The authors evaluated the efficacy and safety of lurasidone in the treatment of patients with major depressive episodes associated with bipolar I disorder.
Patients were randomly assigned to receive ...double-blind treatment with lurasidone (20-60 mg/day N=166 or 80-120 mg/day N=169) or placebo (N=170) for 6 weeks. Primary and key secondary endpoints were change from baseline to week 6 on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and depression severity score on the Clinical Global Impressions scale for use in bipolar illness (CGI-BP), respectively.
Lurasidone treatment significantly reduced mean MADRS total scores at week 6 for both the 20-60 mg/day group (-15.4; effect size=0.51) and the 80-120 mg/day group (-15.4; effect size=0.51) compared with placebo (-10.7). Similarly, lurasidone treatment resulted in significantly greater endpoint reduction in CGI-BP depression severity scores for both the 20-60 mg/day group (-1.8; effect size=0.61) and the 80-120 mg/day group (-1.7; effect size=0.50) compared with placebo (-1.1). Both lurasidone groups also experienced significant improvements compared with placebo in anxiety symptoms and in patient-reported measures of quality of life and functional impairment. Discontinuation rates due to adverse events were similar in the 20-60 mg/day (6.6%), 80-120 mg/day (5.9%), and placebo (6.5%) groups. The most frequent adverse events associated with lurasidone were nausea, headache, akathisia, and somnolence. Minimal changes in weight, lipids, and measures of glycemic control were observed with lurasidone.
Monotherapy with lurasidone in the dosage range of 20-120 mg/day significantly reduced depressive symptoms in patients with bipolar I depression. Lurasidone was well tolerated, with few changes in weight or metabolic parameters.
The study was designed to evaluate the short-term efficacy and safety of lurasidone in the treatment of acute schizophrenia.
Participants, who were recently admitted inpatients with schizophrenia ...with an acute exacerbation of psychotic symptoms, were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with 40 mg of lurasidone, 120 mg of lurasidone, 15 mg of olanzapine (included to test for assay sensitivity), or placebo, dosed once daily. Efficacy was evaluated using a mixed-model repeated-measures analysis of the change from baseline to week 6 in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score (as the primary efficacy measure) and Clinical Global Impressions severity (CGI-S) score (as the key secondary efficacy measure).
Treatment with both doses of lurasidone or with olanzapine was associated with significantly greater improvement at week 6 on PANSS total score, PANSS positive and negative subscale scores, and CGI-S score compared with placebo. There was no statistically significant difference in mean PANSS total or CGI-S change scores for the lurasidone groups compared with the olanzapine group. With responders defined as those with an improvement of at least 20% on the PANSS, endpoint responder rates were significant compared with placebo for olanzapine only. The incidence of akathisia was higher with 120 mg of lurasidone (22.9%) than with 40 mg of lurasidone (11.8%), olanzapine (7.4%), or placebo (0.9%). The proportion of patients experiencing ≥ 7% weight gain was 5.9% for the lurasidone groups combined, 34.4% for the olanzapine group, and 7.0% for the placebo group.
Lurasidone was an effective treatment for patients with acute schizophrenia. Safety assessments indicated a higher frequency of adverse events associated with 120 mg/day of lurasidone compared with 40 mg/day.
Abstract Objective This study was designed to evaluate the short-term efficacy and safety of once-daily lurasidone (80 mg/day and 160 mg/day) in the treatment of an acute exacerbation of ...schizophrenia. Methods Participants, who were recently admitted inpatients with schizophrenia with an acute exacerbation of psychotic symptoms, were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of fixed-dose, double-blind treatment with lurasidone 80 mg (n = 125), lurasidone 160 mg (n = 121), quetiapine XR 600 mg (QXR-600 mg; n = 119; active control included to test for assay sensitivity), or placebo (n = 121), all dosed once daily in the evening. Efficacy was evaluated using a mixed-model repeated-measures analysis of the change from Baseline to Week 6 in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score (the primary efficacy measure) and Clinical Global Impressions severity (CGI-S) score (the key secondary efficacy measure). Results Treatment with both doses of lurasidone or with QXR-600 mg was associated with significantly greater improvement at Week 6 on PANSS total score, PANSS positive and negative subscale scores, and CGI-S score compared with placebo. The endpoint responder rate (≥ 20% improvement in PANSS total score) was higher in subjects treated with lurasidone 80 mg (65%; p < 0.001), lurasidone 160 mg (79%; p < 0.001), and QXR-600 mg (79%; p < 0.001) compared with placebo (41%). The proportion of patients experiencing ≥ 7% weight gain was 4% for each lurasidone group, 15% for the QXR-600 mg group, and 3% for the placebo group. Endpoint changes in levels of cholesterol, triglycerides, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol were comparable for both lurasidone groups and placebo, while the QXR-600 mg group showed a significant median increase compared with the placebo group in levels of cholesterol (p < 0.001), LDL cholesterol (p < 0.01), and triglycerides (p < 0.05). Conclusions Lurasidone 80 mg and 160 mg doses administered once-daily in the evening, were safe and effective treatments for subjects with acute schizophrenia, with increased response rates observed at the higher dose. Dose-related adverse effects were limited, and both doses were generally well-tolerated.
Abstract Objective The Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia (MATRICS) Project produced a battery of tests, the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB), designed ...to assess cognitive treatment effects in clinical trials of patients with schizophrenia. In validation studies, the MCCB demonstrated excellent reliability, minimal practice effects and significant correlations with measures of functional capacity. This study addresses whether the MCCB demonstrates these favorable characteristics when administered in the context of the type of large multi-site industry trial for which it was designed. Methods In a clinical trial comparing risperidone and lurasidone, 323 clinically-stable outpatients with schizophrenia at 29 sites were assessed with MCCB at screening and a median of 15 days later at baseline. A measure of functional capacity, the UCSD Performance-based Skills Assessment – Brief (UPSA-B) was administered at baseline. Results All 323 (100%) patients had sufficient data for computing a composite score according to the MCCB criteria. The test–retest reliability of the MCCB composite score was excellent (ICC = 0.88). The severity of cognitive impairment was T = 24.7 (SD = 12.1) at screening and T = 26.7 (SD = 12.4) at baseline. The MCCB composite score demonstrated a large correlation with the UPSA-B composite score ( r = .60, df = 304, p < .001). The practice effect on the composite score was small ( z = 0.18). Discussion In the context of a 29-site antipsychotic trial in stable outpatients with schizophrenia, the MCCB is sensitive to cognitive deficits in all domains, demonstrates excellent test–retest reliability and small practice effects, and is strongly correlated with a leading measure of functional capacity.
Abstract Background Improving cognitive functioning in people with schizophrenia is a major treatment goal. In addition, interview-based measures have been developed to supplement performance-based ...assessments. However, few data are available regarding whether interview-based measures are sensitive to treatment-related changes. Methods Adult outpatients who met DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder were randomized to 21 days of double-blind treatment with lurasidone 120 mg once daily (N = 150) or ziprasidone 80 mg BID (N = 151). A similar proportion of patients completed the study on lurasidone (67.5%) and ziprasidone (69.3%). Study participants were assessed with the majority of the tests from the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB) and an interview-based assessment of cognitive functioning, the Schizophrenia Cognition Rating Scale (SCoRS). SCoRS ratings were based on the interviewer's best judgment, after interviews with the patient and a caregiver when available. The study was conducted from April 2006 to January 2007. Results There were no between-group treatment differences in performance on the MCCB or the SCoRS ratings. Lurasidone patients demonstrated significant within group-improvement from baseline on the MCCB composite score (p = 0.026) and on the SCoRS (p < 0.001), but ziprasidone patients did not improve on either the MCCB composite (p = 0.254) or the SCoRS (p = 0.185). At endpoint there was a statistical trend (p = 0.058) for lurasidone to demonstrate greater improvement from baseline in SCoRS ratings. Improvements in interview-based aspects of cognition were not related to MCCB test changes, and had minimal correlations with changes in symptoms. Conclusions These data suggest that interview-based cognitive measures such as the SCoRS may be sensitive to changes after 3 weeks of treatment in patients with schizophrenia. Lurasidone is being assessed further in ongoing clinical trials with additional outcome measures.
Depressive symptoms are common in schizophrenia and can worsen outcomes and increase suicide risk. Lurasidone is an atypical antipsychotic agent indicated for the treatment of schizophrenia and for ...the treatment of major depressive episodes associated with bipolar I disorder. This post hoc analysis evaluated the effect of lurasidone on depressive symptoms in patients with schizophrenia.
Patient-level data were pooled from 4 similarly designed, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 6-week registration studies of lurasidone (40-160 mg/d) in adult patients with an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia. Changes in depressive symptoms, measured by the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), were analyzed for the overall sample and for subgroups of patients stratified by baseline MADRS scores.
MADRS assessments at baseline and endpoint (day 42 or last observation carried forward LOCF) were available for 1330 patients. Patients receiving lurasidone experienced significantly greater decreases in MADRS score (-2.8, least-squares LS mean change, LOCF) compared with patients receiving placebo (-1.4, P < .001, effect size 0.24). Analysis of change in MADRS score (LOCF) by baseline symptom severity (MADRS score of ≥12, ≥14, ≥16, ≥18) showed significantly greater improvement for lurasidone-treated patients across all severity groups; effect sizes ranged from 0.25 to 0.34. Among patients with a baseline MADRS score of ≥12, depressive symptom remission (defined as MADRS score <10 at LOCF endpoint) was attained by 45.0% of lurasidone-treated patients and 36.3% of patients receiving placebo (P < .05).
In a pooled analysis of short-term, placebo-controlled studies, lurasidone significantly improved depressive symptoms in patients with schizophrenia.
Abstract Purpose Characterization of dose-response relationships for psychotropic agents may be difficult to determine based on results of individual clinical studies, particularly those with a ...flexible dose design. The goal of this pharmacometric analysis was to characterize the dose-response profile for lurasidone in patients with bipolar depression. Methods The statistical modeling and simulation analyses reported here were derived from 2 randomized, 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, flexible-dose studies (20–60 mg/d or 80–120 mg/d of lurasidone as monotherapy or 20–120 mg/d adjunct to lithium or valproate) in patients with bipolar depression. Pooled data included 5245 Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) observations from 825 patients who had received lurasidone or placebo treatments, with or without lithium or valproate background medication. Findings The time course of placebo effect on the MADRS score was adequately described by an exponential asymptotic placebo model. A linear dose-response model best described the effect of lurasidone. The net improvement in MADRS score due to lurasidone treatment (the drug effect) was significant (P < 0.001), and a positive dose response was detected. Net drug effect after 6 weeks of treatment was estimated to be a 6.0-point decrease in MADRS score per 100 mg of lurasidone. Covariate effects (for age and lithium or valproate use) were significant only for placebo effect parameters; thus, no dose adjustment was necessary related to demographic covariates. Implications This population dose-response modeling analysis indicates that higher doses of lurasidone are likely to produce greater therapeutic effects in patients with bipolar depression. The linear dose response was consistent for both lurasidone monotherapy and adjunctive therapy in patients with bipolar depression. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00868452, NCT00868699.
To evaluate the long-term safety and tolerability of lurasidone in schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder patients switched to lurasidone.
Patients in this multicenter, 6-month open-label, ...flexible-dose, extension study had completed a core 6-week randomized trial in which clinically stable, but symptomatic, outpatients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder were switched to lurasidone. Patients started the extension study on treatment with the same dose of lurasidone taken at study endpoint of the 6-week core study; following this, lurasidone was flexibly dosed (40-120 mg/day), if clinically indicated, starting on Day 7 of the extension study. The primary safety endpoints were the proportion of patients with treatment emergent adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, or who discontinued due to AEs. Secondary endpoints included metabolic variables and measures of extrapyramidal symptoms and akathisia, as well as the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S), and the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS). The study was conducted from August 2010 to November 2011.
Of the 198 patients who completed the 6-week core study, 149 (75.3%) entered the extension study and 148 received study medication. A total of 98 patients (65.8%) completed the 6-month extension study. Lurasidone 40, 80, and 120 mg were the modal daily doses for 19 (12.8%), 65 (43.9%), and 64 (43.2%) of patients, respectively. Overall mean (SD) daily lurasidone dose was 102.0 mg (77.1). The most commonly reported AEs were insomnia (13 patients 8.8%), nausea (13 patients 8.8%), akathisia (12 patients 8.1%), and anxiety (9 patients 6.1%). A total of 16 patients (10.8%) had at least one AE leading to discontinuation from the study. Consistent with prior studies of lurasidone, there was no signal for clinically relevant adverse changes in body weight, lipids, glucose, insulin, or prolactin. Movement disorder rating scales did not demonstrate meaningful changes. Treatment failure (defined as any occurrence of discontinuation due to insufficient clinical response, exacerbation of underlying disease, or AE) was observed for 19 patients (12.8% of patients entering) and median time to treatment failure was 58 days (95% CI 22-86). The discontinuation rate due to any cause was 50/148 (33.8%), and median time to discontinuation was 62 days (95% CI 30-75). The mean PANSS total score, mean CGI-S score, and mean CDSS score decreased consistently from core study baseline across extension visits, indicating an improvement in overall condition.
In this 6-month, open-label extension study, treatment with lurasidone was generally well-tolerated with sustained improvement in efficacy measures observed in outpatients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder who had switched to lurasidone from a broad range of antipsychotic agents.
The aim of this analysis was to compare the effects of 2 atypical antipsychotic agents, lurasidone (80 mg/d or 160 mg/d) and quetiapine XR (600 mg/d), on daytime alertness, and to evaluate the ...effects of daytime sleepiness on treatment outcomes in patients with an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia.
Patients who met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition, text revision (DSM-IV-TR) criteria for schizophrenia were randomized to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with fixed doses of lurasidone 80 mg/d (n = 125), lurasidone 160 mg/d (n = 121), quetiapine XR 600 mg/d (n = 119), or placebo (n = 121), all dosed once daily in the evening, with food. Daytime sleepiness was assessed using the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS).
Daytime sleepiness improved in the lurasidone and placebo-treated groups but worsened in the quetiapine XR treatment group when compared to placebo (p = 0.001) and to either dose of lurasidone (both p < 0.01). Sedation associated with quetiapine XR treatment mediated an improvement in agitation assessed by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Excitement (PANSS-EC) subscale and a worsening in functional capacity assessed by the University of California-San Diego (UCSD) Performance-Based Skills Assessment-Brief Version (UPSA-B) total score; these mediating relationships were not observed for the lurasidone or placebo treatment groups.
In this 6-week double-blind study, treatment with lurasidone 80 mg or 160 mg, administered once daily in the evening, was associated with a reduction in daytime sleepiness similar in magnitude to placebo, while quetiapine XR 600 mg/d was associated with a significant increase in daytime sleepiness, compared to both lurasidone dose groups and placebo. Daytime sleepiness was associated with improvement in agitation and worsening in functional capacity for quetiapine XR, but not lurasidone or placebo-treated patients.
Accumulating evidence indicates that manic symptoms below the threshold for hypomania (mixed features) are common in individuals with major depressive disorder. This form of depression is often ...severe and is associated with an increased risk for recurrence, suicide attempts, substance abuse, and functional disability. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of lurasidone in major depressive disorder with mixed features.
Patients meeting DSM-IV-TR criteria for major depressive disorder who presented with two or three protocol-defined manic symptoms were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with either lurasidone at 20-60 mg/day (N=109) or placebo (N=100). Changes from baseline in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score (MADRS; primary outcome measure) and Clinical Global Impressions severity subscale score (CGI-S; key secondary outcome measure) were evaluated using a mixed model for repeated-measures analysis.
Lurasidone significantly improved depressive symptoms and overall illness severity, assessed by least squares mean change at week 6 in the MADRS and CGI-S scores: -20.5 compared with -13.0 (effect size, 0.80) and -1.8 compared with -1.2 (effect size, 0.60), respectively. Significant improvement in manic symptoms, assessed by the Young Mania Rating Scale, was also observed, in addition to other secondary efficacy endpoints. Rates of discontinuation due to adverse events were low. The most common adverse events were nausea (6.4% and 2.0% in the lurasidone and placebo groups, respectively) and somnolence (5.5% and 1.0%).
Lurasidone was effective and well tolerated in this study involving patients with major depressive disorder associated with subthreshold hypomanic symptoms (mixed features).
PDF
