THE DEPRESSION INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT SCALE: Assessment of Psychometric Properties Using Classical and Modern Measurement Theory in a CAN-BIND Trial.

Objective: The goal of the Depression Inventory Development (DID) project is to develop a comprehensive and psychometrically sound rating scale for major depressive disorder (MDD) that reflects current diagnostic criteria and conceptualizations of depression. We report here the evaluation of the current DID item bank using Classical Test Theory (CTT), Item Response Theory (IRT) and Rasch Measurement Theory (RMT). Methods: The present study was part of a larger multisite, open-label study conducted by the Canadian Biomarker Integration Network in Depression (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01655706). Trained raters administered the 32 DID items at each of two visits (MDD: baseline, n=211 and Week 8, n=177; healthy participants: baseline, n=112 and Week 8, n=104). The DID's "grid" structure operationalizes intensity and frequency of each item, with clear symptom definitions and a structured interview guide, with the current iteration assessing symptoms related to anhedonia, cognition, fatigue, general malaise, motivation, anxiety, negative thinking, pain, and appetite. Participants were also administered the Montgomery- Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report (QIDS-SR) that allowed DID items to be evaluated against existing "benchmark" items. CTT was used to assess data quality/reliability (i.e., missing data, skewness, scoring frequency, internal consistency), IRT to assess individual item performance by modelling an item's ability to discriminate levels of depressive severity (as assessed by the MADRS), and RMT to assess how the items perform together as a scale to capture a range of depressive severity (item targeting). These analyses together provided empirical evidence to base decisions on which DID items to remove, modify, or advance. Results: Of the 32 DID items evaluated, eight items were identified by CTT as problematic, displaying low variability in the range of responses, floor effects, and/or skewness; and four items were identified by IRT to show poor discriminative properties that would limit their clinical utility. Five additional items were deemed to be redundant. The remaining 15 DID items all fit the Rasch model, with person and item difficulty estimates indicating satisfactory item targeting, with lower precision in participants with mild levels of depression. These 15 DID items also showed good internal consistency (alpha=0.95 and inter-item correlations ranging from r=0.49 to r=0.84) and all items were sensitive to change following antidepressant treatment (baseline vs. Week 8). RMT revealed problematic item targeting for the MADRS and QIDSSR, including an absence of MADRS items targeting participants with mild/moderate depression and an absence of QIDS-SR items targeting participants with mild or severe depression. Conclusion: The present study applied CTT, IRT, and RMT to assess the measurement properties of the DID items and identify those that should be advanced, modified, or removed. Of the 32 items evaluated, 15 items showed good measurement properties. These items (along with previously evaluated items) will provide the basis for validation of a penultimate DID scale assessing anhedonia, cognitive slowing, concentration, executive function, recent memory, drive, emotional fatigue, guilt, self-esteem, hopelessness, tension, rumination, irritability, reduced appetite, insomnia, sadness, worry, suicidality, and depressed mood. The strategies adopted by the DID process provide a framework for rating scale development and validation.

The Depression Inventory Development Workgroup: A Collaborative, Empirically Driven Initiative to Develop a New Assessment Tool for Major Depressive Disorder.

The Depression Inventory Development project is an initiative of the International Society for CNS Drug Development whose goal is to develop a comprehensive and psychometrically sound measurement tool to be utilized as a primary endpoint in clinical trials for major depressive disorder. Using an iterative process between field testing and psychometric analysis and drawing upon expertise of international researchers in depression, the Depression Inventory Development team has established an empirically driven and collaborative protocol for the creation of items to assess symptoms in major depressive disorder. Depression-relevant symptom clusters were identified based on expert clinical and patient input. In addition, as an aid for symptom identification and item construction, the psychometric properties of existing clinical scales (assessing depression and related indications) were evaluated using blinded datasets from pharmaceutical antidepressant drug trials. A series of field tests in patients with major depressive disorder provided the team with data to inform the iterative process of scale development. We report here an overview of the Depression Inventory Development initiative, including results of the third iteration of items assessing symptoms related to anhedonia, cognition, fatigue, general malaise, motivation, anxiety, negative thinking, pain and appetite. The strategies adopted from the Depression Inventory Development program, as an empirically driven and collaborative process for scale development, have provided the foundation to develop and validate measurement tools in other therapeutic areas as well.

Efficacy and safety of lurasidone 80 mg/day and 160 mg/day in the treatment of schizophrenia: a randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to evaluate the short-term efficacy and safety of once-daily lurasidone (80 mg/day and 160 mg/day) in the treatment of an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia. METHODS: Participants, who were recently admitted inpatients with schizophrenia with an acute exacerbation of psychotic symptoms, were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of fixed-dose, double-blind treatment with lurasidone 80 mg (n=125), lurasidone 160 mg (n=121), quetiapine XR 600 mg (QXR-600 mg; n=119; active control included to test for assay sensitivity), or placebo (n=121), all dosed once daily in the evening. Efficacy was evaluated using a mixed-model repeated-measures analysis of the change from Baseline to Week 6 in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score (the primary efficacy measure) and Clinical Global Impressions severity (CGI-S) score (the key secondary efficacy measure). RESULTS: Treatment with both doses of lurasidone or with QXR-600 mg was associated with significantly greater improvement at Week 6 on PANSS total score, PANSS positive and negative subscale scores, and CGI-S score compared with placebo. The endpoint responder rate (≥ 20% improvement in PANSS total score) was higher in subjects treated with lurasidone 80 mg (65%; p<0.001), lurasidone 160 mg (79%; p<0.001), and QXR-600 mg (79%; p<0.001) compared with placebo (41%). The proportion of patients experiencing ≥ 7% weight gain was 4% for each lurasidone group, 15% for the QXR-600 mg group, and 3% for the placebo group. Endpoint changes in levels of cholesterol, triglycerides, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol were comparable for both lurasidone groups and placebo, while the QXR-600 mg group showed a significant median increase compared with the placebo group in levels of cholesterol (p<0.001), LDL cholesterol (p<0.01), and triglycerides (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Lurasidone 80 mg and 160 mg doses administered once-daily in the evening, were safe and effective treatments for subjects with acute schizophrenia, with increased response rates observed at the higher dose. Dose-related adverse effects were limited, and both doses were generally well-tolerated.

Long-term safety and tolerability of iloperidone: results from a 25-week, open-label extension trial.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVE: Long-term use of the atypical antipsychotic iloperidone has not been investigated at doses above 16 mg/d. This article describes safety and tolerability results from the 25-week open-label extension of a 4-week placebo- and ziprasidone-controlled clinical trial of iloperidone. METHODS: Patients received a dose of 24 mg/d (given as 12 mg twice daily; mean dose = 21.6 mg) that could be reduced to 12 mg/d (given once daily at bedtime) any time after day 35 at the investigator's discretion. RESULTS: A total of 72/173 patients (41.6%) completed the open-label extension. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), most mild to moderate in severity, included headache (13.9%), weight increase (9.2%), dizziness (6.9%), nausea (6.4%), sedation (6.4%), and insomnia (5.2%). The only notable dose-related TEAEs were increased weight and headache. Levels of serum glucose, lipids, and prolactin were essentially unchanged or decreased during treatment. In general, akathisia and extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) improved or were unchanged during treatment. There was no signal of worsening of efficacy based on changes from baseline in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Total. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: This study further supports the long-term safety and tolerability of iloperidone for the treatment of schizophrenia, including iloperidone's favorable effect on metabolic laboratory parameters and low propensity to cause akathisia or EPS.

Lurasidone in the treatment of schizophrenia: a randomized, double-blind, placebo- and olanzapine-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: The study was designed to evaluate the short-term efficacy and safety of lurasidone in the treatment of acute schizophrenia. METHOD: Participants, who were recently admitted inpatients with schizophrenia with an acute exacerbation of psychotic symptoms, were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with 40 mg of lurasidone, 120 mg of lurasidone, 15 mg of olanzapine (included to test for assay sensitivity), or placebo, dosed once daily. Efficacy was evaluated using a mixed-model repeated-measures analysis of the change from baseline to week 6 in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score (as the primary efficacy measure) and Clinical Global Impressions severity (CGI-S) score (as the key secondary efficacy measure). RESULTS: Treatment with both doses of lurasidone or with olanzapine was associated with significantly greater improvement at week 6 on PANSS total score, PANSS positive and negative subscale scores, and CGI-S score compared with placebo. There was no statistically significant difference in mean PANSS total or CGI-S change scores for the lurasidone groups compared with the olanzapine group. With responders defined as those with an improvement of at least 20% on the PANSS, endpoint responder rates were significant compared with placebo for olanzapine only. The incidence of akathisia was higher with 120 mg of lurasidone (22.9%) than with 40 mg of lurasidone (11.8%), olanzapine (7.4%), or placebo (0.9%). The proportion of patients experiencing ≥ 7% weight gain was 5.9% for the lurasidone groups combined, 34.4% for the olanzapine group, and 7.0% for the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Lurasidone was an effective treatment for patients with acute schizophrenia. Safety assessments indicated a higher frequency of adverse events associated with 120 mg/day of lurasidone compared with 40 mg/day.

An analysis of the intended use of atypical antipsychotics in dementia.

In this article, the authors explore trends in intended usage of atypical antipsychotics to treat dementia following the United States Food and Drug Administration advisory safety warning issued in April 2005. Analysis suggests that physician-reported intended usage of antipsychotics to treat dementia has declined by nearly 50 percent over the past five years. When reviewing the products intended for use in the treatment of patients with dementia, atypical intended usage has declined considerably while the intended usage of anti-Alzheimer's disease treatments has grown to replace those shares.

Average Out-of-Pocket Expenses Across Different Drug Categories and Commercial Third-Party Payers.

In this Trend Watch, we look at retail pharmacy prescriptions for branded and generic attention deficit hyperactivity disorder treatments, atypical antipsychotics, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and analyze the average out-of-pocket costs incurred by patients who are covered by commercial third-party prescription plans (i.e., as opposed to patients covered by Medicaid or patients with no prescription coverage). Overall, patient out-of-pocket costs in commercial third-party plans are lower for generic prescriptions than they are for brand prescriptions by at least $19.02. Comparisons across the drug classes reveal that the average co-pay for brands and generics, as well as the difference between brand and generic out-of-pocket costs, differ by drug category.

An analysis of the psychiatric pipeline.

In this article, we explore the current state of the psychiatry drug development pipeline. Analysis suggests that overall, the psychiatry pipeline is heavily skewed toward a few major indications and tends to have more programs in early development (Phase I and II) than later stages (Phase III). A review of development sponsors shows a fairly even split of programs between Top 50 Pharmaceutical companies and small to mid-sized biopharmaceutical companies.

Real-world Data on Atypical Antipsychotic Medication Side Effects.

In this article, we provide information on patient-reported side effects from a cross-section of real-world patients. Specifically, data on side effects were tabulated for patients taking at least one of the following atypical antipsychotic medications: aripiprazole, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, risperidone, or ziprasidone. Approximately 54 percent of the 353 respondents reported having experienced a side effect as a result of taking an atypical antipsychotic medication. Most common side effects mentioned included the following: weight gain/hunger, tiredness/lethargy, and lack of coordination/muscle problems, such as tenderness, twitches, and tremors. Of those experiencing a side effect, less than 25 percent reported this side effect to their physician.

Polypharmacy of schizophrenia.

In this article, we investigated the current practice for treatment of schizophrenia. According to our data, physicians consider one-product regimens 53 percent of the time. Two-product regimens are considered 29 percent of the time, and regimens of three or more products are considered 18 percent of the time. At the point of the patient visit, antipsychotic medications comprise 97 percent of treatment regimens. Fifty-six percent of treatment regimens involve only antipsychotic medications. Classes used to supplement antipsychotic medications in the treatment of schizophrenia include antidepressants (20%), mood stabilizers (15%), anti-anxiety (7%) drugs, and drugs to treat extrapyramidal symptoms (6%). An expert commentary is also included with the data.

Generic penetration in the retail antidepressant market.

In this article, we explore the accelerated penetration of generic antidepressants in the United States market following the availability of generic citalopram and sertraline. Analysis suggests that overall, generic penetration into the antidepressant market has grown from approximately 41 percent in January 2004 to over 73 percent in January 2010. Similar trends are uncovered when branded and generic prescriptions are analyzed by specialty.

Treatment of fibromyalgia.

In this article, we investigate the range of treatments prescribed for fibromyalgia. The data suggest that the majority of those treated, 82 percent, receive only one pharmaceutical. An additional 12 percent of patients were prescribed two products and six percent received three products. Pregabalin (Lyrica(R)) monotherapy was the most commonly prescribed regimen (21% of patients) followed by duloxetine (Cymbalta(R)) monotherapy (20%). From a therapeutic class perspective, fibromyalgia patients received antidepressants (46%), antiepileptics (35%), pain therapies (25%), muscle relaxants (8%), and sleep agents (2%). An expert commentary is included.

Real-World Data on: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Medication Side Effects.

In this article, we provide information on patient-reported side effects from a cross-section of real-world patients. Specifically, data on side effects were tabulated for patients taking one of the following attention deficit hyperactivity disorder medications: amphetamine and dextroamphetamine; atomoxetine; dexmethylphenidate; isdexamfetamine; and methylphenidate. Forty-eight percent of the approximately 325 patients surveyed reported having experienced a side effect as a result of taking an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder medication. Most common side effects mentioned included loss of appetite, sleep problems, and mood disturbances. Only 21 percent of side effects were considered very bothersome or extremely bothersome. Regardless of how bothersome the side effects were, only 20 percent of patients mentioned the side effects to their prescribing physicians.

Generic penetration in the retail atypical antipsychotic market.

In this article, we explore the penetration of generic atypical antipsychotics in the United States market before and after the availability of generic risperidone in July 2008. Analysis suggests that, overall, generic penetration into the atypical antipsychotic market has grown from approximately three percent in January 2008 to more than 25 percent in December 2009. Similar trends are uncovered when branded and generic prescriptions are analyzed by specialty.

Analysis of Classes Used in the Treatment of Depression by Physician-reported Severity.

We analyzed use of therapeutic drug classes for the treatment of depression by the three levels of physician-reported disease severity (mild, moderate, and severe) to understand if the mix of therapeutic classes used to treat depression changes as disease severity increases. Prior to analyzing drug uses in each severity category, we established that in the 12 months ending November 2009, the majority of patients (65%) were assigned a severity rating of 'moderate' by their physician; 27 percent and eight percent of patients were designated as 'mild' and 'severe,' respectively. In general, we found that as disease severity changes, so too do the proportions of the various therapeutic classes used in depression. The differences in class mix by severity have persisted at least since the 12 months ending December 2008, and it appears that the mix of drug classes used in severe depression are becoming less similar to the class mix for moderate depression over time.

Psychometric evaluation of the Medication Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) to assess satisfaction with antipsychotic medication among schizophrenia patients.

The Medication Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) is a single-item questionnaire which evaluates satisfaction with antipsychotic medication in schizophrenia patients. This study evaluated the reliability and validity for its use in research and clinical settings. Data pooled across treatment groups (control vs. Paliperidone ER) from a randomized 6-week study were used to conduct four psychometric assessments of the MSQ: (1) test-retest reliability, (2) convergent validity, (3) known-groups validity, and (4) minimally important difference (MID). This analysis included 191 randomized subjects. Test-retest reliability was evaluated for patients with no change in satisfaction from weeks 2 to 4 and weeks 4 to 6 (ICC=0.80; 0.83, respectively). Convergent validity was demonstrated through large correlations with Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) global score (r=0.72-0.77), and through small correlations with variables measuring clinical symptoms and functioning (e.g., Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score [r=-0.30 to -0.17], CGI-S [r=-0.35 to -0.27], SF-36 Physical Functioning Score [r=0.18] and side effects and extrapiramidal measures (including UKU, ESRS-A, SAS). Mean MSQ scores were significantly different between those who completed and discontinued the study, and between different satisfaction groups based on TSQM, demonstrating good known-groups validity. MID estimates for the MSQ ranged from 0.47 (standard error of measurement) to 0.58 (anchor-based method). Results suggest that the MSQ has acceptable reliability and validity, making this single-item questionnaire appropriate and easy to use in clinical research and potentially in clinical practice. A 1-point change on the MSQ may be considered clinically meaningful.

A review of new atypical antipsychotic launches in the United States.

In this article we investigate the post-launch retail prescription trends of asenapine (Saphris(®), Merck and Co.) and iloperidone (Fanapt(®), Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc./Novartis), two new atypical antipsychotics to launch in the United States market in October 2009 and January 2010, respectively. In the first 12 months following the asenapine launch, and in the nine months since the iloperidone launch, asenapine and iloperidone have secured 0.22 and 0.10 percent of the total prescription market; however, both products nearly double those respective shares when total prescriptions are isolated to new patient prescriptions (0.44% for asenapine and 0.17% for iloperidone). Since launch, asenapine has shown stronger signs of growth, largely attributed to its approval in multiple indications as compared to iloperidone's single indication.

What is causing the reduced drug-placebo difference in recent schizophrenia clinical trials and what can be done about it?

On September 18, 2007, a collaborative session between the International Society for CNS Clinical Trials and Methodology and the International Society for CNS Drug Development was held in Brussels, Belgium. Both groups, with membership from industry, academia, and governmental and nongovernmental agencies, have been formed to address scientific, clinical, regulatory, and methodological challenges in the development of central nervous system therapeutic agents. The focus of this joint session was the apparent diminution of drug-placebo differences in recent multicenter trials of antipsychotic medications for schizophrenia. To characterize the nature of the problem, some presenters reported data from several recent trials that indicated higher rates of placebo response and lower rates of drug response (even to previously established, comparator drugs), when compared with earlier trials. As a means to identify the possible causes of the problem, discussions covered a range of methodological factors such as participant characteristics, trial designs, site characteristics, clinical setting (inpatient vs outpatient), inclusion/exclusion criteria, and diagnostic specificity. Finally, possible solutions were discussed, such as improving precision of participant selection criteria, improving assessment instruments and/or assessment methodology to increase reliability of outcome measures, innovative methods to encourage greater subject adherence and investigator involvement, improved rater training and accountability metrics at clinical sites to increase quality assurance, and advanced methods of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling to optimize dosing prior to initiating large phase 3 trials. The session closed with a roundtable discussion and recommendations for data sharing to further explore potential causes and viable solutions to be applied in future trials.