Search

OBJECTIVE: Persons with schizophrenia exhibit greater neurocognitive test score dispersion. Here, we seek to characterize dispersion on the Neurocognitive Composite subtests of the Measurement of Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrena Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB) and determine the relative effects of different antipsychotic formulations on dispersion and mean performance. METHOD: In this post hoc analysis of the DREaM study (NCT02431702), which compared treatment with paliperidone palmitate (PP) long-acting injectable with oral antipsychotic (OAP) treatment over 18 months, dispersion in MCCB neurocognitive subtest performance was calculated for each participant by visit (test occasion). RESULTS: Over 18 months, mean neurocognitive performance improved in a manner consistent with the expected effects of practice in both groups (p

Aim: Real‐world data (RWD) for paliperidone palmitate (PP) three‐monthly (PP3M) is lacking based on Japan label requirements. This study evaluated the clinical effectiveness of PP3M versus PP once‐monthly (PP1M) in patients with schizophrenia administered according to Japan label requirements. Methods: Retrospective analyses were conducted using RWD from Merative™ MarketScan® Multi‐State Medicaid (MDCD) claims database (June 2015–December 2022). Adult patients with schizophrenia switching from PP1M to PP3M were included. Patients transitioning to PP3M were matched with patients who continued with PP1M using propensity score matching (PSM) at 1:1 ratio. Primary hypothesis aimed to investigate non‐inferiority of PP3M versus PP1M in terms of relapse‐free status at 24 months from index PP injection. Outcome measures were proportions of relapse‐free patients at 24 months, time to relapse, treatment persistence, and adherence. Results: Total 4252 eligible adult schizophrenia patients on PP (PP3M:582; PP1M:3670) were identified. After PSM, each PP cohort comprised 562 matched individuals. Estimated proportion of relapse‐free patients was higher in PP3M (85.7%) versus PP1M (77.9%), per Japan PP label. PP3M demonstrated superiority to PP1M after testing for non‐inferiority in terms of achieving relapse‐free status at 24 months, with an estimated difference of 7.8% (95% CI: 1.7%–13.9%). PP3M cohort had lower risk of relapse (HR: 0.605; CI: 0.427–0.856), longer treatment persistence, and higher treatment adherence versus PP1M cohort. Conclusions: Findings suggests that patients who switched to PP3M might be able to reduce risk of relapse compared to those who continued PP1M after aligning particularly with Japan's label requirements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective:Common genetic variation spans schizophrenia, schizoaffective and bipolar disorders, but historically, these syndromes have been distinguished categorically. A symptom dimension shared across these syndromes, if such a general factor exists, might provide a clearer target for understanding and treating mental illnesses that share core biological bases. Method:We tested the hypothesis that a bifactor model of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), containing 1 general factor and 5 specific factors (positive, negative, disorganized, excited, anxiety), explains the cross-diagnostic structure of symptoms better than the traditional 5-factor model, and examined the extent to which a general factor reflects the overall severity of symptoms spanning diagnoses in 5094 total patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, schizoaffective, and bipolar disorder. Results:The bifactor model provided superior fit across diagnoses, and was closer to the "true" model, compared to the traditional 5-factor model (Vuong test; P < .001). The general factor included high loadings on 28 of the 30 PANSS items, omitting symptoms associated with the excitement and anxiety/depression domains. The general factor had highest total loadings on symptoms that are often associated with the positive and disorganization syndromes, but there were also substantial loadings on the negative syndrome thus leading to the interpretation of this factor as reflecting generalized psychosis. Conclusions:A bifactor model derived from the PANSS can provide a stronger framework for measuring cross-diagnostic psychopathology than a 5-factor model, and includes a generalized psychosis dimension shared at least across schizophrenia, schizoaffective, and bipolar disorder.

Purpose: A previous integrated patient-level analysis demonstrated a significant benefit of implementing once-monthly injectable paliperidone palmitate (PP1M) earlier in the treatment course for schizophrenia. Earlier therapeutic interventions during the first 3– 5 years after disease onset can positively impact long-term outcomes in schizophrenia. This present analysis evaluated the risk of relapse both overall and by different durations of illness (0– 3 years, > 3– 5 years, and > 5 years from diagnosis) in adult patients with schizophrenia who received PP1M or oral antipsychotics (OAPs). Patients and Methods: This analysis included integrated patient-level data from the Paliperidone Palmitate Research in Demonstrating Effectiveness (PRIDE) and Prevention of Relapse with Oral Antipsychotics versus Injectable Paliperidone Palmitate (PROSIPAL) studies. Both studies assessed relapse as the primary outcome in patients treated either PP1M or OAPs. Results: Overall, the risk of relapse was reduced by 31% with PP1M compared to OAP (HR 0.69; 95% CI [0.56– 0.86], P < 0.001). Fewer relapses were observed with PP1M versus OAP in the 0– 3-year subgroup (15.8% and 21.7%, respectively), > 3– 5-year subgroup (19.6% and 29.9%, respectively), and > 5-year subgroup (41.7% and 51.6%, respectively). These results represent a reduction in risk of relapse by 33% for patients receiving PP1M versus OAP in the 0– 3-year subgroup (HR 0.67; 95% CI [0.44– 1.00], P = 0.050), 43% in the > 3– 5-year subgroup (HR 0.57; 95% CI [0.35– 0.93], P = 0.025), and 26% in the > 5-year subgroup (HR 0.74; 95% CI [0.55– 1.00], P = 0.049). Treatment-emergent adverse event rates were similar between treatment groups. Conclusion: This analysis indicates that PP1M provides significant benefits in reducing relapse rates compared to OAPs, regardless of the duration of illness. These findings emphasize the importance of initiating PP1M treatment early in the course of schizophrenia to achieve better long-term outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Paliperidone palmitate 6-month (PP6M) demonstrated noninferiority to paliperidone palmitate 3-month in preventing relapse in patients with schizophrenia in a phase 3 double-blind (DB) study (NCT03345342). Here, we report long-term efficacy and safety results from a 2-year single-arm, open-label extension (OLE; NCT04072575) of this DB study. Methods Participants who completed the DB study without relapse were enrolled and followed-up every 3 months up to 2 years. Participants received 4 PP6M gluteal injections (700/1000 mg eq.) at baseline, 6-month, 12-month, and 18-month visits. Efficacy endpoints included assessment of relapse, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score, Personal and Social Performance score, and Clinical Global Impression-Severity scale change from baseline. Safety was assessed by treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), physical examinations, and laboratory tests. Results Of 178 participants enrolled, 154 (86.5%) completed the OLE (mean age: 40.4 years, men: 70.8%; mean duration of PP6M exposure during OLE: 682.1 days). Overall, 7/178 (3.9%) participants relapsed between 20 and 703 days after enrolment. Mean (SD) changes from baseline to endpoint were as follows: Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score, 0.7 (8.22); Clinical Global Impression-Severity, 0.0 (0.51); and Personal and Social Performance Scale, 0.5 (7.47). Overall, 111/178 participants (62.4%) reported ≥1 TEAE; most common (>5%) TEAEs were headache (13.5%) and increased blood prolactin/hyperprolactinemia (18.0%); 8/178 (4.5%) participants experienced serious TEAEs, and 6/178 (3.4%) participants withdrew due to TEAEs. No deaths were reported. Conclusions The relapse rate observed with PP6M during the 2-year OLE was low (3.9%). Clinical and functional improvements demonstrated in the DB study were maintained during OLE, and no new safety concerns were identified. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04072575; EudraCT number: 2018-004532-30. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background "Dissociation" comprises distinct phenomena, some of which are associated with esketamine treatment and some may overlap with positive symptoms of psychosis. Relationships between dissociation and psychotic symptoms assessed by -clinician report vs conventional rating scales were investigated in a post hoc analysis of data from the initial treatment session in an -open-label, -long-term safety, phase 3 study of esketamine plus a newly initiated oral antidepressant in patients with treatment-resistant depression. Methods Adverse events of dissociation or psychosis were examined via investigator report and the Clinician Administered Dissociative States Scale (CADSS) and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale-Plus, respectively, 40 minutes post first esketamine dose. The range of CADSS total scores associated with investigator-reported severity of dissociation was determined by equipercentile linking. Logistic regression models and receiver operating curve analysis explored the CADSS cutoff point for determining presence/absence of dissociation. Frequency of response to specific CADSS items was examined to investigate qualitative differences in the pattern of symptoms reported across investigator-reported levels of adverse event severity. Results Dissociation was reported as an adverse event in 14.3% (109/764) of patients. Severity of most CADSS items increased with the severity of investigator-reported dissociation. No CADSS cutoff point discriminated well between the presence and absence of dissociation events. Hallucinations were reported as adverse events in 5 patients; none reported delusions. Conclusions CADSS scores and severity of dissociation adverse events move generally in the same direction; however, there is substantial variability in this relationship. No signature profile of dissociative experiences was revealed, and psychotic symptoms were uncommon. Trial Registration Clinical Trials.gov identifier: NCT02497287 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In ESCAPE-TRD (NCT04338321), a randomized, open-label, rater-blinded, long-term, phase 3b trial, augmentation with esketamine nasal spray (ESK) demonstrated increased probability of achieving meaningful clinical benefit versus quetiapine extended release (QUE XR) in patients (pts) with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). This subgroup analysis of ESCAPE-TRD evaluated the incidence, duration, and impact of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) on treatment discontinuation in adults with TRD treated with ESK or QUE XR according to US prescribing information. Methods: Pts aged 18-64 years were randomly assigned to receive flexibly dosed ESK (56 or 84 mg) or QUE XR (150-300 mg), both consistent with US label dosing and in combination with an ongoing oral antidepressant. The incidence and duration of the most commonly occurring TEAEs, as well as the most common TEAEs leading to treatment discontinuation, were summarized descriptively. All randomly assigned participants receiving ≥1 dose of study drug were included in the safety analyses. Results: Among the 636 pts included in the subgroup analysis, 316 and 320 were randomly assigned to ESK and QUE XR, respectively; 314 and 316 were included in the safety population. In the combined acute and maintenance phases, TEAEs occurred in 92.0% of pts in the ESK group and 78.5% of pts in the QUE XR group. The most commonly reported TEAEs with ESK or QUE XR in the combined acute and maintenance phases were dizziness (47.1% and 7.9%, respectively), headache (25.5% and 13.0%, respectively), somnolence (15.0% and 23.4%, respectively), and nausea (29.9% and 3.2%, respectively). Across all TEAE events reported in >5% of pts in either arm, 91.8% (5831 of 6351) resolved within 1 day in the ESK arm compared to 11.6% (90 of 776) with QUE XR. For specific TEAE events of clinical interest for ESK, same-day resolution rates for increased blood pressure, sedation, and dissociation in the ESK group were 93.5% (116 of 124), 96.2% (127 of 132), and 99.6% (740 of 743), respectively. The majority of TEAEs of clinical interest in the ESK group that occurred on the same day of dosing resolved within the first 2 hours after dosing. For the most frequently reported TEAEs with QUE XR, same-day resolution rates for somnolence, headache, and fatigue were 7.8% (8 of 103), 49.2% (29 of 59), and 9.5% (4 of 42), respectively. Fewer pts treated with ESK discontinued treatment due to TEAEs compared to QUE XR (4.4% versus 10.6%). Conclusions: Safety data from this subgroup analysis were consistent with the overall study population as well as the known tolerability profile of each treatment. TEAEs were reported at higher incidence with ESK than with QUE XR; however, the majority of TEAEs occurring with ESK were transient in nature and did not result in a higher rate of treatment discontinuation compared to QUE XR. Funding: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]