Search

Given the acknowledged lack of success in Alzheimer's disease (AD) drug development over the past two decades, the objective of this review was to derive key insights from the myriad failures to inform future drug development. A systematic and exhaustive review was performed on all failed AD compounds for dementia (interventional phase II and III clinical trials from ClinicalTrials.gov) from 2004 to the present. Starting with the initial ∼2,700 AD clinical trials, ∼550 trials met our initial criteria, from which 98 unique phase II and III compounds with various mechanisms of action met our criteria of a failed compound. The two recent reported phase III successes of aducanumab and oligomannate are very encouraging; however, we are awaiting real-world validation of their effectiveness. These two successes against the 98 failures gives a 2.0% phase II and III success rate since 2003, when the previous novel compound was approved. Potential contributing methodological factors for the clinical trial failures were categorized into 1) insufficient evidence to initiate the pivotal trials, and 2) pivotal trial design shortcomings. Our evaluation found that rational drug development principles were not always followed for AD therapeutics development, and the question remains whether some of the failed compounds may have shown efficacy if the principles were better adhered to. Several recommendations are made for future AD therapeutic development. The whole database of the 98 failed compounds is presented in the Supplementary Material. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objective: The authors compared paliperidone extended-release and quetiapine in patients with recently exacerbated schizophrenia requiring hospitalization. Method: In a 6-week double-blind study, inpatients with a recent exacerbation of schizophrenia were randomly assigned to treatment with paliperidone extended-release, quetiapine, or placebo. A 2-week monotherapy phase was followed by a 4-week additive-therapy phase. Target doses were at the upper end of recommended ranges: paliperidone extended-release, 9 or 12 mg/day, and quetiapine, 600 or 800 mg/day. The primary endpoint was the difference in mean total change score on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) between paliperidone extended-release and quetiapine at the 2-week monotherapy phase endpoint. Results: Six-week completion rates were 77.5% (124/160) with paliperidone extended-release, 66.7% (106/159) quetiapine, and 63.8% (51/80) placebo. Improvement in mean PANSS total change score was greater with paliperidone extended-release than with quetiapine from day 5 (-11.4 versus -8.2) through the monotherapy phase endpoint (-23.4 versus -17.1). only paliperidone extended-release showed significantly greater PANSS improvement compared with placebo at 2 weeks. At the 6-week study endpoint, there was a significantly greater improvement with paliperidone extended-release compared with quetiapine despite similar use of additive therapy (predominantly other antipsychotics). Common adverse events with paliperidone extended-release, quetiapine, and placebo, respectively, were tremor (13.9%, 5.0%, 7.5%), somnolence (8.9%, 11.9%, 1.3%), insomnia (10.1%, 9.4%, 11.3%), and headache (12.0%, 7.5%, 13.8%). Six-week adverse event-related discontinuation rates were 6.3%, 10.1%, and 6.3%, respectively, in the paliperidone extended-release, quetiapine, and placebo groups. Conclusions: Compared with quetiapine, paliperidone extended-release improved symptoms earlier and to a greater degree in patients with recently exacerbated schizophrenia requiring hospitalization, with no unexpected tolerability findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although diagnostically dissociable, anxiety is strongly co-morbid with depression. To examine further the clinical symptoms of anxiety in major depressive disorder (MDD), a non-parametric item response analysis on “blinded” data from four pharmaceutical company clinical trials was performed on the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA) across levels of depressive severity. Methods: The severity of depressive symptoms was assessed using the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD). HAMA and HAMD measures were supplied for each patient on each of two post-screen visits (n=1,668 observations). Option characteristic curves were generated for all 14 HAMA items to determine the probability of scoring a particular option on the HAMA in relation to the total HAMD score. Additional analyses were conducted using Pearson's product–moment correlations. Results: Results showed that anxiety-related symptomatology generally increased as a function of overall depressive severity, though there were clear differences between individual anxiety symptoms in their relationship with depressive severity. In particular, anxious mood, tension, insomnia, difficulties in concentration and memory, and depressed mood were found to discriminate over the full range of HAMD scores, increasing continuously with increases in depressive severity. By contrast, many somatic-related symptoms, including muscular, sensory, cardiovascular, respiratory, gastro-intestinal, and genito-urinary were manifested primarily at higher levels of depression and did not discriminate well at lower HAMD scores. Conclusions: These results demonstrate anxiety as a core feature of depression, and the relationship between anxiety-related symptoms and depression should be considered in the assessment of depression and evaluation of treatment strategies and outcome. Depression and Anxiety, 2008. © 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article analyzes the impact of publicity concerning pediatric suicidality data on physician practice patterns in the U.S. Results indicate that the number of children and teenagers who were prescribed antidepressants has declined significantly in the wake of widespread publicity surrounding the Food and Drug Administration public health advisories. There is a shift in care from generalists to psychiatric specialists when it comes to prescribing antidepressants to patients below 18 years.

Objectives: Recently, two large, 3-week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials using nearly identical protocols demonstrated that monotherapy with carbamazepine extended-release capsules (CBZ-ERC) was effective for the treatment of acute mania in patients with bipolar I disorder. By pooling data from these two trials, a more highly powered analysis of the efficacy and safety of CBZ-ERC in bipolar I disorder could be conducted.Methods: Efficacy was assessed with the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), the Clinical Global Impression (CGI)-Severity (CGI-S) scale, the CGI-Improvement (CGI-I) scale and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS). A sub-analysis of the data based on manic versus mixed presentation was performed, as well as sub-analyses by age, sex and ethnicity.Results: Of the 443 randomised patients in the pooled population, 240 completed the studies. Forty-two percent of CBZ-ERC-treated patients did not complete the studies, compared with 50% of placebo-treated patients (p=0.087). Ten percent of patients given CBZ-ERC withdrew because of lack of efficacy, compared with 22% of patients given placebo (p<0.001). At endpoint, CBZ-ERC compared with placebo was associated with significant improvements in mean YMRS total scores in patients experiencing both manic (p<0.0001) and mixed (p<0.01) episodes, using last-observation-carried-forward analyses. CGI-I and CGI-S scores also showed significant improvements from baseline for both manic and mixed patients at endpoint. In patients with mixed episodes, at endpoint there was a mean improvement in HDRS total score of 4.8 points with CBZ-ERC, compared with 2.3 points with placebo (p<0.05). Ninety percent of patients given CBZ-ERC experienced an adverse event, compared with 64% of those patients given placebo. Discontinuation because of adverse events occurred in 10.8% of patients taking CBZ-ERC, compared with 5.5% of patients taking placebo.Conclusions: These results confirm previous findings that CBZ-ERC is effective in the treatment of bipolar I disorder patients with either acute manic or mixed episodes. These data suggest that further randomised controlled studies are warranted to delineate the effect of CBZ-ERC on depressive symptoms in patients with bipolar disorder. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient satisfaction with antipsychotic treatment is important. Limited evidence suggests that satisfaction is associated with symptom improvement and compliance. Predictors of patient satisfaction with antipsychotic medication were examined in a study of patients with a recent exacerbation of schizophrenia. Methods: Data are from a randomized, double-blind trial comparing risperidone (n = 152), quetiapine (n = 156), and placebo (n = 73). Medication Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) was completed after 14 days of treatment and after 6 weeks at last study visit. Results: Medication satisfaction at both time points was significantly associated in multiple regression analysis with improvement on 3 Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) factor scores (positive symptoms p < .01; uncontrolled hostility/excitement, p < .0005; anxiety/depression, p < .04) and treatment with risperidone (p < .03); at day 14, significant association was also found with older age (p = .01). At both time points, predictor variables explained over 30% of the variance in medication satisfaction. Change in Hamilton Depression Scale, prolactin levels, sex, and reported adverse events of extrapyramidal symptoms, sedation, and movement disorders were not significant predictors of satisfaction. Lower level of medication satisfaction at day 14 was associated with earlier discontinuation in the trial at week 6 end point. A focused principal components analysis of PANSS factors and MSQ suggested that medication satisfaction relates to 3 groups of factors in descending order of magnitude: lower levels of (a) uncontrolled hostility/excitement, (b) positive symptoms, and (c) negative symptoms, disorganized thoughts, and anxiety/depression. Conclusion: Results give further support that treatment satisfaction is positively associated with symptom improvement, particularly psychotic symptoms, and suggest that satisfaction may also be related to compliance, as those who were more satisfied remained in the trial for a longer period of time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The major purpose of this American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology-sponsored meeting was to identify strategies for more efficiently detecting clinical drug effects, thus reducing the economic and scientific risks of investigating new chemical entities in psychiatric disorders. The meeting consisted of presentations and discussions by experts who repeatedly had difficulty pursuing scientific, public health–relevant goals. Many approaches to improving the detection of potentially beneficial agents were reviewed. In this article, we discuss technically feasible study improvements. The scope of inquiry included identifying means of shifting institutional and regulatory assumptions and processes, even to the point of seeking appropriate national incentives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary Cultural background may influence the perception of psychiatric symptoms. We examined the effects of cultural biases on the identification of manic symptoms using the Young Mania Rating Scale. Two video interviews, each with an American person with mania, were shown to psychiatrists from three countries (US, UK and India). Total scores on the scale differed significantly between the US and UK (P<0.001) and between India and UK(P<0.00l) rater groups. Overall, differences between India and US rater groups were less marked (P=0.28). These differences suggest that cultural biases influence the interpretation of manic symptoms. Declaration of interest ST. and D.R. are employees of Pharma Star. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents a letter to the editor about the fact that the Hamilton depression scale will almost certainly be used in regulatory and academic clinical trials for at least a few more years.