Efficacy and safety of zuranolone co-initiated with an antidepressant in adults with major depressive disorder: results from the phase 3 CORAL study.

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a mental health disorder that can cause disability and functional impairment that standard-of-care (SOC) antidepressant therapies (ADTs) can take weeks to treat. Zuranolone is a neuroactive steroid and positive allosteric modulator of synaptic and extrasynaptic γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) type A receptors approved as an oral, once-daily, 14-day treatment course in adults with postpartum depression and under investigation in adults with MDD. The phase 3 CORAL Study (NCT04476030) evaluated the efficacy and safety of zuranolone 50 mg co-initiated with SOC ADT (zuranolone+ADT) vs placebo co-initiated with SOC ADT (placebo+ADT) in adults with MDD. Patients were randomized 1:1 to once-daily, blinded zuranolone+ADT or placebo+ADT for 14 days, then continued open-label SOC ADT for 28 more days. The primary endpoint was change from baseline (CFB) in the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17) total score at Day 3. Among 425 patients in the full analysis set, CFB in HAMD-17 total score at Day 3 was significantly improved with zuranolone+ADT vs placebo+ADT (least squares mean [standard error], -8.9 [0.39] vs -7.0 [0.38]; p = 0.0004). The majority of patients receiving zuranolone+ADT that experienced treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) reported mild or moderate events. The most common TEAEs present in ≥10% of patients in either zuranolone+ADT or placebo+ADT groups were somnolence, dizziness, headache, and nausea. These results demonstrate that zuranolone+ADT provided more rapid improvement in depressive symptoms compared with placebo+ADT in patients with MDD, with a safety profile consistent with previous studies. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04476030.

Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Initial and Repeat Treatment Courses With Zuranolone in Adult Patients With Major Depressive Disorder: Interim Results From the Open-Label, Phase 3 SHORELINE Study.

Objective: Zuranolone is a positive allosteric modulator of both synaptic and extrasynaptic γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) type A receptors and a neuroactive steroid approved in the United States as an oral, once-daily, 14-day treatment course for adults with postpartum depression and under investigation for adults with major depressive disorder (MDD). Interim results from the open-label, longitudinal, phase 3 SHORELINE Study (NCT03864614) that evaluated the long-term safety and efficacy of zuranolone in adults with MDD are reported.Methods: This interim report includes patients who were enrolled and had the opportunity to be on study for up to 1 year between February 2019 and September 2021. Adults aged 18-75 years with MDD diagnosed per DSM-5 criteria and a 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17) total score ≥ 20 received an initial 30-mg or 50-mg 14-day zuranolone course. HAMD-17 responders (≥ 50% reduction from baseline) at Day (D)15 of the initial treatment period were allowed to continue in the study beyond D28 and were followed up for ≤ 1 year, during which repeat treatment courses were permitted. The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability of the initial and repeat treatment courses through 1 year. Secondary endpoints included change from baseline (CFB) in HAMD-17 total score and need for repeat treatment course(s).Results: As of September 2021, among patients in the 30-mg (n = 725) and 50-mg (n = 199) Cohorts who received a zuranolone dose, 493 (68.0%) and 137 (68.8%), respectively, reported a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE); most patients who experienced TEAEs reported mild/moderate events (30-mg Cohort, 90.9% [448/493]; 50-mg Cohort, 85.4% [117/137]). Mean (standard deviation) CFB HAMD-17 total score at D15 of the initial treatment period was -15.2 (7.1) and -16.0 (6.0) for the 30-mg and 50-mg Cohorts, respectively; similar improvements were observed after repeat treatment courses. The proportion of patients who received only 1 treatment course during their time on study was 42.9% (210/489) in the 30-mg Cohort and 54.8% (80/146) in the 50-mg Cohort; 57.1% (279/489) and 45.2% (66/146) patients, respectively, received 2-5 total treatment courses. The majority of patients who initially responded to zuranolone received ≤ 2 total treatment courses (30-mg Cohort, 68.5% [335/489]; 50-mg Cohort, 79.5% [116/146]).Conclusions: Of patients who experienced TEAEs, most reported mild or moderately severe events, and responders to zuranolone experienced improvements in depressive symptoms with initial and repeat treatment courses.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03864614.

Zuranolone for the Treatment of Postpartum Depression.

OBJECTIVE: Postpartum depression (PPD) is a common perinatal complication with adverse maternal and infant outcomes. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of zuranolone, a positive allosteric modulator of synaptic and extrasynaptic GABAA receptors and neuroactive steroid, as an oral, once-daily, 14-day treatment course for patients with severe PPD. METHODS: In this double-blind phase 3 trial, women with severe PPD were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive zuranolone 50 mg/day or placebo for 14 days. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in total score on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) at day 15; key secondary endpoints were change from baseline in HAM-D score at days 3, 28, and 45 and change from baseline in Clinical Global Impressions severity (CGI-S) score at day 15. Adverse events were monitored. RESULTS: Among 196 patients randomized (zuranolone, N=98; placebo, N=98), 170 (86.7%) completed the 45-day study. Treatment with zuranolone compared with placebo resulted in statistically significant improvement in depressive symptoms at day 15 (least squares mean [LSM] change from baseline in HAM-D score, -15.6 vs. -11.6; LSM difference, -4.0, 95% CI=-6.3, -1.7); significant improvement in depressive symptoms was also reported at days 3, 28, and 45. CGI-S score at day 15 significantly improved with zuranolone compared with placebo. The most common adverse events (≥10%) with zuranolone were somnolence, dizziness, and sedation. No loss of consciousness, withdrawal symptoms, or increased suicidal ideation or behavior were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, zuranolone demonstrated significant improvements in depressive symptoms and was generally well tolerated, supporting the potential of zuranolone as a novel, rapid-acting oral treatment for PPD.

Zuranolone for the Treatment of Adults With Major Depressive Disorder: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Phase 3 Trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the efficacy and safety of a 14-day treatment course of once-daily zuranolone 50 mg, an investigational oral positive allosteric modulator of the γ-aminobutyric acid type A (GABAA) receptor, for the treatment of major depressive disorder. METHODS: Patients 18-64 years of age with severe major depressive disorder were enrolled in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients self-administered zuranolone 50 mg or placebo once daily for 14 days. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in total score on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) at day 15. Safety and tolerability were assessed by incidence of adverse events. RESULTS: Of 543 randomized patients, 534 (266 in the zuranolone group, 268 in the placebo group) constituted the full analysis set. Compared with patients in the placebo group, patients in the zuranolone group demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in depressive symptoms at day 15 (least squares mean change from baseline HAM-D score, -14.1 vs. -12.3). Numerically greater improvements in depressive symptoms for zuranolone versus placebo were observed by day 3 (least squares mean change from baseline HAM-D score, -9.8 vs. -6.8), which were sustained at all visits throughout the treatment and follow-up periods of the study (through day 42, with the difference remaining nominally significant through day 12). Two patients in each group experienced a serious adverse event; nine patients in the zuranolone group and four in the placebo group discontinued treatment due to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Zuranolone at 50 mg/day elicited a significantly greater improvement in depressive symptoms at day 15, with a rapid time to effect (day 3). Zuranolone was generally well tolerated, with no new safety findings compared with previously studied lower dosages. These findings support the potential of zuranolone in treating adults with major depressive disorder.

Effect of Zuranolone on Concurrent Anxiety and Insomnia Symptoms in Women With Postpartum Depression.

Objective: Concurrent anxiety and/or insomnia symptoms in women with postpartum depression (PPD) are common and associated with more severe PPD. The effects of zuranolone on concurrent anxiety and/or insomnia symptoms and on patient-perceived functional health in women with PPD in the ROBIN study are reported.Methods: The phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial (conducted January 2017-December 2018) included women aged 18-45 years, ≤ 6 months postpartum, with PPD (onset of DSM-5-defined major depressive episode in the third trimester or ≤ 4 weeks postpartum) and baseline 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) total score ≥ 26. Women were randomized 1:1 to once-daily oral zuranolone 30 mg (n = 77) or placebo (n = 76) for 14 days with follow-up through day 45. Concurrent remission of depressive and anxiety symptoms (Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale total score ≤ 7 plus HDRS-17 total score ≤ 7 or Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score ≤ 10), improvement in insomnia symptoms, patient-perceived functional health, and treatment effect sizes described by number needed to treat (NNT) were assessed. Analyses were exploratory; P values are nominal.Results: Rates of concurrent remission of depressive and anxiety symptoms were higher with zuranolone versus placebo (P < .05) at days 3, 15, and 45; the rate of sustained concurrent remission (ie, at both days 15 and 45) was also higher with zuranolone (P < .05). Anxiety symptoms (assessed by HDRS-17 anxiety/somatization subscale and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale anxiety subscale) improved with zuranolone versus placebo (P < .05) at days 3 through 45. Potential benefits on insomnia symptoms and patient-perceived functional health were observed. Day 15 NNTs were 5 for both HDRS-17 response and remission.Conclusions: Zuranolone was associated with concurrent improvements in depressive and anxiety symptoms, with beneficial effects on insomnia symptoms and patient-perceived functional health in adults with PPD.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02978326.

Zuranolone in Major Depressive Disorder: Results From MOUNTAIN-A Phase 3, Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of zuranolone, an investigational neuroactive steroid and GABAA receptor positive allosteric modulator, in major depressive disorder (MDD).Methods: The phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled MOUNTAIN study enrolled adult outpatients with DSM-5-diagnosed MDD, 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total score (HDRS-17) ≥ 22, and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score ≥ 32. Patients were randomized to treatment with zuranolone 20 mg, zuranolone 30 mg, or placebo for 14 days, followed by an observation period (days 15-42) and an extended follow-up (days 43-182). The primary endpoint was change from baseline (CFB) in HDRS-17 at day 15.Results: 581 patients were randomized to receive zuranolone (20 mg, n = 194; 30 mg, n = 194) or placebo (n = 193). Day 15 HDRS-17 least-squares mean (LSM) CFB was -12.5 (zuranolone 30 mg) vs -11.1 (placebo; P = .116). Improvement vs placebo was significant at days 3, 8, and 12 (all P < .05). LSM CFB (zuranolone 20 mg vs placebo) was not significant at any measured time point. Post hoc analyses of zuranolone 30 mg in patients with measurable plasma zuranolone concentration and/or severe disease (baseline HDRS-17 ≥ 24) showed significant improvement vs placebo at days 3, 8, 12, and 15 (all P < .05). Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between zuranolone and placebo groups; the most common (≥ 5%) were fatigue, somnolence, headache, dizziness, diarrhea, sedation, and nausea.Conclusions: MOUNTAIN did not meet its primary endpoint. Significant rapid improvements in depressive symptoms were observed with zuranolone 30 mg at days 3, 8, and 12. Zuranolone was generally well tolerated in patients with MDD.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03672175.

Effect of brexanolone on depressive symptoms, anxiety, and insomnia in women with postpartum depression: Pooled analyses from 3 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials in the HUMMINGBIRD clinical program.

BACKGROUND: Brexanolone is currently the only treatment specifically approved for postpartum depression (PPD) in the United States, based on the results from one Phase 2 and two Phase 3 double-blind, randomized, controlled trials in the HUMMINGBIRD program. METHODS: Adults with PPD randomized to a 60-h infusion of brexanolone 90 µg/kg/h (BRX90) or placebo from the 3 trials were included in these post hoc analyses. Data on change from baseline (CFB) in the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17) total score, HAMD-17 Anxiety/Somatization and Insomnia subscales, and Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I) scale were pooled. Response rates for HAMD-17 (≥50 % reduction from baseline) and CGI-I (score of 1 or 2) scales and time to response were analyzed. RESULTS: Patients receiving BRX90 (n = 102) versus placebo (n = 107) achieved a more rapid HAMD-17 response (median, 24 vs 36 h; p = 0.0265), with an Hour-60 cumulative response rate of 81.4 % versus 67.3 %; results were similar for time to CGI-I response (median, 24 vs 36 h; p = 0.0058), with an Hour-60 cumulative response rate of 81.4 % versus 61.7 %. CFB in HAMD-17 Anxiety/Somatization and Insomnia subscales also favored BRX90 versus placebo, starting at Hour 24 through Day 30 (all p < 0.05), and response rates for both subscales were higher with BRX90. LIMITATIONS: The study was not powered to assess exploratory outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Brexanolone was associated with rapid improvement in depressive symptoms and symptoms of anxiety and insomnia compared with placebo in women with PPD. These data continue to support the use of brexanolone to treat adults with PPD.

Patient-reported health-related quality of life from a randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial of zuranolone in adults with major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD), a disabling, potentially life-threatening condition, negatively affects health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This secondary analysis aimed to understand the impact of the neuroactive steroid zuranolone on HRQoL using the Short Form-36v2 Health Survey (SF-36v2). METHODS: Adult patients with MDD and 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression total score ≥22 were randomized 1:1 to receive zuranolone 30 mg or placebo for 2 weeks, with 4 weeks follow-up. SF-36v2 scores were assessed at Day 15 across 8 domains (Physical Functioning, Role Physical, Bodily Pain, General Health, Vitality, Social Functioning, Role Emotional, and Mental Health) and 2 summary scores (Physical and Mental Component), using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures. Correlations between SF-36v2 scores and clinician-reported efficacy endpoints were assessed using Pearson's correlation. RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients were treated with zuranolone 30 mg (n = 45) or placebo (n = 44). In zuranolone-treated patients, HRQoL improved across all SF-36v2 domains and summary scores at Day 15. Improvements exceeding established minimally important difference thresholds were observed in Bodily Pain, General Health, Vitality, Social Functioning, Role Emotional, and Mental Health scores. Improvements in General Health, Vitality, Mental Health, and Mental Component Summary were statistically significant versus placebo (p ≤ 0.025). Clinician-rated endpoints negatively correlated with SF-36v2 scores. LIMITATIONS: The small unipolar depression sample may not be representative of all US MDD patients. HRQoL measures could be impacted by factors unrelated to depression. CONCLUSIONS: Zuranolone-treated patients reported rapid and significant improvements in HRQoL versus placebo at Day 15. HRQoL improvements correlated with improvements in clinician-rated assessments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov:NCT03000530; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03000530.

Effect of Zuranolone vs Placebo in Postpartum Depression: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Postpartum depression (PPD) is one of the most common medical complications during and after pregnancy, negatively affecting both mother and child. Objective: To demonstrate the efficacy and safety of zuranolone, a neuroactive steroid γ-aminobutyric acid receptor-positive allosteric modulator, in PPD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This phase 3, double-blind, randomized, outpatient, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted between January 2017 and December 2018 in 27 enrolling US sites. Participant were women aged 18 to 45 years, 6 months or fewer post partum, with PPD (major depressive episode beginning third trimester or ≤4 weeks postdelivery), and baseline 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17) score of 26 or higher. Analysis was intention to treat and began December 2018 and ended March 2019. Interventions: Randomization 1:1 to placebo:zuranolone, 30 mg, administered orally each evening for 2 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end point was change from baseline in HAMD-17 score for zuranolone vs placebo at day 15. Secondary end points included changes from baseline in HAMD-17 total score at other time points, HAMD-17 response (≥50% score reduction) and remission (score ≤7) rates, Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score, and Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety score. Safety was assessed by adverse events and clinical assessments. Results: Of 153 randomized patients, the efficacy set comprised 150 patients (mean [SD] age, 28.3 [5.4] years), and 148 (98.7%) completed treatment. A total of 76 patients were randomized to placebo, and 77 were randomized to zuranolone, 30 mg. Zuranolone demonstrated significant day 15 HAMD-17 score improvements from baseline vs placebo (-17.8 vs -13.6; difference, -4.2; 95% CI, -6.9 to -1.5; P = .003). Sustained differences in HAMD-17 scores favoring zuranolone were observed from day 3 (difference, -2.7; 95% CI, -5.1 to -0.3; P = .03) through day 45 (difference, -4.1; 95% CI, -6.7 to -1.4; P = .003). Sustained differences at day 15 favoring zuranolone were observed in HAMD-17 response (odds ratio, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.34-5.16; P = .005), HAMD-17 score remission (odds ratio, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.24-5.17; P = .01), change from baseline for Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score (difference, -4.6; 95% CI, -8.3 to -0.8; P = .02), and Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety score (difference, -3.9; 95% CI, -6.7 to -1.1; P = .006). One patient per group experienced a serious adverse event (confusional state in the zuranolone group and pancreatitis in the placebo group). One patient in the zuranolone group discontinued because of an adverse event vs none for placebo. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, zuranolone improved the core symptoms of depression as measured by HAMD-17 scores in women with PPD and was generally well tolerated, supporting further development of zuranolone in the treatment of PPD. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02978326.

Trial of SAGE-217 in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder.

BACKGROUND: Altered neurotransmission of γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) has been implicated in the pathogenesis of depression. Whether SAGE-217, an oral, positive allosteric modulator of GABA type A receptors, is effective and safe for the treatment of major depressive disorder is unknown. METHODS: In this double-blind, phase 2 trial, we enrolled patients with major depression and randomly assigned them in a 1:1 ratio to receive 30 mg of SAGE-217 or placebo once daily. The primary end point was the change from baseline to day 15 in the score on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D; scores range from 0 to 52, with higher scores indicating more severe depression). Secondary efficacy end points, which were assessed on days 2 through 8 and on days 15, 21, 28, 35, and 42, included changes from baseline in scores on additional depression and anxiety scales, a reduction from baseline of more than 50% in the HAM-D score, a HAM-D score of 7 or lower, and a Clinical Global Impression of Improvement score of 1 (very much improved) or 2 (much improved) (on a scale of 1 to 7, with a score of 7 indicating that symptoms are very much worse). RESULTS: A total of 89 patients underwent randomization: 45 patients were assigned to the SAGE-217 group, and 44 to the placebo group. The mean baseline HAM-D score was 25.2 in the SAGE-217 group and 25.7 in the placebo group. The least-squares mean (±SE) change in the HAM-D score from baseline to day 15 was -17.4±1.3 points in the SAGE-217 group and -10.3±1.3 points in the placebo group (least-squares mean difference in change, -7.0 points; 95% confidence interval, -10.2 to -3.9; P<0.001). The differences in secondary end points were generally in the same direction as those of the primary end point. There were no serious adverse events. The most common adverse events in the SAGE-217 group were headache, dizziness, nausea, and somnolence. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of SAGE-217 daily for 14 days resulted in a reduction in depressive symptoms at day 15. Adverse events were more common in the SAGE-217 group than in the placebo group. Further trials are needed to determine the durability and safety of SAGE-217 in major depressive disorder and to compare SAGE-217 with available treatments. (Funded by Sage Therapeutics; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03000530.).

Correction to: A phase III randomized trial of gantenerumab in prodromal Alzheimer's disease.

Following publication of the original article [1], the author reported errors in the formatting of the table. The details of the errors are as follows.

A phase III randomized trial of gantenerumab in prodromal Alzheimer's disease.

BACKGROUND: Gantenerumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds aggregated amyloid-ß (Aß) and removes Aß plaques by Fc receptor-mediated phagocytosis. In the SCarlet RoAD trial, we assessed the efficacy and safety of gantenerumab in prodromal Alzheimer's disease (AD). METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study, we investigated gantenerumab over 2 years. Patients were randomized to gantenerumab 105 mg or 225 mg or placebo every 4 weeks by subcutaneous injection. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline to week 104 in Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) score. We evaluated treatment effects on cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers (all patients) and amyloid positron emission tomography (substudy). A futility analysis was performed once 50% of patients completed 2 years of treatment. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose. RESULTS: Of the 3089 patients screened, 797 were randomized. The study was halted early for futility; dosing was discontinued; and the study was unblinded. No differences between groups in the primary (least squares mean [95% CI] CDR-SB change from baseline 1.60 [1.28, 1.91], 1.69 [1.37, 2.01], and 1.73 [1.42, 2.04] for placebo, gantenerumab 105 mg, and gantenerumab 225 mg, respectively) or secondary clinical endpoints were observed. The incidence of generally asymptomatic amyloid-related imaging abnormalities increased in a dose- and APOE ε4 genotype-dependent manner. Exploratory analyses suggested a dose-dependent drug effect on clinical and biomarker endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: The study was stopped early for futility, but dose-dependent effects observed in exploratory analyses on select clinical and biomarker endpoints suggest that higher dosing with gantenerumab may be necessary to achieve clinical efficacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01224106 . Registered on October 14, 2010.

ADHD Symptom Rebound and Emotional Lability With Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate in Children Aged 6 to 12 Years.

OBJECTIVE: To describe symptom rebound in children with ADHD treated with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) or placebo. METHOD: During a 4-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of LDX, parents/caregivers completed the Conners' Parent Rating Scale-Revised: Short Form symptom rating scale throughout the day. Response, rebound, and emotional lability (EL) were assessed post hoc based on predefined criteria. RESULTS: Most participants given LDX ( n = 207) were responders throughout the day (50.7%-55.6%) versus placebo ( n = 72; 11.1%-22.2%). A total of seven (3.4%) LDX participants showed rebound in the afternoon and/or evening versus seven (9.7%) with placebo. In both groups, most incidences of rebound occurred in the evening. EL (mean) was higher in LDX rebounders and nonresponders (range = 4.2-9.0) versus LDX responders (range = 1.3-1.6) and versus placebo rebounders (range = 0.7-1.9). CONCLUSION: ADHD symptom rebound occurred in few participants (3.3%) given LDX (accompanied by clinically significant EL). Overall, more participants given LDX versus placebo responded throughout the day.

Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate augmentation in adults with persistent executive dysfunction after partial or full remission of major depressive disorder.

Evaluate lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) augmentation of antidepressant monotherapy for executive dysfunction in partially or fully remitted major depressive disorder (MDD). This randomized, placebo-controlled study (NCT00985725) enrolled 143 adults (18-55 years) with mild MDD (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score ≤ 18) and executive dysfunction (Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Adult Version (BRIEF-A) Self-Report Global Executive Composite (GEC) T score ≥ 60) on stable antidepressant monotherapy for ≥ 8 weeks. After 2 weeks of screening, participants were randomized to 9 weeks of double-blind LDX (20-70 mg/day) or placebo augmentation, followed by 2 weeks of single-blind placebo. The primary end point was change from baseline to week 9/end of study (EOS) in BRIEF-A Self-Report GEC T score; secondary assessments included the BRIEF-A Informant Report, MADRS, and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Of 143 randomized participants, 119 completed double-blind treatment (placebo, n=59; LDX, n=60). Mean ± standard deviation (SD) BRIEF-A GEC T scores decreased from baseline (placebo, 74.2 ± 8.88; LDX, 76.8 ± 9.66) to week 9/EOS (placebo, 61.4 ± 14.61; LDX, 55.2 ± 16.15); the LS mean (95% CI) treatment difference significantly favored LDX (-8.0 (-12.7, -3.3); P=0.0009). The LS mean (95% CI) treatment difference for MADRS total score also significantly favored LDX (-1.9 (-3.7, 0.0); P=0.0465). TEAE rates were 73.6% with placebo and 78.9% with LDX; serious TEAE rates were 4.2 and 2.8%. In this trial, LDX augmentation significantly improved executive dysfunction and depressive symptoms in participants with mild MDD. The safety profile of LDX was consistent with prior studies in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

The effects of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate on emotional lability in children 6 to 12 years of age with ADHD in a double-blind placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) on emotional lability (EL) in children with ADHD. METHOD: Post hoc analyses of a placebo-controlled trial of LDX-stratified children (aged 6-12 years) with ADHD to prominent and not prominent EL at baseline (score >3 or ≤3, respectively, on Conners' Parent Rating Scale [CPRS] items of anger, loss of temper, and irritability). Efficacy was assessed by change in CPRS EL scores and ADHD Rating Scale-IV (ADHD-RS-IV) total and subscale scores. Safety measures included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS: LDX showed improvement versus placebo (p < .0005) for EL item least squares (LS) mean change scores at endpoint and throughout the day. At baseline, 138 and 73 participants randomized to LDX treatment and having baseline and endpoint CPRS scores were categorized with CPRS-derived prominent and not prominent baseline EL, respectively; 41 and 31 participants randomized to placebo were categorized with CPRS-derived prominent and not prominent baseline EL, respectively. ADHD-RS-IV total and subscale scores decreased with LDX regardless of baseline EL severity. TEAEs included decreased appetite, insomnia, upper abdominal pain, headache, and irritability. CONCLUSION: EL and ADHD symptoms improved with LDX regardless of baseline EL symptom severity. LDX demonstrated a safety profile consistent with long-acting psychostimulant use.

A randomized controlled trial of the efficacy and safety of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate as augmentation therapy in adults with residual symptoms of major depressive disorder after treatment with escitalopram.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the efficacy and safety of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate augmentation for major depressive disorder (MDD) in escitalopram nonremitters. METHOD: In this proof-of-concept study (conducted from July 2009-August 2010) with a prespecified critical α = .10, adults with nonpsychotic MDD (DSM-IV-TR criteria) and residual depressive symptoms (17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score ≥ 4) after 8 weeks of open-label escitalopram were randomized to 6 weeks of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (20-50 mg/d) or placebo augmentation. The primary endpoint, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score change in escitalopram nonremitters (MADRS total score > 10) from week 8 (augmentation baseline) to week 14/end of study, was assessed using analysis of covariance, with last observation carried forward. RESULTS: For nonremitters (placebo, n = 64; lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, n = 65), the least squares (LS) mean (90% CI) treatment difference for MADRS total score reduction at week 14/end of study (-2.3 [-4.5 to -0.1]; P = .0902) met the prespecified criterion for lisdexamfetamine dimesylate superiority (adjusted effect size, -0.3); the number needed to treat for MADRS remission (MADRS total score ≤ 10) was 6.7. The LS mean treatment difference in remitters was not statistically significant (1.2 [-1.6 to 4.0]; P = .4726). Among randomized participants, 49.4% (42/85) receiving placebo and 60.2% (53/88) receiving lisdexamfetamine dimesylate had ≥ 1 treatment-emergent adverse event, the most frequent with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate being dry mouth and headache (both 11.4%). Mean (SD) vital sign and electrocardiogram changes (placebo vs lisdexamfetamine dimesylate) were 0.5 (8.98) versus 2.3 (9.04) mm Hg (systolic blood pressure), -1.0 (7.19) versus 0.9 (6.61) mm Hg (diastolic blood pressure), -0.4 (7.39) versus 4.8 (8.64) beats per minute (heart rate), and -1.6 (11.23) versus -4.9 (11.84) milliseconds (Fridericia-adjusted QTc). CONCLUSIONS: Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate augmentation reduced depressive symptoms in participants with inadequate escitalopram response. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00905424.

Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in adults with attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder who report clinically significant impairment in executive function: results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: Behavioral rating scales that assess impairments in executive function commonly associated with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) may offer advantages over neuropsychological testing. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate for executive function deficits in adults with ADHD and clinically significant executive function impairment using self-reported Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Adult version (BRIEF-A) assessments. METHOD: This randomized double-blind study, conducted between May 2010 and November 2010, screened at least 1 participant at 35 of 39 registered US clinical research sites. Adults (aged 18-55 years) with a primary ADHD diagnosis (meeting full DSM-IV-TR criteria) and executive function deficits (assessed by baseline BRIEF-A Global Executive Composite [GEC] T-scores of at least 65) were randomized to treatment with optimized lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (30 mg/d, 50 mg/d, or 70 mg/d; n = 80) or placebo (n = 81) during a 10-week double-blind treatment period. Outcome measures included the BRIEF-A scales (GEC, index, and clinical subscales). RESULTS: At week 10 or at early termination, lisdexamfetamine dimesylate was associated with significantly greater reductions from baseline in mean BRIEF-A GEC T-scores than placebo (effect size, 0.74; P < .0001) and significantly greater reductions from baseline in mean T-scores for both BRIEF-A index scales (Behavioral Regulation Index and Metacognition Index) and all 9 clinical subscales (P ≤ .0056 for all). At week 10 or at early termination, mean T-scores for BRIEF-A indexes and clinical subscales were below levels of clinically significant executive function deficits (ie, < 65) with lisdexamfetamine dimesylate treatment. The mean (SD) GEC T-score was 57.2 (14.11) for the lisdexamfetamine dimesylate group and 68.3 (17.12) for the placebo group. The safety profile of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate was consistent with other long-acting psychostimulants. CONCLUSION: Among adults with ADHD and clinically significant executive function deficits, lisdexamfetamine dimesylate was associated with significant improvements in self-reported executive function ratings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01101022.

Adjunctive lisdexamfetamine dimesylate therapy in adult outpatients with predominant negative symptoms of schizophrenia: open-label and randomized-withdrawal phases.

Negative symptoms of schizophrenia (NSS), related to hypodopaminergic activity in the mesocortical pathway and prefrontal cortex, are predictive of poor outcomes and have no effective treatment. Use of dopamine-enhancing drugs (eg, psychostimulants) has been limited by potential adverse effects. This multicenter study examined lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX), a d-amphetamine prodrug, as adjunctive therapy to antipsychotics in adults with clinically stable schizophrenia and predominant NSS. Outpatients with stable schizophrenia, predominant NSS, limited positive symptoms, and maintained on stable atypical antipsychotic therapy underwent a 3-week screening, 10-week open-label adjunctive LDX (20-70 mg/day), and 4-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled withdrawal. Efficacy measures included a modified Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS-18) and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total and subscale scores. Ninety-two participants received open-label LDX; 69 received double-blind therapy with placebo (n=35) or LDX (n=34). At week 10 (last observation carried forward; last open-label visit), mean (95% confidence interval) change in SANS-18 scores was -12.9 (-15.0, -10.8; P<0.0001). At week 10, 52.9% of participants demonstrated a minimum of 20% reduction from baseline in SANS-18 score. Open-label LDX was also associated with significant improvement in PANSS total and subscale scores. During the double-blind/randomized-withdrawal phase, no significant differences (change from randomization baseline) were found between placebo and LDX in SANS-18 or PANSS subscale scores. In adults with clinically stable schizophrenia, open-label LDX appeared to be associated with significant improvements in negative symptoms without positive symptom worsening. Abrupt LDX discontinuation was not associated with positive or negative symptom worsening. Confirmation with larger controlled trials is warranted.

Efficacy and safety of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and recent methylphenidate use.

INTRODUCTION: Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) is a long-acting prodrug stimulant for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Post hoc subgroup analyses were performed from two studies in children with ADHD to compare the efficacy of LDX in participants who had received prior methylphenidate (MPH) treatment with that of the overall study populations. METHODS: Study 1 (7-week; open-label design) and study 2 (randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover, laboratory school design) enrolled children aged 6-12 years with ADHD and baseline ADHD Rating Scale IV (ADHD-RS-IV) total score ≥28. Both studies excluded children whose prestudy ADHD treatment provided effective control of ADHD symptoms with an acceptable safety profile. Post hoc efficacy analyses were performed in children who had received MPH within 6 months of study enrollment. Efficacy measures included the following scales: ADHD-RS-IV, Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I), Expression and Emotion Scale for Children (EESC), Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF), Swanson, Kotkin, Agler, M-Flynn, and Pelham (SKAMP), and Permanent Product Measure of Performance (PERMP). RESULTS: In studies 1 and 2, 83/318 (26%) and 67/129 (52%) participants, respectively, had received MPH within 6 months and were not adequately controlled on current medication with acceptable tolerability; most of these participants had received long-acting MPH. In prior MPH participants, efficacy assessments demonstrated improvements from baseline (study 1) and versus placebo (study 2) that were comparable with those seen in the respective overall study population. Safety profiles were consistent with long-acting stimulant use. CONCLUSION: In two studies, children who had received prior MPH treatment improved during treatment with LDX and experienced similar improvements in their symptoms as the overall study populations. For children with ADHD who were previously treated with MPH, LDX may, therefore, be an efficacious treatment option.