Search

Background Older, compared with younger, patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) typically have lower response and remission rates with poorer tolerability to antidepressant treatment. This post-hoc analysis compared outcomes following treatment with esketamine nasal spray (ESK) between younger (18-64 years) and older (≥65 years) patients with TRD. Methods SUSTAIN-2, an up to 1-year open-label safety and efficacy study of ESK plus an oral antidepressant, included patients with TRD either directly enrolled (≥18-year) or transferred from a phase 3 double-blind study, TRANSFORM-3 (≥65-year). Patients were treated in two phases: 4-week induction and 48-week optimization/maintenance. Results Younger (n = 624) and older (n = 178) patients had similar baseline characteristics except for hypertension history (21.5% versus 48.3%, respectively). Patients (younger versus older) had similar mean baseline Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total scores and mean (SD) reductions in MADRS total scores for induction (-18.0 [7.19] versus -18.1 [9.37]; p = 0.492 [t = 0.69, df = 701]) and optimization/maintenance (week 12) (-19.9 [7.03] versus -22.2 [9.50]; p = 0.265 [t = -1.12, df = 3470]) phases. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) reported in younger versus older patients, respectively, were: induction, 86.1% versus 74.8%; optimization/maintenance, 86.8% versus 81.0%; serious TEAEs: induction, 2.2% versus 1.9%; optimization/maintenance, 6.7% versus 4.8%; TEAEs of increased blood pressure: induction, 6.9% versus 6.5%; optimization/maintenance, 7.1% versus 9.5%; and falls: induction, 0.3% versus 0.6%; optimization/maintenance, 0.2% versus 0.8%. Cognitive tests did not show clinically meaningful differences between the age groups. Conclusions Although limited by the open-label design of SUSTAIN-2, this post-hoc analysis showed generally comparable improvement in depression between ESK-treated younger and older adult patients with TRD, with consistent safety outcomes.

Background Intranasal drug delivery offers a non-invasive and convenient dosing option for patients and physicians, especially for conditions requiring chronic/repeated-treatment administration. However, in some cases such delivery may be harmful to nasal and olfactory epithelia. Objective The aim of this study was to assess the potential impact of long-term intermittent treatment with esketamine nasal spray, taken in conjunction with an oral antidepressant (AD), on olfactory function and nasal tolerability in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Methods A total of 1142 patients with TRD participated from four multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase III studies: three short-term studies (two in patients aged 18–64 years, one in patients ≥65 years), and one long-term maintenance study of esketamine nasal spray + AD versus placebo nasal spray + AD. Across the four studies, assessments were performed at 208 sites in 21 countries. Olfactory function was measured using the 40-item University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT®) and the single-staircase Snap & Sniff® Odor Detection Threshold Test (S&S-T). Nasal tolerability, including nasal examinations and a quantitative, self-administered nasal symptom questionnaire (NSQ), was also assessed. Data were analyzed using analyses of covariance. Results Of 1142 participants, 734 were women (64.3%). The mean age of all participants ranged from 45.7 to 70.0 years across the studies. Overall, 855 patients received esketamine nasal spray + AD and 432 received placebo nasal spray + AD. Objective evaluation of nasal function showed no evidence of an adverse impact following esketamine administration. Based on the UPSIT® and S&S-T results, intranasal administration of esketamine had no effect on the odor identification or threshold test scores compared with placebo nasal spray + oral AD. Similarly, repeated administration with esketamine nasal spray had no meaningful impact on assessments of nasal function. No dose–response relationship was observed between esketamine doses and the olfactory test scores. Esketamine nasal spray was well tolerated, as indicated by responses on the NSQ and negative nasal examination findings. Conclusion Findings from this analysis indicate that there was no evidence of adverse effect on either olfactory or nasal health measures with repeated intermittent administration of esketamine nasal spray at any dose over the course of short-term (4 weeks) or long-term (16–100 weeks) studies. Clinical trial registration TRANSFORM-1: NCT02417064, date of registration: 15/04/2015; TRANSFORM-2: NCT02418585, date of registration: 16/04/2015; TRANSFORM-3: NCT02422186, date of registration: 21/04/2015; SUSTAIN-1: NCT02493868, date of registration: 10/07/2015. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40263-021-00826-9.

BackgroundPatients with major depressive disorder (MDD) having active suicidal ideation with intent require immediate treatment.MethodsThis double-blind study (ASPIRE II) randomized adults (aged 18–64 years) with MDD having active suicidal ideation with intent to esketamine 84 mg or placebo nasal spray twice weekly for 4 weeks, given with comprehensive standard of care (hospitalization ≥5 days and newly initiated or optimized oral antidepressant[s]). Change from baseline to 24 hours post-first dose in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score (primary efficacy endpoint) was analyzed using ANCOVA. Clinical Global Impression–Severity of Suicidality–revised (key secondary endpoint) was analyzed using ANCOVA on ranks of change.ResultsOf 230 patients who were randomized (115 per arm), 227 received study drug and were included in efficacy/safety analyses; 184 (80.0%) completed double-blind treatment. Greater improvement in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score was observed with esketamine (mean [SD]: –15.7 [11.56]) vs placebo (–12.4 [10.43]), each with standard of care, at 24 hours (least-squares mean difference [SE]: –3.9 [1.39], 95% CI: –6.60, –1.11; 2-sided P = .006). This was also noted at the earlier (4-hour) timepoint (least-squares mean difference –4.2, 95% CI: –6.38, –1.94). Patients in both treatment groups experienced rapid reduction in Clinical Global Impression–Severity of Suicidality–revised score; the between-group difference was not statistically significant. The most common adverse events among esketamine-treated patients were dizziness, dissociation, nausea, dysgeusia, somnolence, headache, and paresthesia.ConclusionThis study confirmed rapid and robust reduction of depressive symptoms with esketamine nasal spray in severely ill patients with MDD who have active suicidal ideation with intent.Trial Registration: Clinical Trials.gov identifier: NCT03097133

Objective:About one-third of patients with depression fail to achieve remission despite treatment with multiple antidepressants. This study compared the efficacy and safety of switching patients wi...

Background This double-blind (DB), randomized, parallel-group study was designed to evaluate efficacy and safety of paliperidone palmitate 6-month (PP6M) formulation relative to paliperidone palmitate 3-month (PP3M) formulation in patients with schizophrenia. Methods Following screening, patients entered an open-label (OL) maintenance phase and received 1 injection cycle of paliperidone palmitate 1-month (PP1M; 100 or 150 mg eq.) or PP3M (350 or 525 mg eq.). Clinically stable patients were randomized (2:1) to receive PP6M (700 or 1000 mg eq., gluteal injections) or PP3M (350 or 525 mg eq.) in a 12-month DB phase; 2 doses of PP6M (corresponding to doses of PP1M and PP3M) were chosen. Results Overall, 1036 patients were screened, 838 entered the OL phase, and 702 (mean age: 40.8 years) were randomized (PP6M: 478; PP3M: 224); 618 (88.0%) patients completed the DB phase (PP6M: 416 [87.0%]; PP3M: 202 [90.2%]). Relapse rates were PP6M, 7.5% (n = 36) and PP3M, 4.9% (n = 11). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the difference (95% CI) between treatment groups (PP6M − PP3M) in the percentages of patients who remained relapse free was −2.9% (−6.8%, 1.1%), thus meeting noninferiority criteria (95% CI lower bound is larger than the pre-specified noninferiority margin of −10%). Secondary efficacy endpoints corroborated the primary analysis. Incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between PP6M (62.1%) and PP3M (58.5%). No new safety concerns emerged. Conclusions The efficacy of a twice-yearly dosing regimen of PP6M was noninferior to that of PP3M in preventing relapse in patients with schizophrenia adequately treated with PP1M or PP3M. Trial Registration Clinical Trials.gov identifier: NCT03345342

Objective To compare esketamine to placebo, each in addition to standard-of-care treatment, for rapidly reducing major depressive disorder symptoms, including suicidal ideation. Methods This phase 3, double-blind, multicenter study (ASPIRE I), conducted between June 2017 and December 2018, enrolled 226 adults having major depressive disorder based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fifth edition (DSM-5) criteria, active suicidal ideation with intent, and need for psychiatric hospitalization. Patients were randomized 1:1 to esketamine 84 mg or placebo nasal spray twice-weekly for 4 weeks, each with comprehensive standard-of-care treatment (initial psychiatric hospitalization and newly initiated or optimized oral antidepressant[s] therapy). Change from baseline to 24 hours post-first dose in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score (primary endpoint) was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), and change in Clinical Global Impression of Severity of Suicidality Revised version (CGI-SS-r; key secondary endpoint) score was analyzed using ANCOVA on ranks with treatment difference estimated using the Hodges-Lehmann estimate. Results Greater improvement in MADRS total score was observed with esketamine + standard-of-care versus placebo + standard-of-care at 24 hours (least-squares mean difference [SE]: -3.8 [1.39]; 95% CI, -6.56 to -1.09; 2-sided P = .006), as well as at earlier (4 hours) and later time points during 4-week double-blind treatment. The difference between groups in the severity of suicidality was not statistically significant (median of treatment difference [95% CI]: 0.0 [-1.00 to 0.00]; 2-sided P = .107). The most common adverse events among esketamine-treated patients were dizziness, dissociation, headache, nausea, and somnolence. Conclusions These findings demonstrate rapid and robust efficacy of esketamine nasal spray in reducing depressive symptoms in severely ill patients with major depressive disorder who have active suicidal ideation with intent. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03039192.

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.

Introduction Major depressive disorder in the elderly is associated with lower response and remission rates, resulting in treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Furthermore, older patients are often more vulnerable to adverse drug effects. Recently published findings from a 4-week, phase 3 study of esketamine nasal spray (TRANSFORM-3), evaluated patients ≥65 years with TRD. SUSTAIN-2 was an up to one year, open-label safety and efficacy study of esketamine nasal spray in the same phase 3 program, which enrolled patients with TRD over 18 years old. In addition to patients directly enrolled in SUSTAIN-2, completers from TRANSFORM-3 (responders or non-responders) could continue into SUSTAIN-2. We present a post hoc comparison of depressive symptoms and safety between patients with TRD aged 18-64 years (younger) vs ≥65 years (older) in the SUSTAIN-2 study. Methods SUSTAIN-2 included 802 patients with TRD; 624 younger and 178 older. Patients received a new oral antidepressant and open-label, flexibly-dosed esketamine nasal spray (28 [only older patients], 56 or 84 mg) administered in two phases: induction (IND) (2X/week for 4 weeks; included direct-entry patients and transferred-entry non-responder patients) and optimization/maintenance (OP/MAINT) (weekly or bi-weekly for up to 48 weeks; included responders from the open-label IND phase of SUSTAIN-2 and transferred-entry responders from TRANSFORM-3). Post hoc analyses compared treatment outcomes and safety for both age groups for each study phase. Outcome measurements included change from baseline in each phase for the Montgomery–Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score and patient-reported outcomes: Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-Item (GAD-7). Remission (MADRS ≤12) and response (≥50% MADRS reduction from baseline) rates were also reported by phase. Key safety assessments included adverse events, labs, electrocardiograms (ECGs), blood pressure, and dissociation measured by Clinician-Administered Dissociative States Scale (CADSS). Results Baseline demographics, other than age (mean 49.0 [range: 18-64] and 69.0 [range: 65-86] for younger and older adults, respectively) and baseline hypertension (21.5% and 48.3% for younger and older adults, respectively), were similar between subgroups, including mean baseline MADRS total scores (IND: 31.4 and 30.7, in the younger and older groups respectively). The mean (SD) change from IND baseline in MADRS total scores following the IND phase was −16.6 (8.6) vs −15.4 (9.4), in younger and older patients respectively. Remission rates at the end of IND phase were 281/624 (46.5%) vs 76/155 (50.0%) and at the end of the OP/MAINT phase (up to week 48) rates were 270/477 (56.6%) vs 81/126 (64.3%) for younger and older patients respectively. Response rates at the end of IND were 485/624 (80.3%) vs 108/155 (71.1%) and at the end of OP/MAINT were 366/477 (76.7%) vs 95/126 (75.4%) for younger and older patients respectively. The mean (SD) change in the PHQ-9 following IND was –9.5 (6.4) vs −6.9 (7.2), in younger vs older patients respectively. Similarly, the mean change (SD) in the SDS following IND was –9.6 (7.8) vs –7.8 (8.4), in younger vs older patients respectively. The mean change (SD) in the GAD-7 following IND was –6.4 (5.9) vs –3.9 (5.3), in younger vs older patients respectively. In the IND phase, treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) ≥5% were seen in 537/624 (86.1%) and 116/155 (74.8%) of younger vs older patients respectively; TEAEs ≥10% included: dizziness (30.8% vs 23.2%), dissociation (24.0% vs 20.6%), nausea (22.9% vs 9.0%) headache (20.2% vs 7.1%), somnolence (12.3% vs 11.0%), hypoesthesia (11.5% vs Conclusions In this post hoc descriptive analysis, patients with TRD aged 18-64 and those ≥65 showed comparable treatment outcomes using esketamine nasal spray, including change in MADRS scores, response and remission rates. Safety and tolerability findings were comparable in both age groups, except for treatment-emergent acute hypertension, which was observed more often in the elderly. Funding Janssen Research & Development, LLC

Objective To evaluate long-term safety and efficacy of esketamine nasal spray plus a new oral antidepressant (OAD) in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Methods This phase 3, open-label, multicenter, long-term (up to 1 year) study was conducted between October 2015 and October 2017. Patients (≥ 18 years) with TRD (DSM-5 diagnosis of major depressive disorder and nonresponse to ≥ 2 OAD treatments) were enrolled directly or transferred from a short-term study (patients aged ≥ 65 years). Esketamine nasal spray (28-mg, 56-mg, or 84-mg) plus new OAD was administered twice a week in a 4-week induction (IND) phase and weekly or every-other-week for patients who were responders and entered a 48-week optimization/maintenance (OP/MAINT) phase. Results Of 802 enrolled patients, 86.2% were direct-entry and 13.8% were transferred-entry; 580 (74.5%) of 779 patients who entered the IND phase completed the phase, and 150 (24.9%) of 603 who entered the OP/MAINT phase completed the phase. Common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were dizziness (32.9%), dissociation (27.6%), nausea (25.1%), and headache (24.9%). Seventy-six patients (9.5%) discontinued esketamine due to TEAEs. Fifty-five patients (6.9%) experienced serious TEAEs. Most TEAEs occurred on dosing days, were mild or moderate in severity, and resolved on the same day. Two deaths were reported; neither was considered related to esketamine. Cognitive performance generally either improved or remained stable postbaseline. There was no case of interstitial cystitis or respiratory depression. Treatment-emergent dissociative symptoms were transient and generally resolved within 1.5 hours postdose. Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score decreased during the IND phase, and this reduction persisted during the OP/MAINT phase (mean [SD] change from baseline of respective phase to endpoint: IND, -16.4 [8.76]; OP/MAINT, 0.3 [8.12]). Conclusions Long-term esketamine nasal spray plus new OAD therapy had a manageable safety profile, and improvements in depression appeared to be sustained in patients with TRD. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02497287.

Elderly patients with major depression have a poorer prognosis, are less responsive to treatment, and show greater functional decline compared with younger patients, highlighting the need for effective treatment.This phase 3 double-blind study randomized patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) ≥65 years (1:1) to flexibly dosed esketamine nasal spray and new oral antidepressant (esketamine/antidepressant) or new oral antidepressant and placebo nasal spray (antidepressant/placebo). The primary endpoint was change in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) from baseline to day 28. Analyses included a preplanned analysis by age (65-74 versus ≥75 years) and post-hoc analyses including age at depression onset.For the primary endpoint, the median-unbiased estimate of the treatment difference (95% CI) was -3.6 (-7.20, 0.07); weighted combination test using MMRM analyses z = 1.89, two-sided p = 0.059. Adjusted mean (95% CI) difference for change in MADRS score between treatment groups was -4.9 (-8.96, -0.89; t = -2.4, df = 127; two-sided nominal p = 0.017) for patients 65 to 74 years versus -0.4 (-10.38, 9.50; t = -0.09, two-sided nominal p = 0.930) for those ≥75 years, and -6.1 (-10.33, -1.81; t = -2.8, df = 127; two-sided nominal p = 0.006) for patients with depression onset55 years and 3.1 (-4.51, 10.80; t = 0.8, two-sided nominal p = 0.407) for those ≥55 years. Patients who rolled over into the long-term open-label study showed continued improvement with esketamine following 4 additional treatment weeks.Esketamine/antidepressant did not achieve statistical significance for the primary endpoint. Greater differences between treatment arms were seen for younger patients (65-74 years) and patients with earlier onset of depression (55 years).

This phase 2a, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, proof-of-concept study was designed to evaluate, efficacy, safety and tolerability of JNJ-40411813/ADX71149, a novel metabotropic glutamate 2 receptor positive allosteric modulator as an adjunctive treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD) with significant anxiety symptoms. Eligible patients (18-64 years) had a DSM-IV diagnosis of MDD, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-17 (HDRS17) score of ≥ 18, HDRS17 anxiety/somatization factor score of ≥ 7, and an insufficient response to current treatment with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor. The doubly-randomized, 8-week double-blind treatment phase was comprised of two 4-week periods, from which a combined test statistic was generated, with pre-determined weights assigned to each of the 2 treatment periods. Period 1: patients (n=121) were randomly assigned (1:1) to JNJ-40411813 (n=62; 50mg to 150 mg b.i.d, flexibly dosed) or placebo (n=59); Period 2: placebo-treated patients (n=22) who continued to meet entry severity criteria were re-randomized (1:1) to JNJ-40411813 or placebo, while other patients underwent sham re-randomization and continued on their same treatment. Of 121 randomized patients, 100 patients (82.6%) were completers. No efficacy signal was detected on the primary endpoint, the 6-item Hamilton Anxiety Subscale (HAM-A6, p=0.51). Efficacy signals (based on prespecified 1-sided p

Controlled studies have shown short-term efficacy of esketamine for treatment-resistant depression (TRD), but long-term effects remain to be established.To assess the efficacy of esketamine nasal spray plus an oral antidepressant compared with an oral antidepressant plus placebo nasal spray in delaying relapse of depressive symptoms in patients with TRD in stable remission after an induction and optimization course of esketamine nasal spray plus an oral antidepressant.In this phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized withdrawal study conducted from October 6, 2015, to February 15, 2018, at outpatient referral centers, 705 adults with prospectively confirmed TRD were enrolled; 455 entered the optimization phase and were treated with esketamine nasal spray (56 or 84 mg) plus an oral antidepressant. After 16 weeks of esketamine treatment, 297 who achieved stable remission or stable response entered the randomized withdrawal phase.Patients who achieved stable remission and those who achieved stable response (without remission) were randomized 1:1 to continue esketamine nasal spray or discontinue esketamine treatment and switch to placebo nasal spray, with oral antidepressant treatment continued in each group.Time to relapse was examined in patients who achieved stable remission, as assessed using a weighted combination log-rank test.Among the 297 adults (mean age [SD], 46.3 [11.13] years; 197 [66.3%] female) who entered the randomized maintenance phase, 176 achieved stable remission; 24 (26.7%) in the esketamine and antidepressant group and 39 (45.3%) in the antidepressant and placebo group experienced relapse (log-rank P = .003, number needed to treat [NNT], 6). Among the 121 who achieved stable response, 16 (25.8%) in the esketamine and antidepressant group and 34 (57.6%) in the antidepressant and placebo group experienced relapse (log-rank P .001, NNT, 4). Esketamine and antidepressant treatment decreased the risk of relapse by 51% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.29-0.84) among patients who achieved stable remission and 70% (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16-0.55) among those who achieved stable response compared with antidepressant and placebo treatment. The most common adverse events reported for esketamine-treated patients after randomization were transient dysgeusia, vertigo, dissociation, somnolence, and dizziness (incidence, 20.4%-27.0%), each reported in fewer patients (7%) treated with an antidepressant and placebo.For patients with TRD who experienced remission or response after esketamine treatment, continuation of esketamine nasal spray in addition to oral antidepressant treatment resulted in clinically meaningful superiority in delaying relapse compared with antidepressant plus placebo.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02493868.

Introduction Major depressive disorder in the elderly is correlated with lower response and remission rates, greater disability, decreased quality of life, and greater mortality from suicide; approximately 18-40% develop treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Moreover, the elderly respond less well to currently available treatments and may be more vulnerable to their adverse effects. The severity of TRD in the elderly is exemplified by a 5-fold increased use of electroconvulsive therapy, highlighting a critical need for alternative safe and effective treatments. A companion abstract discusses results from the first large phase 3 study of esketamine nasal spray in elderly patients with TRD. Post hoc analyses presented here explored factors that may have contributed to the lack of statistical significance observed in the study, despite a numerical advantage on the primary endpoint–Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating scale (MADRS) LS mean scores–in the esketamine arm vs the control arm of the trial. Methods The primary phase 3, double-blind, multicenter, active controlled study (NCT02422186), included adults ≥65 years of age (N=138) with TRD. Patients were randomized (1:1) to flexibly-dosed esketamine nasal spray (28, 56 or 84 mg twice weekly) and a new oral antidepressant (esketamine/antidepressant), or a new oral antidepressant and placebo nasal spray (antidepressant/placebo). Change from baseline was analyzed using mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM). Analyses were conducted at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. Findings from the primary analysis are described in the companion abstract. Post hoc analyses explored factors that may have affected the study outcome including (1) impact of study stage, i.e. pre interim analysis (IA) (stage 1) or post IA (stage 2): modifications were made early in the study including training of remote MADRS raters to work with elderly and site discussions related to dose that, because of timing for implementation of the changes, had the greatest impact on stage 2; (2) impact of dose assessed by stage of the IA; (3) age subgroups (65-74 and ≥75 years); (4) age of onset of depression ( Results For reference, the primary efficacy endpoint, the LS mean (95% CI) difference for change in MADRS total scores from baseline to day 28 between the esketamine/antidepressant group and the antidepressant/placebo group using MMRM was -3.6 (−7.20, 0.07; p=0.059). Post hoc analyses included (1) a marked difference in efficacy between stages of the IA: LS mean (95% CI) difference was -1.6 (-6.85, 3.70) in stage 1 vs -5.6 (-10.78, -0.32) in stage 2. The primary analysis applied equal weight to stage 1 (51 patients) and stage 2 (87 patients) effectively down-weighting the results of stage 2. Overall analysis, without adjusting for the IA, showed LS mean (95% CI) change of -4.0 (-7.71, -0.25); (2) use of maximum dose of 84mg: 52.5% at day 25 of stage 1 vs 71.8% at day 25 of stage 2; (3) age: 65-74 years LS mean (95% CI) change of -4.9 (-8.96, -0.89) vs ≥75 years -0.4 (-10.38, 9.50); (4) age at onset of depression Conclusions While MADRS improvement with esketamine/antidepressant vs treatment with antidepressant/placebo was not statistically significant in the primary analysis, a nonsignificant favourable trend was found, with a treatment effect size similar to that seen in younger adult esketamine studies. Post hoc analyses assessed factors potentially affecting the primary outcome. In the short-term study, use of lower doses earlier in the study may have decreased efficacy. In the post hoc analysis, a 95% CI of difference that did not include 0 indicated that esketamine/antidepressant was favoured over antidepressant/placebo without the corrective weighting for the IA, as well as for patients 65-74 years of age, and for those with the onset of depression at age This research was funded by This study was funded by Janssen Research & Development, LLC.

Introduction Estimates of 18-40% of elderly patients with depression suffer from treatment-resistant depression (TRD), defined as non-response to at least two antidepressants. Elderly patients experience greater disability and functional decline, decreased quality of life, and greater mortality from suicide than younger patients. Esketamine nasal spray is being investigated for treatment of TRD. We evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of flexibly dosed esketamine nasal spray (ESK) (28 mg, 56 mg or 84 mg) plus a newly initiated oral antidepressant (AD), compared with AD plus placebo nasal spray (PBO), for the treatment of TRD in elderly patients. Post hoc analyses, performed to better assess the data from this first large clinical trial of TRD in the elderly, are presented in the companion abstract. Methods Patients ≥ 65 years of age (N=138) in this phase 3, double-blind, multicenter, active-controlled study (NCT02422186) were randomized (1:1) to either ESK + AD (n=72) or AD + PBO (n=66). The primary endpoint was the change in the Montgomery–Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score from day 1 (baseline) to the end of a 4-week double-blind treatment phase. Statistical analysis employed mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM), with a weighted combination test to account for an interim analysis for sample size re-estimation, using a one-sided 0.025 significance level. Pre-specified subgroup analyses were performed for ages 65-74 years (n=116) and ≥75 years (n=21). Remote raters, blinded to the treatment arm, conducted the MADRS assessments by telephone. Results The mean (SD) patient age was 70.0 (4.52) years and mean (SD) baseline MADRS total score was 35.2 (6.16). The mean (SD) change in MADRS total scores from baseline to day 28 was -10.0 (12.74) for ESK + AD and -6.3 (8.86) for AD + PBO. Based on MMRM analysis, the median-unbiased estimate of the difference between ESK + AD and AD + PBO was -3.6 (95% CI: -7.20, 0.07; one-sided p=0.029). A treatment difference favoring ESK+AD was seen for the 65-74 years subgroup. The difference in LS mean (SE) change at day 28 was -4.9 (2.04) for 65-74 years (one-sided p=0.009) and -0.4 (5.02) for ≥75 years (one-sided p=0.465). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in the ESK + AD group were dizziness (20.8%), nausea (18.1%), headache, fatigue, increased blood pressure, dissociation (12.5% each) and vertigo (11.1%). The most common TEAEs in the AD + PBO group were anxiety, dizziness and fatigue (7.7% each). Conclusions While treatment with ESK + AD did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference vs treatment with AD + PBO using the weighted combination test on the primary outcome, a statistically significant treatment effect was observed for patients aged 65-74 years, but not for the limited number of patients aged ≥75 years. Safety results were consistent with previous studies in younger adult populations; no new safety concerns were identified. This study was funded by Janssen Research & Development, LLC. This research was funded by Janssen Research & Development, LLC

Importance: While guidance on statistical principles for clinical trials exists, there is an absence of guidance covering the required content of statistical analysis plans (SAPs) to support transparency and reproducibility.Objective: To develop recommendations for a minimum set of items that should be addressed in SAPs for clinical trials, developed with input from statisticians, previous guideline authors, journal editors, regulators, and funders.Design: Funders and regulators (n = 39) of randomized trials were contacted and the literature was searched to identify existing guidance; a survey of current practice was conducted across the network of UK Clinical Research Collaboration–registered trial units (n = 46, 1 unit had 2 responders) and a Delphi survey (n = 73 invited participants) was conducted to establish consensus on SAPs. The Delphi survey was sent to statisticians in trial units who completed the survey of current practice (n = 46), CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) and SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) guideline authors (n = 16), pharmaceutical industry statisticians (n = 3), journal editors (n = 9), and regulators (n = 2) (3 participants were included in 2 groups each), culminating in a consensus meeting attended by experts (N = 12) with representatives from each group. The guidance subsequently underwent critical review by statisticians from the surveyed trial units and members of the expert panel of the consensus meeting (N = 51), followed by piloting of the guidance document in the SAPs of 5 trials.Findings: No existing guidance was identified. The registered trials unit survey (46 responses) highlighted diversity in current practice and confirmed support for developing guidance. The Delphi survey (54 of 73, 74% participants completing both rounds) reached consensus on 42% (n = 46) of 110 items. The expert panel (N = 12) agreed that 63 items should be included in the guidance, with an additional 17 items identified as important but may be referenced elsewhere. Following critical review and piloting, some overlapping items were combined, leaving 55 items.Conclusions and Relevance: Recommendations are provided for a minimum set of items that should be addressed and included in SAPs for clinical trials. Trial registration, protocols, and statistical analysis plans are critically important in ensuring appropriate reporting of clinical trials.

BackgroundRecognizing the importance not only of the clinician’s opinion but also of the patient’s experience and perspective, Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) utilized both clinician-reported and patient-reported outcomes in a large-scale multi-step study on antidepressant effectiveness in real-world settings. Both approaches indicate that MethodsThis is a post-hoc analysis of a Janssen R&D Phase 2a clinical trial (ESKETINTRD2003). Subjects aged 20-64 withMDD without psychotic features (DSM IV) and a history of inadequate response to ≥2 antidepressants were randomized [3:1:1:1] to 1 week of twice-weekly treatment with intranasal placebo (n=33), esketamine 28 mg (n=11), 56 mg (n=11), or 84 mg (n=12). Participants taking oral antidepressants at study entry continued treatment during the study. Changes in depression severitywere measured using the Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) and the Patient Global Impression Severity (PGI-S) scales.ResultsAt all esketamine doses (28 mg, 56 mg, 84 mg), subjects reported a one-point mean change in PGI-S from baseline to week one compared to no change on placebo (p-values 0.005, 0.001, 0.032 respectively). Similarly, mean CGI-S scores improved for subjects receiving esketamine at all doses (p-values 0.028, 0.004, 0.049 respectively) compared to no change inplacebo subjects. These data are consistent with previously reported data based on the Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and support positive correlation between patient-reported and clinician-reported outcomes.DiscussionInitial results from this Phase 2a study suggest clinically relevant improvement in depression symptoms in as early as one week when treated with twice-weekly intranasal esketamine as reported by both clinicians and patients. This work will help guide future investigations of esketamine in larger populations to provide better therapeutic options for treatment resistantMDD patients.Funding AcknowledgementsJanssen

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.

High placebo response has been a major source of bias and is difficult to deal with in many central nervous system (CNS) clinical trials. This bias has led to a high failure rate in mood disorder trials even with known effective drugs. For cancer trials, the traditional parallel group design biases the inference on the maintenance effect of the new drug with the traditional time-to-treatment failure analysis. To minimize bias, we propose a doubly randomized delayed-start design for clinical trials with enrichment. The design consists of two periods. In the first period, patients can be randomized to receive several doses of a new drug or a control. In the second period, control patients of the first period of an enriched population can be rerandomized to receive the same or fewer doses of the new drug or to continue on the control. Depending on the clinical needs, different randomization ratios can be applied to the two periods. The essential feature is that the design is naturally adaptive because of the randomization for the second period. As a result, other aspects of the second period, such as the sample size, can be modified adaptively when an interim analysis is set up for the first period. At the end of the trial, response data from both randomizations are combined in an integrated analysis. Because of the enrichment in the second period, the design increases the probability of trial success and, in addition, reduces the required sample size. Thus, for clinical development, the design offers greater efficiency.

Paliperidone ER monotherapy was efficacious in treating acute mania in two 3-week studies in patients with bipolar I disorder. We assessed its efficacy in a study investigating maintenance treatment of clinically stable patients with this disorder.Patients (n=766), aged 18 to 65 years inclusive, with current manic or mixed episodes were initially randomized (4:1) to flexibly-dosed paliperidone ER (3-12 mg/day) or olanzapine (5-20 mg/day; 3-week acute treatment phase); responders continued the same treatment (12-week continuation phase). Patients on paliperidone ER who achieved remission during this phase were randomized (1:1) to fixed-dose paliperidone ER (n=152) or placebo (n=148); those on olanzapine continued to receive that at fixed dose (n=83) (maintenance phase).Median time to recurrence of any mood symptoms (primary endpoint) was: 558 days (paliperidone ER), 283 days (placebo) and not observed with olanzapine (50% of patients experienced recurrence). Time to recurrence of any mood symptoms was significantly longer with paliperidone ER than placebo (p=0.017; based on weighted Z-test at 0.0198 significance level; hazard ratio [placebo: paliperidone ER; unweighted 95% confidence interval]: 1.43 [1.03; 1.98]); the difference was significant for preventing recurrence of manic, but not depressive, symptoms. Treatment-emergent adverse events (maintenance phase) occurred more often in olanzapine group (64%) than placebo (59%) or paliperidone ER groups (55%).Responder-enriched design prevents extrapolation of data to patients not previously stabilized on paliperidone ER.Paliperidone ER significantly delayed the time to recurrence of any mood symptoms, versus placebo, in patients with bipolar I disorder. No new safety concerns emerged.

Background Combination treatment with atypical antipsychotics and a mood stabilizer is often recommended for treatment of manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder. Methods Eligible patients ( n = 300) with a Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score ≥ 20 were randomly allocated (1:1) to continue mood stabilizer monotherapy or receive flexibly-dosed paliperidone ER (3–12 mg/day) in addition (combination treatment) for 6 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline to endpoint in the YMRS total score. Results The mean (SD) YMRS total score at baseline was 26.7 (5.26); 33% of patients presented with a mixed (as distinct from a manic) episode and 62% were on valproate and 38% on lithium. The mean (SD) change from baseline to endpoint in the YMRS total score was not significantly different for combination treatment (− 14.3 [10.0]) compared with mood stabilizer monotherapy (− 13.2 [10.9]; p = 0.16). Combination treatment also failed to separate from mood stabilizer monotherapy for the secondary efficacy measures. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was higher with combination treatment (70%) than with mood stabilizer monotherapy (54%); insomnia was the most common adverse event in both treatment groups (11%). Limitations The relatively low doses of paliperidone ER used in this study and the conduct across different countries may have contributed to its failure to differentiate combination treatment from mood stabilizer monotherapy for the primary and secondary efficacy measures. Conclusions In this study, flexibly-dosed paliperidone ER used as adjunctive therapy to mood stabilizers did not demonstrate efficacy over mood stabilizer monotherapy. No new safety signals were observed with combination treatment in this population.

Paliperidone palmitate is a long-acting injectable antipsychotic agent. This 13-week, multicenter, randomized (1 : 1 : 1 : 1), double-blind, parallel-group study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of fixed 25, 50, and 100 milligram equivalent (mg equiv.) doses of paliperidone palmitate vs placebo administered as gluteal injections on days 1 and 8, then every 4 weeks (days 36 and 64) in 518 adult patients with schizophrenia. The intent-to-treat analysis set (N=514) was 67% men and 67% White, with a mean age of 41 years. All paliperidone palmitate dose groups showed significant improvement vs placebo in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score (primary efficacy measure; 25 and 50 mg equiv., p=0.02; 100 mg equiv., p

Vieta E, Nuamah IF, Lim P, Yuen EC, Palumbo JM, Hough DW, Berwaerts J. A randomized, placebo- and active-controlled study of paliperidone extended release for the treatment of acute manic and mixed episodes of bipolar I disorder. Bipolar Disord 2010: 12: 230–243. © 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Objectives: To evaluate the antimanic efficacy and safety of paliperidone extended-release (ER) tablets in patients with bipolar I disorder. Methods: This study included a 3-week, double-blind, acute treatment phase (paliperidone ER versus placebo, with quetiapine as control), and a 9-week, double-blind, maintenance phase (paliperidone ER versus quetiapine). Patients [n = 493; Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score ≥ 20] were randomized (2:2:1) to flexibly dosed paliperidone ER (3–12 mg/day), quetiapine (400–800 mg/day), or placebo for the acute treatment phase. During the maintenance phase, patients assigned to placebo were switched to paliperidone ER but not included in analysis of efficacy. Results: Paliperidone ER was superior to placebo at the 3-week endpoint {primary outcome; least-squares mean difference in change from baseline in YMRS scores [95% confidence interval (CI)]: −5.5 (−7.57; −3.35); p

Importance Approximately one-third of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) do not respond to available antidepressants. Objective To assess the efficacy, safety, and dose-response of intranasal esketamine hydrochloride in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Design, Setting, and Participants This phase 2, double-blind, doubly randomized, delayed-start, placebo-controlled study was conducted in multiple outpatient referral centers from January 28, 2014, to September 25, 2015. The study consisted of 4 phases: (1) screening, (2) double-blind treatment (days 1-15), composed of two 1-week periods, (3) optional open-label treatment (days 15-74), and (4) posttreatment follow-up (8 weeks). One hundred twenty-six adults with a DSM-IV-TR diagnosis of MDD and history of inadequate response to 2 or more antidepressants (ie, TRD) were screened, 67 were randomized, and 60 completed both double-blind periods. Intent-to-treat analysis was used in evaluation of the findings. Interventions In period 1, participants were randomized (3:1:1:1) to placebo (n = 33), esketamine 28 mg (n = 11), 56 mg (n = 11), or 84 mg (n = 12) twice weekly. In period 2, 28 placebo-treated participants with moderate-to-severe symptoms were rerandomized (1:1:1:1) to 1 of the 4 treatment arms; those with mild symptoms continued receiving placebo. Participants continued their existing antidepressant treatment during the study. During the open-label phase, dosing frequency was reduced from twice weekly to weekly, and then to every 2 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary efficacy end point was change from baseline to day 8 (each period) in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. Results Sixty-seven participants (38 women, mean [SD] age, 44.7 [10.0] years) were included in the efficacy and safety analyses. Change (least squares mean [SE] difference vs placebo) in MADRS total score (both periods combined) in all 3 esketamine groups was superior to placebo (esketamine 28 mg: −4.2 [2.09], P = .02; 56 mg: −6.3 [2.07], P = .001; 84 mg: −9.0 [2.13], P P Conclusions and Relevance In this first clinical study to date of intranasal esketamine for TRD, antidepressant effect was rapid in onset and dose related. Response appeared to persist for more than 2 months with a lower dosing frequency. Results support further investigation in larger trials. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov identifier:NCT01998958

We assessed efficacy and tolerability of the injectable atypical antipsychotic paliperidone palmitate in delaying time-to-relapse in adults with schizophrenia.Eligible patients (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale [PANSS] total score120) were transitioned from previous antipsychotics to paliperidone palmitate during a 9-week, open-label phase. Patients received the first 2 intramuscular injections of paliperidone palmitate (50mg eq) one-week apart, then subsequent injections (25, 50, or 100mg eq, flexibly-dosed), once-monthly. Stable patients (PANSS total scoreor = 75) continued into the 24-week maintenance phase. At maintenance phase endpoint, stabilized patients were randomized (1:1 ratio) to either continue paliperidone palmitate (at stabilized dose) or begin placebo in the variable-duration, double-blind phase.The preplanned interim analysis (conducted after 68 relapse events) included 312 patients: mean age = 40 years, 55% men, 66% white, and mean transition baseline PANSS total score (SD): placebo, 69.5 (16.89); paliperidone palmitate, 69.3 (17.39). Time-to-relapse (primary endpoint) favored paliperidone palmitate (p0.0001, log-rank test) at interim and final analysis (n=408). The hazard ratio (placebo/paliperidone palmitate) at the final analysis was 3.60 (95% CI: 2.45, 5.28). Treatment-emergent adverse event rates (final analysis set) were: 67% for transition and maintenance phases, and 45% (placebo) and 44% (paliperidone palmitate) for the double-blind phase. Across phases, the incidence of glucose-related adverse events was low (or = 4%), while mean weight increased by 1.9 kg for paliperidone palmitate and remained unchanged for placebo patients. Injection site tolerability was comparable between groups.Paliperidone palmitate significantly delayed time-to-relapse compared with placebo and presented no new safety signals.

Objective The objective of this multicenter, international study was to evaluate safety and tolerability of paliperidone extended-release (ER) tablets in elderly (age ≥65 years) patients with schizophrenia. The authors conducted a 6-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, optional 24-week open-label extension study. Interventions consisted of flexible, once-daily doses of paliperidone ER (3–12 mg/day; 6-mg starting dose, adjusted in 3-mg dose increments) or placebo (2:1) during double-blind treatment and paliperidone ER only during open-label treatment. Measurements included adverse events, laboratory tests, physical examinations, 12-lead electrocardiograms, movement disorder rating scales, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression scale. The study was not powered to show statistical differences. Results Patients (N = 114) were predominantly female (73%); mean age was 70 years (double-blind phase). Concomitant disease presence was consistent with that of an older population. During the double-blind phase, discontinuation rates resulting from adverse events were similar between groups (paliperidone ER: 7%, placebo: 8%) as were incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events (paliperidone ER: 67%, placebo: 71%). Serious adverse events occurred in 3% of the paliperidone ER- and 8% of the placebo-treated patients. Elevated prolactin levels occurred in approximately one half of patients. No prolactin- or glucose treatment-related adverse events or noteworthy mean changes in body weight (0 kg [standard deviation: 2.1] and 0 kg [standard deviation: 2.3] for paliperidone ER and placebo, respectively) were observed. Safety and tolerability results in the extension were consistent with the shorter-term results. Efficacy measures did not show consistent statistical improvement between treatment groups. Conclusion Paliperidone ER (3–12 mg/day) treatment over a 30-week period was generally well-tolerated and may improve symptom severity in elderly patients with schizophrenia.

Background Paliperidone extended-release tablet (paliperidone ER; Invega, Janssen L.P., Titusville, New Jersey) is an oral psychotropic for schizophrenia treatment. Methods Efficacy and safety of once-daily paliperidone ER (6 and 12 mg) were assessed versus placebo in 444 patients with acute schizophrenia in a 6-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study. An olanzapine (10 mg) treatment arm was included to confirm trial validity. Results Both doses of paliperidone ER demonstrated significant improvement in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score ( p ≤ .006) and certain PANSS Marder factor scores compared with placebo ( p ≤ .025); PANSS total score also improved in the olanzapine treatment arm. Paliperidone ER 6 mg ( p ≤ .008), but not 12 mg, was associated with significant improvements in personal and social performance. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) for paliperidone ER 6 mg was comparable with placebo and slightly greater with paliperidone ER 12 mg. Changes in blood glucose and lipid levels with paliperidone ER were comparable with placebo. Two patients treated with paliperidone ER experienced glucose-related AEs. Body-weight increases of 1-2 kg were observed with paliperidone ER. Although there were increases in plasma prolactin levels with paliperidone ER treatment, the incidence of prolactin-related AEs was ≤1%. Conclusions In this study, paliperidone ER, particularly the 6-mg dose, was effective and well tolerated, and provides a valuable new treatment option for schizophrenia.

Background Paliperidone extended-release tablet (paliperidone ER) is an oral psychotropic agent developed for schizophrenia treatment. Paliperidone (9-OH-risperidone, metabolite of risperidone), when used with OROS technology has a unique pharmacokinetic profile undergoing limited hepatic metabolism. Methods The efficacy and safety of once-daily paliperidone ER (3 mg, 9 mg and 15 mg) were compared with placebo in 618 patients with acute schizophrenia in a 6-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study. An assay sensitivity group with known efficacy was included to confirm trial validity (olanzapine 10 mg). Results All doses of paliperidone ER demonstrated significant improvements in PANSS total and PANSS factors scores (p

Paliperidone extended-release tablet (paliperidone ER) is an investigational oral psychotropic developed for schizophrenia treatment. It utilizes OROS technology to provide a unique pharmacokinetic profile, eliminating the need for titration and potentially leading to improved tolerability. Furthermore, paliperidone undergoes limited hepatic metabolism.The efficacy and safety of once-daily paliperidone ER (6 mg, 9 mg and 12 mg) were assessed versus placebo in 628 patients with acute schizophrenia in a 6-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study.All doses of paliperidone ER demonstrated significant improvement in PANSS score, all PANSS Marder factor scores (p0.001) and personal and social functioning versus placebo (p0.001). The PANSS total score also improved significantly in the olanzapine treatment arm. Significantly higher percentages of paliperidone ER patients demonstrated aor =30% reduction in PANSS total score versus placebo (p0.001). The incidence of movement disorder-related AEs and rating scales measurements were similar to placebo for the paliperidone ER 6 mg group and higher in the 9 mg and 12 mg groups. In the paliperidone ER groups there were no reports of glucose-related AEs or clinically relevant changes in plasma lipid levels and changes in mean bodyweight1 kg.In this study, all doses of paliperidone ER were effective in significantly improving the symptoms of schizophrenia and personal and social functioning and were generally well tolerated. Paliperidone ER offers a distinctive treatment profile and may provide a valuable new treatment option for patients with schizophrenia.

Paliperidone palmitate (PP) is a recently (USA) approved injectable new-generation antipsychotic. This 53-wk, Phase-III double-blind study was designed to assess the non-inferiority of PP to risperidone long-acting injectable (RIS-LAI) in schizophrenia treatment. Acutely symptomatic patients ( n =749), with a Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score between 60 and 120 were randomly allocated to gluteal injections of either ( a ) PP: 50 mg eq. on days 1 and 8, and flexible dosing [25–100 mg eq. (i.e. 39–156 mg USA dosing)] once-monthly; or ( b ) RIS-LAI: bi-weekly injections of 25 mg on days 8 and 22, and flexible dosing (25–50 mg) starting from day 36, with allowed oral supplementation. Patients ( n =747) were 59% men, 92% white, mean (s.d.) age of 41 (11.95) yr and 45% ( n =339) completed the study. Mean (s.d.) change from baseline to endpoint in PANSS total score was: −11.6 (21.22) PP; and −14.4 (19.76) RIS-LAI (per-protocol analysis set, primary measure); least-squares means difference was −2.6 (95% CI −5.84 to 0.61), with a prespecified 5-point non-inferiority margin. PP's suboptimal dosing regimen (

Introduction: This 52-week open-label extension (OLE) to a double-blind placebo-controlled recurrence prevention study examined the long-term safety and efficacy of flexibly-dosed paliperidone extended-release (ER) tablets in patients with schizophrenia.Methods: Patients entering the OLE either entered from the double-blind phase (placebo or paliperidone ER treatment) or entered directly from the run-in or stabilization phase (paliperidone ER) of the earlier study. During the OLE, patients were treated with flexibly-dosed paliperidone ER (3–15 mg/day; 9 mg starting dose). Safety and tolerability assessments included incidence of adverse events and extrapyramidal symptoms. Efficacy was also assessed.Results: The study population (n=235) was predominantly men (66%), 18–58 years of age. Twelve patients (5%) experienced an adverse event requiring treatment discontinuation. One or more serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 13 patients (6%). There was one death. The mean Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score decreased from open-label baseline to endpoint for all groups, regardless of previous double-blind treatment (placebo or paliperidone ER).Conclusion: This year-long OLE provides information on the long-term safety and tolerability of paliperidone ER in patients with schizophrenia. The resulting safety and tolerability profile was similar to that seen in earlier short-term studies.

Background Atypical antipsychotics are effective in the treatment of bipolar I disorder. In this 3-week double-blind study, the efficacy and safety of paliperidone extended-release (ER) tablets were assessed in patients with acute mania. Methods Patients experiencing a manic or mixed episode (Young Mania Rating Scale [YMRS] total score ≥ 20), were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 fixed doses of once-daily paliperidone ER (3, 6, or 12-mg), or placebo (1:1:1:1 ratio). Results In total, 469 patients were randomly assigned to treatment with paliperidone ER 3 mg ( n = 112), 6 mg ( n = 120), or 12 mg ( n = 115); or placebo ( n = 122). Mean (SD) change in YMRS total score from baseline to the 3-week endpoint (primary variable) was statistically significantly different for the paliperidone ER 12 mg group (−13.5 [9.17], p = 0.025), but not the 6 mg (−11.4 [9.98], p = 0.57) or 3 mg (−9.1 [11.18], p = 0.79) groups compared with placebo (−10.1 [10.21]). Headache was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event (17% total paliperidone ER versus 12% placebo). Limitations A statistically significant ( p = 0.0032) treatment-by-country interaction occurred, which confounded interpretation of study results. Paliperidone ER and placebo did not differ statistically for the primary efficacy variable among patients from the United States sites (74% of the intent-to-treat analysis set). Conclusions Paliperidone ER 12 mg/day was superior to placebo in the treatment of acute mania. Change from baseline in YMRS total score increased with the dose of paliperidone ER. Paliperidone ER was generally tolerated by patients with bipolar I disorder and no new safety signal was detected.

Long-term efficacy and safety of paliperidone extended-release tablets (3-12 mg/day) were evaluated in pooled data from 52-week open-label extension (OLE) phases of three 6-week, placebo-controlled, double-blind (DB) trials involving 1083 schizophrenia patients. Forty-seven percent of patients completed the OLE phase. Outcome measures included Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and Personal and Social Performance scale scores. Improvements observed on both scales in active treatment groups during the DB phases were maintained during the OLE phase. Most commonly (> or =10% patients) reported adverse events (AEs) were insomnia, headache, and akathisia. One or more serious AEs were reported by 16% of patients; two patients had a treatment-emergent AE that resulted in death (suicide). Extrapyramidal symptom-related AEs were reported by 25% of patients. Median maximum movement disorder rating scale scores indicated no severity change during the OLE. Mean (+/-SD) increase in body weight from OLE baseline to end point was 1.1+/-5.47 kg across treatment groups and there were no clinically meaningful changes for plasma glucose, insulin or lipid levels. This analysis shows that paliperidone extended-release can maintain improvements in symptoms and functioning and is generally well tolerated for up to 52 weeks in schizophrenia patients.

We evaluated the efficacy of paliperidone extended-release (ER), an investigational psychotropic agent, in delaying symptom recurrence in adult patients with schizophrenia and its safety and tolerability. In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study, patients' symptoms were stabilized during an 8-week run-in and a 6-week stabilization phases using open-label, flexibly dosed paliperidone ER (3-15 mg once daily, starting dose = 9 mg). The primary efficacy variable was the time of first recurrence of schizophrenia symptoms, which included predefined changes in symptom scores, psychiatric hospitalization, self-injury, and suicidal or aggressive behavior during the double-blind phase (paliperidone ER or placebo treatment). Based on positive efficacy, the study was terminated at the preplanned interim analysis (43 recurrence events). The interim analysis (primary analysis) included 113 patients (mean age = 41 years; 51% men, 85% white). In the intent-to-treat group, 14 paliperidone ER-treated patients (25%) experienced a recurrence event versus 29 (53%) for placebo. Time-to-recurrence was significantly different, favoring the paliperidone ER group (P = 0.005, log-rank test): 25% quantile of time-to-recurrence was 83 days (paliperidone ER) versus 23 days (placebo). Final analyses (n = 205) were confirmatory. During initial open-label treatment with paliperidone ER, symptoms improved significantly. This improvement was maintained with continued treatment, as were functioning and quality-of-life measures. Treatment-emergent adverse events rates were similar: 35% for paliperidone ER and 40% for placebo. Paliperidone ER treatment versus placebo significantly delayed time-to-recurrence in patients with schizophrenia, maintained symptom stability and measures of functioning, and was generally well tolerated in this patient population.

Objective To compare the effects of a daily oral 1-mg dose of continuous 17β-estradiol (E 2 ) plus intermittent (3 days off, 3 days on) norgestimate (NGM) 90 μg (n = 221), an oral 2-mg dose of continuous E 2 plus intermittent NGM 180 μg (n = 219), and an oral 2-mg dose of continuous E 2 plus continuous norethisterone acetate (NETA) 1 mg (n = 217) on blood lipids and lipoproteins in postmenopausal women. Background The present study was undertaken because some progestins have adverse effects on lipid profiles, thereby negating the favorable effects of estrogens. Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized, parallel-group trial that focused primarily on the 2 marketed regimens—E 2 1 mg/NGM 90 μg and E 2 /NETA. Both subjects and investigators were blinded to the intermittent regimens, the continuous combined regimen was administered open-label. After a minimum 12-hour overnight fast, blood samples were collected at baseline and during months 7 and 12 to determine lipid and lipoprotein concentrations using validated methods. Results E 2 1 mg/NGM 90 μg was associated with significant (ie, the 95% CI did not include 0) increases in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (6.8% [95% CI = 4.7%, 9.0%]and 4.8% [2.3%, 7.2%]at months 7 and 12, respectively) and high-density lipoprotein 2 cholesterol (HDL 2 -C) (10.8% [6.2%, 15.3%]and 24.1% [18.9%, 29.4%]) concentrations, and decreases in total cholesterol (−7.7% [−9.0%, −6.3%]and −9.2% [−10.5%, −7.9%]), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (−14.3% [−16.3%, −12.4%]and −14.9% [−16.7%, −13.2%]), and lipoprotein(a) (−30.6% [−41.4%, −20.0%]at month 12) concentrations. A significant difference ( P 2 1 -mg/NGM 90-μg and NETA regimens was seen for HDL-C and HDL 2 -C concentrations, which were elevated in subjects receiving E 2 1 mg/NGM 90 μg but reduced (−9.1% [−11.1%, −7.1%]and −12.3% [−14.3%, −10.3%]for HDL-C at months 7 and 12, respectively; −14.2% [−18.0%, −10.4%]and −2.5% [−7.8%, +2.8%]for HDL 2 -C at months 7 and 12, respectively) in those receiving E 2 /NETA. Conclusions In the present study, continuous E 2 1 mg/NGM 90 μg was associated with beneficial effects on lipids and hpoproteins in healthy postmenopausal women, effects that were greater at least for HDL-C and HDL 2 -C than those observed with continuous combined E 2 /NETA. The applicability of the study results to women with preexisting cardiovascular disease or dyshpidemia, or those who are overweight, remains to be investigated.

a Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel b Department of Psychiatry, University of Stellenbosch, Cape Town, South Africa c Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development, Titusville, NJ, USA d Clinical Biostatistics, Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development, Titusville, NJ, USA e Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development, Beerse, Belgium