An 8-Week, Randomized, Phase 2, Double-Blind, Sequential Parallel-Group Comparison Study of Two Dose Levels of the GABAA Positive Allosteric Modulator PF-06372865 Compared With Placebo as an Adjunctive Treatment in Outpatients With Inadequate Response to Standard of Care for Generalized Anxiety Disorder.

BACKGROUND: Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is a common psychiatric disorder, but many patients experience only partial relief of symptoms with existing therapies. Benzodiazepines are effective in many cases but are limited by a number of significant adverse effects. PF-06372865 is a subtype-selective gamma-aminobutyric acid A (GABAA)-positive allosteric modulator lacking in functional activity at alpha 1-containing receptors that are believed to mediate many of these adverse effects. METHODS: PF-06372865 was evaluated as an adjunct to current GAD treatment in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, sequential parallel comparison study in patients with GAD who showed an incomplete response to current standard-of-care pharmacotherapy. A total of 90 subjects (of the planned 384) were randomized into the study before the decision to terminate the study. Two doses of PF-06372865 (2.5 mg twice daily and 7.5 mg twice daily) were compared with placebo. RESULTS: Neither dose of PF-06372865 differentiated from placebo on week 4 Hamilton Anxiety Inventory total (primary end point) or on the Sheehan Disability Scale total score (secondary end point). Adverse events including dizziness, headache, and somnolence were observed, and the 7.5 mg dose demonstrated some impairment on the Digit Symbol Substitution test and the Epworth Sleepiness Scale relative to placebo and the 2.5 mg dose. CONCLUSIONS: Factors contributing to the negative results include the limited sample size and failure to explore a broader range of doses.

Audio Recording for Independent Confirmation of Clinical Assessments in Generalized Anxiety Disorder.

Objective: The assessment of patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) to deteremine whether a medication intervention is necessary is not always clear and might benefit from a second opinion. However, second opinions are time consuming, expensive, and not practical in most settings. We obtained independent, second opinion reviews of the primary clinician's assessment via audio-digital recording. Design: An audio-digital recording of key site-based assessments was used to generate site-independent "dual" reviews of the clinical presentation, symptom severity, and medication requirements of patients with GAD as part of the screening procedures for a clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02310568). Results: Site-independent reviewers affirmed the diagnosis, symptom severity metrics, and treatment requirements of 90 moderately ill patients with GAD. The patients endorsed excessive worry that was hard to control and essentially all six of the associated DSM-IV-TR anxiety symptoms. The Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety scores revealed moderately severe anxiety with a high Pearson's correlation (r=0.852) between site-based and independent raters and minimal scoring discordance on each scale item. Based upon their independent reviews, these "second" opinions confirmed that these GAD patients warranted a new medication intervention. Thirty patients (33.3%) reported a previous history of a major depressive episode (MDE) and had significantly more depressive symptoms than patients without a history of MDE. Conclusion: The audio-digital recording method provides a useful second opinion that can affirm the need for a different treatment intervention in these anxious patients. A second live assessment would have required additional clinic time and added patient burden. The audio-digital recording method is less burdensome than live second opinion assessments and might have utility in both research and clinical practice settings.

The Safety and Efficacy of PF-04958242 in Age-Related Sensorineural Hearing Loss: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: To our knowledge, this is the first study to assess the potential to pharmacologically improve auditory function in adults with age-related sensorineural hearing loss. OBJECTIVE: To explore the potential for the α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid potentiator mechanism to affect auditory function in individuals with mild to moderate age-related sensorineural hearing loss. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-dose, 3-way crossover study was conducted in 3 academic ear, nose, and throat clinics and 2 private clinical research centers between December 22, 2011, and February 26, 2013. Participants were 50- to 75-year-old men and women of nonchildbearing potential with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss. INTERVENTIONS: Three single doses of PF-04958242, an α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid glutamate-positive allosteric modulator, and placebo. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Pure-tone average, speech discrimination score, and speech in noise testing change from baseline at 1 and 5 hours after a single dose of PF-04958242. RESULTS: The treatment was safe and well tolerated. The estimates for the primary end point change from baseline in pure-tone average compared with placebo at 1 hour were -0.77 (95% CI, -2.14 to 0.59) and 0.37 (95% CI, -0.97 to 1.72) for 0.27 and 0.35 mg, respectively. At 5 hours the estimates were -0.57 (95% CI, -2.43 to 1.29) and -0.56 (95% CI, -2.45 to 1.33) for 0.27 and 0.35 mg, respectively. No significant change from baseline was demonstrated compared with placebo in the primary or secondary study end points at 1 or 5 hours after receiving treatment. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: To our knowledge, this clinical trial is the first study of a pharmacologic treatment for age-related sensorineural hearing loss and provides information with regard to study design, end points, variability, data characteristics, and operational feasibility to guide the design of future hearing loss trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01518920.

Impact of BPRS interview length on ratings reliability in a schizophrenia trial.

Signal detection in clinical trials relies on ratings reliability. We conducted a reliability analysis of site-independent rater scores derived from audio-digital recordings of site-based rater interviews of the structured Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) in a schizophrenia study. "Dual" ratings assessments were conducted as part of a quality assurance program in a 12-week, double-blind, parallel-group study of PF-02545920 compared to placebo in patients with sub-optimally controlled symptoms of schizophrenia (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01939548). Blinded, site-independent raters scored the recorded site-based BPRS interviews that were administered in relatively stable patients during two visits prior to the randomization visit. We analyzed the impact of BPRS interview length on "dual" scoring variance and discordance between trained and certified site-based raters and the paired scores of the independent raters. Mean total BPRS scores for 392 interviews conducted at the screen and stabilization visits were 50.4±7.2 (SD) for site-based raters and 49.2±7.2 for site-independent raters (t=2.34; p=0.025). "Dual" rated total BPRS scores were highly correlated (r=0.812). Mean BPRS interview length was 21:05±7:47min ranging from 7 to 59min. 89 interviews (23%) were conducted in less than 15min. These shorter interviews had significantly greater "dual" scoring variability (p=0.0016) and absolute discordance (p=0.0037) between site-based and site-independent raters than longer interviews. In-study ratings reliability cannot be guaranteed by pre-study rater certification. Our findings reveal marked variability of BPRS interview length and that shorter interviews are often incomplete yielding greater "dual" scoring discordance that may affect ratings precision.