Search

Abstract The rate of medication persistence was examined in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder during switching from previously administered antipsychotics to brexpiprazole, a new dopamine D2 receptor partial agonist. A multicenter, single‐arm, open‐label 24‐week interventional study was conducted, consisting of two 12‐week consecutive periods: an initial switch (by plateau cross‐titration) with the subsequent period, followed by a second maintenance period. Prior antipsychotics were olanzapine or risperidone/paliperidone. The primary and secondary outcome measures were medication persistence rates after the first 12 weeks and changes from baseline in the Specific Levels of Functioning Scale (SLOF), Subjective Well‐being under Neuroleptic drug treatment Short form (SWNS), and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) scores, respectively. In total, 79 patients were administered brexpiprazole and the medication persistence rate at 12 weeks was 78.5%, which was significantly higher than the predefined threshold of 65%. Regarding the prior medication, the persistence rate at 12 weeks was 84.6% for olanzapine and 72.5% for risperidone/paliperidone. Significant improvements from baseline were observed in the SLOF, SWNS, and PANSS scores. There were no adverse events of concern. Thus, brexpiprazole appeared to be a suitable antipsychotic on switching from olanzapine, risperidone, or paliperidone.

Abstract Aim Interview quality is an important factor in the success of clinical trials for major depressive disorder (MDD). There is a substantial need to establish a reliable, remote clinical assessment interview system that can replace traditional in‐person interviews. Methods We conducted a multicenter, randomized, unblinded, prospective, cross‐sectional study to assess the reliability of remote interviews in patients with MDD (UMIN000041839). Eligible patients with MDD underwent remote and in‐person sessions of the Montgomery‐Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) assessment performed by different raters within 28 days of providing consent. Patients were randomized to a group first assessed using in‐person interviews and secondarily using remote interviews (in‐person‐first group) or a group first assessed by remote interviews and secondarily using in‐person interviews (remote‐first group). Nineteen trained people (15 clinical psychologists, 3 nurses, and 1 clinical laboratory technologist) performed interviews. Results Of 59 patients (in‐person‐first group, n = 32; remote‐first group, n = 27) who completed both remote and in‐person interviews, 51% (n = 30) were women; the mean age was 41.6 years (range, 21–64 years). There was a strong association between remote and in‐person MADRS scores (r = 0.891, kappa = 0.901). An overall intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.886 (95% confidence interval, 0.877–0.952) indicated good consistency between MADRS scores in remote and in‐person interviews. The ICC decreased as the severity of depression increased. Conclusion Our results suggest remote interviews are a feasible alternative option to in‐person interviews in assessing symptom severity in MDD patients and could promote clinical trials in Japan.