Relating Spontaneously Reported Extrapyramidal Adverse Events to Movement Disorder Rating Scales.

BACKGROUND: While antipsychotic-induced extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) and akathisia remain important concerns in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia, the relationship between movement disorder rating scales and spontaneously reported EPS-related adverse events (EPS-AEs) remains unexplored. METHODS: Data from four randomized, placebo- and haloperidol-controlled ziprasidone trials were analyzed to examine the relationship between spontaneously reported EPS-AEs with the Simpson Angus Scale (SAS) and Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale (BARS). Categorical summaries were created for each treatment group to show the frequencies of subjects with EPS-AEs in each of the SAS and BARS categories at weeks 1, 3, and 6, and agreement between ratings was quantified by means of weighted kappa (κ). RESULTS: In general, we found greater frequencies of EPS-AEs with increasing severity of the SAS and BARS scores. The EPS-AEs reported with a "none" SAS score ranged from 0 to 22.2%, with a "mild" SAS score from 3.3 to 29.0%, and with a "moderate" SAS score from 0 to 100%. No subjects in any treatment group reported "severe" SAS scores or corresponding EPS-AEs. Agreement between SAS scores and EPS-AEs was poor for ziprasidone and placebo (κ < 0.2) and only slightly better for haloperidol. The EPS-AEs reported with "non questionable" BARS scores ranged from 1.9 to 9.8%, with "mild moderate" BARS scores from 12.8 to 54.6%, and with "marked severe" scores from 0 to 100%. Agreement was modest for ziprasidone and placebo (κ < 0.4) and moderate for haloperidol (κ < 0.6). CONCLUSIONS: These findings may reflect either underreporting of AEs by investigators and subjects or erroneous rating scale evaluations.

Intramuscular ziprasidone versus haloperidol for managing agitation in Chinese patients with schizophrenia.

Intramuscular (IM) antipsychotics are preferred for efficient control of agitation symptoms. Previous studies have demonstrated that IM ziprasidone is efficacious and safe for treatment of agitation in schizophrenia. However, clinicians now recognize that racial differences may contribute to altered therapeutic response and tolerability. This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of IM ziprasidone versus IM haloperidol for the management of agitation in Chinese subjects with schizophrenia. Subjects with acute schizophrenia were randomized to either ziprasidone (n = 189, 10 to 20 mg as required up to a maximum of 40 mg/d) or haloperidol (n = 187, 5 mg every 4 to 8 hours to a maximum of 20 mg/d) for 3 days. Psychiatric assessments and adverse events were assessed at baseline, 2, 4, 24, 48, and 72 hours. In the ziprasidone group, 2.1% of subjects discontinued versus 3.7% in the haloperidol group. The least squares mean change (SE) from baseline to 72 hours in Brief Psychiatry Rating Scale total score was -17.32 (0.7) for ziprasidone (n = 167) and -18.44 (0.7) for haloperidol (n = 152), with a 95% confidence interval treatment difference of -0.7 to 2.9. Fewer subjects experienced adverse events after ziprasidone (n = 54, 28.6%) than haloperidol (n = 116, 62.0%), with a notably higher incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms in the haloperidol group (n = 69, 36.9%) compared to the ziprasidone group (n = 4, 2.1%). For controlling agitation in schizophrenia in this Chinese study, ziprasidone had a favorable tolerability profile and comparable efficacy and safety compared to haloperidol.

An open-label pilot study of methylphenidate in the treatment of cocaine dependent patients with adult attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

A multi-site, open-label study of methylphenidate for treating patients with comorbid diagnoses of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and cocaine dependence was performed. Forty-one participants, who met DSM-IV criteria for adult attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and cocaine dependence, were enrolled into this ten week outpatient study. The targeted total daily dose of methylphenidate was 60 mg (20 mg TID). Participants received individual substance abuse therapy throughout the trial. Safety measures included adverse events, vital signs, and electrocardiograms. Methylphenidate's efficacy was assessed by both objective and subjective measures. Seventy percent of the participants completed final study measures. Safety measures indicated that methylphenidate was well tolerated by the participants. Subjective efficacy measures suggested that participants evidenced improvement in both cocaine dependence and adult attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms. Quantitative benzoylecgonine indicated that only those participants categorized as being compliant showed improvement. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of methylphenidate for this population may be warranted.

Early prediction of clinical and functional outcome in schizophrenia.

UNLABELLED: The objective of this paper was to investigate the prognostic and predictive value of a small panel of independent and clinically important factors based on symptom improvement, baseline cognitive impairment, and weight change during the early treatment phase. METHODS: The study sample was based on a double-blind, 6-month continuation study of ziprasidone and olanzapine (N=94). We developed a parsimonious 6-month GAF prediction function using a logistic regression model, and evaluated its predictive accuracy and performance using bootstrap estimates of c-statistics and error in predicted probability. RESULTS: At up to 6 months of follow-up, 52 (55%) of all subjects treated with ziprasidone or olanzapine met the responder criterion of ≥50% improvement in GAF. At Week 2 (acute phase), the majority of ziprasidone (75%) and olanzapine (70%) patients showed greater than 25% improvement in the BPRS psychotic symptom subscale score. These early psychotic symptom responders (Week 2) showed significantly greater improvement in global functioning than early non-responders at all time points (Week 6 and Month 6) (all p's<0.05), confirming early response as an indicator of continued responsiveness to treatment over at least 6 months. A multivariate prediction function based on baseline neurocognitive scores and GAF, early reduction of psychotic symptoms at 2 weeks, and percentage of weight change observed at 6 weeks (All p's <0.05), showed statistically acceptable predictive performance (boostrap c-statistics=0.8598). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that a parsimonious model incorporating a psychotic symptom assessment score, baseline neurocognitive performance, and risk of weight gain can be developed for predicting patients' likelihood of achieving favorable, long-term treatment outcomes.

Meta-regression analysis of placebo response in antipsychotic trials, 1970-2010.

OBJECTIVE: Large placebo response presents a major challenge for psychopharmacologic drug development and contributes to the increasing failure of psychiatric trials. The objective of this meta-regression analysis was to identify potential contributors to placebo response in randomized controlled trials of antipsychotic treatment in schizophrenia. METHOD: The authors extracted trial design and clinical variables from eligible randomized controlled trials (N=50) identified through searches of MEDLINE (1960-2010) and other sources. Standardized mean change (SMC) was used as the effect size measure for placebo response, based on change scores on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale or the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale from baseline to endpoint (2 to 12 weeks). RESULTS: The results suggest significant heterogeneities (Q=387.83, df=49) in the magnitude of placebo response (mean SMC, -0.33, range -1.4 to 0.9) and in study quality. Both placebo SMC and study quality increased over time. Younger age, shorter duration of illness, greater baseline symptom severity, and shorter trial duration were significantly associated with greater placebo response, while country (United States compared with other countries) was not. More study sites, fewer university or Veterans Affairs treatment settings, and a lower percentage of patients assigned to receive placebo were associated with a greater placebo response, but these were not independent of publication year. Study quality affected the variability but not mean levels of placebo response. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified important patient characteristics and trial design factors affecting the level of placebo response and hence the likelihood of detecting efficacy signals in randomized controlled trials. Future studies should test whether controlling these factors improves the detection of an antipsychotic effect.

Efficacy, long-term safety, and tolerability of ziprasidone in children and adolescents with bipolar disorder.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the short- and long-term efficacy and safety of ziprasidone in children and adolescents with bipolar I disorder. METHODS: Subjects 10-17 years of age with a manic or mixed episode associated with bipolar I disorder participated in a 4 week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial (RCT) followed by a 26 week open-label extension study (OLE). Subjects were randomized 2:1 to initially receive flexible-dose ziprasidone (40-160 mg/day, based on weight) or placebo. Primary outcome was the change in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) scores from baseline. Safety assessments included weight and body mass index (BMI), adverse events (AEs), vital signs, laboratory measures, electrocardiograms, and movement disorder ratings. RESULTS: In the RCT, 237 subjects were treated with ziprasidone (n=149; mean age, 13.6 years) or placebo (n=88; mean age, 13.7 years). The estimated least squares mean changes in YMRS total (intent-to-treat population) were -13.83 (ziprasidone) and -8.61 (placebo; p=0.0005) at RCT endpoint. The most common AEs in the ziprasidone group were sedation (32.9%), somnolence (24.8%), headache (22.1%), fatigue (15.4%), and nausea (14.1%). In the OLE, 162 subjects were enrolled, and the median duration of treatment was 98 days. The mean change in YMRS score from the end of the RCT to the end of the OLE (last observation carried forward) was -3.3 (95% confidence interval, -5.0 to -1.6). The most common AEs were sedation (26.5%), somnolence (23.5%), headache (22.2%), and insomnia (13.6%). For both the RCT and the OLE, no clinically significant mean changes in movement disorder scales, BMI z-scores, liver enzymes, or fasting lipids and glucose were observed. One subject on ziprasidone in the RCT and none during the OLE had Fridericia-corrected QT interval (QTcF) ≥ 460 ms. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that ziprasidone is efficacious for treating children and adolescents with bipolar disorder. Ziprasidone was generally well tolerated with a neutral metabolic profile. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY: NCT00257166 and NCT00265330 at ClinicalTrials.gov.

Ziprasidone in adolescents with schizophrenia: results from a placebo-controlled efficacy and long-term open-extension study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the short- and long-term efficacy, safety, and tolerability of ziprasidone in adolescents with schizophrenia. METHODS: Subjects ages 13-17 years with schizophrenia (American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. [DSM-IV]) were enrolled in a 6 week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial (RCT) followed by a 26 week open-label extension study (OLE). Subjects were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to flexible-dose oral ziprasidone (40-160 mg/day, based on weight) or placebo. Primary end-point was change from baseline in Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale-Anchored (BPRS-A) total score. Safety assessments included adverse events, vital signs, laboratory measures, electrocardiograms, weight and body mass index, and movement disorder ratings. RESULTS: Planned interim analysis for the primary end-point in the RCT resulted in early termination of both studies because of futility. In the RCT, 283 subjects received ziprasidone (n=193) or placebo (n=90). In the intent-to-treat analysis population, the least squares mean (SE) BPRS-A score decrease from baseline at week 6 was not significantly different (p=0.15; -14.16 [0.78] for ziprasidone and -12.35 [1.05] for placebo). Per-protocol analysis was significant (p=0.02). In the OLE, 221 subjects entered the OLE and received ziprasidone for a median of 99 days. The mean (SD) change in BPRS-A score from end of RCT to end of OLE (last observation carried forward) was -6.9 (8.9). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (≥ 10%) for all causalities during the RCT were somnolence and extrapyramidal disorders, and during OLE was somnolence only. No subjects had Fridericia's corrected QT (QTcF) ≥ 500 ms in the RCT or OLE phases. One completed suicide occurred during the OLE phase. For RCT and OLE, no clinically significant changes were reported in metabolic indices and laboratory measures. CONCLUSIONS: Ziprasidone failed to separate from placebo in treatment of schizophrenia in adolescents. Ziprasidone was generally well tolerated with an overall neutral weight and metabolic profile. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY: NCT00257192 and NCT00265382 at ClinicalTrials.gov .

Adjunctive oral ziprasidone in patients with acute mania treated with lithium or divalproex, part 1: results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of adjunctive ziprasidone in subjects with acute mania treated with lithium or divalproex, with an inadequate response to the mood stabilizer. METHOD: The study enrolled subjects aged 18-65 years who had a primary DSM-IV diagnosis of bipolar I disorder, with the most recent episode manic or mixed, with or without rapid cycling, and a Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score ≥ 18. Subjects were randomized under double-blind conditions to receive ziprasidone, 20 to 40 mg (n = 226) or 60 to 80 mg (n = 232), or placebo (n = 222) twice a day for 3 weeks in addition to their mood stabilizer. The primary efficacy variable was change in YMRS scores from baseline to 3 weeks. Secondary efficacy measures included the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness and -Improvement scales, and Global Assessment of Functioning. Computer-administered YMRS was included for quality control and to evaluate study performance. The study was conducted between April 2006 and December 2008. RESULTS: Least-squares mean ± standard error changes in YMRS scores from baseline to week 3 were -10.2 ± 0.80 in the mood stabilizer + ziprasidone 60- to 80-mg group, -11.0 ± 0.80 in the mood stabilizer + ziprasidone 20- to 40-mg group, and -9.5 ± 0.80 in the mood stabilizer + placebo group. Mean treatment differences between adjunctive ziprasidone groups and placebo were not statistically significant on primary or secondary efficacy measures. Ziprasidone was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive ziprasidone treatment failed to separate from mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) treatment on primary and secondary end points. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00312494.

Adjunctive oral ziprasidone in patients with acute mania treated with lithium or divalproex, part 2: influence of protocol-specific eligibility criteria on signal detection.

OBJECTIVES: High failure rates of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are well recognized but poorly understood. We report exploratory analyses from an adjunctive ziprasidone double-blind RCT in adults with bipolar I disorder (reported in part 1 of this article). Data collected by computer interviews and by site-based raters were analyzed to examine the impact of eligibility criteria on signal detection. METHOD: Clinical assessments and a remote monitoring system, including a computer-administered Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS(Comp)) were used to categorize subjects as eligible or ineligible on 3 key protocol-specified eligibility criteria. Data analyses compared treatment efficacy for eligible versus ineligible subgroups. All statistical analyses reported here are exploratory. Criteria were considered "impactful" if the difference between eligible and ineligible subjects on the YMRS change scores was ≥ 1 point. RESULTS: 504 subjects had baseline and ≥ 1 post-randomization computer-administered assessments but only 180 (35.7%) met all 3 eligibility criteria based on computer assessments. There were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups in change from baseline YMRS score on the basis of site-based rater or computer assessments. All criteria tested improved signal detection except the entry criteria excluding subjects with ≥ 25% improvement from screen to baseline. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of computer assessments, nearly two-thirds of randomized subjects did not meet at least 1 protocol-specified eligibility criterion. These results suggest enrollment of ineligible subjects is likely to contribute to failure of acute efficacy studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00312494.

Assessments of suicidality in double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of ziprasidone.

OBJECTIVE: A pooled analysis was conducted to identify possibly suicide-related adverse events in Pfizer-sponsored, phases 2-4, placebo-controlled, double-blind, adult and pediatric completed randomized controlled trials of ziprasidone and to evaluate the risk of suicidality with ziprasidone versus placebo. METHOD: The trials included were initiated as early as June 1992, and the cutoff date for selection of the placebo-controlled trials in the Pfizer database was October 2, 2009. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-defined search methodology was used to identify possibly suicide-related adverse events, and the Columbia Classification Algorithm of Suicide Assessment (primary outcome measure) was used to categorize them. The incidences of possibly suicide-related adverse events were calculated for individual classifications and for the predefined combined categories of suicidality (comprising classification codes 1-4) and suicidal behavior (comprising classification codes 1-3), along with the ziprasidone versus placebo relative risks and corresponding 95% CIs. Exact binomial 95% CIs were calculated for the individual treatment group incidences. RESULTS: Suicidality events were identified in 52 among 5,123 subjects treated with either ziprasidone or placebo in 22 trials. No cases of completed suicide occurred in this analysis. There were no statistically significant differences between ziprasidone and placebo in any of the individual classification categories, combined suicidal behavior category (ziprasidone vs placebo relative risk = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.206-2.201), or combined suicidality risk category (ziprasidone vs placebo relative risk = 0.90; 95% CI, 0.514-1.563). CONCLUSIONS: Results of our analyses, performed in accordance with the FDA-specified search strategy, reveal no significant differences in treatment-emergent suicidality risk in ziprasidone versus placebo subjects treated in controlled clinical trials.

Placebo response trajectories in short-term and long-term antipsychotic trials in schizophrenia.

Increasing rates of placebo response have eroded placebo-control group differences in randomized controlled trials, although the reasons for this trend remain unclear. Data were extracted from the placebo arms in two identically designed 6-week studies and one 52-week study in the ziprasidone clinical trial database. The objective of this analysis was to identify distinct patterns of placebo response trajectories that could capture individual variability in the time course of change during a 1-year trial using growth mixture latent class analyses. These long-term placebo response patterns were contrasted with two 6-week schizophrenia studies. The placebo response trajectory analysis that showed 58% (Group 4) had gradual improvement in the PANSS negative subscale score (p<0.05), fewer dropouts (p<0.05) and improvement in abnormal movements, contrasted with 3 other trajectory groups that showed worsening on these measures. Almost all subjects (98%) in this symptom improvement group were treated with conventional antipsychotics just prior to placebo treatment. In contrast, the trajectory analyses showed worsening of symptoms based on PANSS total score in the 1-year trial (+15.5, SEM 2.6). Some gradual improvement of symptoms (-14.0, SEM 1.6) was also noted in 67% (n=114) of patients in the 6-week short term trials. Our findings indicate that substantial heterogeneity in placebo response occurs in both short-term and long-term trials. The placebo response trajectories appeared to depend on the efficacy measure of symptom reduction chosen, prior antipsychotic use profile, and trial durations. Further research is warranted to examine the trajectory patterns of placebo responses in independent patient populations.

Efficacy and safety of adjunctive oral ziprasidone for acute treatment of depression in patients with bipolar I disorder: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess efficacy and safety of adjunctive ziprasidone in subjects with bipolar depression treated with lithium, lamotrigine, or valproate. METHOD: 298 adult outpatients with bipolar I disorder (DSM-IV criteria) were randomized to receive ziprasidone, 20-80 mg twice a day, or placebo twice a day for 6 weeks plus their preexisting mood stabilizer. The primary efficacy variable was change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total scores from baseline to 6 weeks. The key secondary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 6 in Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) scores. Computer-administered assessments for diagnostic confidence were included for quality control and to evaluate study performance. The study was conducted between October 2007 and December 2008. RESULTS: The mean ± SD daily dose of ziprasidone was 89.8 ± 29.1 mg. Least squares mean ± standard error changes from baseline to week 6 on MADRS total score for ziprasidone and placebo treatment groups were -13.2 ± 1.2 and -12.9 ± 1.1, respectively, with a 2-sided P value of .792. There was no significant difference on the key secondary variable (CGI-S). Adjunctive ziprasidone was well tolerated. Poor quality ratings at baseline were associated with a trend for better improvement on placebo than ziprasidone. Among 43 placebo-treated subjects with poor baseline quality ratings, 29 (67.4%) had baseline MADRS scores > 10 points higher on the computer-administered assessment than the MADRS administered by the site-based rater. The response favoring placebo over ziprasidone observed in this subgroup suggests that poor signal detection in some clinical trials can be a consequence of "subject inflation" as well as "rater inflation." CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive ziprasidone treatment failed to separate from mood stabilizer alone on primary and secondary endpoints. Possible contributions to this result include enrollment of a substantial number of subjects with low diagnostic confidence, low quality ratings on the MADRS, and overzealous reporting of symptoms by subjects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinical trials.gov Identifier: NCT00483548.

Sertraline treatment of children and adolescents with posttraumatic stress disorder: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of sertraline in children and adolescents who met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV) criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). METHOD: Children and adolescents (6-17 years old) meeting DSM-IV criteria for PTSD were randomized to 10 weeks of double-blind treatment with sertraline (50-200 mg/day) or placebo. The primary efficacy measure was the University of California, Los Angeles Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Index for DSM-IV (UCLA PTSD-I). RESULTS: A total of 131 patients met entry criteria and were randomized to sertraline (n = 67; female, 59.7%; mean age, 10.8; mean UCLA PTSD-I score, 43.8 ± 8.5) or placebo (n = 62; female, 61.3%; mean age, 11.2; mean UCLA PTSD-I score, 42.1 ± 8.8). There was no difference between sertraline and placebo in least squares (LS) mean change in the UCLA PTSD-I score, either on a completer analysis (-20.4 ± 2.1 vs. -22.8 ± 2.1; p = 0.373) or on an last observation carried forward (LOCF) end point analysis (-17.7 ± 1.9 vs. -20.8 ± 2.1; p = 0.201). Attrition was higher on sertraline (29.9%) compared to placebo (17.7%). Discontinuation due to adverse events occurred in a 7.5% treated with sertraline and 3.2% treated with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Sertraline was a generally safe treatment in children and adolescents with PTSD, but did not demonstrate efficacy when compared to placebo during 10 weeks of treatment. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00150306.

A pooled analysis of suicidality in double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of sertraline in adults.

OBJECTIVE: The analyses were conducted to identify possibly suicide-related adverse events in Pfizer-sponsored, phases 2 through 4, placebo-controlled, completed studies of sertraline in adult patients and evaluate the risk of suicidality with sertraline versus placebo. METHOD: U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-defined search methodology was used to identify possibly suicide-related adverse events in short-term, all-duration/all-indication, and psychiatric studies of sertraline. Categorization of possibly suicide-related adverse events was based on the approach developed by the Columbia group for the FDA's analysis of pediatric suicide risk with antidepressants. The incidences of possibly suicide-related adverse events were calculated for individual classifications and for the predefined combined category of suicidality along with the sertraline versus placebo relative risks and corresponding 95% CI limits. Exact binomial CI limits were calculated for the individual treatment group incidences. Age group analyses were also performed using the age limits defined by the FDA. RESULTS: Ninety-nine suicidality events were identified among 19,923 sertraline- and placebo-treated subjects participating in 126 studies conducted between the mid-1980s and the mid-2000s. Four cases of completed suicides among 10,917 sertraline-treated subjects yielded an incidence of 0.04% (95% CI = 0.01 to 0.09) and 3 cases among 9,006 placebo treated subjects yielded an incidence of 0.03% (95% CI = 0.01 to 0.10). There were no statistically significant differences between sertraline and placebo in any of the individual categories or combined suicidality risk category across all performed analyses. CONCLUSION: Results of short-term, all-duration, and psychiatric studies analyses, as well as age-group analyses, performed in accordance with the FDA-specified search strategy, show no significant increase in suicidality risk in adult sertraline- versus placebo-treated patients.