Psilocybin for treatment resistant depression in patients taking a concomitant SSRI medication.

Psilocybin is being investigated as a treatment in adults with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Withdrawal from serotonergic antidepressant drugs is a common prerequisite for taking part in trials of psilocybin due to the possibility of ongoing antidepressant drugs altering the psychedelic effect. This phase II, exploratory, international, fixed-dose, open-label study explored the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of a synthetic form of psilocybin (investigational drug COMP360) adjunct to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor in participants with TRD. Participants received a single 25 mg dose of psilocybin alongside psychological support and were followed-up for 3 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was change in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score from Baseline at Week 3. Secondary end points were safety, including treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), the proportion of responders and remitters at Week 3, and the change from Baseline to Week 3 in Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) score. Nineteen participants were dosed and the mean Baseline MADRS total score was 31.7 (SD = 5.77). Twelve (63.2%) participants had a TEAE, most of which were mild and resolved on the day of onset. There were no serious TEAEs or indication of increased suicidal ideation or behavior. At Week 3, mean change from Baseline in MADRS total score was -14.9 (95% CI, -20.7 to -9.2), and -1.3 (SD = 1.29) in the CGI-S. Both response and remission were evident in 8 (42.1%) participants. Larger, comparator-controlled trials are necessary to understand if this paradigm can optimize treatment-outcome where antidepressant drug withdrawal would be problematic.

Single-dose psilocybin for a treatment-resistant episode of major depression: Impact on patient-reported depression severity, anxiety, function, and quality of life.

BACKGROUND: COMP360 is a proprietary, synthetic formulation of psilocybin being developed for treatment-resistant depression (TRD), a burdensome, life-threatening illness with high global impact. Here, we expand upon the previous report of primary outcomes from a phase 2 study of COMP360 in individuals with TRD-the largest randomised controlled clinical trial of psilocybin-to discuss findings of the exploratory efficacy endpoints. METHODS: In this phase 2, double-blind trial, 233 participants with TRD were randomised to receive a single dose of psilocybin 25 mg, 10 mg, or 1 mg (control), administered alongside psychological support from trained therapists. Efficacy measures assessed patient-reported depression severity, anxiety, positive and negative affect, functioning and associated disability, quality of life, and cognitive function. RESULTS: At Week 3, psilocybin 25 mg, compared with 1 mg, was associated with greater improvements from Baseline total scores in all measures. The 10 mg dose produced smaller effects across these measures. LIMITATIONS: Interpretation of this trial is limited by the absence of an active comparator and the possibility of functional unblinding in participants who received a low dose of psilocybin. CONCLUSIONS: Three weeks after dosing, psilocybin 25 mg and, to a lesser degree, 10 mg improved measures of patient-reported depression severity, anxiety, affect, and functioning. These results extend the primary findings from the largest randomised clinical trial of psilocybin for TRD to examine other outcomes that are of importance to patients.

A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Laboratory Classroom Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Dasotraline in Children With ADHD.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of dasotraline 2 mg/day for treatment of ADHD in children weighing ≤30 kg. METHOD: Children (ages 6-12) with ADHD were randomized to 14 days of once-daily evening doses of dasotraline 2 mg (n = 47) or placebo (n = 48). Efficacy was assessed at Baseline and day-15 in seven, 30-minutes classroom sessions on each day (8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.; 12-24 hours post-dose). The primary endpoint was change from Baseline at Day-15 in the Swanson, Kotkin, Agler, M-Flynn, and Pelham (SKAMP) combined score averaged over the seven, serial timepoints. RESULTS: Treatment with dasotraline was associated with significant improvement versus placebo in the primary SKAMP-combined score (least squares mean [SE] change from Baseline at Day-15: -3.67 [0.775] vs. +1.57 [0.773]; p < .001; effect size, 1.04). CONCLUSION: Dasotraline 2 mg/day was found to be efficacious and generally well tolerated in this placebo-controlled, laboratory classroom study of children ages 6 to 12 years with ADHD. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03231800.

A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Proof-of-Concept Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Non-racemic Amisulpride (SEP-4199) for the Treatment of Bipolar I Depression.

BACKGROUND: Non-racemic amisulpride (SEP-4199) is an 85:15 ratio of aramisulpride:esamisulpride with a 5-HT7 and D2 receptor binding profile optimized for the treatment of bipolar depression. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SEP-4199 for the treatment of bipolar depression. METHODS: Patients meeting DSM-5 criteria for bipolar I depression were randomized to 6 weeks of double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment with SEP-4199 200 mg/d or 400 mg/d. The primary endpoint was change in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) at Week 6. The primary efficacy analysis population consisted of patients in Europe and US (n = 289); the secondary efficacy analysis population (ITT; n = 337) included patients in Japan. RESULTS: Endpoint improvement in MADRS total score was observed on both the primary analysis for SEP-4199 200 mg/d (P = 0.054; effect size [ES], 0.31) and 400 mg/d (P = 0.054; ES, 0.29), and on the secondary (full ITT) analysis for SEP-4199 200 mg/d (P = 0.016; ES, 0.34) and 400 mg/d (P = 0.024; ES, 0.31). Study completion rates were 81% on SEP-4199 200 mg/d, 88% on 400 mg/d, and 86% on placebo. SEP-4199 had low rates of individual adverse events (<8%) and minimal effects on weight and lipids; median increases in prolactin were +83.6 µg/L on 200 mg/d, +95.2 µg/L on 400 mg/d compared with 0.0 µg/L on placebo. LIMITATIONS: The study excluded patients with bipolar II depression and serious psychiatric or medical comorbidity. CONCLUSION: Study results provide preliminary proof of concept, needing confirmation in subsequent randomized trials, for the efficacy of non-racemic amisulpride in bipolar depression.

Safety and Effectiveness of Lurasidone in Patients with Schizophrenia: A 12-Week, Open-Label Extension Study.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of lurasidone among patients with schizophrenia in a 12-week open-label extension study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who completed a 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study were enrolled in a 12-week open-label extension study with flexible dosing of lurasidone at 40 or 80 mg/day. Safety assessments included adverse events, vital signs, laboratory tests, and electrocardiogram (ECG) parameters. Effectiveness measures included the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score, Clinical Global Impression-Severity Scale (CGI-S), Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS) and quality of life measure. RESULTS: A total of 289 patients were enrolled in the open-label extension study. Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were low; akathisia was the most common TEAE with an incidence of 6.6%. There were 54 patients (18.7%) who discontinued the extension study, with 17 (5.9%) discontinuing due to adverse events. Minimal or no effects of lurasidone on weight, body mass index, metabolic parameters, prolactin, and ECG parameters were evident. There was continued improvement to week 12 in PANSS and CGI-S scores beyond the initial gains made during the prior 6-week double-blind study. Non-responders to lurasidone 40 mg/day in the prior 6-week study showed a mean (standard deviation) improvement from open-label baseline of 10.7 (13.8) points on the PANSS total score after lurasidone dose was increased to a modal dose of 80 mg/day during the extension study. Changes from double-blind baseline in CDSS and quality of life were maintained in the extension study. CONCLUSION: Treatment with lurasidone 40 or 80 mg once daily (flexibly dosed) continued to be well tolerated with patients demonstrating further improvement in symptoms over the course of a 12-week open-label extension study in patients with schizophrenia.

Efficacy and safety of lurasidone in acutely psychotic patients with schizophrenia: A 6-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of lurasidone in acute schizophrenia in Japan and other countries. METHODS: Subjects (aged 18-74 years) diagnosed with schizophrenia were randomized to lurasidone 40 mg/day or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score at Week 6. Secondary efficacy assessments included the Clinical Global Impression-Severity Scale (CGI-S). Safety endpoints included adverse events, and laboratory and electrocardiogram parameters. RESULTS: A total of 483 subjects were randomized to lurasidone or placebo; 107 subjects were from Japan. Mean changes from baseline at Week 6 endpoint in PANSS total scores were -19.3 in the lurasidone group and -12.7 in the placebo group (treatment difference: P < 0.001, effect size = 0.41). Changes from baseline for Week 6 CGI-S scores were -1.0 for lurasidone and -0.7 for placebo (treatment difference: P < 0.001, effect size = 0.41). All-cause discontinuation during the 6-week, double-blind period was 19.4% for lurasidone and 25.4% for placebo, and discontinuation rates due to adverse event were 5.7% for lurasidone and 6.4% for placebo. The following common treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in more than 2% on lurasidone and at a rate at least twice that of the placebo group: akathisia (4.0%), dizziness (2.8%), somnolence (2.8%), abdominal discomfort (2.0%) and asthenia (2.0%). No significant changes in bodyweight or metabolic parameters were observed. CONCLUSION: Lurasidone 40 mg once daily dosing demonstrated efficacy in a patient population with acute schizophrenia, including subjects from Japan, and was generally safe and well-tolerated.

Efficacy and safety of dasotraline in adults with binge-eating disorder: a randomized, placebo-controlled, fixed-dose clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this fixed-dose study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dasotraline in the treatment of patients with binge-eating disorder (BED). METHODS: Patients meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition criteria for BED were randomized to 12 weeks of double-blind treatment with fixed doses of dasotraline (4 and 6 mg/d), or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was change in number of binge-eating (BE) days per week at week 12. Secondary efficacy endpoints included week 12 change on the BE CGI-Severity Scale (BE-CGI-S) and the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale Modified for BE (YBOCS-BE). RESULTS: At week 12, treatment with dasotraline was associated with significant improvement in number of BE days per week on the dose of 6 mg/d (N = 162) vs placebo (N = 162; -3.47 vs -2.92; P = .0045), but not 4 mg/d (N = 161; -3.21). Improvement vs placebo was observed for dasotraline 6 and 4 mg/d, respectively, on the BE-CGI-S (effect size [ES]: 0.37 and 0.27) and on the YBOCS-BE total score (ES: 0.43 and 0.29). The most common adverse events on dasotraline were insomnia, dry mouth, headache, decreased appetite, nausea, and anxiety. Changes in blood pressure and pulse were minimal. CONCLUSION: Treatment with dasotraline 6 mg/d (but not 4 mg/d) was associated with significantly greater reduction in BE days per week. Both doses of dasotraline were generally safe and well-tolerated and resulted in global improvement on the BE-CGI-S, as well as improvement in BE related obsessional thoughts and compulsive behaviors on the YBOCS-BE. These results confirm the findings of a previous flexible dose study.

Major depressive disorder with mixed features and treatment response to lurasidone: A symptom network model.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the symptom network structure of major depressive disorder (MDD) with mixed features and implications for treatment. METHODS: In this post-hoc analysis of a previously reported randomized trial, patients meeting DSM-IV-TR criteria for MDD presenting with two or three manic symptoms (DSM-5 mixed features specifier) were randomized to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with lurasidone 20-60 mg/d (N = 109) or placebo (N = 100). The network structure of symptoms at baseline and their treatment moderating effects were investigated. RESULTS: Network analyses showed that both ``elevated mood'' (YMRS item 1) and ``increased motor activity-energy'' (YMRS item 2) were associated with ``sleep disturbance'' ("bridge" symptom) and the depressive symptom cluster. Presence of both "elevated mood" and "increased motor activity-energy" at baseline predicted significantly less improvement in MADRS and CGI-S score at week 6 with lurasidone (vs. placebo) compared to patients without these manic symptoms at baseline. The network model also showed "rapid/pressured speech" (YMRS item 6) at baseline predicted improvement in both manic and depressive symptoms with lurasidone vs. placebo treatment. LIMITATIONS: This was a post-hoc analysis where findings need to be confirmed by prospective controlled studies. CONCLUSIONS: This post-hoc analysis describes the symptom network structure of MDD with mixed features in a patient sample at study baseline. Specific manic symptoms were found to be linked to sleep disturbance (characterized as a "bridge" symptom), which in turn linked the manic and depressive symptom clusters. The presence (vs. absence) of the specific manic symptoms we identified moderated the antidepressant and antimanic effects of lurasidone in the treatment of MDD with mixed (subthreshold hypomanic) features.

Association of C-reactive protein and metabolic risk with cognitive effects of lurasidone in patients with schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence has implicated insulin resistance and inflammation in the pathophysiology of cognitive impairments associated with neuropsychiatric disorders. This post-hoc analysis based on a placebo-controlled trial investigated the effect of inflammation (indexed by CRP) and metabolic risk factors on cognitive performance in patients with schizophrenia treated with lurasidone. METHODS: Acutely exacerbated patients with schizophrenia were randomized to lurasidone (80 or 160 mg/day), quetiapine XR 600 mg/day, or placebo. A wide range CRP test and a cognitive assessment using the CogState computerized battery were performed at baseline and week 6 study endpoint. Associations between log-transformed CRP, high density lipoprotein (HDL), homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) and treatment response were evaluated. RESULTS: CRP combined with HDL, triglyceride-to-HDL (TG/HDL) ratio, or HOMA-IR at study baseline were significant moderators of the improvement in cognitive performance associated with lurasidone 160 mg/day (vs. placebo) treatment (p < .05). Greater placebo-corrected treatment effect size on the CogState composite score was observed for patients in the lurasidone 160 mg/day treatment group who had either low CRP and high HDL (d = 0.43), or low CRP and low HOMA-IR (d = 0.46). Interactive relationships between CRP, HDL, TG/HDL, HOMA-IR and the antipsychotic efficacy of lurasidone or quetiapine XR were not significant. There were no significant associations between antipsychotic treatment and changes in CRP level at study endpoint. CONCLUSIONS: Findings of this post-hoc analysis based on a placebo-controlled trial in patients with schizophrenia suggest that baseline CRP level combined with measures of metabolic risk significantly moderated the improvement in cognitive performance associated with lurasidone 160 mg/day (vs. placebo) treatment. Our findings underscore the importance of maintaining a low metabolic risk profile in patients with schizophrenia.

Efficacy and Safety of Dasotraline in Children With ADHD: A Laboratory Classroom Study.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dasotraline for treatment of ADHD in children. Method: Children (ages 6-12 years; N = 112) with ADHD were randomized, double-blind, to 14 days of once-daily evening doses of dasotraline 4 mg or placebo. ADHD symptom severity was measured at baseline and Day 15 in seven, 30-min classroom sessions using the Swanson, Kotkin, Agler, M-Flynn, and Pelham (SKAMP) and the Permanent Product Measure of Performance (PERMP) math test. Results: Significant improvement was observed for dasotraline versus placebo in the SKAMP-combined score (-3.2 vs. +2.0; p < .001; effect size = 0.85) and SKAMP and PERMP subscale scores. The three most common adverse events for dasotraline (vs. placebo) were insomnia (19.6% vs. 3.6%), headache (10.7% vs. 8.9%), and decreased appetite (10.7% vs. 3.6%). Conclusion: In this laboratory classroom study, dasotraline 4 mg was found to be an efficacious and generally well-tolerated treatment for ADHD in children aged 6 to 12 years.

Consistency checks to improve measurement with the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).

International Society for CNS Clinical Trials and Methodology convened an expert Working Group that assembled consistency/inconsistency flags for the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Twenty-two flags were identified. Seven flags are believed to be strong flags that suggest that a thorough review of rating is warranted. The flags were applied to assessments derived from the NEWMEDS data repository. Almost 65% of ratings had at least one inconsistency flag raised and 22% had two or more. Application of flags to clinical ratings may improve reliability of ratings and validity of trials.

Effect of Lurasidone on Sexual Function in Major Depressive Disorder Patients With Subthreshold Hypomanic Symptoms (Mixed Features): Results From a Placebo-Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this secondary analysis was to evaluate whether treatment with lurasidone was associated with impairment in sexual functioning in major depressive disorder (MDD) patients with subthreshold hypomanic symptoms (mixed features). METHODS: Patients meeting DSM-IV-TR criteria for MDD, who presented with 2 or 3 protocol-specified manic symptoms, were randomized to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with flexible doses of either lurasidone 20-60 mg/d (n = 109) or placebo (n = 100). The study was conducted between September 2011 and October 2014. Change in sexual functioning was assessed utilizing the 14-item self-report Changes in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ-14) administered at baseline and week 6 endpoint. Change from baseline to week 6 in depression severity was assessed utilizing the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score, the primary efficacy endpoint. RESULTS: Lurasidone significantly reduced mean MADRS total scores at week 6 endpoint (-20.5 vs -13.0; P < .001). Treatment with lurasidone was associated with significant endpoint improvement in CSFQ total scores versus placebo (+5.1 vs +3.1; P < .05). Fewer patients treated with lurasidone versus placebo shifted from normal to abnormal sexual function. The proportion of patients with a baseline-to-endpoint shift from normal to abnormal sexual function was smaller for lurasidone versus placebo (1.9% vs 4.3%; CSFQ criteria) at study endpoint. Use of higher lurasidone doses was not associated with greater impairment in sexual functioning. No treatment-emergent adverse events related to sexual function were reported during lurasidone treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In this secondary analysis of a placebo-controlled trial involving patients with MDD and mixed features, lurasidone was not associated with treatment-related sexual dysfunction. These findings were consistent across both structured assessments using a validated sexual functioning questionnaire (CSFQ) as well as adverse event reporting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01421134.

C-reactive protein and response to lurasidone in patients with bipolar depression.

Prior studies suggest that the inflammatory biomarker c-reactive protein (CRP) holds promise for predicting antidepressant response in patients with major depressive disorder. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether CRP might similarly predict antidepressant responses to lurasidone in patients with bipolar I depression. Serum CRP concentration was measured prior to, and following, 6 weeks of treatment in 485 outpatients with bipolar I depression. Patients were randomized to receive monotherapy with lurasidone 20-60 mg/day (N = 161), lurasidone 80-120 mg/day (N = 162) or placebo (N = 162). CRP was assessed using the wide-range CRP assay (wr-CRP). The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 6 in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score. Mixed models and statistical interaction tests were applied to investigate the moderating effects of pre-treatment wr-CRP on clinical endpoints. CRP was evaluated as a log-transformed continuous variable and by clinically-relevant cut-points. Increasing pre-treatment wr-CRP level predicted a larger overall antidepressant response to lurasidone, as well as an increased response for a number of individual depressive symptoms. These moderating effects of pre-treatment wr-CRP remained significant after adjustment for potential confounds (e.g. baseline BMI and weight change). Treatment with lurasidone did not affect serum concentrations of CRP compared to placebo during the study. Elevated CRP level prior to treatment was associated with an enhanced clinical response to lurasidone in patients with bipolar I depression. If confirmed in future studies, CRP may represent a clinically useful diagnostic and predictive biomarker supporting a precision medicine approach to the treatment of bipolar depression.

Safety and Effectiveness of Long-Term Treatment with Lurasidone in Older Adults with Bipolar Depression: Post-Hoc Analysis of a 6-Month, Open-Label Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of 6 months of treatment with lurasidone in older adults with a diagnosis of bipolar I depression. DESIGN: Post-hoc analysis of a multicenter, 6-month, open-label extension study. SETTING: Outpatient. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 55 to 75 years with a DSM-IV-TR diagnosis of bipolar I depression who had completed 6 weeks of double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment with either lurasidone monotherapy (1 study) or adjunctive therapy with lithium or valproate (2 studies). INTERVENTION: Flexible doses of lurasidone, 20 to 120 mg/day, either as monotherapy, or adjunctive with lithium or valproate. MEASUREMENTS: Effectiveness was assessed using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS; change from open-label-baseline to month-6, observed case analysis). RESULTS: A total of 141 older adults entered the extension study (monotherapy, N = 55; 39%; adjunctive therapy, N = 86; 61%). At the end of 6 months of open-label treatment with lurasidone, as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy, minimal changes were observed in the older adult sample in mean weight (-1.0 kg and -0.4 kg, respectively); and median total cholesterol (-2.0 mg/dL and +6.0 md/dL, respectively), triglycerides (+2.5 mg/dL and +6.0 mg/dL, respectively), and HbA1c (0.0% and -0.1%, respectively). Patients treated with 6 months of lurasidone showed a mean improvement on the MADRS in both the monotherapy (-6.2) and adjunctive therapy (-6.7) groups. CONCLUSIONS: Results of these post-hoc analyses found that up to 7.5 months of lurasidone treatment for bipolar depression in older adults was associated with minimal effects on weight and metabolic parameters, with low rates of switching to hypomania or mania, and was well tolerated. The antidepressant effectiveness of lurasidone in this age group was maintained over the 6-month treatment period.

Lurasidone for major depressive disorder with mixed features and anxiety: a post-hoc analysis of a randomized, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this post-hoc analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of lurasidone in treating patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) with mixed features who present with mild and moderate-to-severe levels of anxiety. METHODS: The data in this analysis were derived from a study of patients meeting the DSM-IV-TR criteria for unipolar MDD, with a Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score ≥26, presenting with two or three protocol-defined manic symptoms, who were randomized to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with either lurasidone 20-60 mg/day (n=109) or placebo (n=100). Anxiety severity was evaluated using the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A). To evaluate the effect of baseline anxiety on response to lurasidone, the following two anxiety groups were defined: mild anxiety (HAM-A≤14) and moderate-to-severe anxiety (HAM-A≥15). Change from baseline in MADRS total score was analyzed for each group using a mixed model for repeated measures. RESULTS: Treatment with lurasidone was associated with a significant week 6 change versus placebo in MADRS total score for patients with both mild anxiety (-18.4 vs. -12.8, p<0.01, effect size [ES]=0.59) and moderate-to-severe anxiety (-22.0 vs. -13.0, p<0.001, ES=0.95). Treatment with lurasidone was associated with a significant week 6 change versus placebo in HAM-A total score for patients with both mild anxiety (-7.6 vs. -4.0, p<0.01, ES=0.62), and moderate-to-severe anxiety (-11.4 vs. -6.1, p<0.0001, ES=0.91). CONCLUSIONS: In this post-hoc analysis of an MDD with mixed features and anxiety population, treatment with lurasidone was associated with significant improvement in both depressive and anxiety symptoms in subgroups with mild and moderate-to-severe levels of anxiety at baseline.

Lurasidone for major depressive disorder with mixed features and irritability: a post-hoc analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this post-hoc analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of lurasidone in treating major depressive disorder (MDD) with mixed features including irritability. METHODS: The data in this analysis were derived from a study of patients meeting DSM-IV-TR criteria for unipolar MDD, with a Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score ≥26, presenting with two or three protocol-defined manic symptoms, and who were randomized to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with either lurasidone 20-60 mg/d (n=109) or placebo (n=100). We defined "irritability" as a score ≥2 on both the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) irritability item (#5) and the disruptive-aggressive item (#9). Endpoint change in the MADRS and YMRS items 5 and 9 were analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures for patients with and without irritability. RESULTS: Some 20.7% of patients met the criteria for irritability. Treatment with lurasidone was associated with a significant week 6 change vs. placebo in MADRS score in both patients with (-22.6 vs. -9.5, p<0.0001, effect size [ES]=1.4) and without (-19.9 vs. -13.8, p<0.0001, ES=0.7) irritability. In patients with irritable features, treatment with lurasidone was associated with significant week 6 changes vs. placebo in both the YMRS irritability item (-1.4 vs. -0.3, p=0.0012, ES=1.0) and the YMRS disruptive-aggressive item (-1.0 vs. -0.3, p=0.0002, ES=1.2). CONCLUSIONS: In our post-hoc analysis of a randomized, placebo-controlled, 6-week trial, treatment with lurasidone significantly improved depressive symptoms in MDD patients with mixed features including irritability. In addition, irritability symptoms significantly improved in patients treated with lurasidone.

Long-term use of lurasidone in patients with bipolar disorder: safety and effectiveness over 2 years of treatment.

BACKGROUND: Bipolar disorder is a chronic illness with a 2-year recurrence rate of approximately 50% among individuals receiving treatment in the community. The aim of this 18-month, open-label, continuation study was to evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of lurasidone in patients who initially presented with a major depressive episode associated with bipolar disorder, and who had completed at least 6 months of initial treatment with lurasidone. METHODS: Patients with bipolar I depression were enrolled in one of three 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (monotherapy with lurasidone, 1 study; adjunctive therapy with lurasidone; and lithium or valproate, 2 studies). Study completers were eligible for a 6-month, open-label extension study of lurasidone utilizing flexible daily doses of 20-120 mg; extension completers were then eligible for an additional 18 months of continuation treatment with flexible, once-daily doses of lurasidone in the range of 20-80 mg. Concomitant therapy with mood stabilizers was permitted throughout the open-label extension and continuation studies. RESULTS: A total of 1199 patients entered, and 941 (78.5%) completed initial, double-blind, acute treatment, of whom 817/941 (86.8%) entered, and 559 (68.4%) completed the 6-month extension study; 122/559 patients (21.8%) entered the 18-month continuation study, of whom 19.7% of discontinued, including 6.6% due to adverse events and 1.6% due to insufficient efficacy. The mean dose of lurasidone during the 18-month continuation study was 61.8 mg/day, and the modal dose was 60 mg/day. Mean change in weight, from acute baseline to 18-month continuation endpoint was +0.8 kg (completers, n = 55); median changes in cholesterol and triglycerides were -3.0 mg/dL and +26.0 mg/dL, respectively. Based on a Kaplan-Meier analysis, the probability of relapse during 18 months of continuation treatment with lurasidone was estimated to be 18.3% in the monotherapy group and 29.1% in the adjunctive therapy group. Improvement in global illness severity was also maintained during 18 months of continuation therapy (CGI-S at continuation baseline, 2.1; 18-month completers, 1.7; LOCF-endpoint, 1.9). CONCLUSIONS: Up to 2 years of treatment with lurasidone was safe and well tolerated in this bipolar disorder population presenting with an index episode of depression. Improvement in depressive symptoms was maintained in the majority of patients treated with lurasidone, with relatively low rates of relapse, and with minimal effects on weight and metabolic parameters.

Efficacy of Lurasidone in Adults Aged 55 Years and Older With Bipolar Depression: Post Hoc Analysis of 2 Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Studies.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this post hoc analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of lurasidone in patients aged 55 years and older with bipolar depression. METHODS: A post hoc analysis was performed on the older adult subgroup (n = 142) of outpatients meeting DSM-IV-TR criteria for bipolar I depression in 2 placebo-controlled, 6-week, randomized, double-blind studies conducted from 2009-2012: a monotherapy study comparing fixed flexible-dose ranges of lurasidone 20-60 mg/d or 80-120 mg/d with placebo and an adjunctive therapy study comparing flexible doses of lurasidone 20-120 mg/d with placebo adjunctive to either lithium or valproate. The primary endpoint was mean change at week 6 in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. RESULTS: In the randomized sample, the proportion of older adults was 88/505 (17.4%) in the monotherapy study and 54/348 (15.5%) in the adjunctive therapy study. In the older adult subgroup in the monotherapy study, mean change at week 6 in the MADRS was significantly greater for lurasidone versus placebo (-14.8 vs -7.1; P = .003; effect size, 0.83; pooled doses), and in the adjunctive therapy study, mean change for lurasidone was not significantly different from placebo (-13.9 vs -11.1; P = .398; effect size, 0.26). Discontinuation rates due to adverse events for lurasidone versus placebo were similar for the monotherapy (6.8% vs 6.9%) and adjunctive therapy (3.8% vs 7.1%) studies. Lurasidone had minimal effects on metabolic laboratory values. CONCLUSIONS: The results of these post hoc analyses, which assessed the efficacy of lurasidone in older adults with bipolar disorder, found that monotherapy was significantly effective while adjunctive therapy was not associated with significant improvement. Both monotherapy and adjunctive therapy with lurasidone were safe and well-tolerated in this older adult population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00868699, NCT00868452.

Early non-response in patients with severe depression: escitalopram up-titration versus switch to duloxetine.

BACKGROUND: Comparative evidence for second-step treatment strategies in severe depression is scarce. Up-titrating a well tolerated selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) versus switching to a serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) after initial SSRI non-response are possible treatment options. It is often unclear whether relevant tolerability and efficacy differences exist between SSRI up-titration versus switch to an SNRI. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate tolerability and efficacy of up-titration of escitalopram versus switch to duloxetine in patients who failed to respond to escitalopram 10 mg/day. METHODS: This was an active-controlled, parallel-group, double-blind, randomized study in a general community comparing escitalopram and duloxetine in patients with severe depression; patients who did not respond (<50% Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] improvement) to 2 weeks of single-blind escitalopram 10 mg/day during the lead-in period were randomized to 8 weeks of double-blind treatment. 571 male and female outpatients aged 18-65 years with severe depression (MADRS total score ≥30) participated in the study and received at least one dose of escitalopram 10 mg/day in the single-blind lead-in phase. During the double-blind randomized phase, 474 patients who did not respond to lead-in escitalopram were randomized and received treatment with escitalopram 20 mg (n = 229) or duloxetine 60 mg (n = 245). Treatment was single-blind escitalopram 10 mg/day during a 2-week lead-in followed by 8-week double-blind escitalopram 20 mg/day or duloxetine 60 mg/day. The main outcome measure was time to all-cause premature study discontinuation. RESULTS: There was no difference in time to all-cause discontinuation between groups (hazard ratio escitalopram/duloxetine = 0.95 [95% CI 0.64, 1.41]; p = 0.727). Treatment with escitalopram compared with duloxetine resulted in significant improvement in MADRS total score at the end of week 8 (least squares mean difference [LSMD] = -1.87 [95% CI -3.60, -0.14]; p = 0.034) using last observation carried forward (LOCF) analysis. Significantly more escitalopram (54%) than duloxetine (42%) patients achieved remission (MADRS ≤10) by week 8 (p = 0.013). Adverse events were similar between the two treatment groups. CONCLUSION: In initial non-responders to escitalopram 10 mg/day, dose escalation to 20 mg/day provided better efficacy than switching to duloxetine 60 mg/day, while discontinuations for any reasons and adverse events were similar. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT00384436.