 3.47, - 1.09]) were more efficacious than placebo. Lurasidone was associated with a significantly greater odds of response (≥50% improvement in MADRS) compared to cariprazine (1.78 [95% Crl 1.08, 2.77]), aripiprazole (2.38 [1.38, 3.85]), and ziprasidone (2.47 [1.41, 3.98]), but was similar to olanzapine (1.68 [0.99,2.65]) and quetiapine (1.25 [0.78, 1.90]). For change in CGI-BP-S-overall score, lurasidone was significantly better than cariprazine (- 0.38 [95% Crl - 0.66,-0.10]) and ziprasidone (- 0.58 [- 0.91,-0.26]), but similar to quetiapine (- 0.08 [- 0.36, 0.19])and olanzapine (- 0.04 [- 1.41, 1.46]). Lurasidone (0.34 kg [95% Crl - 0.22, 0.89]) and aripiprazole (0.20 kg [- 0.59, 1.00]) had a similar weight change compared to placebo, but olanzapine (2.88 kg [2.40, 3.36]), quetiapine (1.17 kg [0.84, 1.49]), and cariprazine (0.65 kg [0.34, 0.96]) were associated with greater weight gain. The NNT for response was the lowest for lurasidone (NNT = 5) followed by quetiapine (NNT = 6), olanzapine (NNT = 10) and cariprazine (NNT = 12). CONCLUSIONS: In this NMA in adults with bipolar depression, which evaluated change in depressive symptoms (assessed by MADRS) across short-term trials, the largest improvement versus placebo was observed for lurasidone, olanzapine and quetiapine with cariprazine, showing a smaller treatment effect. Aripiprazole and ziprasidone were ineffective for the treatment of bipolar depression. Improvement in CGI-BP-S score for lurasidone was larger than cariprazine and ziprasidone but similar to quetiapine and olanzapine. Based on short term studies lurasidone and aripiprazole had similar weight gain compared to placebo.

Long-acting injectable versus oral antipsychotics for the maintenance treatment of schizophrenia: a systematic review and comparative meta-analysis of randomised, cohort, and pre-post studies.

BACKGROUND: Evidence of comparative benefits of long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) versus oral antipsychotics for schizophrenia has been inconsistent across study designs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the comparative benefits of LAIs versus oral antipsychotics in three study designs to inform clinical decision making. METHODS: We did a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis comparing LAIs versus oral antipsychotics for schizophrenia covering three study designs: randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and pre-post studies. Our literature search was without language restrictions, in MEDLINE and PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Embase, for studies published from database inception up to a last search on March 13, 2020. We also searched for unpublished studies and ClinicalTrials.gov. We included studies lasting at least 6 months that targeted adults with schizophrenia and related disorders (>80% of participants). Studies on penfluridol (neither an LAI or daily oral antipsychotic), case reports, and case series with fewer than 20 patients were excluded. Two investigators independently extracted study-level data and resolved disagreement by consensus, or via a third investigator. Study authors were contacted to obtain additional information as needed. For our primary outcome we meta-analysed the risk ratio (RR) for hospitalisation or relapse with LAIs versus oral antipsychotics by a random-effects model, with hospitalisation used preferentially over relapse. As secondary analyses, we reversed the preferential order to relapse over hospitalisation, and assessed hospitalisation risk and relapse risk individually. Other secondary outcomes included all meta-analysable data, classed by relevance to effectiveness, efficacy, safety, quality of life, cognitive function, and other outcomes, and analysed by study design. Dichotomous outcomes were expressed as pooled RR and continuous outcomes as standardised mean difference (SMD). The protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019142094). FINDINGS: We identified 14 687 records, of which 137 studies (397 319 patients) met the inclusion criteria (32 RCTs [23·4%; 8577 patients], 65 cohort studies [47·4%; 377 447 patients], and 40 pre-post studies [29·2%; 11 295 patients]) and were analysed. The quality of studies in terms of risk of bias varied across study designs and within each study design from low to high. LAIs were associated with a lower risk of hospitalisation or relapse than oral antipsychotics in each of the three study designs (RCTs: 29 studies, 7833 patients, RR 0·88 [95% CI 0·79-0·99], p=0·033; cohort studies: 44 studies, 106 136 patients, RR 0·92 [0·88-0·98], p=0·0044; pre-post studies: 28 studies, 17 876 patients, RR 0·44 [0·39-0·51], p<0·0001). This association was maintained across the study designs when we reversed the preferential order to risk of relapse over hospitalisation, and in individual analysis of hospitalisation risk. The association was maintained only in pre-post studies for relapse risk alone. In all other outcomes related to effectiveness, efficacy, safety, quality of life, cognitive function, and other outcomes, LAIs were more beneficial than oral antipsychotics in 60 (18·3%) of 328 comparisons, not different in 252 (76·8%) comparisons, and less beneficial in 16 (4·9%) comparisons when analysed by study design. Significant heterogeneity was observed across all three study designs. Publication biases were apparent in cohort and pre-post studies, but effect sizes were similar after trim-and-fill analyses. INTERPRETATION: Although study designs have strengths and weaknesses, including potential low quality of observational studies, we consistently identified significant benefit with LAIs versus oral antipsychotics in preventing hospitalisation or relapse, in settings ranging from restricted research (RCTs) to real-word application (cohort and pre-post studies). Our findings suggest that increased clinical use of LAIs could improve outcomes in schizophrenia. FUNDING: None. TRANSLATIONS: For the Chinese, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Portugese and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Association Between Cardiovascular Risk Factors and Cognitive Impairment in People With Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Schizophrenia is associated with cognitive dysfunction and cardiovascular risk factors, including metabolic syndrome (MetS) and its constituent criteria. Cognitive dysfunction and cardiovascular risk factors can worsen cognition in the general population and may contribute to cognitive impairment in schizophrenia. Objective: To study the association between cognitive dysfunction and cardiovascular risk factors and cognitive impairment in individuals with schizophrenia. Data Sources: A search was conducted of Embase, Scopus, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane databases from inception to February 25, 2020, using terms that included synonyms of schizophrenia AND metabolic adversities AND cognitive function. Conference proceedings, clinical trial registries, and reference lists of relevant publications were also searched. Study Selection: Studies were included that (1) examined cognitive functioning in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder; (2) investigated the association of cardiovascular disease risk factors, including MetS, diabetes, obesity, overweight, obesity or overweight, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and insulin resistance with outcomes; and (3) compared cognitive performance of patients with schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder between those with vs without cardiovascular disease risk factors. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Extraction of data was conducted by 2 to 3 independent reviewers per article. Data were meta-analyzed using a random-effects model. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was global cognition, defined as a test score using clinically validated measures of overall cognitive functioning. Results: Twenty-seven studies involving 10 174 individuals with schizophrenia were included. Significantly greater global cognitive deficits were present in patients with schizophrenia who had MetS (13 studies; n = 2800; effect size [ES] = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.13-0.50; P = .001), diabetes (8 studies; n = 2976; ES = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.23-0.42; P < .001), or hypertension (5 studies; n = 1899; ES = 0.21; 95% CI, 0.11-0.31; P < .001); nonsignificantly greater deficits were present in patients with obesity (8 studies; n = 2779; P = .20), overweight (8 studies; n = 2825; P = .41), and insulin resistance (1 study; n = 193; P = .18). Worse performance in specific cognitive domains was associated with cognitive dysfunction and cardiovascular risk factors regarding 5 domains in patients with diabetes (ES range, 0.23 [95% CI, 0.12-0.33] to 0.40 [95% CI, 0.20-0.61]) and 4 domains with MetS (ES range, 0.15 [95% CI, 0.03-0.28] to 0.40 [95% CI, 0.20-0.61]) and hypertension (ES range, 0.15 [95% CI, 0.04-0.26] to 0.27 [95% CI, 0.15-0.39]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, MetS, diabetes, and hypertension were significantly associated with global cognitive impairment in people with schizophrenia.

Lurasidone in the Long-Term Treatment of Bipolar I Depression: A 28-week Open Label Extension Study.

BACKGROUND: Lurasidone has demonstrated efficacy for short-term treatment of bipolar depression in a diverse ethnic population including Japanese. This study evaluated the long-term safety and effectiveness of open-label lurasidone treatment in these patients. METHODS: Patients for this 28-week extension study were recruited from those who completed a 6-week double-blind study of lurasidone, 20-60 mg/day, lurasidone 80-120 mg/day, and placebo. In the extension study, lurasidone was flexibly dosed (20 to 120 mg/day). Safety was evaluated in terms of change from extension-phase baseline to endpoint including adverse events, vital signs, body weight, ECG, laboratory tests, and measures of suicidality and extrapyramidal symptoms. Effectiveness was determined by Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and other measures. RESULTS: 303 of 413 (73.3%) subjects completed the extension study. Discontinuation due to a treatment-emergent adverse event occurred for 11.4% of those who received placebo, and 8.9% of those who received lurasidone, in the prior 6-week trial. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event was akathisia. Minimal changes were evident on body weight and metabolic parameters. Long-term treatment with lurasidone further reduced mean MADRS total scores from long-term baseline to week 28 (or endpoint) for both those who had received prior placebo (-11.3), and those who had receive prior lurasidone (-8.9), in the 6-week double-blind trial. LIMITATIONS: There was no placebo control and treatment was not double-blind. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term treatment with lurasidone (20-120 mg/day) was well-tolerated with no new safety concerns and associated with continued improvement in depressive symptoms in this international sample of patients with bipolar depression. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: JapicCTI-132319, clinicaltrials.gov - NCT01986114.

Antidepressive Effect of Antipsychotics in the Treatment of Schizophrenia: Meta-Regression Analysis of Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotics improve the positive symptoms of schizophrenia. However, little is known about the extent of antidepressive effects of antipsychotics and their correlation with effects on other symptom domains in schizophrenia. The aim was to investigate whether antidepressive effects of antipsychotics have a significant correlation with the effects on specific symptom domains of schizophrenia. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched to identify eligible studies that reported antidepressive effects of antipsychotics for the treatment of adult patients with schizophrenia in double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs). Mean change from baseline in depressive symptoms was meta-analyzed, and the correlation with the effects on other symptom domains was examined through meta-regression analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-five RCTs (13 890 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. Overall, antipsychotics showed greater efficacy than placebo in reducing depressive symptoms, with small to medium effect sizes (standardized mean difference = -0.27, 95% confidence interval -0.32 to -0.22, P < .001). All the antipsychotics, except for chlorpromazine, haloperidol, and ziprasidone, were associated with significantly greater decreases in depressive symptoms compared with placebo (standardized mean difference = -0.19 to -0.40). A higher antidepressive effect was significantly correlated with a higher improvement in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale/Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale total, positive, and negative, and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-general psychopathology symptoms (ß = .618, P < .001; ß = .476, P < .001; ß = .689, P < .001; ß = .603, P < .001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Second-generation antipsychotics (except for ziprasidone) were associated with small to medium effects sizes on improvement in depressive symptoms among adult patients with schizophrenia. The antidepressive effect of antipsychotics was significantly correlated with improvement in other symptom domains, with the highest correlation observed for improvement in negative symptoms. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019133015.

Safety and effectiveness of lurasidone for the treatment of schizophrenia in Asian patients: Results of a 26-week open-label extension study.

INTRODUCTION: This study was designed to evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of lurasidone in the treatment of schizophrenia among Asian patients. METHODS: Patients (N = 281) with schizophrenia who had completed a randomized, double-blind (DB), 6-week comparison of lurasidone (40 and 80 mg/day) and placebo were enrolled in a 26-week extension study in which all patients received open-label (OL), flexible doses of lurasidone (40 or 80 mg/day). Effectiveness was measured using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) scale. RESULTS: Fifty-seven percent of patients completed the OL extension study; 16.7% discontinued early due to lack of effectiveness; and 10.3% due to adverse events. The most common adverse events were insomnia (11.3%), akathisia (11.0%), and nasopharyngitis (10.6%). Adverse events related to weight gain, metabolic parameters, prolactin, and ECG measures were uncommon. Mean change in the PANSS total score from the DB baseline to OL endpoint was -28.4, with mean improvement of -7.5 observed from baseline to OL endpoint, and with a PANSS responder rate of 73.7%. DISCUSSION: The results of the current 26-week extension study found lurasidone to be a generally safe, well-tolerated, and effective long-term treatment for schizophrenia in Asian patients.

Long-term effectiveness of oral second-generation antipsychotics in patients with schizophrenia and related disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis of direct head-to-head comparisons.

Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are recommended for maintenance treatment in schizophrenia. However, comparative long-term effectiveness among SGAs is unclear. Here we provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials lasting ≥⃒6 months comparing SGAs head-to-head in schizophrenia and related disorders. The primary outcome was all-cause discontinuation. Secondary outcomes included efficacy and tolerability, i.e., psychopathology, inefficacy-related and intolerability-related discontinuation, relapse, hospitalization, remission, functioning, quality of life, and adverse events. Pooled risk ratio and standardized mean difference were calculated using random-effects models. Across 59 studies (N=45,787), lasting 47.4±32.1 weeks (range 24-186), no consistent superiority of any SGA emerged across efficacy and tolerability outcomes. Regarding all-cause discontinuation, clozapine, olanzapine and risperidone were significantly (p<0.05) superior to several other SGAs, while quetiapine was inferior to several other SGAs. As to psychopathology, clozapine and olanzapine were superior to several other SGAs, while quetiapine and ziprasidone were inferior to several other SGAs. Data for other efficacy outcomes were sparse. Regarding intolerability-related discontinuation, risperidone was superior and clozapine was inferior to several other SGAs. Concerning weight gain, olanzapine was worse than all other compared non-clozapine SGAs, and risperidone was significantly worse than several other SGAs. As to prolactin increase, risperidone and amisulpride were significantly worse than several other SGAs. Regarding parkinsonism, olanzapine was superior to risperidone, without significant differences pertaining to akathisia. Concerning sedation and somnolence, clozapine and quetiapine were significantly worse than some other SGAs. In summary, different long-term SGA efficacy and tolerability patterns emerged. The long-term risk-benefit profiles of specific SGAs need to be tailored to individual patients to optimize maintenance treatment outcomes.

Lurasidone in the treatment of schizophrenia: Results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in Asian patients.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate efficacy and safety of lurasidone for the treatment of Asian patients with schizophrenia. METHODS: Patients with schizophrenia from Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, and Taiwan were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with 40 or 80 mg/d of lurasidone or placebo. The primary efficacy measure was change from baseline to week 6 on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score. Efficacy was evaluated using a mixed-model repeated-measures (MMRM) analysis in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population. RESULTS: On the basis of the analysis for the mITT population, the estimated difference score for lurasidone 40 and 80 mg/d vs placebo was -4.8 (P = 0.050) and -4.2 (P = 0.080). For the full intention-to-treat (ITT) population, the difference score for lurasidone 40 and 80 mg/d vs placebo was -5.8 (P = 0.017) and -4.2 (P = 0.043). The most frequent adverse events in the lurasidone 40 and 80 mg/d and placebo groups, respectively, were akathisia (7.3%, 10.4%, 3.3%), somnolence (6.0%, 2.6%, 0.7%), and vomiting (6.0%, 5.8%, 2.0%). The proportion of patients experiencing clinically significant weight gain (≥7%) was 5.3% for lurasidone 40 mg/d, 1.3% for 80 mg/d, and 1.4% for placebo. End point changes in metabolic parameters and prolactin were comparable for both lurasidone groups and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In the ITT (but not the mITT) population, treatment with lurasidone was associated with significant improvement in the PANSS total score in patients with schizophrenia. Lurasidone was generally well tolerated with minimal impact on weight and metabolic parameters.