Cariprazine for the Adjunctive Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder in Patients With Inadequate Response to Antidepressant Therapy: Results of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study.

Objective: To assess the efficacy of cariprazine, a dopamine D3-preferring D3/D2 and serotonin 5-HT1A receptor partial agonist, as adjunctive treatment for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and inadequate response to ongoing antidepressant therapy (ADT).Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted from November 2018 to September 2021. Adults with MDD per DSM-5 criteria were randomized (1:1:1) to cariprazine 1.5 mg/d or 3 mg/d plus ADT, or placebo plus ADT. The primary and secondary endpoints were change from baseline to week 6 in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score, respectively.Results: A total of 249 placebo-, 250 cariprazine 1.5 mg/d-, and 251 cariprazine 3 mg/d-treated patients were included in the modified intent-to-treat population. At week 6, the least squares mean change in MADRS total score was -13.8 for cariprazine 1.5 mg/d, -14.8 for cariprazine 3 mg/d, and -13.4 for placebo; differences versus placebo were not statistically significant. Mean change from baseline in CGI-S scores at week 6 was not significant for cariprazine versus placebo, although a trend toward significance was observed for 3 mg/d (P = .0573 [not adjusted for multiplicity]). Common treatment-emergent adverse events (≥ 5% either cariprazine group and twice placebo) were akathisia and insomnia.Conclusions: There were no statistically significant differences for cariprazine 1.5 or 3 mg/d versus placebo on the primary or secondary outcomes. Cariprazine was generally well tolerated, and no new safety concerns were detected.Clinical Trials Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03739203.

Adjunctive Cariprazine for the Treatment of Patients With Major Depressive Disorder: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase 3 Study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of cariprazine, a dopamine D3-preferring D3/D2 and serotonin 5-HT1A receptor partial agonist, as adjunctive therapy for patients with major depressive disorder and nonresponse to at least one antidepressant monotherapy. METHODS: In this double-blind placebo-controlled study, adults with major depressive disorder and inadequate response to antidepressants alone were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to placebo, cariprazine at 1.5 mg/day, or cariprazine at 3.0 mg/day. The primary outcome was change from baseline to week 6 in total score on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Least-squares mean differences were estimated in the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures with adjustment for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: The mITT population comprised 751 patients (placebo: N=249; cariprazine 1.5 mg/day: N=250; cariprazine 3.0 mg/day: N=252). At week 6, the mean reduction from baseline in MADRS total score was significantly greater with cariprazine 1.5 mg/day than with placebo (-14.1 vs. -11.5) but not with cariprazine 3.0 mg/day (-13.1). Significant differences between the cariprazine 1.5 mg/day and placebo groups were also observed at weeks 2 and 4. Meeting the MADRS response criteria was significantly more likely among patients receiving cariprazine 1.5 mg/day than placebo (44.0% vs. 34.9%); remission rates were not significantly different among groups. Common treatment-emergent adverse events (≥5% in either cariprazine group and twice the placebo rate) were akathisia and nausea. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive cariprazine at 1.5 mg/day demonstrated efficacy in reducing depressive symptoms in adults with major depressive disorder and inadequate response to antidepressants alone. Cariprazine was generally well tolerated, with a safety profile that was consistent with previous findings.

Efficacy and Safety of Lumateperone for Major Depressive Episodes Associated With Bipolar I or Bipolar II Disorder: A Phase 3 Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: In a phase 3 randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study, the authors investigated the efficacy and safety of 42 mg/day of lumateperone in patients with bipolar I or bipolar II disorder experiencing a major depressive episode. METHODS: Patients 18-75 years old with a clinical diagnosis of bipolar I or bipolar II disorder and experiencing a major depressive episode were eligible for the study. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive 42 mg/day of lumateperone (N=188) or placebo (N=189), administered orally once daily in the evening for 6 weeks. The primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were change from baseline to day 43 in score on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and total score on the Clinical Global Impressions Scale-Bipolar Version severity scale (CGI-BP-S), respectively. Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events, laboratory parameters, vital signs, extrapyramidal symptoms, and suicidality. RESULTS: At day 43, lumateperone treatment was associated with significantly greater improvement from baseline in MADRS score compared with placebo (least squares mean difference compared with placebo, -4.6 points; effect size=-0.56) and CGI-BP-S total score (least squares mean difference compared with placebo, -0.9; effect size=-0.46). Significant MADRS superiority for lumateperone over placebo was observed both in patients with bipolar I and bipolar II disorders. Somnolence and nausea were the only treatment-emergent adverse events that occurred with lumateperone at a clinically meaningful greater rate than placebo. The incidence of extrapyramidal symptom-related treatment-emergent adverse events was low and similar to that for placebo. Minimal changes were observed in weight, vital signs, or metabolic or endocrine assessments. CONCLUSIONS: Lumateperone at 42 mg/day significantly improved depression symptoms and was generally well tolerated in patients with major depressive episodes associated with both bipolar I and bipolar II disorders.

Cariprazine Treatment of Bipolar Depression: A Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Phase 3 Study.

OBJECTIVE: Cariprazine, a dopamine D3/D2 and 5-HT1A receptor partial agonist, was found to be effective in treating bipolar I depression in a previous phase 2 study. This phase 3 study further assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of cariprazine in bipolar I depression. METHODS: In a double-blind placebo-controlled study, adult participants (18-65 years old) who met DSM-5 criteria for bipolar I disorder and a current depressive episode were randomly assigned to receive placebo (N=158) or cariprazine at 1.5 mg/day (N=157) or 3.0 mg/day (N=165). The primary and secondary efficacy parameters were changes from baseline to week 6 in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score and Clinical Global Impressions severity (CGI-S) score, respectively. Least squares mean differences were estimated using a mixed model for repeated measures, and p values were adjusted for multiplicity. RESULTS: Both dosages of cariprazine were significantly more effective than placebo in improving depressive symptoms (reducing MADRS total score); the least squares mean differences were -2.5 (95% CI=-4.6, -0.4) for cariprazine at 1.5 mg/day and -3.0 (95% CI=-5.1, -0.9) for cariprazine at 3.0 mg/day. Both cariprazine dosages were associated with lower CGI-S scores compared with placebo, but the differences did not reach statistical significance after adjustment for multiplicity (least squares mean difference, -0.2 [95% CI=-0.5, 0.0] for the 1.5 mg/day group and -0.3 [95% CI=-0.5, 0.0] for the 3.0 mg/day group). Common treatment-emergent adverse events (in at least 5% of participants in either cariprazine treatment group and twice the rate of the placebo group) were nausea, akathisia, dizziness, and sedation. Mean changes in weight and metabolic parameters were relatively small and comparable across groups. CONCLUSIONS: Cariprazine, at both 1.5 mg/day and 3.0 mg/day, was effective, generally well tolerated, and relatively safe in reducing depressive symptoms in adults with bipolar I depression.

Treatment effectiveness and tolerability outcomes that are most important to individuals with bipolar and unipolar depression.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient-reported determinants of treatment effectiveness and tolerability amongst persons with major depressive or bipolar disorders. METHODS: The Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance (DBSA) conducted an online survey February 2016-April 2016 asking participants about which outcomes are most important in determining subjective treatment effectiveness and tolerability. RESULTS: In total, 896 participants completed the survey [49.9% unipolar depression (n = 447) and 50.1% bipolar depression (n = 449)]. Survey respondents reported several previous medication trials with the minority (25% of depression and 29% of bipolar group) of respondents reporting that their current treatment plan was completely effective. When asked how they know that the treatment is working, for both groups, the highest rated response was, "I don't feel overly anxious, agitated or irritable." Weight gain was the adverse effect that most commonly led respondents to discontinue a medication. Lethargy, emotional blunting, shaking/trembling and anxiety were also identified as common treatment-emergent experiences leading to medication discontinuation in greater than one-third of respondents. The bipolar group more frequently identified several signs that suggested treatment was working (e.g., improved neurocognitive function, improved sleep), as well as more frequently reported several reasons to discontinue medications (e.g., weight gain, trembling). CONCLUSION: Numerous factors emerged as important to patients when evaluating treatment effectiveness and tolerability. Some of these factors are inadequately assessed by current standard clinical trial outcome measures. Considering these important patient-centred outcomes in future clinical trials, treatment guidelines and direct patient care may serve to improve patient satisfaction, quality of life and the therapeutic alliance.

Factors That Impact Treatment Decisions: Results From an Online Survey of Individuals With Bipolar and Unipolar Depression.

OBJECTIVE: To identify patient-reported factors that influence medication treatment decisions among individuals with bipolar and unipolar depression. METHODS: The Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance (DBSA) conducted an online survey February 2016 to April 2016 asking participants about factors that influence treatment decisions (eg, starting and stopping specific medications). RESULTS: In total, 896 participants completed the survey (49.9% unipolar depression [n = 447] and 50.1% bipolar depression [n = 449]). The majority of respondents reported several previous medication trials. The most frequently reported factors impacting treatment decisions were side effects, doctor recommendations, cost, and how quickly the treatment will begin to work. The most common reason for changing treatments was ineffectiveness in the unipolar depression group and side effects in the bipolar depression group. Weight gain was the side effect that most commonly led respondents to discontinue a medication. When respondents currently using medications versus respondents not using medications were compared, doctor recommendations were more likely to be influential for those taking medications (P < .0001). Conversely, cost (P = .008) and impact on pregnancy/lactation (P = .045) were more likely to impact treatment decisions in participants not currently taking medications. Current medication use was associated with increased rates of perceived treatment effectiveness (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Side effects, doctor recommendations, cost, and rapidity of antidepressant effects were determined to be particularly important factors in making treatment decisions, with doctor recommendations being more influential for medication users and cost being more influential for participants not using medications. These findings highlight the importance of patient-centered factors in adjudicating treatment decisions.

Frequency of use and perceived helpfulness of wellness strategies for bipolar and unipolar depression.

BACKGROUND: The majority of research in mood disorders has focused on pharmacologic, psychotherapeutic, and brain stimulation interventions. Conversely, the utility of less structured interventions, such as lifestyle modifications or wellness strategies, has remained understudied. The objective of the current study is to evaluate the frequency of use and perceived helpfulness of wellness strategies for bipolar and unipolar depression. METHODS: The Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance (DBSA) conducted an online survey asking participants about the use and helpfulness of wellness strategies. RESULTS: In total, 896 participants completed the survey (unipolar depression [n = 447] and bipolar depression [n = 449]). Wellness strategies were used by 62% and 59% of individuals with bipolar and unipolar depression, respectively. Listening to music, socializing, and adequate sleep were commonly reported wellness strategies. The majority of participants reported wellness strategies to be helpful. Use of wellness strategies was associated with greater overall perceived treatment effectiveness (P < .0001) and greater subjective helpfulness of medications (P = .039), psychotherapy (P < .0001), and peer support groups (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Wellness strategies were commonly used by the majority of respondents. These strategies were subjectively helpful for most respondents and were associated with greater overall treatment effectiveness and increased helpfulness of medications, psychotherapy, and peer support groups. As such, wellness strategies should be considered while developing a holistic treatment plan for depression. Further research is needed to evaluate the antidepressant effects of specific wellness strategies to better understand the role of these interventions in the management of depression.

The safety and tolerability of cariprazine in patients with manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder: A 16-week open-label study.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the safety/tolerability of longer-term open-label treatment with cariprazine in patients who had responded to cariprazine for acute bipolar mania. METHODS: In this multinational, multicenter study, open-label, flexible-dose, cariprazine 3-12mg/d was administered for up to 16 weeks to patients (18-65 years) with bipolar mania. Safety evaluations included adverse events (AEs), laboratory values, vital signs, and extrapyramidal symptom (EPS) scales. Symptom change was evaluated by Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score change from baseline using the last observation carried forward approach. RESULTS: Of the 402 patients taking cariprazine, 33% completed the trial; the most frequent reasons for discontinuation were withdrawal of consent (20%), AEs (16%), and protocol violation (14%). Most common AEs leading to discontinuation were akathisia (4.7%) and depression (1.5%). Mean treatment duration was 57.7 days; mean cariprazine dose was 6.2mg/d. The incidence of serious AEs was 7.5% (most common: mania [2.2%], depression [1.2%]); 83.3% had treatment-emergent AEs, including akathisia (32.6%), headache (16.7%), constipation (10.7%), and nausea (10.4%). Mean body weight increased <1kg; 9.3% had ≥7% weight gain; 5.7% had sedation; 3% had somnolence. Mean changes in laboratory values, vital signs, ECGs, and ophthalmology parameters were not clinically significant. Mean YMRS total score decreased by -15.2 at week 16. LIMITATIONS: Uncontrolled, open-label design. CONCLUSIONS: Open-label cariprazine 3-12 (mean 6.2) mg/d for up to 16 weeks was generally well tolerated, with low (<10%) rates of sedation and ≥7% weight gain. Although akathisia occurred in 33%, it yielded discontinuation in <5%.

Efficacy and safety of sublingual ramelteon as an adjunctive therapy in the maintenance treatment of bipolar I disorder in adults: A phase 3, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal long-term management strategy for bipolar I disorder patients is not yet established. Evidence supports the rationale for circadian rhythm regulation to prevent mood episode relapse in bipolar patients. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of a new sublingual formulation of the melatonin receptor agonist ramelteon (ramelteon SL) as adjunctive therapy in the maintenance treatment of bipolar I patients. METHODS: In a double-blinded trial in the United States and Latin America, adult bipolar I disorder patients stable for ≥ 8 weeks before baseline and with a mood episode 8 weeks to 9 months before screening, were randomized to once-daily ramelteon SL 0.1mg (n = 164), 0.4mg (n = 160), or 0.8mg (n = 154), or placebo (n = 164), in addition to their existing treatment. The primary endpoint was time from randomization to relapse of symptoms. The prespecified futility criterion in a planned, unblinded, independent interim analysis was the failure of all ramelteon SL doses to achieve a conditional power ≥ 30% compared with placebo. RESULTS: No significant differences between any dose of ramelteon SL and placebo were observed. The study was terminated after meeting the futility criteria. Ramelteon SL was well tolerated, with a safety profile consistent with that for oral ramelteon. LIMITATIONS: A low rate of relapse events precluded detection of any statistically significant difference between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The study failed to demonstrate the efficacy of ramelteon SL as adjunctive maintenance therapy for bipolar disorder. Interim analyses for futility in clinical studies are valuable in preventing unnecessary exposure of subjects to interventions.

Lessons Learned and Potentials for Improvement in CNS Drug Development: ISCTM Section on Designing the Right Series of Experiments.

Once a molecule has been characterized as engaging an identified target at the appropriate location (affinity and potency), the next step involves designing experiments that will determine its pharmacodynamic activities both for efficacy (on target) and safety-tolerability (on/off target). Two expert presentations focused on looking back at completed programs and two concentrated on looking forward at ongoing programs. Specific discussions pertain to assessment of pharmacologic agonists (mGluR2/3, k-opiate, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma) and antagonists (orexin and cannabinoid) in disorders of cognition, mood, and anxiety. Advanced experimental study designs using genetics to guide a treatment trial in Alzheimer's disease and neural target-based approaches as the primary outcome measure in the National Institute of Mental Health-sponsored Fast-Fail Trials (FAST)-Mood and Anxiety Spectrum Disorders (MAS) initiative for depression showcases novel methodological approaches. Of interest, some of these initiatives were successful, while others were not, and two are currently ongoing. In conclusion, methodologies that were utilized and are currently employed to reach a successful clinical drug trial outcome are appreciated, and in case of failure, approaches to reviewing programs to enable learning that would be helpful to future programs are brought forth. This article is based on proceedings from the "Designing the Right Series of Experiments" session, which was held during the International Society for Clinical Trials Meeting (ISCTM) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, September 30 to October 2, 2013.

Improving outcomes in patients with bipolar depression: a comprehensive review.

Only 3 medications are currently approved in the US for acute bipolar depression: 2 atypical antipsychotics and a combination atypical antipsychotic-selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. Metabolic, neurologic, and hormonal adverse events are associated with all of the atypical antipsychotics approved for this indication. However, these agents differ in their propensity to cause weight gain or other side effects that significantly impact a patient's physical health and ability to function, and the selection of medication-which may also include a mood stabilizer-as well as other forms of treatment, will affect the outcome. It is important to design treatment based on individual needs. Evidence suggests that the collaborative care model, which incorporates individualized systematic treatment, may be more appropriate for the management of bipolar depression than the acute care model.

The Bipolarity Index: a clinician-rated measure of diagnostic confidence.

BACKGROUND: The Bipolarity Index is a clinician-rated scale that rates cardinal features of the disorder across five domains: signs and symptoms, age of onset, course of illness, response to treatment, and family history. We tested the Index in routine clinical practice to identify the optimal cut-off for distinguishing bipolar from non-bipolar disorders. METHOD: Sequential patients in a private practice were rated with the Bipolarity Index (n=1903) at intake. Diagnoses were made with the MINI-6.0.0 International Neuropsychiatric Interview according to DSM-IV-TR criteria, except that cases of antidepressant-induced mania and hypomania were included in the bipolar group. A subset completed the self-rated Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ) (n=1620) or Bipolar Spectrum Diagnostic Scale (BSDS) (n=1179). The primary analysis compared Bipolarity Index scores for bipolar vs. non-bipolar patients using receiver operator curves (ROC) to determine the optimal cut-off score. Secondary outcomes repeated this analysis with the MDQ, MDQ-7 (using only the symptomatic items of the MDQ) and BSDS. RESULTS: At a cut-off of ≥50, the Bipolarity Index had a high sensitivity (0.91) and specificity (0.90). Optimal cut-offs for self-rated scales were: MDQ: ≥7 (sensitivity 0.74, specificity 0.71); MDQ-7: ≥6 (sensitivity 0.77, specificity 0.77); BSDS: ≥12 (sensitivity 0.71, specificity 0.77). LIMITATIONS: The study utilized one rater at a single practice site; the rater was not blinded to the results of the MINI. CONCLUSION: The Bipolarity Index can enhance the clinical assessment of mood disorders and, at a score ≥50 has good sensitivity and specificity for identifying bipolar disorders.

Cariprazine in the treatment of acute mania in bipolar I disorder: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: This Phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study investigated the efficacy and tolerability of flexibly-dosed cariprazine in patients with acute manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder. METHODS: Patients were randomized to 3 weeks of double-blind treatment with cariprazine 3-12mg/day (n=158) or placebo (n=154). The primary efficacy parameter was change from baseline to Week 3 in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score. The secondary efficacy parameter was change from baseline to Week 3 in Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) score. RESULTS: Mean change from baseline to Week 3 in YMRS total score was significantly greater for patients receiving cariprazine 3-12mg/day versus placebo (P=0.0004). Significant differences between groups in YMRS total score mean change were observed by Day 4 (first postbaseline assessment) and maintained throughout double-blind treatment (all assessments, P<0.01). Cariprazine also demonstrated statistically significant superiority over placebo on YMRS response (≥50% improvement: cariprazine, 58.9%; placebo, 44.1%; P=0.0097) and remission (YMRS total score≤12: cariprazine, 51.9%; placebo, 34.9%; P=0.0025) and mean change in CGI-S (P=0.0027) score and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) (P=0.0035) total score. The most common cariprazine-related (≥10% and twice placebo) treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were akathisia, extrapyramidal disorder, tremor, dyspepsia, and vomiting. Mean change from baseline in metabolic parameters were generally small and similar between groups. LIMITATIONS: Lack of active comparator arm; short duration of study. CONCLUSION: In this study, cariprazine 3-12mg/day was effective and generally well tolerated in the treatment of manic and mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder.

The International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) task force report on antidepressant use in bipolar disorders.

OBJECTIVE: The risk-benefit profile of antidepressant medications in bipolar disorder is controversial. When conclusive evidence is lacking, expert consensus can guide treatment decisions. The International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) convened a task force to seek consensus recommendations on the use of antidepressants in bipolar disorders. METHOD: An expert task force iteratively developed consensus through serial consensus-based revisions using the Delphi method. Initial survey items were based on systematic review of the literature. Subsequent surveys included new or reworded items and items that needed to be rerated. This process resulted in the final ISBD Task Force clinical recommendations on antidepressant use in bipolar disorder. RESULTS: There is striking incongruity between the wide use of and the weak evidence base for the efficacy and safety of antidepressant drugs in bipolar disorder. Few well-designed, long-term trials of prophylactic benefits have been conducted, and there is insufficient evidence for treatment benefits with antidepressants combined with mood stabilizers. A major concern is the risk for mood switch to hypomania, mania, and mixed states. Integrating the evidence and the experience of the task force members, a consensus was reached on 12 statements on the use of antidepressants in bipolar disorder. CONCLUSIONS: Because of limited data, the task force could not make broad statements endorsing antidepressant use but acknowledged that individual bipolar patients may benefit from antidepressants. Regarding safety, serotonin reuptake inhibitors and bupropion may have lower rates of manic switch than tricyclic and tetracyclic antidepressants and norepinephrine-serotonin reuptake inhibitors. The frequency and severity of antidepressant-associated mood elevations appear to be greater in bipolar I than bipolar II disorder. Hence, in bipolar I patients antidepressants should be prescribed only as an adjunct to mood-stabilizing medications.

Unmet needs in the assessment and management of bipolar I depression.

Bipolar depression remains challenging for clinicians to assess and manage during routine office visits. When patients complete assessments before their office visits, clinicians are able to quickly review the results beforehand and spend more time engaging and assessing the patient. After completing the differential diagnosis, clinicians can focus on discussing treatment goals and expectations with patients, educate them about viable treatment options, and help them select a proven option that will best promote treatment adherence. Collaborating with patients and care partners enables patients to be active participants in the management process. Systematically using assessment tools provides clinicians with measurable data to gauge the effectiveness and tolerability for each treatment and then to guide the next treatment decisions. Patients with bipolar depression value individualized care and rely on the expertise of clinicians to help them achieve remission.

Association between therapeutic alliance, care satisfaction, and pharmacological adherence in bipolar disorder.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to understand the association of specific aspects of care satisfaction, such as patients' perceived relationship with their psychiatrist and access to their psychiatrist and staff, and therapeutic alliance with participants' likelihood to adhere to their medication regimens among patients with bipolar disorder. METHODS: We examined data from the multicenter Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for Bipolar Disorder, an effectiveness study investigating the course and treatment of bipolar disorder. We expected that participants (n = 3037) with positive perceptions of their relationship with their psychiatrist and quality of psychopharmacologic care, as assessed by the Helping Alliance Questionnaire and Care Satisfaction Questionnaire, would be associated with better medication adherence. We utilized logistic regression models controlling for already established factors associated with poor adherence. RESULTS: Patients' perceptions of collaboration, empathy, and accessibility were significantly associated with adherence to treatment in individuals with bipolar disorder completing at least 1 assessment. Patients' perceptions of their psychiatrists' experience, as well as of their degree of discussing medication risks and benefits, were not associated with medication adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' perceived therapeutic alliance and treatment environment impact their adherence to pharmacotherapy recommendations. This study may enable psychopharmacologists' practices to be structured to maximize features associated with greater medication adherence.

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.