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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The effect of esketamine in patients with treatment-resistant depression with and without comorbid anxiety symptoms or disorder.

BACKGROUND: Comorbid anxiety is generally associated with poorer response to antidepressant treatment. This post hoc analysis explored the efficacy of esketamine plus an antidepressant in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) with or without comorbid anxiety. METHODS: TRANSFORM-2, a double-blind, flexible-dose, 4-week study (NCT02418585), randomized adults with TRD to placebo or esketamine nasal spray, each with a newly-initiated oral antidepressant. Comorbid anxiety was defined as clinically noteworthy anxiety symptoms (7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale [GAD-7] score ≥10) at screening and baseline or comorbid anxiety disorder diagnosis at screening. Treatment effect based on change in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score, and response and remission were examined by presence/absence of comorbid anxiety using analysis of covariance and logistic regression models. RESULTS: Approximately 72% (162/223) of patients had baseline comorbid anxiety. Esketamine-treated patients with and without anxiety demonstrated significant reductions in MADRS (mean [SD] change from baseline at day 28: -21.0 [12.51] and -22.7 [11.98], respectively). Higher rates of response and remission, and a significantly greater decrease in MADRS score at day 28 were observed compared to antidepressant/placebo, regardless of comorbid anxiety (with anxiety: difference in LS means [95% CI] -4.2 [-8.1, -0.3]; without anxiety: -7.5 [-13.7, -1.3]). There was no significant interaction of treatment and comorbid anxiety (p = .371). Notably, in the antidepressant/placebo group improvement was similar in those with and without comorbid anxiety. CONCLUSION: Post hoc data support efficacy of esketamine plus an oral antidepressant in patients with TRD, regardless of comorbid anxiety.

Managing Esketamine Treatment Frequency Toward Successful Outcomes: Analysis of Phase 3 Data.

BACKGROUND: Esketamine nasal spray was recently approved for treatment-resistant depression. The current analysis evaluated the impact of symptom-based treatment frequency changes during esketamine treatment on clinical outcomes. METHODS: This is a post-hoc analysis of an open-label, long-term (up to 1 year) study of esketamine in patients with treatment-resistant depression (SUSTAIN 2). During a 4-week induction phase, 778 patients self-administered esketamine twice weekly plus a new oral antidepressant daily. In responders (≥50% reduction in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score from baseline), esketamine treatment frequency was thereafter decreased during an optimization/maintenance phase to weekly for 4 weeks and then adjusted to the lowest frequency (weekly or every other week) that maintained remission (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale ≤ 12) based on a study-defined algorithm. The relationship between treatment frequency and symptom response, based on clinically meaningful change in Clinical Global Impression-Severity score, was subsequently evaluated 4 weeks after treatment frequency adjustments in the optimization/maintenance phase. RESULTS: Among 580 responders treated with weekly esketamine for the first 4 weeks in the optimization/maintenance phase (per protocol), 26% continued to improve, 50% maintained clinical benefit, and 24% worsened. Thereafter, when treatment frequency could be reduced from weekly to every other week, 19% further improved, 49% maintained benefit, and 32% worsened. For patients no longer in remission after treatment frequency reduction, an increase (every other week to weekly) resulted in 47% improved, 43% remained unchanged, and 10% worsened. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support individualization of esketamine nasal spray treatment frequency to optimize treatment response in real-world clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02497287.

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.

Global sensitivity analysis for repeated measures studies with informative drop-out: A semi-parametric approach.

In practice, both testable and untestable assumptions are generally required to draw inference about the mean outcome measured at the final scheduled visit in a repeated measures study with drop-out. Scharfstein et al. (2014) proposed a sensitivity analysis methodology to determine the robustness of conclusions within a class of untestable assumptions. In their approach, the untestable and testable assumptions were guaranteed to be compatible; their testable assumptions were based on a fully parametric model for the distribution of the observable data. While convenient, these parametric assumptions have proven especially restrictive in empirical research. Here, we relax their distributional assumptions and provide a more flexible, semi-parametric approach. We illustrate our proposal in the context of a randomized trial for evaluating a treatment of schizoaffective disorder.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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).