Three-Year Outcomes of 6-Month Paliperidone Palmitate in Adults With Schizophrenia: An Open-Label Extension Study of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics have the potential to improve adherence and symptom control in patients with schizophrenia, promoting long-term recovery. Paliperidone palmitate (PP) once every 6 months is the first and currently only LAI antipsychotic with an extended dosing interval of 6 months. Objective: To assess long-term outcomes of PP received once every 6 months in adults with schizophrenia. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a 2-year open-label extension (OLE) study of a 1-year randomized clinical trial (RCT), eligible adults with schizophrenia could choose to continue PP every 6 months if they had not experienced relapse after receiving PP once every 3 or 6 months in the 1-year, international, multicenter, double-blind, randomized noninferiority trial. The present analysis focused on patients receiving PP every 6 months in the double-blind trial through the OLE study (November 20, 2017, to May 3, 2022). Intervention: Patients received a dorsogluteal injection of PP on day 1 and once every 6 months up to month 30. Main Outcomes and Measures: End points included assessment of relapse and change from the double-blind trial baseline to the OLE end point in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total and subscale, Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) Scale, and Personal Social Performance (PSP) Scale scores. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), injection site evaluations, and laboratory tests were also assessed. Results: Among 121 patients (83 [68.6%] male), mean (SD) age at baseline was 38.6 (11.24) years and mean (SD) duration of illness was 11.0 (9.45) years. At screening of the double-blind study, 101 patients (83.5%) were taking an oral antipsychotic and 20 (16.5%) were taking an LAI antipsychotic. Altogether, 5 of 121 patients (4.1%) experienced relapse during the 3-year follow-up; reasons for relapse were psychiatric hospitalization (2 [1.7%]), suicidal or homicidal ideation (2 [1.7%]), and deliberate self-injury (1 [0.8%]). Patients treated with PP every 6 months were clinically and functionally stable, and outcomes were well maintained, evidenced by stable scores on the PANSS (mean [SD] change, -2.6 [9.96] points), CGI-S (mean [SD] change, -0.2 [0.57] points), and PSP (mean [SD] change, 3.1 [9.14] points) scales over the 3-year period. In total, 101 patients (83.5%) completed the 2-year OLE. At least 1 TEAE was reported in 97 of 121 patients (80.2%) overall; no new safety or tolerability concerns were identified. Conclusions and Relevance: In a 2-year OLE study of a 1-year RCT, results supported favorable long-term outcomes of PP once every 6 months for up to 3 years in adults with schizophrenia.

Effects of esketamine nasal spray on depressive symptom severity in adults with treatment-resistant depression and associations between the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale and the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of esketamine nasal spray (ESK) plus newly initiated oral antidepressant (OAD) versus OAD plus placebo nasal spray (PBO) on the association between Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) scores in adults with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). METHODS: Data from TRANSFORM-1 and TRANSFORM-2 (two similarly designed, randomized, active-controlled TRD studies) and SUSTAIN-1 (relapse prevention study) were analyzed. Group differences for mean changes in PHQ-9 total score from baseline were compared using analysis of covariance. Associations between MADRS and PHQ-9 total scores from TRANSFORM-1/TRANSFORM-2 were assessed using simple parametric, nonparametric, and multiple regression models. RESULTS: In TRANSFORM-1/TRANSFORM-2 (ESK + OAD, n = 343; OAD + PBO, n = 222), baseline PHQ-9 mean scores were 20.4 for ESK + OAD and 20.6 for OAD + PBO (severe depression). At day 28, significant group differences were observed in least squares mean change (SE) in PHQ-9 scores from baseline (-12.8 [0.46] vs -10.3 [0.53], P < .001) and in clinically substantial change in PHQ-9 scores (≥6 points; 77.1% vs 64%, P < .001) in ESK + OAD and OAD + PBO groups, respectively. A nonlinear relationship between MADRS and PHQ-9 was observed; total scores demonstrated increased correlation over time. In SUSTAIN-1, 57.3% of patients receiving ESK + OAD (n = 89) versus 44.2% receiving OAD + PBO (n = 86) retained remission status (PHQ-9 score ≤4) at maintenance treatment end point (P = .044). CONCLUSIONS: In adults with TRD, ESK + OAD significantly improved severity of depressive symptoms, and more patients achieved clinically meaningful changes in depressive symptoms based on PHQ-9, versus OAD + PBO. PHQ-9 outcomes were consistent with those of clinician-rated MADRS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02417064, NCT02418585, NCT02493868.

Relapse Rates With Paliperidone Palmitate in Adult Patients With Schizophrenia: Results for the 6-Month Formulation From an Open-label Extension Study Compared to Real-World Data for the 1-Month and 3-Month Formulations.

BACKGROUND: The 3 paliperidone palmitate (PP) long-acting injectable antipsychotic formulations, PP 1-month (PP1M), PP 3-month (PP3M), and PP 6-month (PP6M), have shown to reduce the risk of relapse in schizophrenia. The current phase-4 study constructed external comparator arms (ECAs) using real-world data for PP3M and PP1M and compared relapse prevention rates with PP6M from an open-label extension (OLE) study in adult patients with schizophrenia. METHODS: PP6M data were derived from a single-arm, 24-month, OLE study (NCT04072575), which included patients with schizophrenia who completed a 12-month randomized, double-blind, noninferiority, phase-3 study (NCT03345342) without relapse. Patients in the PP3M and PP1M ECAs were identified from the IBM® MarketScan® Multistate Medicaid Database based on similar eligibility criteria as the PP6M cohort. RESULTS: A total of 178 patients were included in each cohort following propensity score matching. Most patients were men (>70%; mean age: 39-41 years). Time to relapse (primary analysis based on Kaplan-Meier estimates) was significantly delayed in the PP6M cohort (P < .001, log-rank test). The relapse rate was lower in the PP6M cohort (3.9%) vs PP3M (20.2%) and PP1M (29.8%) cohorts. Risk of relapse decreased significantly (P < .001) by 82% for PP6M vs PP3M (HR = 0.18 [95% CI = 0.08 to 0.40]), 89% for PP6M vs PP1M (HR = 0.11 [0.05 to 0.25]), and 35% for PP3M vs PP1M (HR = 0.65 [0.42 to 0.99]; P = .043). Sensitivity analysis confirmed findings from the primary analysis. Although the ECAs were matched to mimic the characteristics of the PP6M cohort, heterogeneity between the groups could exist due to factors including prior study participation, unmeasured confounders, variations in data capture and quality, and completeness of clinical information. CONCLUSIONS: In a clinical trial setting, PP6M significantly delayed time to relapse and demonstrated lower relapse rates compared with PP3M and PP1M treatments in real-world settings among adult patients with schizophrenia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04072575; EudraCT number: 2018-004532-30.

Efficacy and Safety of Ponesimod Compared with Teriflunomide in Female Patients with Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis: Findings from the Pivotal OPTIMUM Study.

Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is threefold more prevalent in women than men. However, sex-specific efficacy analysis for MS disease-modifying therapies is not typically performed. Methods: Post hoc analyses of data from female patients enrolled in the phase 3, double-blind OPTIMUM study of relapsing MS were carried out. Eligible adults were randomized to ponesimod 20 mg or teriflunomide 14 mg once daily for up to 108 weeks. The primary endpoint was annualized relapse rate (ARR); secondary endpoints included change in symptom domain of Fatigue Symptom and Impact Questionnaire-Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis (FSIQ-RMS) at week 108, number of combined unique active lesions (CUALs) per year on magnetic resonance imaging, and time to 12- and 24-week confirmed disability accumulation (CDA). Results: A total of 735 female patients (581 of childbearing potential) were randomized to ponesimod (n = 363, 49.4%) or teriflunomide (n = 372, 50.6%). Relative risk reduction in the ARR for ponesimod versus teriflunomide was 33.1% (mean, 0.192 vs. 0.286, respectively; p < 0.002). Mean difference in FSIQ-RMS for ponesimod versus teriflunomide was -4.34 (0.12 vs. 4.46; p = 0.002); rate ratio in CUALs per year, 0.601 (1.45 vs. 2.41; p < 0.0001), and hazard ratio for time to 12- and 24-week CDA risk estimates, 0.83 (10.7% vs. 12.9%; p = 0.38) and 0.91 (8.8% vs. 9.7%; p = 0.69), respectively. Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between treatment groups (89.0% and 90.1%). Conclusions: Analyses demonstrate the efficacy and safety of ponesimod, versus active comparator, for women with relapsing MS, supporting data-informed decision-making for women with MS. Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT02425644.

Comparative effectiveness study of paliperidone palmitate 6-month with a real-world external comparator arm of paliperidone palmitate 1-month or 3-month in patients with schizophrenia.

Background: The paliperidone palmitate 6-month (PP6M) long-acting injectable formulation is currently the longest dosing interval available for schizophrenia treatment. Objective: To compare treatment outcomes between a real-world external comparator arm (ECA; NeuroBlu database) and the PP6M open-label extension (OLE) clinical trial arm. Methods: The ECA comprised patients receiving PP 1-month (PP1M) or PP 3-month (PP3M) for ⩾12 months without a relapse. The PP6M OLE arm included patients with PP1M treatment prior to randomization who completed the 12-month double-blind PP6M study on either PP3M or PP6M relapse-free. Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to study time-to-relapse (primary outcome) and change in Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) score (secondary outcome). Results: At 24 months, 3.9% (7/178) of patients in the PP6M cohort experienced a relapse versus 15.6% (26/167) in the ECA. Time-to-relapse was longer in the PP6M cohort versus the ECA at 12-, 18-, and 24-months across the different weighting methods; median time-to-relapse was not reached in both cohorts. Hazard ratio (HR) for relapse was significantly lower for the PP6M cohort versus the ECA throughout the duration of the study [HR at 24 months: 0.18 (95% CI: 0.08-0.42), p < 0.001]. At 24 months, change in CGI-S score for the PP6M cohort was 0.76 points lower than the ECA (p < 0.001). Results were similar in a sensitivity analysis using propensity score matching (PSM); IPTW resulted in larger sample sizes in balanced dataset than PSM. Conclusion: Consistent findings across weighting and matching methods suggest PP6M efficacy in reducing and delaying relapses and long-term symptom control compared to PP1M/PP3M in usual-care settings. Additional confounds, such as greater illness severity and more frequent comorbidities and comedications in the ECA, were not fully controlled by the applied statistical methods. Future real-world studies directly comparing PP6M with PP3M/PP1M and adjusting for these confounders are warranted.

Earlier Use of Long-Acting Injectable Paliperidone Palmitate Versus Oral Antipsychotics in Patients With Schizophrenia: An Integrated Patient-Level Post Hoc Analysis.

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of paliperidone palmitate (PP) long-acting injectable antipsychotic (LAI) versus oral antipsychotic (OAP) treatment in adult patients diagnosed with schizophrenia (per DSM-IV or DSM-5 criteria) and varying duration of illness (0-3 years and > 3 years).Methods: Patient-level data from the PRIDE, PROSIPAL, and DREaM studies were included in a post hoc analysis. Efficacy and safety outcomes, including relapse assessments, Personal and Social Performance scale scores, Medication Satisfaction Questionnaire total scores, and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), were measured systematically. Treatment failure (TF) included relapses due to psychiatric hospitalizations, arrest or incarceration, suicidal or homicidal ideation or behavior, discontinuation due to inadequate efficacy and/or safety or tolerability, treatment supplementation due to inadequate efficacy, and significant worsening of symptoms.Results: Fewer TFs were observed with PP versus OAP in both the 0-3 years group (17.7% and 25.3%, respectively) and the > 3 years group (32.3% and 42.4%, respectively). Time to first TF was significantly longer with PP versus OAP treatment in both duration of illness groups. TEAE rates were similar between the PP and OAP groups, with no new safety signals identified.Conclusions: This post hoc analysis suggests that PP provides significant benefit in reducing TF or relapse compared with OAPs regardless of duration of illness and highlights the potential benefit of implementing PP earlier in the course of schizophrenia.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers NCT01157351 (PRIDE), NCT01081769 (PROSIPAL), and NCT02431702 (DREaM).

Efficacy and Safety of Esketamine Nasal Spray in Patients with Treatment-Resistant Depression Who Completed a Second Induction Period: Analysis of the Ongoing SUSTAIN-3 Study.

BACKGROUND: Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is a chronic illness requiring long-term treatment. Esketamine nasal spray (ESK) has been studied in several long-term trials of patients with TRD, including SUSTAIN-1 (NCT02493868) and SUSTAIN-3 (NCT02782104). This subgroup analysis of SUSTAIN-3 evaluated patients with TRD who received a second induction (IND) and maintenance treatment with ESK plus oral antidepressant (AD) after a relapse in SUSTAIN-1. METHODS: Patients aged 18-64 years who achieved stable remission or response with ESK and subsequently relapsed after randomization to continue ESK or switch to placebo nasal spray (PBO) in SUSTAIN-1 and entered the IND phase of SUSTAIN-3 were included in this interim analysis. Response (≥50% improvement in total score from baseline for Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] and Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item [PHQ-9]), remission (MADRS score ≤12; PHQ-9 total score <5), changes in depression rating scores (measured as mean change from baseline), and safety were evaluated (incidence of treatment-emergent and serious adverse events [AE]). RESULTS: Of the 96 eligible patients who entered IND in SUSTAIN-3, 32 (33.3%) were taking ESK+AD at the time of relapse in SUSTAIN-1 and 64 (66.7%) were taking AD+PBO. Substantial improvements in depressive symptoms were observed over the second IND phase in both groups and were maintained over the optimization/maintenance (OP/M) phase. MADRS response rates following a second IND were 71.9% and 73.4% for previously relapsed (PR) ESK+AD and PR-AD+PBO, respectively; remission rates were 62.5% and 60.9%, respectively. During the IND and OP/M phases, 58.3% and 83.3% of patients experienced a treatment-emergent AE, respectively. No patients discontinued due to an AE during the second IND. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with TRD benefitted from receiving a second IND and maintenance treatment with ESK and no new safety signals were identified.

Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Paliperidone 6-Month Formulation: An Open-Label 2-Year Extension of a 1-Year Double-Blind Study in Adult Participants With Schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Paliperidone palmitate 6-month (PP6M) demonstrated noninferiority to paliperidone palmitate 3-month in preventing relapse in patients with schizophrenia in a phase 3 double-blind (DB) study (NCT03345342). Here, we report long-term efficacy and safety results from a 2-year single-arm, open-label extension (OLE; NCT04072575) of this DB study. METHODS: Participants who completed the DB study without relapse were enrolled and followed-up every 3 months up to 2 years. Participants received 4 PP6M gluteal injections (700/1000 mg eq.) at baseline, 6-month, 12-month, and 18-month visits. Efficacy endpoints included assessment of relapse, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score, Personal and Social Performance score, and Clinical Global Impression-Severity scale change from baseline. Safety was assessed by treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), physical examinations, and laboratory tests. RESULTS: Of 178 participants enrolled, 154 (86.5%) completed the OLE (mean age: 40.4 years, men: 70.8%; mean duration of PP6M exposure during OLE: 682.1 days). Overall, 7/178 (3.9%) participants relapsed between 20 and 703 days after enrolment. Mean (SD) changes from baseline to endpoint were as follows: Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score, 0.7 (8.22); Clinical Global Impression-Severity, 0.0 (0.51); and Personal and Social Performance Scale, 0.5 (7.47). Overall, 111/178 participants (62.4%) reported ≥1 TEAE; most common (>5%) TEAEs were headache (13.5%) and increased blood prolactin/hyperprolactinemia (18.0%); 8/178 (4.5%) participants experienced serious TEAEs, and 6/178 (3.4%) participants withdrew due to TEAEs. No deaths were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The relapse rate observed with PP6M during the 2-year OLE was low (3.9%). Clinical and functional improvements demonstrated in the DB study were maintained during OLE, and no new safety concerns were identified. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04072575; EudraCT number: 2018-004532-30.

Predictors of response and remission in patients with treatment-resistant depression: A post hoc pooled analysis of two acute trials of esketamine nasal spray.

This exploratory post hoc analysis of two pooled 4-week, phase 3, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled studies that compared esketamine nasal spray plus a newly initiated oral antidepressant (ESK+AD; n = 310) with a newly initiated oral AD plus placebo nasal spray (AD+PBO; n = 208) in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) examined baseline patient demographic and psychiatric characteristics as potential predictors of response (≥50% reduction from baseline in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] total score) and remission (MADRS total score ≤12) at day 28. Overall, younger age, any employment, fewer failed ADs in the current depressive episode, and reduction in Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) score at day 8 were significant positive predictors of response and remission at day 28. Treatment assignment was an important predictor of both response and remission. Patients treated with ESK+AD had 68% and 55% increased odds of achieving response and remission, respectively, versus those treated with AD+PBO. In the ESK+AD group, attainment of response and remission was more likely in patients who were employed, without significant anxiety at baseline, and who experienced a reduction in CGI-S score at day 8. Identification of predictors of response and remission may facilitate identification of those patients with TRD most likely to benefit from ESK+AD. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02417064 (clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02417064) and NCT02418585 (clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02418585).

Feasibility study to evaluate capabilities for conducting psychiatric clinical research within the Rwandan mental healthcare system.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of conducting a large clinical trial within the Rwandan mental healthcare system that would establish the safety, efficacy and benefit of paliperidone palmitate once-monthly (PP1M) and once-every-3-months (PP3M) long-acting injectable formulations in adults with schizophrenia. STUDY DESIGN: An open-label, prospective feasibility study. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: 33 adult patients with schizophrenia were enrolled at 3 sites across Rwanda. INTERVENTIONS: The study design included 3 phases of treatment: an oral run-in to establish tolerability to risperidone (1 week), lead-in treatment with flexibly dosed PP1M to identify a stable dose (17 weeks) and maintenance treatment with PP3M (24 weeks). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility endpoints included compliance with governmental and institutional requirements, acceptable supply chain delivery and proper onsite administration of risperidone/PP1M/PP3M, adequate site infrastructure, adequate training of clinical staff and successful completion of study procedures and scales. A variety of study scales were administered to assess outcomes relevant to patients, caregivers, clinicians and payers in Rwanda and other resource-limited settings. RESULTS: This study was terminated early by the sponsor because certain aspects of study conduct needed to be addressed to maintain Good Clinical Practice requirements and meet regulatory standards. Results identified areas for improvement in study execution, including study governance, site infrastructure, study preparation and conduct of procedures, study budget and study assessments. Despite the identification of areas in need of adjustment, none of these limitations were considered insurmountable. CONCLUSIONS: This work was designed to strengthen global research in schizophrenia by building the capacity of researchers to prepare and conduct pharmaceutical trials in resource-limited settings. Although the study was ended early, modifications motivated by the results will facilitate the successful design and completion of more comprehensive studies, including an ongoing, follow-up interventional trial of PP1M/PP3M in a larger population of patients in Rwanda. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03713658.

Intranasal esketamine effectively treats treatment-resistant depression in adults regardless of baseline irritability.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of baseline irritability on clinical outcomes in adults with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) treated with fixed or flexible doses of esketamine nasal spray plus a newly initiated oral antidepressant (ESK+AD) and to explore whether treatment with ESK affects irritability symptoms over time. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of pooled data from two 4-week, double-blind, phase 3 studies: TRANSFORM-1 (NCT02417064) and TRANSFORM-2 (NCT02418585). Adults with TRD (n = 560) were randomly assigned to ESK+AD or placebo nasal spray plus oral antidepressant (AD+PBO). Irritability was assessed with Item 6 of the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale at screening and baseline. Changes in depression severity (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] total score) were evaluated by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models. Rates of MADRS response (≥50 % decrease from baseline total score) and remission (total score ≤ 12) were examined using multiple logistic regression models. RESULTS: Of 560 participants with TRD, 52.9 %, 23.2 %, and 23.9 % had high, low, and varying levels of irritability, respectively. No significant interaction between baseline irritability and treatment group was observed for change in MADRS total score, treatment response, or remission at day 28; numerically greater improvement was observed on all outcomes with ESK+AD versus AD+PBO at day 28 regardless of baseline irritability level. Percentages of patients reporting adverse events were similar across the three baseline irritability groups. LIMITATIONS: TRANSFORM-1 and TRANSFORM-2 were not designed to prospectively evaluate predetermined irritability outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: These post hoc results support efficacy of ESK+AD in patients with TRD, regardless of baseline irritability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02417064 (TRANSFORM-1), NCT02418585 (TRANSFORM-2).

Adverse Events and Measurement of Dissociation After the First Dose of Esketamine in Patients With TRD.

BACKGROUND: "Dissociation" comprises distinct phenomena, some of which are associated with esketamine treatment and some may overlap with positive symptoms of psychosis. Relationships between dissociation and psychotic symptoms assessed by -clinician report vs conventional rating scales were investigated in a post hoc analysis of data from the initial treatment session in an -open-label, -long-term safety, phase 3 study of esketamine plus a newly initiated oral antidepressant in patients with treatment-resistant depression. METHODS: Adverse events of dissociation or psychosis were examined via investigator report and the Clinician Administered Dissociative States Scale (CADSS) and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale-Plus, respectively, 40 minutes post first esketamine dose. The range of CADSS total scores associated with investigator-reported severity of dissociation was determined by equipercentile linking. Logistic regression models and receiver operating curve analysis explored the CADSS cutoff point for determining presence/absence of dissociation. Frequency of response to specific CADSS items was examined to investigate qualitative differences in the pattern of symptoms reported across investigator-reported levels of adverse event severity. RESULTS: Dissociation was reported as an adverse event in 14.3% (109/764) of patients. Severity of most CADSS items increased with the severity of investigator-reported dissociation. No CADSS cutoff point discriminated well between the presence and absence of dissociation events. Hallucinations were reported as adverse events in 5 patients; none reported delusions. CONCLUSIONS: CADSS scores and severity of dissociation adverse events move generally in the same direction; however, there is substantial variability in this relationship. No signature profile of dissociative experiences was revealed, and psychotic symptoms were uncommon. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov identifier: NCT02497287.

Comparing Relapse Rates in Real-World Patients with Schizophrenia Who Were Adequately versus Not Adequately Treated with Paliperidone Palmitate Once-Monthly Injections Before Transitioning to Once-Every-3-Months Injections.

Purpose: This retrospective cohort study evaluated real-world data on relapses in adult patients with schizophrenia who transitioned to long-acting injectable paliperidone palmitate once-every-3-months (PP3M) following treatment with once-monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP1M). Patients and Methods: Data derived from the IBM® MarketScan® Multi-State Medicaid Database were analyzed. Adults aged ≥18 years with ≥1 schizophrenia diagnosis claim and ≥12 months of continuous medical and prescription enrollment before and/or at index date of PP3M were eligible for inclusion. Patients were matched on propensity score to 2 PP3M cohorts: (1) adequately treated (AT), defined as patients treated with PP1M for ≥4 months, with the last 2 doses the same and a PP3M initiation dose meeting the corresponding PP1M-to-PP3M dose conversion, or (2) not adequately treated (NAT), defined as patients who received ≤2 or no PP1M doses. Relapse rates and time to relapse distributions based on the first occurrence of a qualifying event during the 2-year follow-up period were compared between PP3M cohorts using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and log rank test statistics. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using Cox proportional hazards models. Two sensitivity analyses using different matched populations were performed to assess the robustness of the primary findings. Results: Propensity score matching yielded a sample of 1314 patients (657 per group). Most patients were male (68.9%) and aged 25-64 years (90.1%). The relapse rate was significantly lower in the AT (18.4%) versus NAT cohort (26.8%), P = 0.0002. Risk of relapse decreased by 35% for AT versus NAT (HR: 0.65 [95% CI: 0.51-0.81]). Relapse reductions favored the AT cohort in both sensitivity analyses (HR: 0.67 [95% CI: 0.54-0.83] and HR: 0.74 [95% CI: 0.56-0.97]). Conclusion: In this analysis of Medicaid claims data, patients adequately treated with PP1M before transitioning to PP3M demonstrated significantly lower relapse rates and delayed time to relapse.

Dispersion of cognitive performance test scores on the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery: A different perspective.

Objective: Persons with schizophrenia exhibit greater neurocognitive test score dispersion. Here, we seek to characterize dispersion on the Neurocognitive Composite subtests of the Measurement of Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrena Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB) and determine the relative effects of different antipsychotic formulations on dispersion and mean performance. Method: In this post hoc analysis of the DREaM study (NCT02431702), which compared treatment with paliperidone palmitate (PP) long-acting injectable with oral antipsychotic (OAP) treatment over 18 months, dispersion in MCCB neurocognitive subtest performance was calculated for each participant by visit (test occasion). Results: Over 18 months, mean neurocognitive performance improved in a manner consistent with the expected effects of practice in both groups (p < 0.05); this improvement was observed during the first 9 months (PP: p < 0.05, OAP: p < 0.001), followed by stable performance over the second 9 months (PP: p = 0.821, OAP: p = 0.375). Rates of change did not differ between groups (treatment-by-visit interaction: p = 0.548). In contrast, analyses of dispersion focusing on contrasts between baselines and end points of the first and second 9 months revealed different patterns. Over the first 9 months, dispersion in both groups lessened to a similar extent. However, over the second 9 months, dispersion remained stable in the PP group, whereas neurocognitive performance became significantly more variable in the OAP group (p < 0.01). Conclusion: Dispersion of neurocognitive test scores provides a different index of cognitive change than that provided by composite scores. Long-term maintenance of therapeutic levels provided by PP over time may limit (relative to oral AP) the extent to which cognitive performance becomes more variable.

Health care resource utilization and costs in patients receiving long-acting injectable vs oral antipsychotics: A comparative analysis from the Disease Recovery Evaluation and Modification (DREaM) study.

BACKGROUND: Given relapse frequency early in the course of schizophrenia, recently diagnosed patients may benefit from longacting injectable antipsychotics, which are associated with reduced risk of relapse and hospitalization compared with oral antipsychotics (OAPs). OBJECTIVE: To compare health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs in patients with recent-onset schizophrenia treated with continuous paliperidone palmitate (PP) or continuous OAP or who switched from OAP to PP. METHODS: In this analysis, we combined the 2 randomized phases of the prospective, open-label Disease Recovery Evaluation and Modification (DREaM) clinical study using the principal stratification method to generate 3 treatment strategies: continuous PP for 18 months (PP-PP), continuous OAP for 18 months (OAP-OAP), and initial OAP switched to PP after 9 months (OAP-PP). HCRU metrics included psychiatric hospitalizations, psychiatric and nonpsychiatric emergency department visits, and ambulatory visits. Costs were analyzed using generalized linear models with inverse-probability weighting based on time-varying probabilities of exposure. Robust SEs were estimated using individual-level clustered bootstrapping. Subgroup analyses were performed by region and prior antipsychotic use (< 6 vs ≥ 6 months). RESULTS: A total of 181 patients were included in the PP-PP (n = 61), OAP-OAP (n = 61), and OAP-PP (n = 59) groups. The majority of patients (73%) were enrolled at study sites in the United States, and 48% had received an antipsychotic for less than 6 months prior to study entry. Baseline characteristics were well balanced, and no significant differences in discontinuation rates were observed across treatment strategies. Compared with OAP-OAP, significantly lower cumulative HCRU and costs were apparent before 9 months in the PP-PP group and after 9 months in the OAP-PP group. The cumulative 18-month effects of PP-PP and OAP-PP vs OAP-OAP on the number of psychiatric hospitalizations were ‒0.28 (95% CI = ‒0.51 to ‒0.08) and ‒0.27 (95% CI = ‒0.50 to 0.04), respectively, and those on cumulative mean per-patient total health care costs (in 2020 USD) were -$2,867 (95% CI = ‒$5,133 to ‒$750) and ‒$2,789 (95% CI = ‒$5,155 to ‒$701), respectively. Subgroup analyses indicated a greater reduction in psychiatric hospitalizations and costs with PP-PP or OAP-PP relative to OAP-OAP in patients with less than 6 vs 6 or more months of prior antipsychotic therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous early use of PP in adults with recentonset schizophrenia significantly reduced psychiatric hospitalizations and associated estimated costs compared with OAP; these effects were particularly notable for patients with a shorter duration of prior antipsychotic use. As this was a post hoc analysis of a study that was not powered for HCRU assessments, future studies calibrating these effects to larger real-world populations will be useful. DISCLOSURES: Dr Basu reports consulting fees through Salutis Consulting LLC related to this work. Ms Benson, Dr Turkoz, Ms Patel, Dr Baker, and Dr Brown are employees of Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, and stockholders of Johnson & Johnson, Inc. This research was funded by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC. The sponsor was involved in the study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; development and review of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Evaluation of major treatment failure in patients with recent-onset schizophrenia or schizophreniform disorder: A post hoc analysis from the Disease Recovery Evaluation and Modification (DREaM) study.

OBJECTIVE: A post hoc analysis of the Disease Recovery Evaluation and Modification (DREaM) study was conducted to evaluate time to first major treatment failure (ie, arrest/incarceration or psychiatric hospitalization) in participants with recent-onset schizophrenia or schizophreniform disorder treated with paliperidone palmitate (PP) versus oral antipsychotics (OAPs). METHODS: DREaM was an open-label, delayed-start, randomized, multipart trial consisting of: Part I, 2-month oral run-in; Part II, 9-month disease progression phase (PP or OAP); and Part III, 9 months of additional treatment (PP/PP; OAP re-randomized: OAP/OAP or OAP/PP). PP/PP and OAP/OAP comprised the 18-month extended disease progression (EDP) analysis. RESULTS: In Part II (PP, n = 78; OAP, n = 157), similar proportions of participants experienced a major treatment failure across groups (PP: 12.8 %; OAP: 13.4 %); no difference in time to first major treatment failure was identified (P = 0.918). Significant differences favoring PP emerged after 9 months; in Part III, no participants in the PP/PP group, 3.5 % of participants in the OAP/PP group, and 15.9 % in the OAP/OAP group experienced a major treatment failure (P = 0.002). In the EDP analysis, 10.2 % (PP/PP) and 25.4 % (OAP/OAP) of participants experienced a major treatment failure (P = 0.045; number needed to treat = 6). Safety results were similar between groups and consistent with the known safety profile of PP in adults with schizophrenia. CONCLUSIONS: Initiation of PP during the early stages of schizophrenia spectrum disorders significantly delayed time to hospitalization and arrest/incarceration, outcomes with important personal and economic consequences, compared with OAP during this 18-month study. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier: NCT02431702.

Treatment response to esketamine nasal spray in patients with major depressive disorder and acute suicidal ideation or behavior without evidence of early response: a pooled post hoc analysis of ASPIRE.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the likelihood of attaining response/remission of depressive symptoms with esketamine nasal spray (ESK) plus standard of care (SoC) vs placebo nasal spray (PBO) plus SoC at 4 weeks in patients with major depressive disorder and active suicidal ideation with intent (MDSI) without early response. METHODS: A post hoc analysis of pooled data from ASPIRE I and ASPIRE II evaluated ESK plus SoC vs PBO plus SoC in adults with MDSI without response (≥50% improvement from baseline in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] score) at 24 hours after the first dose or at week 1 after the first two doses (ie, 24-hour and week 1 nonresponders). Response and remission (MADRS score ≤ 12) rates were assessed on day 25. RESULTS: The analysis included 362 patients (n = 182, ESK plus SoC; n = 180, PBO plus SoC). Among 24-hour nonresponders, more patients receiving ESK plus SoC vs PBO plus SoC achieved response (63.9% vs 48.0%, P = .010) and remission (35.1% vs 24.4%, P = .074) at day 25. Odds of response/remission were higher with ESK plus SoC vs PBO plus SoC (response: 1.89, 95% CI, 1.17-3.05; remission: 1.48, 95% CI, 0.93-2.35). Similar findings were observed among week 1 nonresponders for response (48.4% vs 34.5%, P = .075), remission (25.0% vs 13.1%, P = .060), and odds of response/remission (response: 2.03, 95% CI, 1.22-3.40; remission: 1.63, 95% CI, 1.01-2.62). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with MDSI not responding within the first week of treatment with ESK plus SoC may still benefit from a full 4-week treatment course.

The Disease Recovery Evaluation and Modification (DREaM) study: Effectiveness of paliperidone palmitate versus oral antipsychotics in patients with recent-onset schizophrenia or schizophreniform disorder.

We report primary results of the Disease Recovery Evaluation and Modification (DREaM) study, a randomized, open-label, delayed-start trial designed to compare the effectiveness of paliperidone palmitate (PP) versus oral antipsychotics (OAP) in delaying time to first treatment failure (TtFTF) in participants with recent-onset schizophrenia or schizophreniform disorder. DREaM included: Part I, 2-month oral run-in; Part II, 9-month disease progression phase (PP or OAP); Part III, 9 months of additional treatment (PP/PP; OAP rerandomized: OAP/OAP or OAP/PP). PP/PP and OAP/OAP comprised the 18-month extended disease progression (EDP) analysis. A total of 235 participants were randomized to PP (n = 78) or OAP (n = 157) in Part II. No statistically significant differences in TF between treatment groups were identified during Part II (PP 29.5%, OAP 24.8%; P = 0.377), Part III (PP/PP 14.3%, OAP/PP 15.8%, OAP/OAP 28.6%; P = 0.067) or the EDP analysis (PP/PP 28.6%, OAP/OAP 44.4%; NNT = 6; P = 0.080). Using a modified definition of TF excluding treatment supplementation with another antipsychotic, a common approach to managing dose adjustments, significant differences were observed between treatment groups in Part III (PP/PP 4.1%, OAP/PP 14.0%, OAP/OAP 27.0%; P = 0.002) and EDP (PP/PP 14.3%, OAP/OAP 42.9%; P = 0.001). Safety results were consistent with the known safety profile of PP. Although significant treatment differences were not observed during the first 9 months of DREaM, numerical differences favoring PP emerged in the last 9 months and significant differences were observed when TF criteria were limited to their most impactful components. These results highlight the potential benefit of initiating PP early in the course of schizophrenia and provide valuable insights for future clinical trials in recent-onset schizophrenia or schizophreniform disorder. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02431702.

Effect of Sleep Disturbance on Efficacy of Esketamine in Treatment-Resistant Depression: Findings from Randomized Controlled Trials.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the relationship of sleep disturbance to the antidepressant effects of esketamine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two double-blind, 4-week studies randomized adults with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) to placebo or esketamine nasal spray, each with newly initiated antidepressant. Sleep was assessed using Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) item 4. Change in response (≥50% decrease in MADRS total score) and remission (total MADRS score ≤12) at day 28 was examined by presence/absence of baseline sleep disturbance using logistic regression models. Impact on reported sleep disturbance (MADRS item 4 score) was examined using ANCOVA models. RESULTS: At baseline, most patients reported disturbed sleep - moderate/severe (65.3%, 369/565), mild (25.3%, 143/565), or none/slightly (9.4%, 53/565) - with similar distribution between treatment groups. A higher proportion of esketamine-treated patients achieved response (OR = 2.05; 95% CI: 1.40-3.02; P < 0.001) and remission (OR = 1.81; 95% CI: 1.23-2.66; P = 0.003) at day 28 compared to antidepressant plus placebo, regardless of presence/severity of sleep disturbance. Consistent with this, sleep (MADRS item 4 score) improved in both groups after the first dose, more so with esketamine by day 8 (between-group difference: P ≤ 0.02 at all time points). Across both treatment groups, 1-point improvement in sleep at day 8 increased the probability of antidepressant response on day 28 by 26% (OR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.12-1.42; P < 0.001), and remission by 28% (OR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.14-1.43; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Antidepressant efficacy of esketamine was demonstrated in patients with TRD, regardless of the presence of sleep disturbance. After 8 days of treatment and thereafter, significantly more esketamine-treated patients reported improvement in sleep versus antidepressant plus placebo.

Esketamine Nasal Spray for the Rapid Reduction of Depressive Symptoms in Major Depressive Disorder With Acute Suicidal Ideation or Behavior.

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND: Numerous health authority approvals of esketamine nasal spray, combined with oral antidepressant, to treat depressive symptoms in adults with major depressive disorder and acute suicidal ideation or behavior were based on 2 identically designed, double-blind, phase 3 studies. METHODS/PROCEDURES: Across both ASPIRE studies (NCT03039192, NCT03097133), patients (N = 456) were randomized to esketamine 84 mg or placebo nasal spray twice weekly for 4 weeks plus comprehensive standard of care, including hospitalization and newly initiated or optimized antidepressant(s). In post hoc analyses of pooled data, changes from baseline at 24 hours after the first dose in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score and Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Suicidality-Revised, in the full cohort and in subgroups, were analyzed using analysis of covariance. FINDINGS/RESULTS: Esketamine plus standard of care demonstrated significantly greater improvement in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score versus placebo plus standard of care at 24 hours (least square mean difference [95% confidence interval], -3.8 [-5.75 to -1.89]) and at earlier (4 hours: -3.4 [-5.05 to -1.71]) and later time points (day 25: -3.4 [-5.36 to -1.36]). The between-group difference (95% confidence interval) for change in Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Suicidality-Revised at 24 hours was -0.20 (-0.43 to 0.04) for all patients and -0.31 (-0.61 to -0.01) for those with a history of suicide attempt. Common adverse events (≥20%) during esketamine treatment were dizziness, dissociation, nausea, somnolence, and headache. IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS: Esketamine plus comprehensive standard of care rapidly reduces depressive symptoms in patients with major depressive disorder who have acute suicidal ideation or behavior, especially in those with a history of suicide attempt, providing a new treatment option for this particularly ill and vulnerable population.