Comparison of the efficacy and safety of 4 and 2 mg/day brexpiprazole for acute schizophrenia: a meta-analysis of double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trials.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of brexpiprazole 4 mg/day (B4) and 2 mg/day (B2) for treating acute schizophrenia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed three categorical meta-analyses (B4 vs placebo, B2 vs placebo, and B4 vs B2) of double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trials (DBRCTs) that reported improvements in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) scores, response rate, Clinical Global Impression-Improvement and Severity (CGI-I and CGI-S) scores, discontinuation rate, and incidence of individual adverse events. RESULTS: We identified three DBRCTs with 1,444 patients. Both B4 and B2 were superior to placebo for PANSS total score (B4: standardized mean difference [SMD] =-0.30, 95% CI =-0.43, -0.17; B2: SMD =-0.30, 95% CI =-0.46, -0.13), PANSS negative score, response rate, CGI-S score, and CGI-I score. B2, but not B4, was superior to placebo for the PANSS positive score. However, there was considerable heterogeneity in the meta-analysis for B4's PANSS positive score, which disappeared after excluding a 2018 Japanese study from the meta-analysis that included more patients on a high-dose antipsychotic prior to their participation. A meta-analysis that excluded the data from the abovementioned patients showed B4 to be superior to the placebo in terms of the PANSS positive score (SMD =-0.22, 95% CI =-0.40, -0.03). B2, but not B4, was associated with a lower incidence of all-cause discontinuation compared with placebo. Both B4 and B2 were superior to placebo for discontinuation due to adverse events and schizophrenia, but both were associated with a higher incidence of weight gain compared with placebo. B4 was also associated with a higher risk of extrapyramidal symptoms than B2. CONCLUSION: Both B4 and B2 benefitted patients with schizophrenia, particularly those who were not previously on high-dose antipsychotics. Both the regimens were well-tolerated, but carried a risk of weight gain and extrapyramidal symptoms, although the latter risk was higher for B4 than B2.

Escitalopram versus paroxetine controlled release in major depressive disorder: a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: There are no direct comparisons between escitalopram and paroxetine controlled release in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: We conducted a 24-week, rater-masked, randomized trial of escitalopram (5-20 mg/day) versus paroxetine controlled release (12.5-50 mg/day) in patients with MDD (UMIN000011191). Patients with the diagnosis of moderate-to-severe MDD (a 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAMD-17], with total score at baseline being ≥20) were recruited to participate in a parallel, randomized, controlled trial. The primary outcome for efficacy was an improvement in the 21-item HAMD (HAMD-21) total score at 24 weeks. The secondary outcomes were the response, remission, and discontinuation rates and the incidence of individual adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 88 patients with MDD (males, 61.4%; mean age, 40.8±13.4 years) were recruited. The discontinuation rate was 58.0% (escitalopram, 55.8%; paroxetine controlled release, 60.0%). Both escitalopram and paroxetine controlled-release treatment groups exhibited significant reduction in the HAMD-21 total score at 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks from the baseline. However, there were no significant differences in the HAMD-21 total score, response rate, remission rate, and discontinuation rate at any time point between the groups. In addition, there were no significant differences in the incidence of any individual adverse events (eg, nausea, vomiting, and somnolence) between the treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that escitalopram and paroxetine controlled release had similar efficacy and safety profiles in patients with MDD. One of the primary limitations of this study is the small sample size.

A cross-sectional survey to investigate the prevalence of pain in Japanese patients with major depressive disorder and schizophrenia.

We conducted a cross-sectional survey to assess the prevalence of physical pain in Japanese major depressive disorder (MDD) and schizophrenia (SZ) patients as well as in healthy controls (HCs). We also examined the association between their psychopathology and characteristics of pain according to a face-to-face survey by an experienced psychiatrist and psychologist. We analyzed 233 HCs, 94 MDD patients, and 75 SZ patients using the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) and SF-8 (all participants), the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale 21 items (MDD patients), and the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (SZ patients). Although MDD patients experienced more pain than HCs, there was no difference in the prevalence of pain between SZ patients and HCs. Moreover, HCs with pain did not have higher SF-8 total scores than those without pain, whereas both MDD and SZ patients with pain had higher SF-8 total scores than those without pain. The severity of psychopathology in MDD and SZ patients was also positively associated with both the prevalence of pain and MPQ scores. MPQ scores were also associated with positive symptoms in SZ patients. Considering these results, physicians need to query MDD patients about physical pain during examination if they are to ensure a favorable and quick response to treatment. The severity of positive symptoms (i.e., clinical status) in SZ patients might also be associated with pain sensitivity, and warrants further investigation.

Comparative clinical profile of mirtazapine and duloxetine in practical clinical settings in Japan: a 4-week open-label, parallel-group study of major depressive disorder.

No studies have compared mirtazapine with duloxetine in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). Fifty-six patients were nonrandomly assigned to a 4-week treatment with either 15 to 45 mg/day of mirtazapine (n = 22) or 20 to 60 mg/day of duloxetine (n = 34). The primary efficacy measurements were the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) and the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression 6-point Rating Scale (MADRS) scores. The second efficacy measurements were the response and remission rates of treatment. Tolerability assessments were also performed. Fifty-six patients (43 male; age, 43.6 years) were recruited. There was no significant difference in the discontinuation rate between the mirtazapine and duloxetine treatment groups (P = 0.867). Both mirtazapine and duloxetine significantly improved the HRSD and MADRS scores from baseline (P < 0.0001-0.0004). While mirtazapine was superior to duloxetine in the reduction of HRSD scores (P = 0.0421), there was no significant change in MADRS scores in terms of between-group differences (P = 0.171). While more somnolence was observed with mirtazapine (P = 0.0399), more nausea was associated with duloxetine (P = 0.0089). No serious adverse events were observed for either antidepressant. Mirtazapine and duloxetine were safe and well-tolerated treatments for Japanese patients with MDD. Double-blind controlled studies are needed to further explore the efficacy and safety of mirtazapine and duloxetine in Japanese patients with MDD.