Search

Objective: The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of aripiprazole once-monthly (AOM) compared to oral aripiprazole in treating acute schizophrenia., Methods: This randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority study recruited patients from 15 trial sites across China from May 2017 to April 2019. Patients with an acute psychotic episode received AOM at 400 mg or oral aripiprazole at 10-20 mg for 12 weeks. The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were the difference in scores from baseline to week 10, as assessed on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) scores, respectively., Results: A total of 436 patients were randomized. Among them, 159/218 (72.9%) and 165/218 (75.7%) in the AOM and oral aripiprazole groups completed 10 weeks of treatment, respectively. The least-squares (LS) mean changes from baseline to endpoint (week 10) in PANSS were - 33.6 for the AOM group and - 34.8 in the oral aripiprazole group, respectively, with a difference of - 1.2 (95% CI: - 4.1, 1.7). The non-inferiority margin of AOM to oral aripiprazole was - 4.1, which was above the lower limit of the pre-defined margin. The altered CGI-S score was - 2.2 and - 2.3 in the AOM and oral aripiprazole groups, respectively. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was similar in both groups. The rate of discontinuation due to TEAEs was 2.3% and 3.2% in the AOM and oral aripiprazole groups, respectively., Conclusions: This study confirmed the efficacy and safety of AOM for the treatment of Chinese patients with acute schizophrenia. The non-inferiority of AOM to oral aripiprazole was established, with comparable efficacy and tolerability. These findings suggested that AOM could be used as a treatment option for patients experiencing an acute episode of schizophrenia., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03172871., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of quetiapine fumarate extended-release (XR) in the treatment of Chinese patients with acute schizophrenia. Multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled non-inferiority randomized study in Chinese patients (n = 388) with schizophrenia randomly assigned to quetiapine XR or chlorpromazine for 6 weeks. Primary outcome was the change from baseline in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score at the end of treatment. Safety objectives included adverse event (AE) monitoring, laboratory test results, and electrocardiograms. Changes in PANSS total score were -33.4 for quetiapine XR and -35.9 for chlorpromazine (P > 0.05). Least squares mean changes were: positive subscale, -9.9 ± 0.53 and -11.1 ± 0.51; negative subscale, -5.9 ± 0.50 and -6.7 ± 0.48; general psychopathology subscale, -12.9 ± 0.74 and -13.9 ± 0.71; aggression and hostility cluster scores, -4.8 ± 0.33 and -5.4 ± 0.32; and depression cluster scores, -1.8 ± 0.18 and -1.7 ± 0.18, for quetiapine XR and chlorpromazine, respectively. For quetiapine XR, AEs were constipation, dizziness, insomnia, and agitation, and nine patients (4.6%) discontinued due to AEs. For chlorpromazine, AEs were extrapyramidal symptoms, constipation, insomnia, dizziness, and agitation, and 17 patients (8.9%) discontinued due to AEs; two patients reported serious AEs. Quetiapine XR monotherapy was not inferior to chlorpromazine for treating acute schizophrenia in Chinese patients and was well tolerated., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Rationale: Quetiapine extended release (XR) has been used to treat various psychiatric disorders, including depressive episodes associated with bipolar I and II disorders. Quetiapine XR is the first approved drug in China for the treatment of bipolar disorder., Objectives: The study evaluated the efficacy and safety of short-term quetiapine XR monotherapy in the treatment of depressive episodes of bipolar I and II disorders., Methods: This was an 8-week multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, fixed-dose phase 3 study. The primary endpoint was the mean change of the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. Secondary endpoints included Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar (CGI-BP) and remission rates., Results: The study recruited 279 adult bipolar I or II patients currently experiencing depression from 11 Chinese provinces. Of these, 139 received quetiapine XR (300 mg/day) and 140 received placebo for 8 weeks. The mean change in the MADRS total score was significantly greater in the quetiapine XR group than in the placebo group (-19.00 ± 7.88 vs. -16.20 ± 9.32; p = 0.004). Adverse events occurred in 96 patients (65.3 %) in the quetiapine XR group and 72 (49.0 %) in the placebo group. The incidence of serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups (p = 0.247)., Conclusions: This study, which is the first to evaluate 300 mg/day quetiapine XR monotherapy for depression in Chinese patients with bipolar disorders, found that this drug was superior to the placebo. Quetiapine XR was generally safe and well tolerated (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01256177).

This randomized, double-blind study compared the efficacy and safety of blonanserin and risperidone to treat Chinese schizophrenia patients aged ≥18 and < 65 years. Patients with Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total scores ≥70 and ≤ 120 were randomized to receive blonanserin or risperidone using a gradual dose-titration method (blonanserin tablets: 8-24 mg/day; risperidone tablets: 2-6 mg/day), twice daily. Treatment populations consisted of 128 blonanserin-treated patients and 133 risperidone-treated patients. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed using the last observation carried forward method. Reductions of PANSS total scores by blonanserin and risperidone treatment were -30.59 and -33.56, respectively. Risperidone treatment was associated with elevated levels of serum prolactin (67.16% risperidone versus 52.31% blonanserin) and cardiac-related abnormalities (22.39% risperidone versus 12.31% blonanserin), and blonanserin patients were more prone to extrapyramidal side effects (48.46% blonanserin versus 29.10% risperidone). In conclusion, blonanserin was as effective as risperidone for the treatment of Chinese patients with schizophrenia. The overall safety profiles of these drugs are comparable, although blonanserin was associated with a higher incidence of EPS and risperidone was associated with a higher incidence of prolactin elevation and weight gain. Thus, blonanserin is useful for the treatment of Chinese schizophrenia patients., (Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)