Efficacy and Safety of Adding Lurasidone to Ongoing Therapy With Lithium or Valproate for the Treatment of an Acute Bipolar Depressive Episode: A Post Hoc Analysis of 2 Placebo-Controlled Trials.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety profile of lurasidone combined with either lithium or valproate, in the short-term treatment of patients with bipolar depression. METHODS: Data were pooled from two 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of patients with bipolar depression on stable doses of lithium or valproate randomized to lurasidone (20-120 mg/d) or placebo. Efficacy measures included the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Clinical Global Impressions Bipolar Scale, and the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology via self-assessment and were analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures approach. RESULTS: Notably larger week 6 effect sizes were observed when lurasidone was added to lithium, compared with when lurasidone was added to valproate, on 2 of the 3 depression outcome measures, Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score (d = 0.45 vs 0.22) and Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology via self-assessment (d = 0.63 vs 0.29); the efficacy advantage was smaller on the Clinical Global Impressions Bipolar Scale depression score (d = 0.34 vs 0.29). Similar adverse event profiles were observed for lurasidone treatment in combination with either lithium or valproate. The most frequently reported events (≥5%) in both groups were nausea, parkinsonism, somnolence, akathisia, and insomnia. Minimal changes in weight, lipids, and measures of glycemic control were observed during treatment with lurasidone combined with either lithium or valproate. CONCLUSIONS: Lurasidone added to either lithium or valproate was found to be an effective treatment for bipolar depression, with a larger antidepressant effect observed when lurasidone was combined with lithium. There were no clinically meaningful differences in the safety or tolerability of lurasidone when used adjunctively with lithium or valproate.

Lurasidone and risk of metabolic syndrome: results from short and long-term studies in patients with bipolar depression.

OBJECTIVE: The elevated prevalence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) in patients with depression has been associated with increased mortality. This post hoc analysis assessed the effect of treatment with lurasidone on risk of MetS in patients with bipolar depression. METHODS: Data used in the current analyses consisted of 3 double-blind (DB), placebo-controlled, 6-week studies in adults with bipolar I depression (N = 1192), consisting of 1 monotherapy, and 2 adjunctive trials (lithium or valproate). Also analyzed was a 6-month open-label (OL) extension study (monotherapy, N = 316; adjunctive therapy, N = 497); and a 5-month, OL, stabilization phase followed by randomization to a 28-week DB, placebo-controlled, adjunctive therapy study with lurasidone (N = 490). MetS was defined based on NCEP ATP III criteria (2005 revision). RESULTS: The proportion of patients with new-onset MetS was similar for lurasidone vs placebo in the short-term studies (monotherapy, 13.9% vs 15.3%; adjunctive therapy, 13.6% vs 11.0%); and remained stable during both the 6-month extension phase study (monotherapy, 15.2%; adjunctive therapy, 16.9%), and the 5-month stabilization study (adjunctive therapy, 12.2%). After 28 weeks of DB treatment (following 5-month treatment in the stabilization study), new onset MetS was observed at endpoint (OC) in 26.2% of the lurasidone group, and 30.8% of the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc analysis found that both short and long-term treatment with lurasidone was associated with a relatively low risk for the development of MetS in patients with bipolar I disorder. These findings are consistent with similar analyses in patients with schizophrenia.

Efficacy and safety of lurasidone in acutely psychotic patients with schizophrenia: A 6-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of lurasidone in acute schizophrenia in Japan and other countries. METHODS: Subjects (aged 18-74 years) diagnosed with schizophrenia were randomized to lurasidone 40 mg/day or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score at Week 6. Secondary efficacy assessments included the Clinical Global Impression-Severity Scale (CGI-S). Safety endpoints included adverse events, and laboratory and electrocardiogram parameters. RESULTS: A total of 483 subjects were randomized to lurasidone or placebo; 107 subjects were from Japan. Mean changes from baseline at Week 6 endpoint in PANSS total scores were -19.3 in the lurasidone group and -12.7 in the placebo group (treatment difference: P < 0.001, effect size = 0.41). Changes from baseline for Week 6 CGI-S scores were -1.0 for lurasidone and -0.7 for placebo (treatment difference: P < 0.001, effect size = 0.41). All-cause discontinuation during the 6-week, double-blind period was 19.4% for lurasidone and 25.4% for placebo, and discontinuation rates due to adverse event were 5.7% for lurasidone and 6.4% for placebo. The following common treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in more than 2% on lurasidone and at a rate at least twice that of the placebo group: akathisia (4.0%), dizziness (2.8%), somnolence (2.8%), abdominal discomfort (2.0%) and asthenia (2.0%). No significant changes in bodyweight or metabolic parameters were observed. CONCLUSION: Lurasidone 40 mg once daily dosing demonstrated efficacy in a patient population with acute schizophrenia, including subjects from Japan, and was generally safe and well-tolerated.

Lurasidone Efficacy in Mixed Depressive States: A Comparison of Standard Rating Scales to the Koukopoulos Mixed Depression Rating Scale.

INTRODUCTION: A new mood rating scale for mixed states of depression along with manic-like excitatory symptoms, the Koukopoulos Mixed Depression Rating Scale (KMDRS), was assessed in a post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial of lurasidone versus placebo in major depressive disorder (MDD) with mixed features. METHODS: The KMDRS was compared with the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS). Item weighting was performed and compared with an original KMDRS validation data set. Weighting was used to provide imputed KMDRS scores in the lurasidone study, based on observed MADRS and YMRS scores. RESULTS: Standardized effect sizes were larger for MADRS (0.61) and YMRS (0.79) than for KMDRS (0.44, Cohen d). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis did not find that the KMDRS produced a larger effect size than the MADRS in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorder-5 (DSM-5) defined MDD with mixed features. The lower utility of KMDRS may be due to the imputed nature of this analysis, or also to the DSM-5 defined patient population, which may reflect mixed hypomania rather than mixed depression.

Lurasidone and risk for metabolic syndrome: results from short- and long-term clinical studies in patients with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of treatment with lurasidone on risk for metabolic syndrome (MetS) in patients with schizophrenia. METHODS: Rates of metabolic syndrome during treatment with lurasidone (40-160 mg/d) were analyzed using pooled, short-term data from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (vs olanzapine and quetiapine XR); long-term data from two active-comparator-controlled studies (vs risperidone and quetiapine XR); and data from two open-label studies in which patients were switched from olanzapine or risperidone to lurasidone. RESULTS: MetS was defined based on the National Cholesterol Education Program criteria. In short-term studies, the odds of meeting criteria for MetS at week 6 LOCF (adjusted for baseline metabolic syndrome status) was similar for the lurasidone and placebo groups (OR = 1.18; [95% CI, 0.81-1.71]; P = .39), but the odds (vs placebo) were significantly greater for olanzapine (OR = 2.81; [95% CI, 1.53-5.15]; P < .001) and quetiapine (OR = 3.49; [95% CI, 1.93-6.29]; P < .0001). No dose effect was observed for lurasidone across the dose range of 40-160 mg/d. In long-term studies, the odds of MetS after 12 months of treatment was significantly higher for risperidone compared with lurasidone (OR = 2.12; 95% CI, 1.15-3.90; P = .016) and for quetiapine XR compared with lurasidone (OR = 3.92; 95% CI, 1.15-13.40; P = .029). In open-label extension studies, the rate of MetS decreased in patients switched to lurasidone after 6 weeks of treatment with olanzapine or 12 months of treatment with risperidone. CONCLUSION: In this analysis of lurasidone clinical trials, the odds of developing metabolic syndrome were minimal during short- and long-term treatment with lurasidone (40-160 mg/d).

Lurasidone for major depressive disorder with mixed features and anxiety: a post-hoc analysis of a randomized, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this post-hoc analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of lurasidone in treating patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) with mixed features who present with mild and moderate-to-severe levels of anxiety. METHODS: The data in this analysis were derived from a study of patients meeting the DSM-IV-TR criteria for unipolar MDD, with a Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score ≥26, presenting with two or three protocol-defined manic symptoms, who were randomized to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with either lurasidone 20-60 mg/day (n=109) or placebo (n=100). Anxiety severity was evaluated using the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A). To evaluate the effect of baseline anxiety on response to lurasidone, the following two anxiety groups were defined: mild anxiety (HAM-A≤14) and moderate-to-severe anxiety (HAM-A≥15). Change from baseline in MADRS total score was analyzed for each group using a mixed model for repeated measures. RESULTS: Treatment with lurasidone was associated with a significant week 6 change versus placebo in MADRS total score for patients with both mild anxiety (-18.4 vs. -12.8, p<0.01, effect size [ES]=0.59) and moderate-to-severe anxiety (-22.0 vs. -13.0, p<0.001, ES=0.95). Treatment with lurasidone was associated with a significant week 6 change versus placebo in HAM-A total score for patients with both mild anxiety (-7.6 vs. -4.0, p<0.01, ES=0.62), and moderate-to-severe anxiety (-11.4 vs. -6.1, p<0.0001, ES=0.91). CONCLUSIONS: In this post-hoc analysis of an MDD with mixed features and anxiety population, treatment with lurasidone was associated with significant improvement in both depressive and anxiety symptoms in subgroups with mild and moderate-to-severe levels of anxiety at baseline.

Lurasidone for major depressive disorder with mixed features and irritability: a post-hoc analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this post-hoc analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of lurasidone in treating major depressive disorder (MDD) with mixed features including irritability. METHODS: The data in this analysis were derived from a study of patients meeting DSM-IV-TR criteria for unipolar MDD, with a Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score ≥26, presenting with two or three protocol-defined manic symptoms, and who were randomized to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with either lurasidone 20-60 mg/d (n=109) or placebo (n=100). We defined "irritability" as a score ≥2 on both the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) irritability item (#5) and the disruptive-aggressive item (#9). Endpoint change in the MADRS and YMRS items 5 and 9 were analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures for patients with and without irritability. RESULTS: Some 20.7% of patients met the criteria for irritability. Treatment with lurasidone was associated with a significant week 6 change vs. placebo in MADRS score in both patients with (-22.6 vs. -9.5, p<0.0001, effect size [ES]=1.4) and without (-19.9 vs. -13.8, p<0.0001, ES=0.7) irritability. In patients with irritable features, treatment with lurasidone was associated with significant week 6 changes vs. placebo in both the YMRS irritability item (-1.4 vs. -0.3, p=0.0012, ES=1.0) and the YMRS disruptive-aggressive item (-1.0 vs. -0.3, p=0.0002, ES=1.2). CONCLUSIONS: In our post-hoc analysis of a randomized, placebo-controlled, 6-week trial, treatment with lurasidone significantly improved depressive symptoms in MDD patients with mixed features including irritability. In addition, irritability symptoms significantly improved in patients treated with lurasidone.

Lurasidone for the treatment of depressive symptoms in schizophrenia: analysis of 4 pooled, 6-week, placebo-controlled studies.

OBJECTIVE: Depressive symptoms are common in schizophrenia and can worsen outcomes and increase suicide risk. Lurasidone is an atypical antipsychotic agent indicated for the treatment of schizophrenia and for the treatment of major depressive episodes associated with bipolar I disorder. This post hoc analysis evaluated the effect of lurasidone on depressive symptoms in patients with schizophrenia. METHODS: Patient-level data were pooled from 4 similarly designed, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 6-week registration studies of lurasidone (40-160 mg/d) in adult patients with an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia. Changes in depressive symptoms, measured by the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), were analyzed for the overall sample and for subgroups of patients stratified by baseline MADRS scores. RESULTS: MADRS assessments at baseline and endpoint (day 42 or last observation carried forward [LOCF]) were available for 1330 patients. Patients receiving lurasidone experienced significantly greater decreases in MADRS score (-2.8, least-squares [LS] mean change, LOCF) compared with patients receiving placebo (-1.4, P < .001, effect size 0.24). Analysis of change in MADRS score (LOCF) by baseline symptom severity (MADRS score of ≥12, ≥14, ≥16, ≥18) showed significantly greater improvement for lurasidone-treated patients across all severity groups; effect sizes ranged from 0.25 to 0.34. Among patients with a baseline MADRS score of ≥12, depressive symptom remission (defined as MADRS score <10 at LOCF endpoint) was attained by 45.0% of lurasidone-treated patients and 36.3% of patients receiving placebo (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: In a pooled analysis of short-term, placebo-controlled studies, lurasidone significantly improved depressive symptoms in patients with schizophrenia.

Comparative Bioequivalence of Tablet and Capsule Formulations of Ulotaront and the Effect of Food on the Pharmacokinetics of the Tablet Form in Humans.

INTRODUCTION: Ulotaront (SEP-363856), a dual trace animeassociated receptor 1 (TAAR1) and 5-HT1A receptor agonist, is in phase 3 clinical development for the treatment of schizophrenia. This study evaluated the comparative bioequivalence (BE) between tablet and capsule formulations of ulotaront and the food effect (FE) on pharmacokinetics (PK) of tablet form in healthy adult human subjects. METHODS: The BE study applied an open-label two-period crossover design in 24 healthy volunteers. Subjects were randomly assigned (1:1) to dosing sequence AB or BA (A, 25 mg ulotaront tablet; B, 25 mg ulotaront capsule). The FE study also used an open-label randomized two-period crossover design in 20 healthy volunteers. Subjects were fasted overnight then randomly assigned (1:1) to dosing sequence AB or BA (A, fasted condition; B, fed condition). Dosing periods were separated by 1 week for both studies. Serial plasma samples from each period were collected and analyzed by LC-MS/MS. PK parameters were calculated using Phoenix WinNonlin® software. RESULTS: For the BE study, geometric mean ulotaront Cmax values were 93.28 and 86.98 ng/mL for tablet and capsule, respectively. Cmax ratio was 107.25% (90% CI 101.84-112.94%). Geometric mean ulotaront area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity (AUC0-∞) values were 868.8 and 829.3 ng·h/mL for tablet and capsule, respectively. AUC0-∞ ratio was 104.76% (90% CI 100.68109.01%). For the FE study, geometric mean ulotaront Cmax was 157.89 and 157.95 ng/mL under fed and fasted conditions, respectively. Geometric mean ratio of Cmax was 99.96% (90% CI 94.48-105.77%). Geometric mean ulotaront AUC0-∞ was 1584.2 ng·h/mL fed and 1589.2 ng·h/mL fasted. Geometric mean ratio for AUC0-∞ was 99.69% (90% CI 95.02-104.58%). There was a delay in tmax (median difference 1.47 h) in the fed condition. CONCLUSIONS: The results showed geometric mean ratios and 90% CIs for both Cmax and AUC0-∞ for ulotaront were well within typical bioequivalence criteria of 80-125% for both the BE and FE studies, thereby confirming the bioequivalence of the two dosage forms and no significant food effect.

Impact of lurasidone on health-related quality of life in adults with bipolar depression: a post-hoc analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this post-hoc analysis was to assess the impact of lurasidone monotherapy on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in adults with bipolar depression. METHODS: Data were analyzed from a 6-week randomized, double-blind (DB), placebo-controlled trial of lurasidone monotherapy (NCT00868699) and a 6-month open label extension (OLE; NCT00868959). Patients who received lurasidone monotherapy or placebo during the DB trial were eligible to continue or switch to lurasidone monotherapy during the OLE. The 16-item Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire-Short Form (Q-LES-Q-SF) was collected at DB baseline, DB week 6/OLE baseline, OLE month 3, and OLE month 6. Effect size (ES) and mean changes from baseline were reported for Q-LES-Q-SF total and item scores during the DB trial and OLE, respectively. RESULTS: Of 485 patients in the DB trial (lurasidone monotherapy: n = 323; placebo: n = 162), 316 patients continued or switched to lurasidone monotherapy during the OLE. Significant improvements in Q-LES-Q-SF scores in lurasidone vs. placebo were reported for 13 of 16 items (all p < .05) at DB week 6. The greatest improvements were overall life satisfaction (ES = 0.57), social relationships (0.55), medication satisfaction (0.48), family relationships (0.46), and ability to function in daily life (0.45, all p < .001). Improvements in Q-LES-Q-SF total and item scores were sustained at OLE month 6. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with lurasidone provided a significant improvement across HRQoL items including overall life satisfaction, social and family relationships, medication satisfaction, and ability to function in daily life. Improvements were sustained during the 6-month OLE.

The impact of lurasidone on functioning and indirect costs in adults with bipolar depression: a post-hoc analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this post-hoc analysis was to assess the impact of lurasidone monotherapy on functional impairment, productivity, and associated indirect costs in patients with bipolar depression. METHODS: Data were analyzed from a 6-week randomized, double-blind (DB; NCT00868699), placebo-controlled trial of lurasidone monotherapy and a 6-month open label extension (OLE; NCT00868959) study. Patients with bipolar depression who completed the 6-week DB trial were subsequently enrolled in the OLE. Analysis of the OLE was limited to patients who either continued lurasidone (LUR-LUR) or switched from placebo to lurasidone monotherapy (PBO-LUR). The Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), which measures functional impairment and productivity, was collected at DB baseline, DB week 6/OLE baseline, OLE month 3, and OLE month 6. Annual indirect costs were calculated based on days lost or unproductive from work/school due to symptoms. Effect sizes (ES) in functioning and days lost/unproductive were reported for the DB trial and mean changes for the OLE. RESULTS: A total of 485 patients were enrolled in the DB trial (lurasidone: n = 323; placebo: n = 162) and 316 were in the lurasidone monotherapy group during the OLE (LUR-LUR: n = 210; PBO-LUR: n = 106). In the DB trial, improvements in functioning (work: ES = 0.36, p = .0071; social: ES = 0.55, p < .0001; family: ES = 0.50, p < .0001) were significantly greater for lurasidone compared to placebo. Reductions in days lost (ES = 0.33, p = .0050) and unproductive (ES = 0.45, p = .0001) were significantly higher for lurasidone vs. placebo. This resulted in a greater reduction in indirect costs for lurasidone vs. placebo (least squares mean (standard error) = -$32,322 ($2,100) vs. -$20,091 ($2,838)). Improvements in functioning and productivity were sustained during the 6-month OLE for both LUR-LUR and PBO-LUR. CONCLUSIONS: Lurasidone monotherapy for the treatment of bipolar depression significantly improved functioning and reduced indirect costs vs. placebo at week 6. Significant improvements in functioning and productivity were sustained for 6 months for both LUR-LUR and PBO-LUR.

Efficacy and safety of lurasidone in schizophrenia: pooled analysis of European results from double-blind, placebo-controlled 6-week studies.

The objective of this study is to confirm the efficacy and safety of lurasidone in the acute treatment of schizophrenia in European patients. Data were pooled from three studies of patients randomized to 6 weeks of double-blind, placebo-controlled, fixed-dose (40/80 mg and 120/160 mg) lurasidone. The primary efficacy endpoint was a week 6 change in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score and secondary endpoints included the Clinical Global Impression, Severity scale (CGI-S). In total 328 safety patients were enrolled; 72.6% were completers. Endpoint change was significantly greater in patients treated with 40-80 mg/d and 120-160 mg/d compared to placebo on the PANSS total score ( P < 0.001) and the CGI-Severity score ( P < 0.001) for all comparisons. For PANSS total scores, endpoint effect sizes for lurasidone 40-80 mg/d and 120-160 mg/d were 0.68 to 0.77, respectively. Adverse events with a frequency ≥5% (and were greater than for combined lurasidone) were insomnia (11.7%), akathisia (11.3%), headache (7.4%), Parkinsonism (6.5%) and nausea (5.7%). Median changes (in mg/dL) at endpoint were minimal for total cholesterol (-8.0); triglycerides (-8.5) and glucose (-2.0) and in mean weight (-0.2 kg). In European patients with schizophrenia, short-term treatment with lurasidone in doses of 40-160 mg/d was generally safe, well-tolerated and effective with minimal effects on weight and metabolic parameters.

Safety and Effectiveness of Lurasidone in Patients with Schizophrenia: A 12-Week, Open-Label Extension Study.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of lurasidone among patients with schizophrenia in a 12-week open-label extension study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who completed a 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study were enrolled in a 12-week open-label extension study with flexible dosing of lurasidone at 40 or 80 mg/day. Safety assessments included adverse events, vital signs, laboratory tests, and electrocardiogram (ECG) parameters. Effectiveness measures included the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score, Clinical Global Impression-Severity Scale (CGI-S), Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS) and quality of life measure. RESULTS: A total of 289 patients were enrolled in the open-label extension study. Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were low; akathisia was the most common TEAE with an incidence of 6.6%. There were 54 patients (18.7%) who discontinued the extension study, with 17 (5.9%) discontinuing due to adverse events. Minimal or no effects of lurasidone on weight, body mass index, metabolic parameters, prolactin, and ECG parameters were evident. There was continued improvement to week 12 in PANSS and CGI-S scores beyond the initial gains made during the prior 6-week double-blind study. Non-responders to lurasidone 40 mg/day in the prior 6-week study showed a mean (standard deviation) improvement from open-label baseline of 10.7 (13.8) points on the PANSS total score after lurasidone dose was increased to a modal dose of 80 mg/day during the extension study. Changes from double-blind baseline in CDSS and quality of life were maintained in the extension study. CONCLUSION: Treatment with lurasidone 40 or 80 mg once daily (flexibly dosed) continued to be well tolerated with patients demonstrating further improvement in symptoms over the course of a 12-week open-label extension study in patients with schizophrenia.

Major depressive disorder with mixed features and treatment response to lurasidone: A symptom network model.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the symptom network structure of major depressive disorder (MDD) with mixed features and implications for treatment. METHODS: In this post-hoc analysis of a previously reported randomized trial, patients meeting DSM-IV-TR criteria for MDD presenting with two or three manic symptoms (DSM-5 mixed features specifier) were randomized to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with lurasidone 20-60 mg/d (N = 109) or placebo (N = 100). The network structure of symptoms at baseline and their treatment moderating effects were investigated. RESULTS: Network analyses showed that both ``elevated mood'' (YMRS item 1) and ``increased motor activity-energy'' (YMRS item 2) were associated with ``sleep disturbance'' ("bridge" symptom) and the depressive symptom cluster. Presence of both "elevated mood" and "increased motor activity-energy" at baseline predicted significantly less improvement in MADRS and CGI-S score at week 6 with lurasidone (vs. placebo) compared to patients without these manic symptoms at baseline. The network model also showed "rapid/pressured speech" (YMRS item 6) at baseline predicted improvement in both manic and depressive symptoms with lurasidone vs. placebo treatment. LIMITATIONS: This was a post-hoc analysis where findings need to be confirmed by prospective controlled studies. CONCLUSIONS: This post-hoc analysis describes the symptom network structure of MDD with mixed features in a patient sample at study baseline. Specific manic symptoms were found to be linked to sleep disturbance (characterized as a "bridge" symptom), which in turn linked the manic and depressive symptom clusters. The presence (vs. absence) of the specific manic symptoms we identified moderated the antidepressant and antimanic effects of lurasidone in the treatment of MDD with mixed (subthreshold hypomanic) features.

Escitalopram versus SNRI antidepressants in the acute treatment of major depressive disorder: integrative analysis of four double-blind, randomized clinical trials.

INTRODUCTION: Recent data suggest that escitalopram may be more effective in severe depression than other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. METHODS: Individual patient data from four randomized, double-blind comparative trials of escitalopram versus a serotonin/norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) (two trials with duloxetine and two with venlafaxine extended release) in outpatients (18-85 years of age) with moderate-to-severe major depressive disorder were pooled. The primary efficacy parameter in all four trials was mean change in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score. RESULTS: Significantly fewer escitalopram (82/524) than SNRI (114/527) patients prematurely withdrew from treatment due to all causes (15.6% vs. 21.6%, Fisher Exact: P=.014) and adverse events (5.3% vs. 12.0%, Fisher Exact: P<.0001). Mean reduction in MADRS score from baseline to Week 8 was significantly greater for the escitalopram group versus the SNRI group using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach [mean treatment difference at Week 8 of 1.7 points (P<.01)]. Similar results were observed in the severely depressed (baseline MADRS score >or= 30) patient subset (mean treatment difference at Week 8 of 2.9 points [P<.001, LOCF]). Observed cases analyses yielded no significant differences in efficacy parameters. CONCLUSION: This pooled analysis indicates that escitalopram is at least as effective as the SNRIs (venlafaxine XR and duloxetine), even in severe depression, and escitalopram treatment was better tolerated.

Effect of Lurasidone on Sexual Function in Major Depressive Disorder Patients With Subthreshold Hypomanic Symptoms (Mixed Features): Results From a Placebo-Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this secondary analysis was to evaluate whether treatment with lurasidone was associated with impairment in sexual functioning in major depressive disorder (MDD) patients with subthreshold hypomanic symptoms (mixed features). METHODS: Patients meeting DSM-IV-TR criteria for MDD, who presented with 2 or 3 protocol-specified manic symptoms, were randomized to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with flexible doses of either lurasidone 20-60 mg/d (n = 109) or placebo (n = 100). The study was conducted between September 2011 and October 2014. Change in sexual functioning was assessed utilizing the 14-item self-report Changes in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ-14) administered at baseline and week 6 endpoint. Change from baseline to week 6 in depression severity was assessed utilizing the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score, the primary efficacy endpoint. RESULTS: Lurasidone significantly reduced mean MADRS total scores at week 6 endpoint (-20.5 vs -13.0; P < .001). Treatment with lurasidone was associated with significant endpoint improvement in CSFQ total scores versus placebo (+5.1 vs +3.1; P < .05). Fewer patients treated with lurasidone versus placebo shifted from normal to abnormal sexual function. The proportion of patients with a baseline-to-endpoint shift from normal to abnormal sexual function was smaller for lurasidone versus placebo (1.9% vs 4.3%; CSFQ criteria) at study endpoint. Use of higher lurasidone doses was not associated with greater impairment in sexual functioning. No treatment-emergent adverse events related to sexual function were reported during lurasidone treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In this secondary analysis of a placebo-controlled trial involving patients with MDD and mixed features, lurasidone was not associated with treatment-related sexual dysfunction. These findings were consistent across both structured assessments using a validated sexual functioning questionnaire (CSFQ) as well as adverse event reporting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01421134.

Long-term use of lurasidone in patients with bipolar disorder: safety and effectiveness over 2 years of treatment.

BACKGROUND: Bipolar disorder is a chronic illness with a 2-year recurrence rate of approximately 50% among individuals receiving treatment in the community. The aim of this 18-month, open-label, continuation study was to evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of lurasidone in patients who initially presented with a major depressive episode associated with bipolar disorder, and who had completed at least 6 months of initial treatment with lurasidone. METHODS: Patients with bipolar I depression were enrolled in one of three 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (monotherapy with lurasidone, 1 study; adjunctive therapy with lurasidone; and lithium or valproate, 2 studies). Study completers were eligible for a 6-month, open-label extension study of lurasidone utilizing flexible daily doses of 20-120 mg; extension completers were then eligible for an additional 18 months of continuation treatment with flexible, once-daily doses of lurasidone in the range of 20-80 mg. Concomitant therapy with mood stabilizers was permitted throughout the open-label extension and continuation studies. RESULTS: A total of 1199 patients entered, and 941 (78.5%) completed initial, double-blind, acute treatment, of whom 817/941 (86.8%) entered, and 559 (68.4%) completed the 6-month extension study; 122/559 patients (21.8%) entered the 18-month continuation study, of whom 19.7% of discontinued, including 6.6% due to adverse events and 1.6% due to insufficient efficacy. The mean dose of lurasidone during the 18-month continuation study was 61.8 mg/day, and the modal dose was 60 mg/day. Mean change in weight, from acute baseline to 18-month continuation endpoint was +0.8 kg (completers, n = 55); median changes in cholesterol and triglycerides were -3.0 mg/dL and +26.0 mg/dL, respectively. Based on a Kaplan-Meier analysis, the probability of relapse during 18 months of continuation treatment with lurasidone was estimated to be 18.3% in the monotherapy group and 29.1% in the adjunctive therapy group. Improvement in global illness severity was also maintained during 18 months of continuation therapy (CGI-S at continuation baseline, 2.1; 18-month completers, 1.7; LOCF-endpoint, 1.9). CONCLUSIONS: Up to 2 years of treatment with lurasidone was safe and well tolerated in this bipolar disorder population presenting with an index episode of depression. Improvement in depressive symptoms was maintained in the majority of patients treated with lurasidone, with relatively low rates of relapse, and with minimal effects on weight and metabolic parameters.

Lurasidone in combination with lithium or valproate for the maintenance treatment of bipolar I disorder.

Lurasidone (DS-RAn) has demonstrated efficacy in the acute treatment of bipolar depression, both as monotherapy, and as combination therapy with lithium or valproate. To evaluate the recurrence prevention efficacy of lurasidone for the maintenance treatment of bipolar I disorder, patients received up to 20 weeks of open-label lurasidone (20-80mg/d) combined with lithium or valproate during an initial stabilization phase. A total of 496 patients met stabilization criteria and were randomized to 28 weeks of double-blind treatment with lurasidone (20-80mg/d) or placebo, in combination with lithium or valproate. Based on a Cox proportional hazard model, treatment with lurasidone reduced the probability of recurrence of any mood episode by 29% (primary endpoint), however, the reduction did not achieve statistical significance. Probability of recurrence on lurasidone was significantly lower in patients with an index episode of depression (HR, 0.57; P=0.039), in patients with any index episode who were not rapid-cycling (HR, 0.69; P=0.046), and when recurrence was based on MADRS, YMRS, or CGI-BP-S severity criteria (HR, 0.53; P=0.025; sensitivity analysis). Long-term treatment with lurasidone combined with lithium or valproate was found to be safe and well-tolerated, with minimal effects on weight or metabolic parameters.

Lurasidone in post-menopausal females with major depressive disorder with mixed features: Post-hoc analysis of a placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have found that depressed, post-menopausal females may respond differently to antidepressants compared to pre-menopausal females. The atypical antipsychotic lurasidone, whose mechanism of action differs from SSRIs and other standard antidepressants, was shown in a 6-week randomized, flexible-dose, placebo-controlled study (n=209), to be effective in treating major depressive disorder (MDD) with mixed features (subthreshold hypomanic symptoms). This post-hoc analysis assessed the efficacy of lurasidone in this study by menopausal status. METHODS: The main outcome measure for this post-hoc analysis was change in MADRS score from baseline to week 6 endpoint for two lurasidone-treated subgroups: presumptive pre-menopausal (<52years) and presumptive post-menopausal (≥52years) patients, compared to placebo treatment, using a mixed-model for repeated-measures analysis, and calculation of the effect size for each subgroup. Additional efficacy assessments included the CGI-S, HAM-A and YMRS. An exploratory analysis was also conducted removing presumptive peri-menopausal women (ages 45-51years) to allow for clearer definition of pre- and post-menopausal status. RESULTS: A total of 56 lurasidone-treated and 47 placebo-treated pre-menopausal females, and 17 lurasidone-treated and 25 placebo-treated post-menopausal females were available from the larger study for comparison on key outcome measures. The pre- and post-menopausal subgroups had similar demographic and clinical characteristics at study baseline (other than age), including number of past major depressive episodes as well as depressive and manic symptom severity. Mean daily lurasidone dose was similar for each subgroup during the study. Both the primary and exploratory analyses showed that both lurasidone-treated post-menopausal and pre-menopausal females responded significantly compared to placebo (p=0.016 or less) on the MADRS, and that post-menopausal patients had a numerically larger response (effect size=0.96) than pre-menopausal patients (effect size=0.64). All other secondary outcome measures for lurasidone compared with placebo treatment were significant (p=0.045 or less) for both subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: In this post-hoc analysis, lurasidone was found to be effective in treating post-menopausal MDD patients with mixed features (subthreshold hypomanic symptoms).

Detection of SNP epistasis effects of quantitative traits using an extended Kempthorne model.

Epistasis effects (gene interactions) have been increasingly recognized as important genetic factors underlying complex traits. The existence of a large number of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) provides opportunities and challenges to screen DNA variations affecting complex traits using a candidate gene analysis. In this article, four types of epistasis effects of two candidate gene SNPs with Hardy-Weinberg disequilibrium (HWD) and linkage disequilibrium (LD) are considered: additive x additive, additive x dominance, dominance x additive, and dominance x dominance. The Kempthorne genetic model was chosen for its appealing genetic interpretations of the epistasis effects. The method in this study consists of extension of Kempthorne's definitions of 35 individual genetic effects to allow HWD and LD, genetic contrasts of the 35 extended individual genetic effects to define the 4 epistasis effects, and a linear model method for testing epistasis effects. Formulas to predict statistical power (as a function of contrast heritability, sample size, and type I error) and sample size (as a function of contrast heritability, type I error, and type II error) for detecting each epistasis effect were derived, and the theoretical predictions agreed well with simulation studies. The accuracy in estimating each epistasis effect and rates of false positives in the absence of all or three epistasis effects were evaluated using simulations. The method for epistasis testing can be a useful tool to understand the exact mode of epistasis, to assemble genome-wide SNPs into an epistasis network, and to assemble all SNP effects affecting a phenotype using pairwise epistasis tests.