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.

In contrast to the validated scales for face-to-face assessment of negative symptoms, no widely accepted tools currently exist for remote monitoring of negative symptoms. Remote assessment of negative symptoms can be broadly divided into 3 categories: (1) remote administration of an existing negative-symptom scale by a clinician, in real time, using videoconference technology to communicate with the patient; (2) direct inference of negative symptoms through detection and analysis of the patient’s voice, appearance, or activity by way of the patient’s smartphone or other device; and (3) ecological momentary assessment, in which the patient self-reports their condition upon receipt of periodic prompts from a smartphone or other device during their daily routine. These modalities vary in cost, technological complexity, and applicability to the different negative-symptom domains. Each modality has unique strengths, weaknesses, and issues with validation. As a result, an optimal solution may be more likely to employ several techniques than to use a single tool. For remote assessment of negative symptoms to be adopted as primary or secondary endpoints in regulated clinical trials, appropriate psychometric standards will need to be met. Standards for substituting 1 set of measures for another, as well as what constitutes a “gold” reference standard, will need to be precisely defined and a process for defining them developed. Despite over 4 decades of progress toward this goal, significant work remains to be done before clinical trials addressing negative symptoms can utilize remotely assessed secondary or primary outcome measures.

OBJECTIVE: Most assessments of suicidal ideation and behavior (SIB) are limited by reliance on a single assessor, typically a clinician or patient, with scant detail on patient-related drivers of SIB and inability to detect rapid change in SIB. Furthermore, many techniques do not include a semistructured interview, increasing rater variability. The Suicide Ideation and Behavior Assessment Tool (SIBAT) addresses these limitations. DESIGN: More than 30 experts in scale development, statistics, and clinical management of suicidal patients collaborated over a greater than four-year period to develop the SIBAT. Input for content and validity was received from patients, clinicians, and regulatory authorities in the United States (US) and Europe. Psychometric properties of the SIBAT were evaluated in validation studies. RESULTS: The SIBAT is organized into eight independent patient- or clinician-rated modules with branching logic and scoring algorithms, which necessitates computerization. Patient-reported information is first captured in Modules 1 to 5. Thereafter, an experienced clinician reviews the patient’s report, conducts a semistructured interview (Module 6), and assesses the patient’s suicide risk (Module 7) and optimal antisuicide management (Module 8). Input from cognitive interviews of diverse adult, adolescent, and clinician participants was incorporated into the final version of the SIBAT. Psychometric testing demonstrated good inter-rater reliability (intraclass coefficient range: 0.68–0.82), intra-rater reliability (weighted-kappa range: 0.64–0.76), and concurrent validity with other instruments for assessing SIB. CONCLUSION: Patient- and clinician-based assessments and the psychometric studies summarized in this report support the validity and reliability of the SIBAT for capturing critical information related to assessment of SIB in adolescents and adults at risk for suicide.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the feasibility of conducting a large clinical trial within the Rwandan mental healthcare system that would establish the safety, efficacy and benefit of paliperidone palmitate once-monthly (PP1M) and once-every-3-months (PP3M) long-acting injectable formulations in adults with schizophrenia.Study designAn open-label, prospective feasibility study.Setting/Participants33 adult patients with schizophrenia were enrolled at 3 sites across Rwanda.InterventionsThe study design included 3 phases of treatment: an oral run-in to establish tolerability to risperidone (1 week), lead-in treatment with flexibly dosed PP1M to identify a stable dose (17 weeks) and maintenance treatment with PP3M (24 weeks).Primary and secondary outcome measuresFeasibility endpoints included compliance with governmental and institutional requirements, acceptable supply chain delivery and proper onsite administration of risperidone/PP1M/PP3M, adequate site infrastructure, adequate training of clinical staff and successful completion of study procedures and scales. A variety of study scales were administered to assess outcomes relevant to patients, caregivers, clinicians and payers in Rwanda and other resource-limited settings.ResultsThis study was terminated early by the sponsor because certain aspects of study conduct needed to be addressed to maintain Good Clinical Practice requirements and meet regulatory standards. Results identified areas for improvement in study execution, including study governance, site infrastructure, study preparation and conduct of procedures, study budget and study assessments. Despite the identification of areas in need of adjustment, none of these limitations were considered insurmountable.ConclusionsThis work was designed to strengthen global research in schizophrenia by building the capacity of researchers to prepare and conduct pharmaceutical trials in resource-limited settings. Although the study was ended early, modifications motivated by the results will facilitate the successful design and completion of more comprehensive studies, including an ongoing, follow-up interventional trial of PP1M/PP3M in a larger population of patients in Rwanda.Trial registration numberNCT03713658

Carmela Benson,1 David Singer,2 Colleen M Carpinella,3 May Shawi,4 Larry Alphs4 1Real-World Value & Evidence, Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Titusville, NJ, USA; 2Jefferson College of Population Health, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 3Real-World Evidence Health Division, Kantar Health, San Mateo, CA, USA; 4Neuroscience Medical Affairs, Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Titusville, NJ, USACorrespondence: Carmela Benson Director, Real-World Value & Evidence, Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, 1125 Trenton-Harbourton Road, Titusville, NJ 08560, USAEmail CBenson5@its.jnj.comBackground: Suicidal ideation (SI) is a cardinal aspect of major depressive disorder (MDD); however, patient-reported outcomes data from large-scale surveys are limited concerning SI in the context of MDD. This study aims to understand the association between varying levels of SI and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), work productivity, healthcare resource utilization (HRU), and associated costs in patients with moderately severe/severe MDD.Methods: This was a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of 2013 national survey data. Patients who self-reported moderately severe or severe MDD and completed the Short Form Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2), Work Productivity Loss and Activity Impairment questionnaire (WPAI), and questions related to HRU were analyzed. Direct and indirect costs were calculated. Patients were categorized and analyzed by the level of SI (no SI, low, moderate, and high) based on their response to Item 9 of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9.Results: Among 75,000 respondents, 15.3% self-reported receiving a physician diagnosis of moderately severe or severe MDD and 2.8% of the total sample endorsed some level of SI. Patients with high SI showed a higher burden than patients with no SI, reporting lower mean SF-36v2 mental component summary scores (p< 0.001), higher work productivity loss (p=0.039), and higher numbers of per patient per month hospitalizations (p=0.002) and emergency room visits (p=0.011). High SI was associated with greater per patient per month direct costs ($1220 vs $796; p=0.002) and indirect costs ($1449 vs $1058; p=0.001) compared with no SI. When patients with low or moderate SI were compared with patients with no SI, the results were mixed.Conclusion: Higher levels of SI were associated with lower HRQoL, greater HRU, and more work impairment resulting in higher direct and indirect costs compared with patients with MDD but no SI. These results highlight the need to implement effective treatment models and interventions in the employed population.Keywords: major depression, suicidal ideation, economic burden, health-related quality of life

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.

Clinical trials that establish the safety and efficacy of a treatment typically employ an explanatory approach to trial design. By avoiding subjects with comorbid illnesses and concomitant treatments, explanatory trial designs minimize confounds to interpretation that might arise if a population more fully representative of clinical practice were recruited. Despite these strengths, such trials leave many questions unanswered regarding the relative efficacy and safety of these products when they are applied in real-world settings with more diverse patients and more complex treatment options. Pragmatic trials that address these limitations represent a desirable next step for guiding clinical treatment decision-making. However, the complexities of real-world patients and settings introduce many complications such that their scientific rigor and validity may be challenged by regulators who typically provide an intensive scientific review before accepting the validity of their conclusions. A hallmark of a successful regulatory review is recognition of study results by regulators in a product's labeling. This chapter discusses the design and scientific validity challenges faced in a pragmatically designed trial of patients with schizophrenia and a history of incarceration.

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

Introduction Better understanding of suicide risk and its management in older adults with cognitive impairment and/or dementia remain significant unmet public health needs. Urgency to address them derives from concern that CNS treatments for dementia may impact suicide risk. Regulatory guidances requiring assessment of emergent suicidal ideation and behavior (SI/SB) at every clinical trial visit emphasize the need for understanding their prevalence. Methods The literature regarding SI/SB in older persons with cognitive impairment or dementia was reviewed by an Alzheimer's Association Taskforce with emphasis on epidemiology, classification, assessment, and regulatory requirements. Results Gaps in our knowledge were identified, challenges discussed and recommendations for future work provided. Discussion Currently available SI/SB data from geriatric persons with dementia do not provide adequate understanding of its epidemiology, identification, assessment, or management. The growing public health burden of this population requires greater attention from clinicians and researchers on tactics and assessment tools to meet these needs.

Introduction The AARR task force on suicidal ideation and behavior (SI/SB) in dementia conducted an online survey on the extent of SI/SB in individuals diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia who were participating in clinical trials. Methods Investigators with experience in conducting SI/SB assessments in clinical trial subjects with MCI or dementia were invited to complete a global 19-item online survey. Results A total of 204 evaluable responses were collected with the majority from North America and Europe (83.4%) and the remainder from Asia, Latin America, and Mideast/Africa. The mean (SD) number of subjects personally assessed by the respondents in the past year with MCI, mild-moderate dementia, or severe dementia was 12.8 (26.2), 31.2 (39.6), and 10.1 (34.7), respectively. The mean number of subjects in each diagnostic group with suicidal ideation (SI), suicidal behavior (SB), or completed suicide (CS) was on average quite low (0.3 to 1.1 for SI, 0.1 to 0.2 for SB, and 0.0 to 0.2 for CS). Confidence in subject self-reports of SI/SB over different time periods declined with increasing severity of cognitive impairment and with increasing duration of the recall time period assessed. Of respondents, 56% and 75% had low confidence in self-ratings of SI/SB from subjects with severe dementia over the past 24 hours and the past week to 1 month, respectively. Ratings of the reliability of information collected on SI/SB also decreased with increasing severity of cognitive impairment. Approximately 70% of respondents rated the reliability of the information they obtained from all sources (patient, caregiver, and others) for subjects with MCI as high, but only about half (42.0% to 55.3%) and less than a quarter (17.4% to 24.3%) rated the reliability of information obtained for subjects with mild to moderate dementia or severe dementia as high, respectively. Discussion These results support the usefulness of prospective SI/SB assessments in MCI and mild dementia, raise questions about the reliability of assessments in moderate dementia, and confirm their lack of clinical utility in severe dementia. The results highlight the need for development of validated assessment instruments adapted to the stage of cognitive decline of the patients under study and may be the most effective in the earliest stages of the disease.

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.

This study aimed to evaluate hospital length of stay (LOS) and cost as well as readmission risk and the associated economic burden among patients hospitalized for treatment-resistant and non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder.Adult patients with a primary hospital discharge diagnosis of major depressive disorder were identified from the Premier Hospital Database (January 1, 2012-September 30, 2015). Patients were stratified into two cohorts: those whose hospital treatment was suggestive of treatment-resistant depression and those with non-treatment-resistant depression. Hospital LOS and cost during the initial admission and readmissions rates, LOS, and cost within the 6-month follow-up were compared between cohorts with a propensity score-matched sample.After matching, 45,066 patients were included in each cohort. For index hospitalizations, mean hospital LOS was longer (7.4 vs. 5.9 days, p0.001) and mean hospital cost higher ($8,681 vs. $6,632, p0.001) for patients with treatment-resistant depression vs. non-treatment-resistant depression. Rates for all-cause (24.4% vs. 20.0%, p0.001), major depressive disorder-related (17.0% vs. 13.3%, p0.001), and suicidal ideation/suicide attempt-related (12.8% vs. 9.5%, p0.001) readmissions were higher for patients with treatment-resistant depression. Mean LOS and total hospital costs per patient for readmissions were also greater for patients with treatment-resistant depression vs. non-treatment-resistant depression. Correspondingly, the combined hospital cost (index hospitalization+all-cause readmissions) was greater for patients with treatment-resistant depression ($12,370 vs. $9,429, p0.001).Treatment-resistant depression was associated with substantial economic burden among patients hospitalized for major depressive disorder. More-effective treatment and care for this patient population may reduce the hospital burden of patients with treatment-resistant depression.

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.

Aim Long-acting injectable antipsychotics (APs) are not well studied in recent-onset schizophrenia. This exploratory analysis of a study designed to reflect real-world schizophrenia, as defined by patients, interventions and outcomes, compared relative treatment effect between once-monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP) and daily oral APs in patients with recent-onset or chronic illness Methods This randomized, open-label, event monitoring board–blinded study compared treatment response in subjects with schizophrenia and a history of criminal justice system involvement following treatment with PP or oral APs for 15 months (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01157351). Event-free probabilities were estimated using Kaplan–Meier method; hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazard models. This subgroup analysis analysed data by disease duration (≤5 (recent-onset) or >5 years (chronic illness) since first psychiatric diagnosis). Results Seventy-seven subjects met the criteria for recent-onset illness; 365 for chronic illness. HRs (95% CI) for treatment failure for oral APs versus PP were 1.73 (0.87–3.45; P = 0.121) for recent-onset and 1.37 (1.02–1.85; P = 0.039) for chronic illness. Most common adverse events for PP versus oral APs were injection site pain (recent-onset, 26% vs. 0%; chronic, 17% vs. 0%), increased weight (14% vs. 6%; 12% vs. 6%), akathisia (14% vs. 9%; 10% vs. 7%), insomnia (12% vs. 17%; 18% vs. 10%) and anxiety (12% vs. 6%; 10% vs. 8%). Conclusions Although neither pre-planned nor adequately powered, the estimated HRs suggest that the relative advantage of PP over oral APs for reducing the risk for treatment failure may be greater in patients with recent-onset schizophrenia than in those with more chronic illness.

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.

Background: The early, effective treatment of schizophrenia may slow disease progression and improve overall patient outcomes. The DREaM study (NCT02431702) is a doubly randomized, matched-control, open-label, flexible-dose study designed to compare the efficacy of treatment with paliperidone palmitate (PP) once monthly or once-every-3-months long-acting injection (LAI) versus treatment with oral antipsychotics in subjects with recent-onset schizophrenia or schizophreniform disorder. This abstract reports the baseline demographics and clinical characteristics of early enrollees to the study. Methods: DREaM includes 3 treatment phases. Part 1 consists of subjects who meet the inclusion/exclusion criteria and are entered into a 2-month, run-in phase to establish the tolerability of oral paliperidone prior to the next phase of study. The primary objectives of Part 2 and 3 are to examine whether PP LAI can slow disease progression and modify the course of schizophrenia when compared to oral antipsychotics. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics have been evaluated using descriptive statistics. Results: As of September 2016, the study had enrolled 59 subjects with a mean age (± SD) of 22.5 ± 3.88 years (range, 18–35). The population is predominantly male (91.5%, 54/59); 51.7% of subjects are white and 37.9% are black. The population has a diagnosis of either schizophrenia (83.1%) or schizophreniform disorder (16.9%). Mean ± SD number of psychiatric hospitalizations within the prior 24 months is 1.2 ± 0.99, ranging from 0 to 4 hospitalizations across the population. Histories of antipsychotic exposure, categorized as 12 months of use, are 60.3%, 13.8%, and 25.9% of the population, respectively. Cumulative substance history, categorized as 0 years, ≤2 years, and >2 years, is 42.5%, 15.0%, and 42.5%, respectively. Mean ± SD MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery score is 27.8 ± 14.99; 40.4% of subjects had a score of

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.

Fatigue is reflected in a broad array of symptoms that can be particularly impactful in patients with central nervous system (CNS) disorders. Fatigue symptoms can present as core components of the underlying CNS disorder, as part of co-morbid medical conditions, as secondary to psychosocial stressors or physical or mental exertion, and/or secondary to the medications used to treat the disorders. The complex, multi-factorial etiology of fatigue symptoms can obscure the assessment and complicate the treatment intervention for the underlying primary CNS disorder. In this narrative clinical review, we focus on identification, assessment, and adjunctive pharmacological treatment of fatigue symptoms across five distinct CNS disorders. Given the potential impact of fatigue on function and quality of life, it is important to address this symptom as part of a comprehensive evaluation.

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

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

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.

Srihari Gopal,1 Yanning Liu,1 Larry Alphs,2 Adam Savitz,1 Isaac Nuamah,1 David Hough1 1Janssen Research and Development, LLC, Raritan, 2Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Titusville, NJ, USA Background: The purpose of this study was to compare incidence rates and time course of extrapyramidal symptom (EPS)-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) between oral and long-acting injectable (LAI) paliperidone. Methods: The analysis included pooled data (safety analysis set, 2,256 antipsychotic-treated and 865 placebo-treated patients with schizophrenia) from seven randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled paliperidone studies (three oral [6 weeks each] and four LAI [9–13 weeks]) and assessed comparable doses (oral, 3–15 mg; LAI, 25–150 mg eq. [US doses 39–234 mg]). We summarized incidence rates and time of onset for EPS-related TEAE, categorized by EPS group terms, ie, tremor, dystonia, hyperkinesia, parkinsonism, and dyskinesia, and use of anti-EPS medication. Mean scores over time for the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS, for dyskinesia), Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale (BARS, for akathisia), and Simpson Angus Rating Scale (SAS, for parkinsonism) were graphed. Results: Incidence rates for all categories of spontaneously reported EPS-related TEAEs except for hyperkinesia, were numerically lower in pooled LAI studies than in pooled oral studies. Highest rates were observed in the first week of paliperidone-LAI (for all EPS symptoms except dyskinesia) and oral paliperidone treatment (except parkinsonism and tremor). Anti-EPS medication use was significantly lower in LAI (12%) versus oral studies (17%, P = 0.0035). Mean values for EPS scale scores were similar between LAI and oral treatment at endpoint, and no dose response was evident. Mean reductions (standard deviation) from baseline to endpoint in EPS scale scores were larger for LAI (AIMS, −0.10 [1.27]; BARS, −0.09 [1.06]; SAS, −0.04 [0.20]) versus oral studies (AIMS, −0.08 [1.32]; BARS, −0.03 [1.24]; SAS, 0.0 [0.23]). These changes favored LAI for BARS (P = 0.023) and SAS (P < 0.0001), but not for AIMS (P = 0.49), at endpoint for the studies. Conclusion: In this posthoc descriptive analysis, incidence rates of spontaneously reported EPS-related TEAEs were numerically lower following approximately 90 days of exposure with LAI and approximately 40 days with oral paliperidone at comparable doses. Keywords: antipsychotic agents, extrapyramidal symptoms, long-acting injectable, movement disorder, second-generation

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.

This paper summarizes the results of the CNS Summit Data Quality Monitoring Workgroup analysis of current data quality monitoring techniques used in central nervous system (CNS) clinical trials. Based on audience polls conducted at the CNS Summit 2014, the panel determined that current techniques used to monitor data and quality in clinical trials are broad, uncontrolled, and lack independent verification. The majority of those polled endorse the value of monitoring data. Case examples of current data quality methodology are presented and discussed. Perspectives of pharmaceutical companies and trial sites regarding data quality monitoring are presented. Potential future developments in CNS data quality monitoring are described. Increased utilization of biomarkers as objective outcomes and for patient selection is considered to be the most impactful development in data quality monitoring over the next 10 years. Additional future outcome measures and patient selection approaches are discussed.