The Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale and Its Abbreviated Version: A Critical Review of Clinimetric Properties.

BACKGROUND: The Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale - Abbreviated (ESRS-A) is an abbreviated version of the Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale (ESRS) with instructions, definitions, and a semi-structured interview that follows clinimetric concepts of measuring clinical symptoms. Similar to the ESRS, the ESRS-A was developed to assess four types of drug-induced movement disorders (DIMD): parkinsonism, akathisia, dystonia, and tardive dyskinesia (TD). SUMMARY: The present review of the literature provides the most relevant clinimetric properties displayed by the ESRS and ESRS-A in clinical studies. Comprehensive ESRS-A definitions, official scale, and basic instructions are provided. ESRS inter-rater reliability was evaluated in two pivotal studies and in multicenter international studies. Inter-rater reliability was high for assessing both antipsychotic-induced movement disorders and idiopathic Parkinson's disease. Guidelines were also established for inter-rater reliability and the rater certification processes. The ESRS showed good concurrent validity with 96% agreement between Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) for TD-defined cases and ESRS-defined cases. Similarly, concurrent validity for ESRS-A total and subscores for parkinsonism, akathisia, dystonia, and dyskinesia ranged from good to very good. The ESRS was particularly sensitive for detecting DIMD-related movement differences following treatment with placebo, antipsychotics, and antiparkinsonian and antidyskinetic medications. ESRS measurement of drug-induced extrapyramidal symptoms was shown to discriminate extrapyramidal symptoms from psychiatric symptoms. KEY MESSAGES: The ESRS and ESRS-A are valid clinimetric indices for measuring DIMD. They can be valuably implemented in clinical research, particularly in trials testing antipsychotic medications, and in clinics to detect the presence, severity, and response to treatment of movement disorders.

Clinically meaningful changes on depressive symptom measures and patient-reported outcomes in patients with treatment-resistant depression.

OBJECTIVE: To use the Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) scale to estimate clinically meaningful and clinically substantial changes as measured using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). METHODS: Pooled data were derived from two 4-week, randomized, active-controlled studies evaluating esketamine nasal spray (ESK) plus oral antidepressant (OAD) or OAD plus placebo nasal spray (PBO) in adults with TRD (N = 565). CGI-S, MADRS, SDS, and PHQ-9 scores were obtained at baseline and over 4 weeks of treatment. In this post hoc analysis, change scores on the MADRS, SDS, and PHQ-9 that corresponded to a clinically meaningful (1-point) or clinically substantial (2-point) change on the CGI-S scale were identified. RESULTS: Clinically meaningful changes in CGI-S scores after 28 days corresponded to 6-, 4-, and 3-point changes from baseline on the MADRS, SDS, and PHQ-9, respectively. Similarly, a 2-point CGI-S score change (clinically substantial change) corresponded to a 12-, 8-, and 6-point change on the MADRS, SDS, and PHQ-9, respectively. The proportion of patients showing substantial clinical improvement in the ESK plus OAD group versus the OAD plus PBO group after 28 days of treatment favored ESK plus OAD: 69.0% vs 55.3% (MADRS), 64.5% vs 48.9% (SDS), and 77.1% vs 64.7% (PHQ-9). CONCLUSION: We provide a basis for identifying clinically meaningful and clinically substantial changes as assessed with commonly used outcome measures for depression to facilitate the translation of clinical trial results into clinical practice.

An Evaluation of the Clinical and Economic Burden Among Older Adult Medicare-Covered Beneficiaries With Treatment-Resistant Depression.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical and economic burden of treatment-resistant depression (TRD) among older adult patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) to non-TRD MDD and non-MDD patients. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using 5% Medicare data (January 1, 2012-December 31, 2015) for MDD patients aged ≥65 years who were defined as TRD if they received ≥2 antidepressant treatments in the current episode. MDD patients not meeting TRD criteria were deemed non-TRD MDD; those without an MDD diagnosis were categorized as non-MDD. All were required to have continuous health plan enrollment for ≥6 months pre- and ≥12 months postindex date (index: first antidepressant claim/random [non-MDD]). Three cohorts were matched, and generalized linear and Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare medication use, healthcare resource utilization, costs, and risks of initial hospitalization and readmission ≤30 days postdischarge from initial hospitalization. RESULTS: After matching, 178 patients from each cohort were analyzed. During 12 months of follow-up, TRD patients had higher use of different antidepressants and antipsychotics, higher inpatient and emergency room visits, longer inpatient stays, and higher total healthcare costs ($24,543 versus $16,059, $8,058) than non-TRD MDD and non-MDD cohorts, respectively (all p <0.05). Risk of initial hospitalization was higher in the TRD (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.08-6.23) and non-TRD MDD cohorts (HR = 1.82, 95% CI = 1.02-3.25) than the non-MDD cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The burden of MDD among older adult Medicare beneficiaries is substantial, and even greater among those with TRD compared to non-TRD MDD, demonstrating the need for more effective treatments than those currently available.

Application of Bayesian analyses to doubly randomized delayed start, matched control designs to demonstrate disease modification.

Disease modification is a primary therapeutic aim when developing treatments for most chronic progressive diseases. The best treatments do not simply affect disease symptoms but fundamentally improve disease course by slowing, halting, or reversing disease progression. One of many challenges for establishing disease modification relates to the identification of adequate analytic tools to show differences in a disease course following intervention. Traditional approaches rely on the comparisons of slopes or noninferiority margins. However, it has proven difficult to conclusively demonstrate disease modification using such approaches. To address these challenges, we propose a novel adaptation of the delayed start study design that incorporates posterior probabilities identified by hierarchical Bayesian inference approaches to establish evidence for disease modification. Our models compare the size of treatment differences at the end of the delayed start period with those at the end of the early start period. Simulations that compare several models are provided. These include general linear models, repeated measures models, spline models, and model averaging. Our work supports the superiority of model averaging for accurately characterizing complex data that arise in real world applications. This novel approach has been applied to the design of an ongoing, doubly randomized, matched control study that aims to show disease modification in young persons with schizophrenia (the Disease Recovery Evaluation and Modification (DREaM) study). The application of this Bayesian methodology to the DREaM study highlights the value of this approach and demonstrates many practical challenges that must be addressed when implementing this methodology in a real world trial.

Genome-wide association study of paliperidone efficacy.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical response to the atypical antipsychotic paliperidone is known to vary among schizophrenic patients. We carried out a genome-wide association study to identify common genetic variants predictive of paliperidone efficacy. METHODS: We leveraged a collection of 1390 samples from individuals of European ancestry enrolled in 12 clinical studies investigating the efficacy of the extended-release tablet paliperidone ER (n1=490) and the once-monthly injection paliperidone palmitate (n2=550 and n3=350). We carried out a genome-wide association study using a general linear model (GLM) analysis on three separate cohorts, followed by meta-analysis and using a mixed linear model analysis on all samples. The variations in response explained by each single nucleotide polymorphism (hSNP) were estimated. RESULTS: No SNP passed genome-wide significance in the GLM-based analyses with suggestive signals from rs56240334 [P=7.97×10 for change in the Clinical Global Impression Scale-Severity (CGI-S); P=8.72×10 for change in the total Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS)] in the intron of ADCK1. The mixed linear model-based association P-values for rs56240334 were consistent with the results from GLM-based analyses and the association with change in CGI-S (P=4.26×10) reached genome-wide significance (i.e. P<5×10). We also found suggestive evidence for a polygenic contribution toward paliperidone treatment response with estimates of heritability, hSNP, ranging from 0.31 to 0.43 for change in the total PANSS score, the PANSS positive Marder factor score, and CGI-S. CONCLUSION: Genetic variations in the ADCK1 gene may differentially predict paliperidone efficacy in schizophrenic patients. However, this finding should be replicated in additional samples.

Paliperidone Palmitate Once-Monthly Treatment in Recent Onset and Chronic Illness Patients With Schizoaffective Disorder.

Data from a multiphase schizoaffective disorder study (NCT01193153) were used to examine the effects of paliperidone palmitate once-monthly (PP1M) by subjects' illness duration, defined as recent onset (≤5 years since first psychiatric diagnosis; n = 206) and chronic illness (>5 years; n = 461). Symptom and functioning scores, as measured during open-label PP1M acute and stabilization treatment phases, improved in both subpopulations, with greater improvements in recent onset than chronic illness subjects (p ≤ 0.022). Relapse rates, examined during the double-blind, placebo-controlled phase, were higher with placebo than PP1M: 30.0% vs. 10.2% (p = 0.014; hazard ratio [HR]: 2.8; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.11-7.12; p = 0.029) in the recent onset subpopulation and 35.5% vs. 18.1% (p = 0.001; HR: 2.38; 95% CI: 1.37-4.12; p = 0.002) in the chronic illness subpopulation. Growing evidence in the treatment of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder supports early intervention with long-acting antipsychotics.

Paliperidone Palmitate Once-Monthly Injectable Treatment for Acute Exacerbations of Schizoaffective Disorder.

The optimal treatment for schizoaffective disorder (SCA) is not well established. In this initial 6-month open-label treatment period of a large, multiphase, relapse-prevention study, the efficacy and safety of paliperidone palmitate once-monthly (PP1M) injectable were evaluated in subjects with symptomatic SCA. Subjects with acute exacerbation of SCA (ie, with psychotic and either depressive and/or manic symptoms) were enrolled and treated with PP1M either as monotherapy or in combination with antidepressants or mood stabilizers (combination therapy group). After flexible-dose treatment with PP1M for 13 weeks, stabilized subjects continued into a 12-week fixed-dose PP1M treatment period. A total of 667 subjects were enrolled; 320 received monotherapy and 347 received PP1M as combination therapy; 334 subjects completed the entire 25-week treatment. Statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements from baseline were observed for all efficacy measures in psychosis (per Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale), mood symptoms (per Young Mania Rating Scale and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-21 items), and functioning (per Personal and Social Performance Scale) from week 1 to all time points during the 25-week treatment period (P < 0.001). Similar improvements in efficacy measures were observed between subjects receiving monotherapy or combination therapy. Efficacy benefits persisted throughout the 25-week period. The most common adverse events were akathisia (11.1%), injection-site pain (10.6%), and insomnia (10.0%). Paliperidone palmitate once-monthly administered as monotherapy or in combination with mood stabilizers or antidepressants in patients with an acute exacerbation of SCA provided rapid, broad, and persistent reduction in psychotic, depressive, and manic symptoms, as well as improved functioning.

Once-monthly paliperidone palmitate compared with conventional and atypical daily oral antipsychotic treatment in patients with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: This analysis of the Paliperidone Palmitate Research in Demonstrating Effectiveness (PRIDE) study (NCT01157351) compared outcomes after administration of once-monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP) vs conventional oral antipsychotics (COAs) or atypical oral antipsychotics (AOAs). METHODS: PRIDE was a 15-month study of 444 individuals with schizophrenia and a history of incarceration. They were randomly assigned to PP or to 1 of 7 commonly prescribed OAs. Primary endpoint was time to first treatment failure (TF). Event-free probabilities were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method; treatment group differences (PP vs COAs, PP vs AOAs, and PP vs oral paliperidone/risperidone) were assessed using a log-rank test. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression models. No adjustment was made for multiplicity. RESULTS: Compared with PP, risk for first TF was 34% higher with COAs (HR: 1.34; 95% CI: 0.80-2.25), 41% higher with AOAs (HR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.06-1.88), and 39% higher with paliperidone/risperidone (HR: 1.39; 95% CI: 0.97-1.99). Incidences of extrapyramidal symptom-related adverse events (AEs) were 45.7%, 13.7%, and 10.6% in the COA, AOA, and oral paliperidone/risperidone groups vs 23.9% in the PP group. Incidences of prolactin-related AEs were 5.7%, 3.8%, and 3.5% vs 23.5%, and incidences of ≥7% weight increase were 11.4%, 14.9%, and 16.0% vs 32.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest a lower risk of TF but a higher rate of some AEs after treatment with PP vs COAs, AOAs, and paliperidone/risperidone. Deselection of specific OAs and low patient-compliance rates with OAs likely biased the safety results.

Large-scale candidate gene study to identify genetic risk factors predictive of paliperidone treatment response in patients with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical response to antipsychotic medications can vary markedly in patients with schizophrenia. Identifying genetic variants associated with treatment response could help optimize patient care and outcome. To this end, we carried out a large-scale candidate gene study to identify genetic risk factors predictive of paliperidone efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A central nervous system custom chip containing single nucleotide polymorphisms from 1204 candidate genes was utilized to genotype a discovery cohort of 684 schizophrenia patients from four clinical studies of paliperidone extended-release and paliperidone palmitate. Variants predictive of paliperidone efficacy were identified and further tested in four independent replication cohorts of schizophrenic patients (N=2856). RESULTS: We identified an SNP in ERBB4 that may contribute toward differential treatment response to paliperidone. The association trended in the same direction as the discovery cohort in two of the four replication cohorts, but ultimately did not survive multiple testing corrections. The association was not replicated in the other two independent cohorts. We also report several SNPs in well-known schizophrenia candidate genes that show suggestive associations with paliperidone efficacy. CONCLUSION: These preliminary findings suggest that genetic variation in the ERBB4 gene may differentially affect treatment response to paliperidone in individuals with schizophrenia. They implicate the neuregulin 1 (NRG1)-ErbB4 pathway for modulating antipsychotic response. However, these findings were not robustly reproduced in replication cohorts.

Body mass index and metabolic parameters in patients with schizophrenia during long-term treatment with paliperidone palmitate.

BACKGROUND: There is a strong association between weight gain and metabolic events in patients with schizophrenia receiving many of the second-generation antipsychotic agents. We explored the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and metabolic events in patients with schizophrenia receiving long-acting injectable paliperidone palmitate (PP) in a long-term trial. METHODS: We conducted a post hoc analysis of data from a PP study that included a 33-week open-label transition (TR) and maintenance phase; a variable duration, randomized, double-blind (DB), placebo-controlled phase and a 52-week open-label extension (OLE) phase. Overall, 644 patients received PP continuously from study entry through discontinuation or study completion and were grouped by baseline BMI (kg/m2): underweight (BMI <19; n = 29, 4.5%), normal-weight (BMI 19- < 25; n = 229, 35.6%), overweight (BMI 25- < 30; n = 232, 36.0%) and obese (BMI ≥ 30; n = 154, 23.9%). Metabolic treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and changes in related laboratory results from TR baseline were analyzed. RESULTS: PP exposure was similar across BMI groups; overall mean (SD) dose/month was 70.3 (17.17) mg eq. [109.6 (26.78) mg]; median duration of exposure was 204 days (6 to 1009 days). Occurrences of metabolic TEAEs overall by group were 0% (underweight), 14.9% (normal-weight), 14.7% (overweight), and 24.0% (obese). The most common (≥ 2%) metabolic TEAE were weight gain and elevated blood levels of glucose, lipids, and insulin. Mean BMI and weight increased in normal-weight and overweight groups at DB endpoint, and in underweight, normal-weight and overweight groups at OLE endpoint (p ≤ 0.05). No consistent trend for increased metabolic-related laboratory values by baseline BMI group was observed. Homeostatic model assessments for insulin resistance indicated preexisting insulin resistance at baseline, with minimal changes at OLE endpoint across baseline BMI groups. CONCLUSION: Occurrences of metabolic-related TEAEs trended with greater BMI status in patients with schizophrenia treated with PP; consistent trends in metabolic-related laboratory values were not observed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT 00518323).

Ensuring Stakeholder Feedback in the Design and Conduct of Clinical Trials for Rare Diseases: ISCTM Position Paper of the Orphan Disease Working Group.

The 1983 Orphan Drug Act in the United States (US) changed the landscape for development of therapeutics for rare or orphan diseases, which collectively affect approximately 300 million people worldwide, half of whom are children. The act has undoubtedly accelerated drug development for orphan diseases, with over 6,400 orphan drug applications submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from 1983 to 2023, including 350 drugs approved for over 420 indications. Drug development in this population is a global and collaborative endeavor. This position paper of the International Society for Central Nervous System Clinical Trials and Methodology (ISCTM) describes some potential best practices for the involvement of key stakeholder feedback in the drug development process. Stakeholders include advocacy groups, patients and caregivers with lived experience, public and private research institutions (including academia and pharmaceutical companies), treating clinicians, and funders (including the government and independent foundations). The authors articulate the challenges of drug development in orphan diseases and propose methods to address them. Challenges range from the poor understanding of disease history to development of endpoints, targets, and clinical trials designs, to finding solutions to competing research priorities by involved parties.

Methods for Neuroscience Drug Development: Guidance on Standardization of the Process for Defining Clinical Outcome Strategies in Clinical Trials.

Neurosciences clinical trials continue to have notoriously high failure rates. Appropriate outcomes selection in early clinical trials is key to maximizing the likelihood of identifying new treatments in psychiatry and neurology. The field lacks good standards for designing outcome strategies, therefore The Outcomes Research Group was formed to develop and promote good practices in outcome selection. This article describes the first published guidance on the standardization of the process for clinical outcomes in neuroscience. A minimal step process is defined starting as early as possible, covering key activities for evidence generation in support of content validity, patient-centricity, validity requirements and considerations for regulatory acceptance. Feedback from expert members is provided, regarding the risks of shortening the process and examples supporting the recommended process are summarized. This methodology is now available to researchers in industry, academia or clinics aiming to implement consensus-based standard practices for clinical outcome selection, contributing to maximizing the efficiency of clinical research.

Antipsychotic adherence patterns and health care utilization and costs among patients discharged after a schizophrenia-related hospitalization.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess antipsychotic adherence patterns and all-cause and schizophrenia-related health care utilization and costs sequentially during critical clinical periods (i.e., before and after schizophrenia-related hospitalization) among Medicaid-enrolled patients experiencing a schizophrenia-related hospitalization. METHODS: All patients aged ≥ 18 years with a schizophrenia-related inpatient admission were identified from the MarketScan Medicaid database (2004-2008). Adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC]) to antipsychotics and schizophrenia-related and all-cause health care utilization and costs were assessed during preadmission (182- to 121-day, 120- to 61-day, and 60- to 0-day periods; overall, 6 months) and postdischarge periods (0- to 60-day, 61- to 120-day, 121- to 180-day, 181- to 240-day, 241- to 300-day, and 301- to 365-day periods; overall, 12 months). Health care utilization and costs (2010 US dollars) were compared between each adjacent 60-day follow-up period after discharge using univariate and multivariable regression analyses. No adjustment was made for multiplicity. RESULTS: Of the 2,541 patients with schizophrenia (mean age: 41.2 years; 57% male; 59% black) who were identified, approximately 89% were "discharged to home self-care." Compared with the 60- to 0-day period before the index inpatient admission, greater mean adherence as measured by PDC was observed during the 0- to 60-day period immediately following discharge (0.46 vs. 0.78, respectively). The mean PDC during the overall 6-month preadmission period was lower than during the 6-month postdischarge period (0.53 vs. 0.69; P < 0.001). Compared with the 0- to 60-day postdischarge period, schizophrenia-related health care costs were significantly lower during the 61- to 120-day postdischarge period (mean: $2,708 vs. $2,102; P < 0.001); the primary cost drivers were rehospitalization (mean: $978 vs. $660; P < 0.001) and pharmacy (mean: $959 vs. $743; P < 0.001). Following the initial 60-day period, both all-cause and schizophrenia-related costs declined and remained stable for the remaining postdischarge periods (days 121-365). CONCLUSIONS: Although long-term (e.g., 365-day) adherence measures are important, estimating adherence over shorter intervals may clarify the course of vulnerability to risk and enable clinicians to better design adherence/risk-related interventions. The greatest risk of rehospitalization and thus greater resource utilization were observed during the initial 60-day postdischarge period. Physicians should consider tailoring management and treatment strategies to help mitigate the economic and humanistic burden for patients with schizophrenia during this period.

Long-acting injectable paliperidone palmitate versus oral paliperidone extended release: a comparative analysis from two placebo-controlled relapse prevention studies.

BACKGROUND: Increasing availability and use of long-acting injectable antipsychotics have generated a need to compare these formulations with their oral equivalents; however, a paucity of relevant data is available. METHODS: This post hoc comparison of the long-term efficacy, safety and tolerability of maintenance treatment with paliperidone palmitate (PP) versus oral paliperidone extended release (ER) used data from two similarly designed, randomised, double-blind (DB), placebo-controlled schizophrenia relapse prevention trials. Assessments included measures of time to relapse, symptom changes/functioning and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Time to relapse between treatment groups was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazards model. Between-group differences for continuous variables for change scores during the DB phase were assessed using analysis of co-variance models. Categorical variables were evaluated using Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. No adjustment was made for multiplicity. RESULTS: Approximately 45% of enrolled subjects in both trials were stabilised and randomised to the DB relapse prevention phase. Risk of relapse was higher in subjects treated with paliperidone ER than in those treated with PP [paliperidone ER/PP hazard ratio (HR), 2.52; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.46-4.35; p < 0.001]. Similarly, risk of relapse after withdrawal of paliperidone ER treatment (placebo group of the paliperidone ER study) was higher than after withdrawal of PP (paliperidone ER placebo/PP placebo HR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.59-3.18; p < 0.001). Stabilised schizophrenic subjects treated with PP maintained functioning demonstrated by the same proportions of subjects with mild to no difficulties in functioning at DB baseline and end point [Personal and Social Performance (PSP) scale total score >70, both approximately 58.5%; p = 1.000] compared with a 10.9% decrease for paliperidone ER (58.5% vs 47.6%, respectively; p = 0.048). The least squares mean change for Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score at DB end point in these previously stabilised subjects was 3.5 points in favour of PP (6.0 vs 2.5; p = 0.025). The rates of TEAEs and AEs of interest appeared similar. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis supports maintenance of effect with the injectable compared with the oral formulation of paliperidone in patients with schizophrenia. The safety profile of PP was similar to that of paliperidone ER. Future studies are needed to confirm these findings.

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).

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.

Remote Assessment of Negative Symptoms of Schizophrenia.

In contrast to the validated scales for face-to-face assessment of negative symptoms, no widely accepted tools currently exist for remote monitoring of negative symptoms. Remote assessment of negative symptoms can be broadly divided into 3 categories: (1) remote administration of an existing negative-symptom scale by a clinician, in real time, using videoconference technology to communicate with the patient; (2) direct inference of negative symptoms through detection and analysis of the patient's voice, appearance, or activity by way of the patient's smartphone or other device; and (3) ecological momentary assessment, in which the patient self-reports their condition upon receipt of periodic prompts from a smartphone or other device during their daily routine. These modalities vary in cost, technological complexity, and applicability to the different negative-symptom domains. Each modality has unique strengths, weaknesses, and issues with validation. As a result, an optimal solution may be more likely to employ several techniques than to use a single tool. For remote assessment of negative symptoms to be adopted as primary or secondary endpoints in regulated clinical trials, appropriate psychometric standards will need to be met. Standards for substituting 1 set of measures for another, as well as what constitutes a "gold" reference standard, will need to be precisely defined and a process for defining them developed. Despite over 4 decades of progress toward this goal, significant work remains to be done before clinical trials addressing negative symptoms can utilize remotely assessed secondary or primary outcome measures.

Placebo-related effects in clinical trials in schizophrenia: what is driving this phenomenon and what can be done to minimize it?

The effect of placebo observed in schizophrenia clinical trials represents a growing problem that interferes with signal detection for treatments, increases costs of development, discourages investment in schizophrenia research and delays the introduction of new treatments. This paper seeks to clarify key issues related to this problem and identify potential solutions to them. Differences between placebo effect and response are characterized. Recent insights into the central nervous system mechanisms of placebo effect are described. This is followed by a description of protocol/study design and study conduct issues that are contributing to a growing placebo effect in clinical trials. Potential solutions to these problems are provided.

Asenapine versus olanzapine in people with persistent negative symptoms of schizophrenia.

Two randomized, double-blind, 26-week core studies (Eastern [EH] and Western Hemisphere [WH]) tested the hypothesis that asenapine is superior to olanzapine for persistent negative symptoms of schizophrenia; 26-week extension studies assessed the comparative long-term efficacy and safety of these agents. In the core studies, 949 people were randomized to asenapine (n = 241 and 244) or olanzapine (n = 240 and 224); 26-week completion rates with asenapine were 64.7% and 49.6% (olanzapine, 80.4% and 63.8%) in the EH and WH, respectively. In the EH and WH extensions, respectively (asenapine, n = 134 and 86; olanzapine, n = 172 and 110), 52-week completion rates were 84.3% and 66.3% with asenapine (olanzapine, 89.0% and 80.9%). Asenapine was not superior to olanzapine in change in the 16-item Negative Symptom Assessment Scale total score in either core study, but asenapine was superior to olanzapine at week 52 in the WH extension study. Olanzapine was associated with modest, but significantly greater, changes in PANSS positive subscale score at various assessment times in both core studies and the WH extension study. Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was comparable between treatments across studies. Weight gain was consistently lower with asenapine. Extrapyramidal symptom-related adverse event incidence was higher with asenapine (EH: 8.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.1%-12.5%; WH: 16.4%; 95% CI, 11.9%-21.6%) than olanzapine (EH: 3.3%; 95% CI, 1.4%-6.4%; WH: 12.1%; 95% CI, 8.1%-17.0%), but Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale-Abbreviated total score changes did not significantly differ between treatments. In conclusion, asenapine superiority over olanzapine was not observed in the core studies. Both treatments improved persistent negative symptoms, but discontinuation rates were higher with asenapine.

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.