The efficacy of cariprazine on cognition: a post hoc analysis from phase II/III clinical trials in bipolar mania, bipolar depression, and schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of cariprazine on cognitive symptom change across bipolar I disorder and schizophrenia. METHODS: Post hoc analyses of 3- to 8-week pivotal studies in bipolar I depression and mania were conducted; one schizophrenia trial including the Cognitive Drug Research System attention battery was also analyzed. Outcomes of interest: Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS], Functioning Assessment Short Test [FAST], Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale [PANSS]). LSMDs in change from baseline to end of study were reported in the overall intent-to-treat population and in patient subsets with specified levels of baseline cognitive symptoms or performance. RESULTS: In patients with bipolar depression and at least mild cognitive symptoms, LSMDs were statistically significant for cariprazine vs placebo on MADRS item 6 (3 studies; 1.5 mg=-0.5 [P<.001]; 3 mg/d=-0.2 [P<.05]) and on the FAST Cognitive subscale (1 study; 1.5 mg/d=-1.4; P=.0039). In patients with bipolar mania and at least mild cognitive symptoms, the LSMD in PANSS Cognitive subscale score was statistically significant for cariprazine vs placebo (3 studies; -2.1; P=.001). In patients with schizophrenia and high cognitive impairment, improvement in power of attention was observed for cariprazine 3 mg/d vs placebo (P=.0080), but not for cariprazine 6 mg/d; improvement in continuity of attention was observed for cariprazine 3 mg/d (P=.0012) and 6 mg/d (P=.0073). CONCLUSION: These post hoc analyses provide preliminary evidence of greater improvements for cariprazine vs placebo across cognitive measures in patients with bipolar I depression and mania, and schizophrenia, suggesting potential benefits for cariprazine in treating cognitive symptoms.

The Effect of Propofol on a Forced Swim Test in Mice at 24 Hours.

BACKGROUND: There are few rapidly acting treatments for acute suicidality or treatment-resistant depression. Propofol (2,6-diisopropylphenol) is an intravenous anesthetic agent used in outpatient settings. It is a gamma-aminobutyric acid type A agonist and has affinity at the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor. Elevation in mood and sociality in humans has been observed following propofol-induced anesthesia. Other authors reported an open-label study of repeated dosing of propofol in treatment-resistant depression in which several patients experienced sustained improvement. Recently, we reported that in a rodent model of despair, a forced swim test, 45 minutes after administration of 50 mg/kg propofol, immobility time was significantly reduced. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the experiment was to determine whether the antidepressant-like effects of a single dose of propofol in mice are sustained for 24 hours. METHODS: The time spent immobile during a forced swim test 24 hours after intraperitoneal administration of a single dose of propofol 50 mg/kg or 0.9% saline was evaluated in 24 adult male mice (C57/BL6). Immobility time was quantified and evaluated with a custom video analysis software program. RESULTS: Propofol-treated mice were immobile for a mean (SEM) time of 115 (13) seconds, whereas saline-treated mice were immobile for a mean (SEM) time of 94 (14) seconds. A 2-tailed unpaired t test found no significant difference between the treatment groups (t = 1.07, df = 22; P = 0.30). CONCLUSIONS: Twenty-four hours after intraperitoneal administration, the effect of propofol on immobility time was not statistically significantly different from vehicle. However, given our previous report of at least a short-term benefit of propofol on struggling time in the forced swim time and an encouraging pilot study in humans with treatment-resistant depression, further evaluation of propofol's antidepressant potential may be warranted.

Do Patterns of Instability or Severity of Psychopathology During Screening Predict Relapse in Schizophrenic Outpatient Subjects with Moderate to Severe Negative Symptoms Assigned to Placebo?

Background: Patients with schizophrenia who, prior to inclusion in placebo-controlled trials, experience the most severe and/or unstable symptoms might be more likely to manifest symptomatic worsening upon antipsychotic discontinuation. Methods: This retrospective analysis included all randomized patients assigned to placebo (n=83) in a 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled outpatient trial of MIN-101 (roluperidone) for the treatment of negative symptoms in schizophrenia. The following risk factors were defined for exacerbation: instability between screening and baseline defined operationally as patients with the highest 10 percent of absolute change from the screening visit to baseline in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total or one of the five PANSS Marder factors; screening or baseline severity in PANSS total or one of the five PANSS Marder factors; and gender and age. We used two operational criteria of relapse and the odds ratios of meeting the relapse criteria were calculated for each risk factor. Results: The odds of meeting one of the operational thresholds for relapse after antipsychotic discontinuation were not statistically significantly increased in the subjects who were unstable on the PANSS total or on one of the five PANSS Marder factors before antipsychotic discontinuation. Further, the severity of PANSS total and Marder factor scores at screening and baseline were not statistically significantly associated with odds of relapse. Neither age nor gender had any effect on relapse rates. Conclusion: Mild to moderate symptomatic variations in the severity of symptoms during screening and more severe symptomology at baseline as measured by the PANSS were not predictive of increased risk of subsequent relapse in schizophrenic patients.

The Effect of Acutely Administered Propofol on Forced Swim Test Outcomes in Mice.

Objective: Propofol (2,6-diisopropylphenol) is a gamma-aminobutyric acid type A agonist intravenous anesthetic agent used in outpatient settings. Based on anecdotal reports of improved mood in humans following propofol-induced anesthesia, the impact of acute propofol treatment alone or in combination with subchronic fluoxetine dosing was tested on forced swim test (FST) performance. Design: Seventy-two adult male mice (C57/BL6, CRL-provided) were pretreated daily with saline or fluoxetine (20 mg/kg, intraperitoneally) (21 days for cohort 1; 24 days for cohort 2). At 24 hours after the last pretreatment injection, the mice received saline or propofol (35 or 50 mg/kg, intraperitoneally). Then, 45 minutes later, the mice underwent a five-minute FST. Immobility time was quantified and evaluated with a custom video-analysis software program. Results: A one-way analysis of variance indicated statistically significant effects of propofol on immobility time in cohorts 1 and 2. A comparison performed using Dunnett's method revealed that propofol 50 mg/kg (p < 0.05) but not 35 mg/kg (p = not significant) reduced immobility time as compared with in the saline-saline control group (difference between means of 38.42 and 16.46 seconds, respectively). Conclusion: In comparison with saline, propofol significantly decreased immobility time during the FST, which models depression and resilience to stress. Our preclinical results are consistent with a small open-label study of propofol used in treatment-resistant depression recently reported by Mickey BJ, White AT, Arp AM, et al (2018). Further investigation of propofol regarding its potential antidepressant effects seems warranted.

Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) Training: Challenges, Solutions, and Future Directions.

Rater training and the maintenance of the consistency of ratings are critical to ensuring reliability of study measures and sensitivity to changes in the course of a clinical trial. The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) has been widely used in clinical trials of schizophrenia and other disorders and is considered the "gold standard" for assessment of antipsychotic treatment efficacy. The various features associated with training and calibration of this scale are complex, reflecting the intricacy and heterogeneity of the disorders that the PANSS is used to evaluate. In this article, the authors review the methods for ensuring reliability of the PANSS as well as a proposed trajectory for its use in the future. An overview of the current principles, implementation, technologies, and strategies for the best use of the PANSS; tips for how to achieve consistency among raters; and optimal training practices of this instrument are presented.

Consensus recommendations on rater training and certification.

There is currently no accepted standard for the clinical research industry to follow when selecting and training raters to administer rating scales in clinical neuroscience trials. This article offers guidelines, based on expert recommendations of the CNS Summit Rater Training and Certification Committee, for selecting, training, and evaluating raters. The article also defines terminology and offers recommendations for considering raters with prior training and certification. These guidelines are intended for investigators, pharmaceutical companies, contract research organizations, and other entities involved in clinical neuroscience trials.

Issues and perspectives in designing clinical trials for negative symptoms in schizophrenia.

A number of pharmacological agents for treating negative symptoms in schizophrenia are currently in development. Unresolved questions regarding the design of clinical trials in this area were discussed at an international meeting in Florence, Italy in April 2012. Participants included representatives from academia, the pharmaceutical industry, and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Prior to the meeting, participants submitted key questions for debate and discussion. Responses to the questions guided the discussion during the meeting. The group reached agreement on a number of issues: (1) study subjects should be under the age of 65; (2) subjects should be excluded for symptoms of depression that do not overlap with negative symptoms; (3) functional measures should not be required as a co-primary in negative symptom trials; (4) information from informants should be included for ratings when available; (5) Phase 2 negative symptom trials should be 12weeks and 26weeks is preferred for Phase 3 trials; (6) prior to entry into a negative symptom study, subjects should demonstrate clinical stability for a period of 4 to 6months by collection of retrospective information; and (7) prior to entry, the stability of negative and positive symptoms should be confirmed prospectively for four weeks or longer. The participants could not reach agreement on whether predominant or prominent negative symptoms should be required for study subjects.

A comparative analysis between site-based and centralized ratings and patient self-ratings in a clinical trial of Major Depressive Disorder.

We compared scores from three different ratings methods in a clinical trial of patients with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). The Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptoms (QIDS-SR16) was compared to site-based clinician and centralized (site-independent) ratings of the Inventory of Depressive Symptoms (IDSc30). An extracted QIDSc16 was used for a matched comparison with the QIDS-SR16. Patient self-ratings were more depressed at baseline than either site-based ratings (p = 0.131) or centralized ratings (p = 0.005), but significantly less depressed at the end of double-blind treatment than either site-based (p = 0.006) or centralized ratings (p = 0.014), and after 12 weeks (site-based ratings: p = 0.048; centralized ratings: p = 0.004). The matched comparisons with patient self-ratings revealed ICC of r = 0.55 (site-based raters) and r = 0.49 (centralized raters) at baseline. After baseline, the correlations between the two different clinician ratings and patient self-ratings improved to r-values between 0.78 and 0.89. At the end of double-blind treatment, site-based raters separated the combination treatment from placebo on the IDSc30 (p = 0.030) whereas neither centralized ratings nor patient self-ratings achieved statistical significance. Alternatively, patient self-ratings separated the combination treatment from buspirone (p = 0.030) whereas neither clinician rating method achieved significance. A "dual" scoring concordance range reduced the placebo response rate and increased the drug effect between the combination treatment and placebo. These findings reveal scoring variability between each of the three ratings methods and challenge the reliability of any single method to accurately assess symptom severity scores, particularly at baseline. The use of "dual" scoring criteria may help to confirm symptom severity scores and improve ratings precision, particularly prior to enrolling subjects into CNS trials.

Development and psychometric evaluation of a clinical global impression for schizoaffective disorder scale.

OBJECTIVE: The Clinical Global Impression for Schizoaffective Disorder scale is a new rating scale adapted from the Clinical Global Impression scale for use in patients with schizoaffective disorder. The psychometric characteristics of the Clinical Global Impression for Schizoaffective Disorder are described. DESIGN: Content validity was assessed using an investigator questionnaire. Inter-rater reliability was determined with 12 sets of videotaped interviews rated independently by two trained individuals. Test-retest reliability was assessed using 30 randomly selected raters from clinical trials who evaluated the same videos on separate occasions two weeks apart. Convergent and divergent validity and effect size were evaluated by comparing scores between the Clinical Global Impression for Schizoaffective Disorder and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, and Young Mania Rating Scale scales using pooled patient data from two clinical trials. Clinical Global Impression for Schizoaffective Disorder scores were then linked to corresponding Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale scores. RESULTS: Content validity was strong. Inter-rater agreement was good to excellent for most scales and subscales (intra-class correlation coefficient ≥ 0.50). Test-retest showed good reproducibility, with intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.444 to 0.898. Spearman correlations between Clinical Global Impression for Schizoaffective Disorder domains and corresponding symptom scales were 0.60 or greater, and effect sizes for Clinical Global Impression for Schizoaffective Disorder overall and domain scores were similar to Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale Young Mania Rating Scale, and 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression scores. Raters anticipated that the scale might be less effective in distinguishing negative from depressive symptoms, and, in fact, the results here may reflect that clinical reality. CONCLUSION: Multiple lines of evidence support the reliability and validity of the Clinical Global Impression for Schizoaffective Disorder for studies in schizoaffective disorder.

Training for assessment of negative symptoms of schizophrenia across languages and cultures: comparison of the NSA-16 with the PANSS Negative Subscale and Negative Symptom factor.

BACKGROUND: The 16-item Negative Symptom Assessment scale (NSA-16) has been validated in English-speaking raters. We analyzed the level of agreement achieved among raters of different nationalities using the NSA-16 and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) negative subscale and Marder negative factor. METHODS: Raters participating in two international trials were trained in the use of each instrument through lectures and feedback on their ratings of at least one videotaped interview of a schizophrenic patient. Overall and regional (North America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, South/Central America, and Australia and South Africa combined) kappa values were calculated and mean total scores were compared (1-way analysis of variance) by region for each instrument. In addition, within-scales variance was calculated by item to help identify negative symptoms that were particularly challenging to obtain agreement on across cultures. RESULTS: In the combined group of international raters, the kappa values for ratings of the NSA-16, PANSS negative subscale, and Marder negative factors were 0.89, 0.84, and 0.82, respectively. Kappa values calculated by geographic region ranged from 0.87 to 0.94 for the NSA-16 compared with 0.82 to 0.86 for the PANSS negative subscale and 0.79 to 0.87 for the PANSS Marder negative factor. CONCLUSIONS: Despite cultural and linguistic differences among raters, standardizing measurement of negative symptoms in international clinical trials is possible using available rating scales: NSA-16, PANSS negative subscale, and Marder negative subscale. Agreement among raters was at least as high using the NSA-16 as using the PANSS instruments.

Methodological issues in negative symptom trials.

Individuals from academia, the pharmaceutical industry, and the US Food and Drug Administration used a workshop format to discuss important methodological issues in the design of trials of pharmacological agents for improving negative symptoms in schizophrenia. The issues addressed included the need for a coprimary functional measure for registration trials; the characteristics of individuals who should enter negative symptom trials; the optimal duration for a proof-of-concept or registration trial; the optimal design of a study of a broad-spectrum agent that treats both positive and negative symptoms or a co-medication that is added to an antipsychotic; the relative strengths and weaknesses of available instruments for measuring negative symptoms; the definition of clinically meaningful improvement for these trials; and whether drugs can be approved for a subdomain of negative symptoms.

A double-blind, randomized study comparing the efficacy and safety of sertindole and risperidone in patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: The comparative efficacy of second-generation antipsychotics has yet to be fully elucidated in patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia. The objective of this study was to examine the efficacy and safety of sertindole, compared to risperidone, in this patient population. METHOD: In this multicenter, phase 3, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, only patients with DSM-IV schizophrenia who had failed an adequate antipsychotic treatment within the previous 6 months and who had not responded positively to haloperidol during screening were eligible for enrollment. The primary efficacy variable was change in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) from baseline to final assessment. Weekly assessments included the PANSS, the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS), and the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scale. The study was conducted between June 1996 and April 1998. RESULTS: Of the 321 patients randomly assigned to double-blind treatment, 217 patients completed the study (sertindole, n/n = 142/216 [66%]; risperidone, n/n = 75/105 [71%]). The main reason for withdrawal in both groups was ineffective therapy. The between-group difference in PANSS total score was not statistically significant and both groups showed improvement, with mean changes of -18.6 in the sertindole group and -20.9 in the risperidone group based on observed cases and -12.0 and -19.0, respectively, based on the last-observation-carried-forward method for inputing missing data. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in any of the secondary end points: PANSS positive and negative subscales, CGI scores, BPRS total scores and positive symptom subscale scores, and SANS total scores. Patients reported similar levels of adverse events and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), except for extrapyramidal syndrome-related TEAEs, which were more common in the risperidone-treated group. Prolongation of the QTc interval was observed significantly more frequently with sertindole treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Sertindole and risperidone are effective and well-tolerated in patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Sertindole offers an alternative treatment option for refractory patients in Europe given its good EPS profile, favorable metabolic profile, and comparable efficacy to risperidone.

The brief negative symptom scale: psychometric properties.

The participants in the NIMH-MATRICS Consensus Development Conference on Negative Symptoms recommended that an instrument be developed that measured blunted affect, alogia, asociality, anhedonia, and avolition. The Brief Negative Symptom Scale (BNSS) is a 13-item instrument designed for clinical trials and other studies that measures these 5 domains. The interrater, test-retest, and internal consistency of the instrument were strong, with respective intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.93 for the BNSS total score and values of 0.89-0.95 for individual subscales. Comparisons with positive symptoms and other negative symptom instruments supported the discriminant and concurrent validity of the instrument.

Divalproex ER combined with olanzapine or risperidone for treatment of acute exacerbations of schizophrenia.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of divalproex sodium extended release (divalproex ER) vs placebo in combination with olanzapine or risperidone for the treatment of acute exacerbations of schizophrenia. In this 12-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multi-center trial, a total of 402 patients were randomized and treated; 103 received olanzapine/placebo, 99 received olanzapine/divalproex ER, 101 received risperidone/placebo, and 99 received risperidone/divalproex ER. Divalproex ER was initiated on day 1 at 20 mg/kg per day q AM and was titrated to clinical effect on days 3, 7, and 10, not to exceed a maximum dosage of 35 mg/kg per day. Olanzapine and risperidone were initiated at 5 and 2 mg/day q PM, respectively, increased to 10 and 4 mg/day on day 3, and increased to fixed target doses of 15 and 6 mg/day on day 6. No significant treatment difference was demonstrated between the combination therapy and antipsychotic monotherapy groups on the primary efficacy variable of the mean change from baseline to day 14 last observation carried forward on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score, although antipsychotic monotherapy did demonstrate superiority to combination therapy on the PANSS Negative subscale at several time points. Combination therapy also failed to show an advantage over antipsychotic monotherapy at day 84 on the PANSS total score. Most adverse events observed in the study were mild to moderate in severity, and the overall number of adverse events did not differ significantly between the combination therapy groups and their corresponding antipsychotic monotherapy group.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, study of the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole 10, 15 or 20 mg/day for the treatment of patients with acute exacerbations of schizophrenia.

This double-blind, multicenter study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole 10, 15 or 20 mg/day versus placebo. Patients requiring inpatient hospitalization for acute exacerbation of schizophrenia were randomized to once-daily aripiprazole 10, 15 or 20 mg/day or placebo for 6 weeks. The primary efficacy outcome was the mean change from baseline to Week 6 in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) Total score (last observation carried forward). Patients with no improvement by Week 3 (Clinical Global Impression-Global Improvement score > or =4) could transfer to open-label aripiprazole 20mg/day. In total, 420 patients were randomized to placebo (n = 108); aripiprazole 10 mg/day (n = 106); 15 mg/day (n = 106); or 20 mg/day (n = 100). Of these, 142 patients (34%) completed 6 weeks of treatment, 131 (31%) discontinued to receive open-label aripiprazole, and 147 (35%) for other reasons. Aripiprazole 10, 15 and 20 mg/day each showed significantly greater improvements from baseline than placebo for all efficacy measures, including PANSS Total, Positive and Negative scores, and the CGI-Severity of Illness score. Significantly greater improvements in PANSS Total score versus placebo were achieved by Week 1 with 10 or 20 mg/day and Week 3 with 15 mg/day. All three doses were well tolerated. Overall, aripiprazole was not associated with clinically meaningful differences in extrapyramidal symptoms, prolactin or weight changes versus placebo. Aripiprazole 10 mg/day is effective and well tolerated for patients experiencing an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia.

Efficacy and safety of oral aripiprazole compared with haloperidol in patients transitioning from acute treatment with intramuscular formulations.

OBJECTIVE: To report efficacy and safety of transitioning patients receiving intramuscular (IM) formulations of aripiprazole or haloperidol to their respective oral formulations. METHODS: 448 agitated patients with schizophrenia (73%) or schizoaffective disorder (27%) were randomized to receive aripiprazole IM 9.75 mg, haloperidol IM 6.5 mg, or placebo IM within 24 hours. Patients treated with aripiprazole IM or haloperidol IM who completed this 24-hour IM phase were transitioned to the respective blinded oral formulations for 4 days (aripiprazole 10-15 mg/day, n = 153; haloperidol 7.5-10 mg/day, n = 151). Patients treated with placebo IM were transitioned to oral aripiprazole (analysis not included). The primary efficacy measure was mean change in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Excited Component (PEC) score from baseline of oral phase (last value from 24-hour IM phase) to endpoint (study day 5, last observation carried forward). RESULTS: During the oral phase, aripiprazole 15 mg and haloperidol 10 mg were both effective in maintaining responses achieved on all efficacy measures during the 24-hour IM phase. Mean improvements in PEC scores from study day 1 to 5 were -1.37 for aripiprazole and -1.40 for haloperidol (p = NS for aripiprazole versus haloperidol). Oral aripiprazole was well tolerated. Extrapyramidal symptom-related adverse events were lower for aripiprazole (1.3%) than haloperidol (8.0%). Nausea and vomiting occurred more frequently in patients receiving aripiprazole (3.9% and 2.6%, respectively) than in those receiving haloperidol (0.7% and 1.3%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder treated with aripiprazole IM or haloperidol IM demonstrated similar effective and safe transition to their respective oral formulations. Initial benefits of reduced agitation and improved clinical status during the IM phase of the study were maintained throughout the oral phase of the study with good tolerability.

From clinical research to clinical practice: a 4-year review of ziprasidone.

Ziprasidone is a second-generation antipsychotic that received Food and Drug Administration approval in February 2001. It has a unique receptor profile that includes high-affinity antagonist activity at dopamine D2 receptors, inverse agonist activity at serotonin (5-HT)2A receptors, agonist activity at 5-HTlA receptors, and a relatively high affinity for the serotonin and norepinephrine transporters. The 5-HTIA affinity, together with the inhibitory effect on mono-amine reuptake, may underlie the hypothesized beneficial effects on comorbid affective and cognitive abnormalities in schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. The short-term efficacy of ziprasidone for core positive symptoms of schizophrenia appears to be comparable to other conventional and atypical antipsychotics. The short-term efficacy of ziprasidone in acute mania has been established based on two 3-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.Open-label treatment for up to 52 weeks confirms the sustained efficacy and safety of ziprasidone in bipolar disorder. Maintenance studies in schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder indicate that long-term ziprasidone therapy is effective in preventing relapse, while maintaining cognitive and psychosocial benefits. The safety database suggests that the overall cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risk associated with ziprasidone is lower than with other atypicals, with notably lower risk of drug-related increases in weight, glucose, or lipids. The data also suggest a modestly increased risk of QTc prolongation that is not dose related or linked to torsades de pointes. Switching to ziprasidone from other atypicals appears to improve both clinical symptoms and metabolic parameters, though more studies are needed to fully characterize these benefits. This monograph summarizes the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of oral ziprasidone in the treatment of schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and bipolar mania.