Search

A post hoc analysis of the Disease Recovery Evaluation and Modification (DREaM) study was conducted to evaluate time to first major treatment failure (ie, arrest/incarceration or psychiatric hospitalization) in participants with recent-onset schizophrenia or schizophreniform disorder treated with paliperidone palmitate (PP) versus oral antipsychotics (OAPs).DREaM was an open-label, delayed-start, randomized, multipart trial consisting of: Part I, 2-month oral run-in; Part II, 9-month disease progression phase (PP or OAP); and Part III, 9 months of additional treatment (PP/PP; OAP re-randomized: OAP/OAP or OAP/PP). PP/PP and OAP/OAP comprised the 18-month extended disease progression (EDP) analysis.In Part II (PP, n = 78; OAP, n = 157), similar proportions of participants experienced a major treatment failure across groups (PP: 12.8 %; OAP: 13.4 %); no difference in time to first major treatment failure was identified (P = 0.918). Significant differences favoring PP emerged after 9 months; in Part III, no participants in the PP/PP group, 3.5 % of participants in the OAP/PP group, and 15.9 % in the OAP/OAP group experienced a major treatment failure (P = 0.002). In the EDP analysis, 10.2 % (PP/PP) and 25.4 % (OAP/OAP) of participants experienced a major treatment failure (P = 0.045; number needed to treat = 6). Safety results were similar between groups and consistent with the known safety profile of PP in adults with schizophrenia.Initiation of PP during the early stages of schizophrenia spectrum disorders significantly delayed time to hospitalization and arrest/incarceration, outcomes with important personal and economic consequences, compared with OAP during this 18-month study.gov identifier: NCT02431702.

To compare the clinical and economic burden of treatment-resistant depression (TRD) among older adult patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) to non-TRD MDD and non-MDD patients.Retrospective cohort study using 5% Medicare data (January 1, 2012-December 31, 2015) for MDD patients aged ≥65 years who were defined as TRD if they received ≥2 antidepressant treatments in the current episode. MDD patients not meeting TRD criteria were deemed non-TRD MDD; those without an MDD diagnosis were categorized as non-MDD. All were required to have continuous health plan enrollment for ≥6 months pre- and ≥12 months postindex date (index: first antidepressant claim/random [non-MDD]). Three cohorts were matched, and generalized linear and Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare medication use, healthcare resource utilization, costs, and risks of initial hospitalization and readmission ≤30 days postdischarge from initial hospitalization.After matching, 178 patients from each cohort were analyzed. During 12 months of follow-up, TRD patients had higher use of different antidepressants and antipsychotics, higher inpatient and emergency room visits, longer inpatient stays, and higher total healthcare costs ($24,543 versus $16,059, $8,058) than non-TRD MDD and non-MDD cohorts, respectively (all p0.05). Risk of initial hospitalization was higher in the TRD (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.08-6.23) and non-TRD MDD cohorts (HR = 1.82, 95% CI = 1.02-3.25) than the non-MDD cohort.The burden of MDD among older adult Medicare beneficiaries is substantial, and even greater among those with TRD compared to non-TRD MDD, demonstrating the need for more effective treatments than those currently available.

This study examined the clinical utility of the Negative Symptom Assessment-16 (NSA-16) in schizophrenia. 274 individuals with schizophrenia were assessed on the NSA-16, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Clinical Assessment for Negative Symptoms (CAINS), Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS), Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS) and the Simpson-Angus Extrapyramidal Side Effects Scale (SAS). Factor analyses were conducted and Cronbach's alpha was computed. Correlations were assessed using Spearman's correlation coefficient. The 5-factor model of the NSA-16 did not give good fit statistics from our sample. Exploratory factor analysis on a randomly selected split-half of the sample followed by confirmatory factor analysis on the remaining sample supported a 4-factor structure with 12 items. The factors were: Restricted speech, Poor quality of speech, Affective blunting and Amotivation. The NSA-16 with the 12 items was termed as the NSA-12. The NSA-12 showed good internal reliability. The NSA-12 total score and global negative symptom rating had strong correlations with CAINS total and PANSS negative factor scores, suggesting good convergent validity. Weak correlations of the NSA-12 total score and global negative symptom rating with PANSS positive, CDSS and SAS scores suggested good divergent validity. The NSA-12 total score and global negative symptom rating were strongly and inversely associated with SOFAS and positively associated with NSA-12 global level of functioning. In conclusion, the NSA-12 is useful to evaluate negative symptoms in clinical and research settings in individuals with schizophrenia. Our study results also support a 4-factor structure of the NSA-12 in outpatients with schizophrenia.

The authors compared the efficacy of standard-of-care treatment plus intranasal esketamine or placebo for rapid reduction of symptoms of major depression, including suicidality, among individuals at imminent suicide risk.In a double-blind, multicenter, proof-of-concept study, 68 participants were randomly assigned to receive esketamine (84 mg) or placebo twice weekly for 4 weeks, in addition to comprehensive standard-of-care treatment. The primary efficacy endpoint was change in score from baseline to 4 hours after initial dose on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Clinician global judgment of suicide risk (from the Suicide Ideation and Behavior Assessment Tool) was also assessed. Secondary endpoints included these measures at 24 hours and double-blind endpoint at day 25.A significantly greater improvement in MADRS score was observed in the esketamine group compared with the placebo group at 4 hours (least-square mean difference=-5.3, SE=2.10; effect size=0.61) and at ∼24 hours (least-square mean difference=-7.2, SE=2.85; effect size=0.65), but not at day 25 (least-square mean difference=-4.5, SE=3.14; effect size=0.35). Significantly greater improvement was also observed in the esketamine group on the MADRS suicidal thoughts item score at 4 hours (effect size=0.67), but not at 24 hours (effect size=0.35) or at day 25 (effect size=0.29). Between-group reductions in clinician global judgment of suicide risk scores were not statistically different at any time point. The most common adverse events among participants in the esketamine group were nausea, dizziness, dissociation, unpleasant taste, and headache.These preliminary findings indicate that intranasal esketamine compared with placebo, given in addition to comprehensive standard-of-care treatment, may result in significantly rapid improvement in depressive symptoms, including some measures of suicidal ideation, among depressed patients at imminent risk for suicide.

We report primary results of the Disease Recovery Evaluation and Modification (DREaM) study, a randomized, open-label, delayed-start trial designed to compare the effectiveness of paliperidone palmitate (PP) versus oral antipsychotics (OAP) in delaying time to first treatment failure (TtFTF) in participants with recent-onset schizophrenia or schizophreniform disorder. DREaM included: Part I, 2-month oral run-in; Part II, 9-month disease progression phase (PP or OAP); Part III, 9 months of additional treatment (PP/PP; OAP rerandomized: OAP/OAP or OAP/PP). PP/PP and OAP/OAP comprised the 18-month extended disease progression (EDP) analysis. A total of 235 participants were randomized to PP (n = 78) or OAP (n = 157) in Part II. No statistically significant differences in TF between treatment groups were identified during Part II (PP 29.5%, OAP 24.8%; P = 0.377), Part III (PP/PP 14.3%, OAP/PP 15.8%, OAP/OAP 28.6%; P = 0.067) or the EDP analysis (PP/PP 28.6%, OAP/OAP 44.4%; NNT = 6; P = 0.080). Using a modified definition of TF excluding treatment supplementation with another antipsychotic, a common approach to managing dose adjustments, significant differences were observed between treatment groups in Part III (PP/PP 4.1%, OAP/PP 14.0%, OAP/OAP 27.0%; P = 0.002) and EDP (PP/PP 14.3%, OAP/OAP 42.9%; P = 0.001). Safety results were consistent with the known safety profile of PP. Although significant treatment differences were not observed during the first 9 months of DREaM, numerical differences favoring PP emerged in the last 9 months and significant differences were observed when TF criteria were limited to their most impactful components. These results highlight the potential benefit of initiating PP early in the course of schizophrenia and provide valuable insights for future clinical trials in recent-onset schizophrenia or schizophreniform disorder. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02431702.

Objective To use the Clinical Global Impression‐Severity (CGI‐S) scale to estimate clinically meaningful and clinically substantial changes as measured using the Montgomery‐Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and the Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 (PHQ‐9) in patients with treatment‐resistant depression (TRD). Methods Pooled data were derived from two 4‐week, randomized, active‐controlled studies evaluating esketamine nasal spray (ESK) plus oral antidepressant (OAD) or OAD plus placebo nasal spray (PBO) in adults with TRD (N = 565). CGI‐S, MADRS, SDS, and PHQ‐9 scores were obtained at baseline and over 4 weeks of treatment. In this post hoc analysis, change scores on the MADRS, SDS, and PHQ‐9 that corresponded to a clinically meaningful (1‐point) or clinically substantial (2‐point) change on the CGI‐S scale were identified. Results Clinically meaningful changes in CGI‐S scores after 28 days corresponded to 6‐, 4‐, and 3‐point changes from baseline on the MADRS, SDS, and PHQ‐9, respectively. Similarly, a 2‐point CGI‐S score change (clinically substantial change) corresponded to a 12‐, 8‐, and 6‐point change on the MADRS, SDS, and PHQ‐9, respectively. The proportion of patients showing substantial clinical improvement in the ESK plus OAD group versus the OAD plus PBO group after 28 days of treatment favored ESK plus OAD: 69.0% vs 55.3% (MADRS), 64.5% vs 48.9% (SDS), and 77.1% vs 64.7% (PHQ‐9). Conclusion We provide a basis for identifying clinically meaningful and clinically substantial changes as assessed with commonly used outcome measures for depression to facilitate the translation of clinical trial results into clinical practice.

Long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic formulations are increasingly used for improving patient compliance and long-term outcomes. Transitioning to LAIs raises questions regarding how optimum efficacy can be rapidly achieved while minimizing potential efficacy and safety concerns related to overlapping plasma levels of prior treatments and the new LAI. Ideally, randomized clinical trials would provide guidance regarding transition algorithms, but the number of studies and sample size required to address relevant questions makes this approach unachievable. We have used quantitative systems pharmacology, a clinically calibrated, mechanism-based computer model for schizophrenia to identify optimal switching scenarios to injectable paliperidone palmitate once-monthly (PP1M) from oral antipsychotics. We show that starting PP1M 1day after the last oral medication dose or 4weeks after the last LAI injection provides optimal benefit-risk compared to a delayed PP1M start after 1week with either a 1- or 2-week overlap with oral paliperidone. Although a similar or better therapeutic effect can be achieved within 2weeks for oral medications and LAI haloperidol decanoate and 8weeks for LAI aripiprazole, we identified a potential transient undertreatment liability in all cases except for risperidone. Switching from oral olanzapine may lead to a small reduction of antipsychotic efficacy in some patients. Switching to PP1M decreases extrapyramidal symptom liability in most cases, but increased dopamine D2 receptor inhibition (except for haloperidol) might potentially increase prolactin synthesis. Overall, these results suggest time-windows for which the treating clinician must be most vigilant for potential efficacy and safety signals when switching to PP1M.

Data from a multiphase schizoaffective disorder study (NCT01193153) were used to examine the effects of paliperidone palmitate once-monthly (PP1M) by subjects' illness duration, defined as recent onset (≤5 years since first psychiatric diagnosis; n = 206) and chronic illness (>5 years; n = 461). Symptom and functioning scores, as measured during open-label PP1M acute and stabilization treatment phases, improved in both subpopulations, with greater improvements in recent onset than chronic illness subjects (p ≤ 0.022). Relapse rates, examined during the double-blind, placebo-controlled phase, were higher with placebo than PP1M: 30.0% vs. 10.2% (p = 0.014; hazard ratio [HR]: 2.8; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.11–7.12; p = 0.029) in the recent onset subpopulation and 35.5% vs. 18.1% (p = 0.001; HR: 2.38; 95% CI: 1.37–4.12; p = 0.002) in the chronic illness subpopulation. Growing evidence in the treatment of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder supports early intervention with long-acting antipsychotics.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., Objective Clinical response to the atypical antipsychotic paliperidone is known to vary among schizophrenic patients. We carried out a genome-wide association study to identify common genetic variants predictive of paliperidone efficacy. Methods We leveraged a collection of 1390 samples from individuals of European ancestry enrolled in 12 clinical studies investigating the efficacy of the extended-release tablet paliperidone ER (n1=490) and the once-monthly injection paliperidone palmitate (n2=550 and n3=350). We carried out a genome-wide association study using a general linear model (GLM) analysis on three separate cohorts, followed by meta-analysis and using a mixed linear model analysis on all samples. The variations in response explained by each single nucleotide polymorphism (h2SNP) were estimated. Results No SNP passed genome-wide significance in the GLM-based analyses with suggestive signals from rs56240334 [P=7.97×10−8 for change in the Clinical Global Impression Scale-Severity (CGI-S); P=8.72×10−7 for change in the total Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS)] in the intron of ADCK1. The mixed linear model-based association P-values for rs56240334 were consistent with the results from GLM-based analyses and the association with change in CGI-S (P=4.26×10−8) reached genome-wide significance (i.e. P

Objectives: To assess characteristics and healthcare costs associated with pharmacologically-treated episodes of treatment-resistant depression (TRD) in patients with major depressive disor...

The purpose of this study was to conduct a post-hoc benefit-risk assessment of paliperidone palmitate once-monthly (PP1M) injectable versus oral paliperidone extended-release (ER) in schizophrenia maintenance treatment. The Benefit-Risk Action Team framework was used to structure the analysis based on patient-level data from two similar, double-blind, placebo-controlled relapse studies. Efficacy outcomes were relapse, psychiatric hospitalization, Clinical Global Impression-Severity scale, Personal and Social Performance (PSP) scale, and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). Safety outcomes were extrapyramidal symptom-related adverse events, weight gain, prolactin-related adverse events, somnolence, orthostatic hypotension, anticholinergic use, fasting plasma glucose, and total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein. For the first 8 weeks of maintenance treatment, most efficacy outcomes significantly favored PP1M compared with paliperidone ER. Per 1000 patients, there would be 165, 115, 85, and 53 fewer cases of PSP worsening, relapse, PANSS worsening, and hospitalizations, respectively. For the first 40 weeks, PSP worsening significantly favored PP1M (140 fewer cases). Relapse, PANSS, hospitalizations, and Clinical Global Impression-Severity scale showed a consistent pattern favoring PP1M but were not significant. Safety outcomes for both 8-week and 40-week periods demonstrated no statistically significant differences between groups. These analyses suggest a benefit-risk profile favoring PP1M over oral paliperidone ER throughout 40 weeks of treatment, particularly in early treatment.

Background Patients with schizoaffective disorder (SCA) experience complicated interplays of psychotic, depressive, and manic symptoms. Paliperidone extended-release (pali ER) tablets have been shown to be efficacious in these patients, but treatment response has not been studied relative to the onset of effects for these symptom domains. Methods In a pooled analysis of data from two 6-week, randomized, placebo-controlled studies, the onset of treatment effects with oral pali ER was evaluated by symptom domain (psychosis, depression, mania) in patients with an acute SCA exacerbation. Subjects were categorized as having prominent psychotic (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale score >70), depressive (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression–21 score ≥16), or manic (Young Mania Rating Scale score ≥16) symptoms at baseline. Results Of the 614 patients in these analyses, 597 (97.2%), 411 (66.9%), and 488 (79.5%) had prominent psychotic, depressive, and manic symptoms at baseline, respectively. Pali ER treatment was associated with rapid and significant improvement of all three symptom domains versus placebo within 1 week of initiation, regardless of whether treatment was given as monotherapy or in combination with mood stabilizers and/or antidepressants. Adverse events were similar to those reported in the original published studies. Limitations This post hoc analysis of two phase 3 trials requires confirmation in prospective studies. Conclusion This pooled analysis suggests that treatment with pali ER is associated with rapid control of psychotic, depressive, and manic symptoms in patients with SCA. Its findings support the benefit of pali ER as a primary treatment for the management of SCA.

Background Persons with schizophrenia often come in contact with the criminal justice system (CJS). This analysis of subjects with schizophrenia and a history of contact with the CJS estimated and compared mean cumulative function (MCF) of treatment failure events when treated with paliperidone palmitate (PP) or oral antipsychotics (OAs). All events identified during the full study period of the Paliperidone Palmitate Research in Demonstrating Effectiveness (PRIDE) trial were evaluated. Methods Subjects were randomly assigned to flexibly dosed, monthly, injectable PP (78–234 mg) or daily OA in a 15-month prospective, open-label, multicenter US study (May 5, 2010–December 9, 2013). Subjects could continue participation after a treatment failure event. Multiple treatment failures in individual subjects were analyzed as recurrent events. Analyses estimated MCF of treatment failure events and MCF of institutionalizations (arrests, incarcerations, or psychiatric hospitalizations) during the 15-month study period. Results The ITT population included 226 (PP) and 218 (OA) subjects, of whom 41.2% and 40.4%, respectively, completed 15 months of follow-up. The MCF of treatment failures and institutionalizations differed significantly in favor of PP compared with OA (P = 0.007 and P = 0.005, respectively). Overall, TEAEs were reported by 86.3% of subjects in the PP group and 81.7% in the OA group. Conclusions This pragmatic analysis suggests that, compared with OA, PP is not only more effective in delaying median time to treatment failure, but it also reduces the number of treatment failures and institutionalizations per person-year follow-up. Clinical trials registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01157351

The psychometric properties of the Suicide Ideation and Behavior Assessment Tool (SIBAT) were evaluated in 130 participants with varying levels of suicidality. Inter- and intra-rater reliability were assessed for clinician-rated outcomes, including the revised Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) of severity of suicidality (CGI-SS-r). Concurrent validity of patient-reported modules with Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression scale and Sheehan-Suicidality Tracking Scale Clinically Meaningful Change Measure (S-STS CMCM), and concordance between Columbia Classification Algorithm of Suicide Assessment (C-CASA) mappings for SIBAT, S-STS CMCM and Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) were assessed. 52/130 participants (mean [SD] age: 38.3 [17.77] years) consented for multiple interviews (C-CASA mappings: n=52; rater-reliability: n=25/52). SIBAT demonstrated good intra-rater reliability (weighted-kappa range:0.64-0.76; CGI-SS-r, 0.75) and adequate inter-rater reliability (ICC range:0.68-0.82; CGI-SS-r, 0.81). There were strong correlations between PROMIS depression scores and SIBAT Module 5 ratings (Spearman correlations, r=0.64-0.74) and moderate correlations (r=0.29-0.72) between S-STS CMCM and SIBAT Modules 2, 3 and 5 ratings. Moderate agreement was noted between SIBAT C-CASA mappings and corresponding mappings from S-STS CMCM (weighted kappa: 0.54) and C-SSRS (weighted kappa: 0.56). Thus, the SIBAT provided valid assessment of suicidal ideation and behavior that could be reliably rated and adequately mapped to the C-CASA.

Once-monthly and once-every-3-months long-acting injectable (LAI) formulations of paliperidone palmitate (PP1M and PP3M, respectively) are available for the treatment of patients with schizophrenia. However, information on the comparative effectiveness and costs of using these LAIs versus oral antipsychotics (OAs) is not available. The population effectiveness of using these treatments is also not known.To project the effect of using PP1M and PP3M LAIs on psychiatric (Psych) and all-cause (AC) hospitalization rates over 18 months in patients with schizophrenia receiving Medicaid and treated with OAs.A decision model, informed by data from 3 randomized controlled trials (PRIDE [NCT01157351], 3001 [NCT00111189], and 3012 [NCT01529515]), was developed to compare 3 strategies: (a) initiating OA and switching only to OA; (b) initiating with PP1M and continuing PP1M if the patient was stable at 6 months (or switching to OA if unstable; PP1M→PP1M); and (c) initiating with PP1M and switching to PP3M if the patient was stable at 6 months (or switching to OA if unstable; PP1M→PP3M). PRIDE data were used to inform the first 6-month outcomes; 3001 and 3012 data were used to inform outcomes in stable patients over the following 12 months. The primary outcome for this decision model study was Psych hospitalizations. AC hospitalizations and time to discontinuation were also assessed. Outcomes from each arm and time portions within an arm were reweighted to reflect the distribution of patient characteristics found in the real-world Medicaid sample with PRIDE trial inclusion/exclusion criteria applied. Several validation exercises were carried out to ensure that the reweighted results could reproduce observed outcomes in the Medicaid sample.Our final target real-world sample size was N=4,609. We found that in the Medicaid sample, compared with initiating treatments with OA, the PP1M→PP1M strategy was projected to produce a per patient decrease of 0.27 (95% CI = -0.43-0.97) and 0.28 (95% CI = -0.28-0.84) in Psych- and AC-related hospitalizations, respectively. Similarly, the PP1M→PP3M strategy was projected to produce a per patient decrease of 0.31 (95% CI = -0.27-0.87) in both Psych- and AC-related hospitalizations over OA. Validation exercises ensured that the reweighting methodology used could replicate observed outcomes in the Medicaid sample. These incremental reductions in hospitalization rates are worth about $3.4-$3.8 billion over an 18-month period in patients with schizophrenia receiving Medicaid.Our results suggest that using PP1M and PP3M treatment strategies for patients with schizophrenia receiving Medicaid could result in reduced hospitalizations. This finding, along with improvement to patients' health, should be considered when assessing the value of these LAIs.This study was supported by Janssen Scientific Affairs and by unrestricted funds from a consortium of 12 biomedical life sciences companies to the University of Washington. Janssen Scientific Affairs was responsible for the design and conduct of the study; the collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of data; the preparation, review, and approval of the manuscript; and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Basu received financial support from Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and his time on this project was also partly covered through unrestricted gift funds from the consortium of biomedical life sciences companies. Benson and Alphs are employees of Janssen Scientific Affairs and are stockholders of JohnsonJohnson. Opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the University of Washington. This study was presented as a poster at the AMCP Managed CareSpecialty Pharmacy 2017 Annual Meeting; March 27-30, 2017; Denver, CO.

Trial design characteristics related to the explanatory : pragmatic spectrum may contribute toward the inconsistent results reported in studies comparing long-acting injectable (LAI) versus daily oral antipsychotic (AP) treatments in schizophrenia. A novel approach examined the hypothesis that a more pragmatic design is important to show the advantages of LAI versus oral APs. A literature search identified comparative studies assessing the clinical efficacy/effectiveness of LAI versus oral APs in more than 100 schizophrenia patients, with 6-month or more duration/follow-up, and published between January 1993 and December 2013 (n=11). Each study’s design was rated using the six-domain ASPECT-R (A Study Pragmatic : Explanatory Characterization Tool-Rating). Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum tests compared ratings of studies supporting (n=7) and not supporting (n=4) a LAI advantage. ASPECT-R total and domain scores were significantly higher (more pragmatic) in studies finding a LAI versus oral AP treatment advantage than those that did not. The rank order of this significance among domains was as follows: ‘participant compliance assessment’ (P=0.005), ‘medical practice setting/practitioner expertise’ (P=0.006), ‘intervention flexibility’ (P=0.007), ‘follow-up intensity/duration’ (P=0.009), ‘primary trial outcomes’ (P=0.012), and ‘participant eligibility’ (P=0.015). Findings support that more pragmatic, less explanatory design features are important to show advantages for LAI treatment. Explanatory studies may introduce features that obscure advantages related to adherence.

The objective of this study was to quantify patients' preferences related to benefits and risks of antipsychotic treatments for schizophrenia and to assess the relative importance of treatment attributes and adherence.Treatment-related preferences among U.S. residents with a self-reported physician diagnosis of schizophrenia were assessed via a discrete-choice experiment. Patients chose between competing hypothetical scenarios characterized by improvements in positive symptoms, negative symptoms, and social functioning; incidence of weight gain, extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), hyperprolactinemia, and hyperglycemia; and medication formulation. Preferences were estimated by using a random-parameters logit model, and the impact of adherence was estimated with conditional logit models.The final sample consisted of 271 patients. Complete improvement in positive symptoms was the most preferred outcome (relative importance score of 10.0), followed by elimination of hyperglycemia (3.6, 95% confidence interval [CI]=2.6-4.6), improvement in negative symptoms (3.0, CI=1.6-4.3), reduced weight gain (2.6, CI=1.2-4.0), avoidance of hyperprolactinemia (1.7, CI=.9-2.6), improved social functioning (1.5, CI=.4-2.5), and avoidance of EPS (1.0, CI=.3-1.8). Patients judged a daily pill superior to monthly injections (p.01) and monthly injections superior to injections every three months (p.01) for adherent patients and monthly injections superior to a daily pill for nonadherent patients (p=.01).Persons who self-identified as having schizophrenia judged improvement in positive symptoms as the most important treatment benefit. Hyperglycemia was identified as the most important adverse event. Patients judged oral formulations to be better than monthly injections for adherent patients and monthly injections to be a better choice for nonadherent patients.

OBJECTIVE The Paliperidone Palmitate Research in Demonstrating Effectiveness (PRIDE) study compared the effects of once-monthly paliperidone palmitate with daily oral antipsychotics on treatment failure in adults with schizophrenia. METHOD The PRIDE study is a 15-month, randomized, multicenter study (May 5, 2010, to December 9, 2013) of adult subjects with a DSM-IV diagnosis of schizophrenia and a history of incarceration. Subjects were randomly assigned to once-monthly paliperidone palmitate injections or daily oral antipsychotics (randomly assigned from 7 acceptable, prespecified oral antipsychotics) for 15 months. The primary end point was time to first treatment failure, defined as arrest/incarceration; psychiatric hospitalization; suicide; treatment discontinuation or supplementation due to inadequate efficacy, safety, or tolerability; or increased psychiatric services to prevent hospitalization. Time to first treatment failure was determined by a blinded event-monitoring board and analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS In this study, 450 patients were randomly assigned, and 444 were included in the intent-to-treat population. Paliperidone palmitate was associated with significant delay in time to first treatment failure versus oral antipsychotics (hazard ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.09-1.88; log rank P = .011). Observed treatment failure rates over 15 months were 39.8% and 53.7%, respectively. Arrest/incarceration and psychiatric hospitalization were the most common reasons for treatment failure in the paliperidone palmitate and oral antipsychotic groups (21.2% vs 29.4% and 8.0% vs 11.9%, respectively). The 5 most common treatment-emergent adverse events for the paliperidone palmitate treatment group were injection site pain (18.6% of subjects), insomnia (16.8%), weight increased (11.9%), akathisia (11.1%), and anxiety (10.6%). CONCLUSIONS In a trial designed to reflect real-world management of schizophrenia, once-monthly paliperidone palmitate demonstrated superiority compared to oral antipsychotics in delaying time to treatment failure. TRIAL REGISTRATION Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01157351.

Objective To characterize patterns of communication in the offer of long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic medication made by psychiatrists to patients with schizophrenia by (1) examining the style and content of their interaction and (2) determining how these may have driven the ultimate response to recommendations for LAI therapy. Method This was an observational study conducted at 10 community mental health centers in 3 waves from July 2010 to May 2011. The final dataset for discourse analysis was 33 recorded conversations in which a psychiatrist offered an injectable antipsychotic to a patient with schizophrenia. These visits were transcribed and analyzed by a team of linguists and social scientists. Results Our primary finding is that, based on analyses of their language during the interview, psychiatrists presented LAI therapy in a negative light. Supporting this, 11 of 33 recommendations (33%) were accepted during the discussion, whereas in the postvisit interview, 27 of 28 patients (96%) who seemed to decline the initial recommendation said they actually would be willing to try LAI treatment. Conclusions These data support a preliminary hypothesis that the relatively low use of injectable antipsychotic therapies in the United States relative to other parts of the world is not fully attributable to patient rejection of the injectable modality. Rather, psychiatrists' ambivalence regarding the value of LAIs may play a significant role in the perceived difficulty with patient acceptance of this recommendation.

Purpose To evaluate injection site reactions and pain following paliperidone palmitate 1-month (PP1M) and 3-month (PP3M) administration using safety data of double-blind (DB), noninferiority study. Methods Patients (n = 1,429) with schizophrenia, treated with PP1M (50-150 mg-eq, 17-week open-label [OL] phase) were randomized to PP1M or PP3M in 48-week DB phase. Findings PP1M and PP3M injections were well tolerated. Incidence of induration, redness, and swelling were low in both phases (OL: 9-12%; DB: 7-13%), and were mostly mild in both groups. Mean (SD) visual analog scale scores decreased from OL-baseline (22.0 [21.6]) to DB-baseline (19.5 [20.6] vs. 18.4 [20.4]) and DB-endpoint (15.6 [17.9] vs. 15.5 [18.3]). Practice implications Injection site reactions and pain were low and similar between both treatments, regardless of administration site and dose.

Disease modification is a primary therapeutic aim when developing treatments for most chronic progressive diseases. The best treatments do not simply affect disease symptoms but fundamentally improve disease course by slowing, halting, or reversing disease progression. One of many challenges for establishing disease modification relates to the identification of adequate analytic tools to show differences in a disease course following intervention. Traditional approaches rely on the comparisons of slopes or noninferiority margins. However, it has proven difficult to conclusively demonstrate disease modification using such approaches. To address these challenges, we propose a novel adaptation of the delayed start study design that incorporates posterior probabilities identified by hierarchical Bayesian inference approaches to establish evidence for disease modification. Our models compare the size of treatment differences at the end of the delayed start period with those at the end of the early start period. Simulations that compare several models are provided. These include general linear models, repeated measures models, spline models, and model averaging. Our work supports the superiority of model averaging for accurately characterizing complex data that arise in real world applications. This novel approach has been applied to the design of an ongoing, doubly randomized, matched control study that aims to show disease modification in young persons with schizophrenia (the Disease Recovery Evaluation and Modification (DREaM) study). The application of this Bayesian methodology to the DREaM study highlights the value of this approach and demonstrates many practical challenges that must be addressed when implementing this methodology in a real world trial.

Introduction Comorbid substance abuse is known to blunt response to treatment for underlying psychiatric disorders, but it has not been investigated in schizophrenia when comparing the effects of long-acting injectable antipsychotics with those of oral antipsychotics. Methods This exploratory analysis compared once-monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP1M) with daily oral antipsychotics on time to treatment failure in patients with schizophrenia and a history of incarceration. Subjects were stratified into substance abuse (reported substance or alcohol misuse in the past 30 days on the baseline Addiction Severity Index–Lite Version and/or met criteria for a current MINI diagnosis of a substance abuse disorder) and nonabuse cohorts. Results In the substance abuse cohort, treatment failure was observed in 56.2% (73/130) and 64.2% (86/134) of subjects in the PP1M and oral antipsychotic groups, respectively. For the nonabuse cohort, treatment failure was observed in 36.5% (35/96) and 53.6% (45/84) of subjects in the PP1M and oral antipsychotic groups, respectively. Median (95% confidence interval [CI]) time to first treatment failure was 291 (179–428) days and 186 (94–296) days in the PP1M and oral antipsychotic groups, respectively. Median (95% CI) time to first treatment failure was > 450 and 284 (147 to > 450) days in the respective treatment groups. Conclusion Greater treatment effects were evident with PP1M compared with oral antipsychotics in both cohorts. The observed beneficial effect of PP1M was attenuated in the substance-abuse cohort, further reinforcing both the need for and value of continued research to optimize patient care in these complex patient populations.

OBJECTIVE Schizoaffective disorder is a complex illness for which optimal treatment is not well established. Results of the first controlled, relapse-prevention study of paliperidone palmitate once-monthly injectable (paliperidone monthly) in schizoaffective disorder are presented. METHOD The study was conducted between September 20, 2010, and October 22, 2013. Patients with schizoaffective disorder (confirmed by the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders) experiencing acute exacerbation of psychotic and depressive/manic symptoms were stabilized with paliperidone monthly as monotherapy or as adjunctive therapy to mood stabilizers or antidepressants and randomly assigned (1:1) to paliperidone monthly or placebo in a 15-month, double-blind, relapse-prevention phase. Randomization was stratified by administration as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy and by study center. The primary endpoint was time to relapse. RESULTS 334 patients were evaluated. Paliperidone monthly significantly delayed time to relapse for psychotic, depressive, and manic symptoms compared with placebo (P < .001, log-rank test). Relapse risk was 2.49 times greater for placebo (hazard ratio = 2.49; 95% CI, 1.55 to 3.99; P < .001, Cox proportional hazards model). Overall relapse rates were 33.5% for placebo and 15.2% for paliperidone monthly. For monotherapy, relapse risk was 3.38 times greater with placebo (P = .002), and for adjunctive treatment it was 2.03 times greater with placebo (P = .021). Paliperidone monthly was superior to placebo in maintaining functioning as measured by the Personal and Social Performance scale (P = .014, mixed-model repeated-measures analysis). The most common adverse events (placebo, paliperidone monthly) were increased weight (4.7%, 8.5%), insomnia (7.1%, 4.9%), schizoaffective disorder (5.9%, 3.0%), headache (3.5%, 5.5%), and nasopharyngitis (3.5%, 5.5%). Incidence of any extrapyramidal-related adverse event was 7.1% for placebo and 8.5% for paliperidone monthly. CONCLUSIONS Paliperidone monthly as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy significantly delayed psychotic, depressive, and/or manic relapses; reduced their risk; and better maintained functioning in patients with schizoaffective disorder. Results support the value of maintenance treatment with paliperidone monthly in schizoaffective disorder. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01193153.

The objectives were to quantify psychiatrists' judgments of the benefits and risks of antipsychotic treatments of patients with schizophrenia and to evaluate how patient adherence history affects these judgments.Weights assigned by respondents to risks, benefits, and alternative drug formulations in the treatment of schizophrenia were assessed via a Web-based survey by using a discrete-choice experiment. Respondents in the United States and the United Kingdom chose among alternative scenarios characterized by various levels of improvement in positive symptoms, negative symptoms, social functioning, weight gain, extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), hyperprolactinemia, and hyperglycemia and by formulation. The effect of patient adherence history on respondents' judgments was also assessed. Random-parameters logit and bivariate probit models were estimated.The sample included 394 psychiatrists. Improvement in positive symptoms from "no improvement" to "very much improved" was the most preferred outcome over the range of improvements included and was assigned a relative importance score of 10. Other outcomes, in decreasing order of importance, were improvement in negative symptoms from "no improvement" to "very much improved" (5.2; 95% confidence interval [CI]=4.2-6.2), social functioning from "severe problems" to "mild problems" (4.6, CI=3.8-5.4), no hyperglycemia (1.9, CI=1.5-2.4),15% weight gain (1.5, CI=.9-2.0), no hyperprolactinemia (1.3, CI=.8-1.6), and no EPS (1.1, CI=.7-1.5). As adherence decreased, formulation became more important than modest efficacy changes and injections were preferred to daily pills (p.05).Psychiatrists favored treatments that primarily improve positive symptoms. Choice of formulation became more important as likely adherence declined.

Patients with schizophrenia often suffer from comorbid hepatic disease. This multicenter, open-label, single-arm, crossover study evaluated the safety and efficacy of paliperidone extended-release (ER) in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and hepatic disease.The study comprised a screening period, followed by 9 weeks' open-label treatment, divided into 2 phases. Phase 1 (4 weeks) was a continuation of usual antipsychotic treatment (UAT); phase 2 (5 weeks) consisted of a 1-week cross-titration from UAT to flexibly dosed paliperidone ER (3-12 mg/d), followed by 4 weeks of paliperidone ER alone. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), including those considered more relevant to antipsychotic treatment (prespecified adverse events [AEs]), were analyzed.Although more subjects reported TEAEs during the paliperidone ER alone period than during the UAT period, no significant differences occurred in prespecified AE rates. No new safety signals were detected, and minimal shifts in liver function test values were observed. Improvements in psychiatric symptoms and functioning were observed after 4 weeks' paliperidone ER treatment.This study suggests that paliperidone ER is well tolerated in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and hepatic disease. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest prospective study to date in this population.

Background Hospital-discharged patients with schizoaffective disorder have a high risk of re-hospitalization. However, limited data exist evaluating critical post-discharge periods during which the risk of re-hospitalization is significant. Objective Among hospital-discharged patients with schizoaffective disorder, we assessed pharmacotherapy adherence and healthcare utilization and costs during sequential 60-day clinical periods before schizoaffective disorder-related hospitalization and post-hospital discharge. Methods From the MarketScan® Medicaid database (2004–2008), we identified patients (≥18 years) with a schizoaffective disorder-related inpatient admission. Study measures including medication adherence and healthcare utilization and costs were assessed during sequential preadmission and post-discharge periods. We conducted univariate and multivariable regression analyses to compare schizoaffective disorder-related and all-cause healthcare utilization and costs (in 2010 US dollars) between each adjacent 60-day post-discharge periods. No adjustment was made for multiplicity. Results We identified 1,193 hospital-discharged patients with a mean age of 41 years. The mean medication adherence rate was 46 % during the 60-day period prior to index inpatient admission, which improved to 80 % during the 60-day post-discharge period. Following hospital discharge, schizoaffective disorder-related healthcare costs were significantly greater during the initial 60-day period compared with the 61- to 120-day post-discharge period (mean US$2,370 vs US$1,765; p

BackgroundMany patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) fail to respond to antidepressant (AD) pharmacotherapy. The objectives of this study were to characterize MDD and treatment-resistant depression (TRD) at the level of pharmacologically treated episodes and to describe the sequential treatment patterns by lines of therapy (LOT) in the first two episodes.MethodsAdults (≥18 years of age) with continuous enrollment ≥12 months before and after the first MDD diagnosis and treated with an AD, with or without an MDD-indicated antipsychotic (AP), were identified (1/1/2010-12/31/2015). The MDD episode started on the date of MDD diagnosis that was preceded by a clean period without any MDD diagnosis. The MDD episode ended on the last MDD diagnosis or the end of the days' supply of AD/AP medication, whichever came last. TRD was defined as an MDD episode with ≥3 AD/AP regimens. Measured outcomes included episode duration, number of LOT, relapse hospitalization, and sequential treatment patterns of MDD episode stratified by TRD and non-TRD episodes.ResultsOf 48,440 patients who received AD/AP in the 1st MDD episode, 3,317 (6.8%) of episodes were considered TRD. Mean duration of 1st TRD episodes was 571 days, mean number of AD/AP LOTs was 3.47, and 13.7% involved relapse hospitalization. Mean duration of 1st non-TRD episodes was 200 days, mean number of AD/AP LOTs was 1.21, and 9.6% involved relapse hospitalization. Among 1st MDD episodes, 25.5% had a second LOT; 7.3% had a third LOT. Most patients received selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) as the first LOT (63.0%), and the plurality of regimens were SSRIs in second (44.9%) and third LOT (41.1%).ConclusionsCompared to non-TRD episodes, TRD episodes were longer and more often involved relapse hospitalizations. SSRIs were the most common treatment; treatment changes and potential treatment unresponsiveness were frequent among MDD patients.

Introduction Cognitive impairment in schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder is a major determinant of disability. This study explored the relationships among cognitive functioning, clinical symptoms, overall functionality, and demographic characteristics. Methods This was a post hoc analysis of a 52-week, prospective, randomized, double-blind study (N = 323) comparing 2 doses of risperidone long-acting injectable (RLAI) in stable subjects with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Cognitive evaluations were performed and standardized using a healthy age- and sex-matched comparison group. Simple and multiple regression models were used to identify relationships among neurocognitive composite scores (NCS), clinical symptom end points (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale [PANSS] total and factor scores), overall functionality (Personal and Social Performance [PSP] score), and demographics. Results A simple regression model identified significant relationships between the NCS at end point and PANSS total score, PANSS disorganized thoughts factor score, functioning (PSP) and age. A 1-point decrease on PANSS total score and PANSS disorganized thoughts factor score corresponded to an increase in NCS of 0.126-point, and 0.81-point increases, respectively. A 1-point increase on the PSP corresponded to a 0.186-point increase in the NCS T-score. Among the demographic variables, only age correlated significantly with cognition (10-year increase in age corresponded to 1.1-point decrease in NCS T-score) in a multiple regression model. Conclusion Improved cognition was associated with beneficial changes in functional status and clinical symptoms (particularly disorganization symptoms) in subjects with schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder. Older subjects showed less overall cognitive improvement. Improved cognitive and functional outcome is correlated with symptom improvements in RLAI-treated patients with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE To develop consensus recommendations for assessment of suicidal ideation/suicidal behavior (SI/SB) in clinical trials. PARTICIPANTS Stakeholders from academia, industry, regulatory agencies, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Mental Health, and patient advocacy organizations participated in a consensus meeting that was sponsored by the International Society for CNS Clinical Trials and Methodology and held November 17-18, 2015. Prior to the meeting, teams of experts identified key areas of consensus and dissent related to SI/SB. The most critical issues were presented and discussed in the consensus meeting. EVIDENCE Literature reviews and a pre-meeting survey were conducted. Findings were discussed in pre-meeting working group sessions and at the consensus meeting. CONSENSUS PROCESS Five pre-meeting working groups reviewed (1) nomenclature and classification schemes for SI/SB, (2) detection and assessment of SI/SB, (3) analysis of SI/SB data, (4) design of clinical trials for new treatments of SI/SB, and (5) public health approaches to SI/SB. A modification of the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to combine review of scientific evidence with the collective views of experts and stakeholders to reach the final consensus statements. After discussion, all attendees voted using an electronic interactive audience response system. Areas of agreement and areas of continuing dissent were recorded. CONCLUSIONS All 5 working groups agreed that a major barrier to advancement of the field of SI/SB research and the development of new treatments for SI/SB remains the lack of a universally accepted standardized nomenclature and classification system. Achieving alignment on definitions and classification of suicide-related phenomena is critical to improving the detection and assessment of SI/SB, the design of clinical trials for new treatments, and effective public health interventions.

Objective Evaluate the effect of paliperidone palmitate once-monthly (PP1M) injectable on the specific functioning domains of the Personal and Social Performance (PSP) scale in patients with schizoaffective disorder (SCA) participating in a long-term study. Methods This study ( NCT01193153 ) included both in- and outpatient subjects with SCA experiencing an acute exacerbation of psychotic and mood symptoms. Subjects were treated with PP1M either as monotherapy or in combination with antidepressants or mood stabilizers during a 25-week open-label (OL) phase. Stabilized subjects were randomly assigned 1:1 (PP1M or placebo) into a 15-month double-blind (DB) relapse-prevention period. Functioning of the randomized subjects during OL and DB phases was evaluated using the PSP scale (four domains: socially useful activities, personal/social relationships, self-care, and disturbing/aggressive behaviors). Three statistical approaches were utilized to analyze PSP scores to assess robustness and consistency of findings. No adjustments were made for multiplicity. Results 334 of 667 enrolled subjects were stabilized with PP1M, randomly assigned to PP1M ( n = 164) or placebo ( n = 170) in the DB phase, and included in this analysis. Improvements in all PSP domain scores were observed during the OL phase and were maintained during the DB phase with PP1M, but decreased with placebo. Differences compared to placebo were significant in all four PSP domains during the DB phase ( P ≤ 0.008). Conclusion The analysis in this study showed that PP1M improves functioning, as measured by the four PSP domain scores, in symptomatic subjects with SCA. Functioning was maintained compared with placebo.

ObjectiveThis analysis of the Paliperidone Palmitate Research in Demonstrating Effectiveness (PRIDE) study (NCT01157351) compared outcomes after administration of once-monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP) vs conventional oral antipsychotics (COAs) or atypical oral antipsychotics (AOAs).MethodsPRIDE was a 15-month study of 444 individuals with schizophrenia and a history of incarceration. They were randomly assigned to PP or to 1 of 7 commonly prescribed OAs. Primary endpoint was time to first treatment failure (TF). Event-free probabilities were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method; treatment group differences (PP vs COAs, PP vs AOAs, and PP vs oral paliperidone/risperidone) were assessed using a log-rank test. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression models. No adjustment was made for multiplicity.ResultsCompared with PP, risk for first TF was 34% higher with COAs (HR: 1.34; 95% CI: 0.80–2.25), 41% higher with AOAs (HR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.06–1.88), and 39% higher with paliperidone/risperidone (HR: 1.39; 95% CI: 0.97–1.99). Incidences of extrapyramidal symptom–related adverse events (AEs) were 45.7%, 13.7%, and 10.6% in the COA, AOA, and oral paliperidone/risperidone groups vs 23.9% in the PP group. Incidences of prolactin-related AEs were 5.7%, 3.8%, and 3.5% vs 23.5%, and incidences of ≥7% weight increase were 11.4%, 14.9%, and 16.0% vs 32.4%.ConclusionsResults suggest a lower risk of TF but a higher rate of some AEs after treatment with PP vs COAs, AOAs, and paliperidone/risperidone. Deselection of specific OAs and low patient-compliance rates with OAs likely biased the safety results.

Supplemental digital contents are available in the text., The optimal treatment for schizoaffective disorder (SCA) is not well established. In this initial 6-month open-label treatment period of a large, multiphase, relapse-prevention study, the efficacy and safety of paliperidone palmitate once-monthly (PP1M) injectable were evaluated in subjects with symptomatic SCA. Subjects with acute exacerbation of SCA (ie, with psychotic and either depressive and/or manic symptoms) were enrolled and treated with PP1M either as monotherapy or in combination with antidepressants or mood stabilizers (combination therapy group). After flexible-dose treatment with PP1M for 13 weeks, stabilized subjects continued into a 12-week fixed-dose PP1M treatment period. A total of 667 subjects were enrolled; 320 received monotherapy and 347 received PP1M as combination therapy; 334 subjects completed the entire 25-week treatment. Statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements from baseline were observed for all efficacy measures in psychosis (per Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale), mood symptoms (per Young Mania Rating Scale and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale—21 items), and functioning (per Personal and Social Performance Scale) from week 1 to all time points during the 25-week treatment period (P < 0.001). Similar improvements in efficacy measures were observed between subjects receiving monotherapy or combination therapy. Efficacy benefits persisted throughout the 25-week period. The most common adverse events were akathisia (11.1%), injection-site pain (10.6%), and insomnia (10.0%). Paliperidone palmitate once-monthly administered as monotherapy or in combination with mood stabilizers or antidepressants in patients with an acute exacerbation of SCA provided rapid, broad, and persistent reduction in psychotic, depressive, and manic symptoms, as well as improved functioning.

Schizoaffective disorder (SCA) is a complex mental illness characterized by psychosis and affective symptoms. Treatment usually involves concomitant therapy with antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, and/or antidepressants. Effective treatment must address acute symptoms, maintain long-term stability, promote recovery, and improve patient functioning.Data from 3 pivotal studies evaluating the acute and maintenance treatment of SCA with paliperidone are reviewed. Two formulations of paliperidone have been studied for these indications: an extended-release oral formulation (NCT00397033, NCT00412373) and long-acting injectable once-monthly paliperidone palmitate (NCT01193153). The reported effects of these formulations on psychotic, depressive, and manic symptoms are discussed.Both formulations were found to be safe and effective for the acute and maintenance treatment of SCA. Of critical importance for this treatment population is that rapid improvement was seen in all major symptoms of SCA, including psychosis, depression, and mania. Mediation analyses suggest that the known antipsychotic effects of paliperidone occur independently of its antidepressant effects. Both formulations of the drug are effective when used as monotherapy or adjunctively with antidepressants or mood stabilizers. Beyond symptom control, both formulations improved patient functioning and increased patient satisfaction.

The 16-item Negative Symptom Assessment scale (NSA-16) has been validated in English-speaking raters. We analyzed the level of agreement achieved among raters of different nationalities using the NSA-16 and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) negative subscale and Marder negative factor.Raters participating in two international trials were trained in the use of each instrument through lectures and feedback on their ratings of at least one videotaped interview of a schizophrenic patient. Overall and regional (North America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, South/Central America, and Australia and South Africa combined) kappa values were calculated and mean total scores were compared (1-way analysis of variance) by region for each instrument. In addition, within-scales variance was calculated by item to help identify negative symptoms that were particularly challenging to obtain agreement on across cultures.In the combined group of international raters, the kappa values for ratings of the NSA-16, PANSS negative subscale, and Marder negative factors were 0.89, 0.84, and 0.82, respectively. Kappa values calculated by geographic region ranged from 0.87 to 0.94 for the NSA-16 compared with 0.82 to 0.86 for the PANSS negative subscale and 0.79 to 0.87 for the PANSS Marder negative factor.Despite cultural and linguistic differences among raters, standardizing measurement of negative symptoms in international clinical trials is possible using available rating scales: NSA-16, PANSS negative subscale, and Marder negative subscale. Agreement among raters was at least as high using the NSA-16 as using the PANSS instruments.

Background Asenapine is approved in the United States for acute treatment of manic or mixed episodes of bipolar I disorder with or without psychotic features. We report the results of long-term treatment with asenapine in patients with bipolar I disorder. Methods Patients completing either of two 3-week efficacy trials and a subsequent 9-week double-blind extension were eligible for this 40-week double-blind extension. Patients in the 3-week trials were randomized to flexible-dose asenapine (5 or 10 mg BID), placebo, or olanzapine (5–20 mg QD; included for assay sensitivity only). Patients entering the extension phase maintained their preestablished treatment; those originally randomized to placebo received flexible-dose asenapine (placebo/asenapine). Safety and tolerability endpoints included adverse events (AEs), extrapyramidal symptoms, laboratory values, and anthropometric measures. Efficacy, a secondary assessment, was measured as change in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score from 3-week trial baseline to week 52 with asenapine or olanzapine; the placebo/asenapine group was assessed for safety only. Results Incidence of treatment-emergent AEs was 71.9%, 86.1%, and 79.4% with placebo/asenapine, asenapine, and olanzapine, respectively. The most frequent treatment-emergent AEs were headache and somnolence with placebo/asenapine; insomnia, sedation, and depression with asenapine; and weight gain, somnolence, and sedation with olanzapine. Among observed cases, mean ± SD changes in YMRS total score at week 52 were − 28.6 ± 8.1 and − 28.2 ± 6.8 for asenapine and olanzapine, respectively. Limitations The study did not have a long-term placebo group. Conclusions In this 52-week extension in patients with bipolar mania, asenapine was well tolerated and long-term maintenance of efficacy was supported.

OBJECTIVE: To address issues concerning potential treatment-emergent "suicidality," a consensus conference was convened March 23-24, 2009. PARTICIPANTS: This gathering of participants from academia, government, and industry brought together experts in suicide prevention, clinical trial design, psychometrics, pharmacoepidemiology, and genetics, as well as research psychiatrists involved in studies in studies of psychiatric disorders associated with elevated suicide risk across the life cycle. The process involved reviews of the relevant literature, and a series of 6 breakout sessions focused on specific questions of interest. EVIDENCE: Each of the participants at the meeting received references relevant to the formal presentations (as well as the slides for the presentations) for their review prior to the meeting. In addition, the assessment instruments of suicidal ideation/behavior were reviewed in relationship to standard measures of validity, reliability, and clinical utility, and these findings were discussed at length in relevant breakout groups, in the final plenary session, and in the preparation of the article. Consensus and dissenting views were noted. CONSENSUS PROCESS: Discussion and questions followed each formal presentation during the plenary sessions. Approximately 6 questions per breakout group were prepared in advance by members of the Steering Committee and each breakout group chair. Consensus in the breakout groups was achieved by nominal group process. Consensus recommendations and any dissent were reviewed for each breakout group at the final plenary session. All plenary sessions were recorded and transcribed by a court stenographer. Following the transcript, with input by each of the authors, the final paper went through 14 drafts. The output of the meeting was organized into this brief report and the accompanying full article from which it is distilled. The full article was developed by the authors with feedback from all participants at the meeting and represents a consensus view. Any areas of disagreement at the conference have been noted in the text. CONCLUSIONS: The term suicidality is not as clinically useful as more specific terminology (ideation, behavior, attempts, and suicide). Most participants applauded the FDA's encouragement of standard definitions and definable expectations for investigators and industry sponsors. Further research of available assessment instruments is needed to verify their utility, reliability, and validity in identifying suicide-associated treatment-emergent adverse effects and/or a signal of efficacy in suicide prevention trials. The FDA needs to systematically monitor postmarketing events by encouraging the development of a validated instrument for postmarketing surveillance of suicidal ideation, behavior, and risk. Over time, the FDA, industry, and clinical researchers should evaluate the impact of the requirement that all central nervous system clinical drug trials must include a Columbia Classification Algorithm of Suicide Assessment (C-CASA)-compatible screening instrument for assessing and documenting the occurrence of treatment-emergent suicidal ideation and behavior. Finally, patients at high risk for suicide can safely be included in clinical trials, if proper precautions are followed. Language: en

Patient-reported outcomes, including treatment satisfaction, are now recognized as important and valid measures in assessment of therapeutic interventions. This randomized, 6-week, prospective, blinded-initiation study evaluated medication satisfaction as a primary outcome measure in a schizophrenia trial. Participants with suboptimal response to oral risperidone were randomized to paliperidone extended release (ER) immediate or delayed (week 2) initiation. Primary endpoint was change in Medication Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ; ratings from 1=extremely dissatisfied to 7=extremely satisfied) score at endpoint (last observation carried forward) for the overall population (all randomized participants). In total, 201 participants were randomized to immediate (n=100) or delayed (n=101) initiation of paliperidone ER. In the overall population, the mean + or - standard deviation MSQ score improved from 2.7 + or - 0.8 (very to somewhat dissatisfied) at baseline to 5.1 + or - 1.2 (somewhat satisfied) at endpoint (P0.001). On the basis of dichotomized analysis of the MSQ scale (score 1-4=dissatisfied, 5-7=satisfied), 82.7% of participants were satisfied with their medication at endpoint. At the 2-week time point, significantly more participants in the immediate initiation group reported satisfaction (67.7%) compared with those in the delayed initiation group (45.3%) (P=0.002), who were still receiving risperidone at this time. Positive And Negative Syndrome Scale total scores also improved from baseline to endpoint (-12.9 + or - 13.1; P0.001). Most common adverse events were insomnia (9.1%), constipation (7.6%), headache (7.6%) and somnolence (6.6%). Participants with schizophrenia who were suboptimally responsive to risperidone reported improved medication satisfaction after initiation of paliperidone ER.

Background Asenapine is indicated in adults for acute treatment of manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder with or without psychotic features. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of asenapine in bipolar I disorder. Methods Adults experiencing manic or mixed episodes were randomized to 3 weeks of flexible-dose treatment with sublingual asenapine (day 1: 10 mg BID, 5 or 10 mg BID thereafter; n = 185), placebo ( n = 98), or oral olanzapine (day 1: 15 mg QD, 5–20 mg QD thereafter; n = 205). Primary efficacy, YMRS total score change from baseline to day 21, was assessed using ANCOVA with last observation carried forward. Results Mean daily doses were 18.4 mg asenapine and 15.9 mg olanzapine. Least squares mean changes in YMRS total score on day 21 were significantly greater with asenapine than placebo (− 11.5 vs − 7.8; P P = 0.022). Changes with olanzapine on days 2 and 21 also exceeded placebo (both P 0.0001). YMRS response and remission rates with olanzapine, but not asenapine, exceeded those of placebo. Incidence of EPS-related adverse events was 10.3%, 3.1%, and 6.8% with asenapine, placebo, and olanzapine, respectively; incidence of clinically significant weight gain (7.2%; 1.2%; 19.0%). Mean weight change (baseline to endpoint) was 0.9, 0.1, and 2.6 kg with asenapine, placebo, and olanzapine, respectively. Limitations As this short-term study was designed for comparisons with placebo, any comparisons between asenapine and olanzapine should be interpreted cautiously. Conclusions Asenapine was superior to placebo in reducing YMRS total score and was well tolerated.

In daily practice, clinicians are interested in knowing when to expect treatment response after initiating a new antipsychotic medication. This analysis examined whether response onset and persistence can distinguish true drug from placebo responses. The methodology proposed by Quitkin et al (1984) was applied to data from three 6-week double-blind placebo-controlled trials in schizophrenia to examine response (> or =30% Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score reduction from baseline) here using the antipsychotic paliperidone extended release (3-12 mg/d) versus placebo. Response patterns were categorized by persistence (persistent: response at every time point from first response to end point for > or =2 time points; nonpersistent: other patterns) and onset (early: first response at day 4 to week 2; later: week 3 to end point). Persistent responses occurred in 39.8% of antipsychotic-treated patients and in 20.2% of subjects receiving placebo (P < 0.001). An early persistent response was achieved in 23.5% of those who received antipsychotic medication and by 14.2% of the subjects who received placebo, and a later persistent response was achieved in 16.3% and in 6.0%, respectively (P < 0.001 for both comparisons). A nonpersistent response occurred in 16.9% and in 18.1%, respectively (P = 0.631). No response occurred in 37.1% of the antipsychotic-treated patients and in 58.6% of the placebo-treated subjects over 6 weeks (P < 0.001). In conclusion, persistent response (occurring either early or later) is more likely achieved with antipsychotic medication than with placebo, and response patterns may be useful in assessing true drug response. Results suggest that persistent response requires continuing antipsychotic treatment beyond 2 weeks in some patients. These results may be useful for clinical decision making and patient education.

We examined whether changes in negative symptoms, as measured by scores on the 16-item Negative Symptom Assessment scale (NSA-16), were associated with changes in functional outcome. A group of 125 stable outpatients with schizophrenia were assessed at baseline and at 6 months using the NSA-16, the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, and multiple measures of functional outcome. Baseline adjusted regression coefficients indicated moderate correlations between negative symptoms and functional outcomes when baseline values of both variables were controlled. Results were nearly identical when we controlled for positive symptoms. Cross-lag panel correlations and Structural Equation Modeling were used to examine whether changes in negative symptoms drove changes in functional outcomes over time. Results indicated that negative symptoms drove the changes in the Social and Occupational Functioning Scale (SOFAS) rather than the reverse. Measures of Quality of Life and measures of negative symptoms may be assessing overlapping constructs or changes in both may be driven by a third variable. Negative symptoms were unrelated over time to scores on a performance-based measure of functional capacity. This study indicates that the relationship between negative symptom change and the change in functional outcomes is complex, and points to potential issues in selection of assessments.

Most patients with schizophrenia exhibit negative symptoms, even during acute episodes. These difficult-to-treat symptoms are often associated with poor functioning and outcomes.A post-hoc analysis of pooled data from three 6-week double-blind studies included patients in an acute episode of schizophrenia who received paliperidone extended-release (ER) (3, 6, 9, or 12 mg) or placebo. Based on criteria developed by the authors, patients were stratified by the presence or absence of predominant negative symptoms at baseline (or=40% of the maximum negative factor score and40% of the maximum positive factor score on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale [PANSS]).Although these studies were not designed to examine patients with predominant negative symptoms, the criteria identified 23% of acutely ill patients (270/1193). The mean (SD) baseline PANSS negative symptoms factor score, 27.4 (3.3), was 49% of the maximum; the positive symptoms factor score, 23.7 (2.8), was 33% of the maximum. Completion rates with paliperidone ER (n=195) and placebo (n=75) were 64.6% and 44.0%, respectively. Greater improvements occurred with paliperidone ER vs placebo on PANSS (total, negative and other factors), Clinical Global Impressions-Severity and Personal and Social Performance scores at endpoint (all P values0.05). Adverse events reported inor=10% of patients were (paliperidone ER vs placebo): headache (14.4% vs 6.7%), insomnia (13.8% vs 21.3%) and sinus tachycardia (10.3% vs 1.3%). Paliperidone ER treatment was associated with a similar response profile in patients without predominant negative symptoms (paliperidone ER, n=647; placebo, n=276).Schizophrenia patients with predominant negative symptoms were identified in a population of acutely ill patients. Findings of this post-hoc analysis suggest that acutely ill patients with or without predominant negative symptoms respond similarly to treatment with paliperidone ER. No unexpected tolerability findings were observed.

Assessing long-term efficacy in psychiatric drugs involves a number of complex questions, and the priaority of these questions is different for different disorders and for different stakeholders. Therefore, it is essential that we not adopt a one-method-fits-all approach, but rather adapt the specific details of the designs and analysis of data from long-term trials to individual disease states. Randomized withdrawal (RW) designs, even though addressing a specific question of particular interest, face some difficult methodological and ethical challenges. A less common alternative design, termed the double-blind long-term efficacy (DBLE) design, is logistically similar to traditional responder extension designs. However, use of an analytic approach that includes all randomized patients rather than only the selected subset that continued beyond acute treatment avoids the major criticism of the extender design. The present paper illustrates the attributes of the RW and DBLE designs by analyzing data from trials adopting these designs. The RW and DBLE designs address different questions, and are thus not directly comparable. Potential benefits of the DBLE design include: (1) the parsimonious use of patients and the resultant reduced exposure to placebo as each patient can contribute to multiple developmental objectives; (2) the results are generalizable to actual clinical practice as the design matches treatment guidelines; and, (3) results of safety assessments are meaningful as they involve all randomized patients. Our case study suggests that the DBLE design can provide definitive answers to important questions and may be a useful design for assessing long-term treatment effects.

The aim of the study was to investigate transcultural differences between schizophrenia spectrum disorder patients who did or did not attempt suicide. DSM-IV schizophrenia (N=609) or schizoaffective disorder (N=371) patients who participated in the multicentre International Suicide Prevention Trial (InterSePT) were studied. Patients were sub-divided into 5 groups according to the different geographical regions of recruitment: North America (NA), Europe (EUR), East Europe (EEUR), South Africa (SAf), and South America (SA). The main lifetime clinical variables were compared, within each group, between attempters and non-attempters. The presence of comorbid substance abuse disorder and smoking was associated with suicide attempts in all the geographical groups considered (NA: chi(1)(2)=7.575, p

Conduct a cost effectiveness analysis for the Paliperidone palmitate Research In Demonstrating Effectiveness (PRIDE) trial.PRIDE was a 15 month, prospective, randomized, open-label study in which once monthly paliperidone palmitate significantly delayed the time to first treatment failure (healthcare or criminal justice system [HC/CJS] events) versus oral antipsychotics in recently incarcerated adults with schizophrenia. The present analysis used a state government perspective and HC/CJS event data that were collected on a resource use questionnaire (RUQ) every 3 months.Since cost information was not collected in the trial, cost estimates from published literature and an analysis of multistate Medicaid data for CJS and HC events, respectively, were applied to RUQ event data. Effectiveness and costs were adjusted to 456 days (trial duration). Incremental cost effectiveness was calculated as the adjusted cost difference divided by the adjusted effectiveness difference.Adjusted costs (in US dollars) in the paliperidone palmitate group (n = 198) and the oral antipsychotic group (n = 193), respectively, were: non-drug costs $22,331 and $25,027; drug costs $18,592 and $7833; and total costs $40,923 and $32,860. Adjusted effectiveness differences and corresponding incremental cost effectiveness per event avoided (in parentheses) for paliperidone palmitate versus oral antipsychotics were as follows: 0.33 fewer CJS events ($24,409), 0.13 fewer psychiatric hospitalizations ($60,484), 0.46 fewer psychiatric hospitalizations or CJS events combined ($17,391), and 0.30 fewer incarcerations ($26,754).Costs for HC/CJS events avoided offset 25% of the greater drug cost for the paliperidone palmitate versus oral antipsychotic treatment group in this vulnerable population. Use of a recall-dependent RUQ for event rates and cost estimates instead of actual costs are potential limitations and may make the results conservative from a state government perspective. Indirect costs are likely to be substantial for this population, but were not considered in the analysis.

This report examines relapse risk following a switch from risperidone long-acting injectable (RLAI) to another long-acting injectable antipsychotic [paliperidone palmitate (PP)] versus a switch to oral antipsychotics (APs). Truven Health's MarketScan Multistate Medicaid Database compared relapses following switches from RLAI. New user cohorts for these two groups were created on the basis of first incidence of exposure to the 'switched to' drug. Groups were balanced using 1:1 propensity score matching. Time-to-event analysis assessed schizophrenia-related hospital/emergency department visits. A total of 188 patients switched from RLAI to PP, and 131 patients switched from RLAI to oral AP. Propensity score-matched cohort included 109 patients who switched to PP and 109 patients who switched to an oral AP. Patients who switched from RLAI to PP had fewer events (26 vs. 32), longer time to an event (mean 70 vs. 47 days), and lower risk of relapse (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.92; P=0.024) compared with those who switched from RLAI to oral AP. Switching from RLAI to PP may be associated with a lower risk for relapse and longer duration of therapy compared with switching to oral AP. Given the limitations of observational studies, these results should be confirmed by other prospective evaluations.

OBJECTIVE Clinical response to antipsychotic medications can vary markedly in patients with schizophrenia. Identifying genetic variants associated with treatment response could help optimize patient care and outcome. To this end, we carried out a large-scale candidate gene study to identify genetic risk factors predictive of paliperidone efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS A central nervous system custom chip containing single nucleotide polymorphisms from 1204 candidate genes was utilized to genotype a discovery cohort of 684 schizophrenia patients from four clinical studies of paliperidone extended-release and paliperidone palmitate. Variants predictive of paliperidone efficacy were identified and further tested in four independent replication cohorts of schizophrenic patients (N=2856). RESULTS We identified an SNP in ERBB4 that may contribute toward differential treatment response to paliperidone. The association trended in the same direction as the discovery cohort in two of the four replication cohorts, but ultimately did not survive multiple testing corrections. The association was not replicated in the other two independent cohorts. We also report several SNPs in well-known schizophrenia candidate genes that show suggestive associations with paliperidone efficacy. CONCLUSION These preliminary findings suggest that genetic variation in the ERBB4 gene may differentially affect treatment response to paliperidone in individuals with schizophrenia. They implicate the neuregulin 1 (NRG1)-ErbB4 pathway for modulating antipsychotic response. However, these findings were not robustly reproduced in replication cohorts.

Negative symptoms of schizophrenia remain an area of substantial unmet clinical need. By convening a consensus conference in January 2005, the NIMH has taken a leading role in stimulating a resurgence of interest in methodological considerations related to development of new medications for treating negative symptoms. One audience for this work is clinical researchers in industry. They must take ideas, like those emerging from this consensus meeting, and determine whether they can be applied to their global trials in order to meet the needs of a broad group of customers, which include patients, clinicians, regulators, and payers. This article takes the ideas that surfaced from the NIMH consensus work and interprets them in terms of issues that industry faces for its clinical trials. Particular emphasis is given to addressing hurdles to study design and analysis that come when developing broad-spectrum or adjunctive agents that may be effective for negative symptoms.

Suicidal behavior in patients with psychotic disorders represents a seriously undertreated life-threatening condition. The International Suicide Prevention Trial (InterSePT) is the first large-scale, prospective study designed to evaluate the potential of antipsychotic medications to reduce suicidal behaviors in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder who are known to be at high risk for suicide. The unique challenges to study design and the solutions identified for the InterSePT study are described. These challenges included defining suicidal behavior in patients with psychosis, endpoint selection, determination of analytic strategy, and development of scales to assess suicidal behavior. Given the life-threatening nature of suicidal behavior, ethical considerations required that the design minimize suicide attempts and deaths. While the study focused primarily on treatment of suicide, opportunities were used to collect data in related areas of interest, including suicide risk factors, other efficacy measures (e.g., Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, Covi Anxiety Scale, Calgary Depression Scale), adverse events, pharmacoeconomics, and pharmacogenetics. Because of the complexity of the design issues, a steering committee, suicide monitoring board, and publication committee were established to assist with their management.

Background Enhanced ability to reliably identify risk factors for suicidal behavior permits more focused decisions concerning treatment interventions and support services, with potential reduction in lives lost to suicide. Methods This study followed 980 patients at high risk for suicide in a multicenter prospective study for 2 years after randomization to clozapine or olanzapine. A priori predictors related to diagnosis, treatment resistance, and clinical constructs of disease symptoms were evaluated as possible predictors of subsequent suicide-related events. Results Ten baseline univariate predictors were identified. Historical predictors were diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, history or current use at baseline of alcohol or substance abuse, cigarette smoking, number of lifetime suicide attempts, and the number of hospitalizations in the previous 36 months to prevent suicide. Predictive clinical features included greater baseline scores on the InterSePT scale for suicidal thinking, the Covi Anxiety Scale, the Calgary Depression Scale (CDS), and severity of Parkinsonism. Subsequent multivariate analysis revealed the number of hospitalizations in the previous 36 months, baseline CDS, severity of Parkinson’s, history of substance abuse, and lifetime suicide attempts. Clozapine, in general, was more effective than olanzapine in decreasing the risk of suicidality, regardless of risk factors present. Conclusions This is the first prospective analysis of predictors of suicide risk in a large schizophrenic and schizoaffective population judged to be at high risk for suicide. Assessment of these risk factors may aid clinicians in evaluating risk for suicidal behaviors so that appropriate interventions can be made.