Impact of Lurasidone and Other Antipsychotics on Body Weight: Real-World, Retrospective, Comparative Study of 15,323 Adults with Schizophrenia.

PURPOSE: The primary objectives were to describe weight changes following initiation of lurasidone versus other antipsychotics and estimate the risk of clinically relevant (≥7%) weight changes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective, longitudinal comparative cohort study was based on electronic medical records (EMRs) of United States (US) adult patients with schizophrenia who were prescribed lurasidone or other antipsychotics as monotherapy between 1 April 2013 and 30 June 2019. RESULTS: Overall, the study included 15,323 patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia; 6.1% of patients received lurasidone, 60.4% received antipsychotics associated with a medium-high risk of weight gain (clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, paliperidone) and 33.5% received antipsychotics with a low risk of weight gain (aripiprazole, first-generation antipsychotics, ziprasidone). Lurasidone was associated with the smallest proportion of patients experiencing clinically relevant weight gain and the greatest proportion of patients with clinically relevant weight loss. The risk of clinically relevant weight gain was numerically higher with all antipsychotics versus lurasidone and was statistically significant for olanzapine (hazard ratio [HR]=1.541; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.121; 2.119; p=0.0078) versus lurasidone. The likelihood of ≥7% weight loss was significantly greater with lurasidone versus all antipsychotics (p<0.05), except ziprasidone. CONCLUSION: This real-world study suggests that lurasidone has a lower risk of clinically relevant weight gain and a higher likelihood of clinically relevant weight loss than other commonly used antipsychotics.

Efficacy and safety of lurasidone in adolescents and young adults with schizophrenia: A pooled post hoc analysis of double-blind, placebo-controlled 6-week studies.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this pooled analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lurasidone in the treatment of an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia in adolescents and young adults. METHODS: The six pooled studies in this analysis used similar study designs and outcome measures. Patients (aged 13-25 years) were randomized to 6 weeks of double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment with lurasidone in fixed doses of 40, 80, 120, or 160 mg. The primary efficacy endpoint was Week 6 change in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score; secondary efficacy endpoints included Week 6 change in the Clinical Global Impression-Severity scale. RESULTS: The safety population consisted of 537 patients (mean age: 18.1 years); 82.6% of patients completed the studies. Treatment with lurasidone was significantly better than placebo at all doses (p < 0.001) for change in the PANSS total score at Week 6. Placebo-adjusted PANSS scores ranged from -9.4 to -16.1 (effect sizes: 0.53-0.90), with effect sizes increasing at higher doses. For lurasidone (combined doses), three adverse events occurred with a frequency of ≥5% (nausea: 13.5%; somnolence: 12.1%; akathisia: 10.1%). At last observation carried forward (LOCF)-endpoint weight gain of ≥7% was similar for lurasidone versus placebo (3.6 vs. 4.7%). Minimal median changes were observed at endpoint in cholesterol, -2.0 mg/dL; triglycerides, 0.0 mg/dL; and glucose, 0.0 mg/dL. CONCLUSIONS: In adolescents and young adults with schizophrenia, treatment with lurasidone in doses of 40-160 mg/d was a safe, well-tolerated, and effective treatment. Short-term treatment with lurasidone was associated with minimal effects on weight and metabolic parameters.

Colon capsule versus CT colonography in patients with incomplete colonoscopy: a prospective, comparative trial.

OBJECTIVE: In case of incomplete colonoscopy, several radiologic methods have traditionally been used, but more recently, capsule endoscopy was also shown to be accurate. Aim of this study was to compare colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) and CT colonography (CTC) in a prospective cohort of patients with incomplete colonoscopy. DESIGN: Consecutive patients with a previous incomplete colonoscopy underwent CCE and CTC followed by colonoscopy in case of positive findings on either test (polyps/mass lesions ≥6 mm). Clinical follow-up was performed in the other cases to rule out missed cancer. CTC was performed after colon capsule excretion or 10-12 h postingestion. Since the gold standard colonoscopy was performed only in positive cases, diagnostic yield and positive predictive values of CCE and CTC were used as study end-points. RESULTS: 100 patients were enrolled. CCE and CTC were able to achieve complete colonic evaluation in 98% of cases. In a per-patient analysis for polyps ≥6 mm, CCE detected 24 patients (24.5%) and CTC 12 patients (12.2%). The relative sensitivity of CCE compared to CTC was 2.0 (95% CI 1.34 to 2.98), indicating a significant increase in sensitivity for lesions ≥6 mm. Of larger polyps (≥10 mm), these values were 5.1% for CCE and 3.1% for CTC (relative sensitivity: 1.67 (95% CI 0.69 to 4.00)). Positive predictive values for polyps ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm were 96% and 85.7%, and 83.3% and 100% for CCE and CTC, respectively. No missed cancer occurred at clinical follow-up of a mean of 20 months. CONCLUSIONS: CCE and CTC were of comparable efficacy in completing colon evaluation after incomplete colonoscopy; the overall diagnostic yield of colon capsule was superior to CTC. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01525940.

Colon capsule endoscopy: What we know and what we would like to know.

Colonoscopy is usually perceived as an invasive and potentially painful procedure, being also affected by a small, but definite, risk of major complications (cardiopulmonary complications, perforation, hemorrhage) and even mortality. To improve both acceptability and safety, PillCam Colon Capsule Endoscopy (CCE) (Given Imaging Ltd, Yoqneam, Israel) has been developed. CCE represents a non-invasive technique that is able to explore the colon without sedation and air insufflation. The Second Generation of Colon Capsule Endoscopy (PillCam Colon 2) (CCE-2) was proven to be an accurate tool to detect colonic neoplastic lesions when used in average risk individuals. To date, the evidence supports the use of CCE-2 in case of colonoscopy failure, in patients unwilling to perform colonoscopy and when colonoscopy is contraindicated. Other potential applications, such as colorectal cancer screening or diagnostic surveillance of inflammatory bowel disease need to be clarified. In this paper, the current "state of the art", potential application of CCE and future needs are evaluated.