Lurasidone adjunctive with lithium or valproate for bipolar depression: A placebo-controlled trial utilizing prospective and retrospective enrolment cohorts

Efficacy and Safety of Adding Lurasidone to Ongoing Therapy With Lithium or Valproate for the Treatment of an Acute Bipolar Depressive Episode: A Post Hoc Analysis of 2 Placebo-Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety profile of lurasidone combined with either lithium or valproate, in the short-term treatment of patients with bipolar depression.

METHODS

Data were pooled from two 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of patients with bipolar depression on stable doses of lithium or valproate randomized to lurasidone (20-120 mg/d) or placebo. Efficacy measures included the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Clinical Global Impressions Bipolar Scale, and the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology via self-assessment and were analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures approach.

RESULTS

Notably larger week 6 effect sizes were observed when lurasidone was added to lithium, compared with when lurasidone was added to valproate, on 2 of the 3 depression outcome measures, Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score (d = 0.45 vs 0.22) and Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology via self-assessment (d = 0.63 vs 0.29); the efficacy advantage was smaller on the Clinical Global Impressions Bipolar Scale depression score (d = 0.34 vs 0.29). Similar adverse event profiles were observed for lurasidone treatment in combination with either lithium or valproate. The most frequently reported events (≥5%) in both groups were nausea, parkinsonism, somnolence, akathisia, and insomnia. Minimal changes in weight, lipids, and measures of glycemic control were observed during treatment with lurasidone combined with either lithium or valproate.

CONCLUSIONS

Lurasidone added to either lithium or valproate was found to be an effective treatment for bipolar depression, with a larger antidepressant effect observed when lurasidone was combined with lithium. There were no clinically meaningful differences in the safety or tolerability of lurasidone when used adjunctively with lithium or valproate.

Lithium, the gold standard drug for bipolar disorder: analysis of current clinical studies

Lithium is the gold standard drug in the treatment of bipolar disorder. Despite increasing scientific interest, relatively few patients with bipolar disorder receive lithium therapy. Lithium is the only drug that is effective in the prophylaxis of manic, depressive, and suicidal symptoms. Lithium therapy is also associated with a variety of adverse drug reactions and the need for therapeutic drug monitoring. Numerous studies have focussed on the efficacy and safety of both lithium-monotherapy and lithium-add-on therapy. The aim of this study is to provide a systematic overview of clinical studies on lithium therapy for bipolar disorder from the last 7 years and to present a critical analysis of these studies. The results provide an up-to-date overview of the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of lithium therapy for bipolar disorder and thus improve the pharmacotherapy of bipolar disorder. A total of 59 studies were analysed using various analysis parameters. The studies were also categorised into different subgroups. These are lithium-monotherapy, lithium vs. placebo/drug, and lithium + adjunctive therapy. The majority of the studies (N = 20) had a duration of only 3-8 weeks. Only 13 studies lasted for > 40 weeks. Lithium was superior to aripiprazole, valproic acid, and quetiapine in terms of improving manic symptoms. Lithium therapy resulted in a lower relapse rate compared to valproic acid therapy. Lithium was more neuroprotectively effective than quetiapine. Fourteen of the 22 add-on therapies to lithium showed a predominantly positive effect on the treatment outcome compared to lithium-monotherapy. Only the add-on therapy with sertraline led to a higher rate of study discontinuations than lithium-monotherapy. Lithium is a safe and effective treatment option for children. However, risperidone and quetiapine were superior to lithium in some aspects, which is why these drugs should be considered as an alternative treatment option for children. Collectively, current clinical studies highlight the relevance of lithium in the treatment of bipolar disorder.

Lurasidone and risk of metabolic syndrome: results from short and long-term studies in patients with bipolar depression

OBJECTIVE

The elevated prevalence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) in patients with depression has been associated with increased mortality. This post hoc analysis assessed the effect of treatment with lurasidone on risk of MetS in patients with bipolar depression.

METHODS

Data used in the current analyses consisted of 3 double-blind (DB), placebo-controlled, 6-week studies in adults with bipolar I depression (N = 1192), consisting of 1 monotherapy, and 2 adjunctive trials (lithium or valproate). Also analyzed was a 6-month open-label (OL) extension study (monotherapy, N = 316; adjunctive therapy, N = 497); and a 5-month, OL, stabilization phase followed by randomization to a 28-week DB, placebo-controlled, adjunctive therapy study with lurasidone (N = 490). MetS was defined based on NCEP ATP III criteria (2005 revision).

RESULTS

The proportion of patients with new-onset MetS was similar for lurasidone vs placebo in the short-term studies (monotherapy, 13.9% vs 15.3%; adjunctive therapy, 13.6% vs 11.0%); and remained stable during both the 6-month extension phase study (monotherapy, 15.2%; adjunctive therapy, 16.9%), and the 5-month stabilization study (adjunctive therapy, 12.2%). After 28 weeks of DB treatment (following 5-month treatment in the stabilization study), new onset MetS was observed at endpoint (OC) in 26.2% of the lurasidone group, and 30.8% of the placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS

This post hoc analysis found that both short and long-term treatment with lurasidone was associated with a relatively low risk for the development of MetS in patients with bipolar I disorder. These findings are consistent with similar analyses in patients with schizophrenia.

The impacts of CYP3A4 genetic polymorphism and drug interactions on the metabolism of lurasidone

The aim of this study was to investigate the impacts of 24 variants of recombinant human CYP3A4 and drug interactions on the metabolism of lurasidone. In vitro, enzymatic reaction incubation system of CYP3A4 was established to determine the kinetic parameters of lurasidone catalyzed by 24 CYP3A4 variants. Then, we constructed rat liver microsomes (RLM) and human liver microsomes (HLM) incubation system to screen potential anti-tumor drugs that could interact with lurasidone and studied its inhibitory mechanism. In vivo, Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats were applied to study the interaction between lurasidone and olmutinib. The concentrations of the analytes were detected by ultra-performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS). As the results, we found that compared with the wild-type CYP3A4, the relative intrinsic clearances vary from 355.77 % in CYP3A4.15 to 14.11 % in CYP3A4.12. A series of drugs were screened based on the incubation system, and compared to without olmutinib, the amount of ID-14283 (the metabolite of lurasidone) in RLM and HLM were reduced to 7.22 % and 7.59 %, and its IC50 were 18.83 ± 1.06 μM and 16.15 ± 0.81 μM, respectively. At the same time, it exerted inhibitory effects both through a mixed mechanism. When co-administration of lurasidone with olmutinib in rats, the AUC(0-t) and AUC(0-∞) of lurasidone were significantly increased by 73.52 % and 69.68 %, respectively, while CLz/F was observably decreased by 43.83 %. In conclusion, CYP3A4 genetic polymorphism and olmutinib can remarkably affect the metabolism of lurasidone.

Comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological interventions for acute bipolar depression in adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Bipolar depression constitutes a major public health problem due to its substantial burden of disease. Although pharmacological interventions are available, guidelines required updated evidence synthesis to improve their current recommendations. In order to inform evidence-based prescribing, we investigated the comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological interventions for acute bipolar depression.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis. We searched for randomised controlled trials comparing pharmacological interventions with each other or placebo in adults with acute bipolar depression (type I, type II, or not otherwise specified), excluding those with substance misuse, unipolar depression, or schizophrenia, in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, Web of Knowledge, CINAHL, and LILACS from database inception up to April 13, 2023. Criteria for eligibility were a duration of 2-16 weeks with masked outcome assessments, and we included combination, add-on design, and monotherapy studies. The co-primary outcomes were depressive symptoms, examined with standardised mean differences (SMDs), and manic switch, examined with odds ratios (ORs). We also investigated dropouts due to any reason, inefficacy, adverse events, and important side-effects as secondary outcomes. The confidence in the evidence was evaluated using Confidence-In-Network-Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020171726.

RESULTS

We analysed data from 101 randomised controlled trials covering 20 081 participants, 8063 men (41·7%) and 11 263 women (58·3%; sex not available in four studies), mean age 41·0 years (range of means 28·7-53·6 years), and 68 medications and placebo. Ethnicity data were not available. With moderate confidence in the evidence, olanzapine plus fluoxetine, quetiapine, olanzapine, lurasidone, lumateperone, cariprazine, and lamotrigine were more efficacious than placebo in reducing depressive symptoms, with SMDs ranging from 0·41 (95% CI 0·19-0·64) for olanzapine plus fluoxetine to 0·16 (0·03-0·29) for lamotrigine. Several other drugs might also be efficacious, but the confidence in the evidence was very low to low. Antidepressants as a class seem to be efficacious, but had a higher risk for manic switch compared to antipsychotics. Medications differed in their side-effect profiles.

INTERPRETATION

This is, to our knowledge, the largest network meta-analysis of pharmacotherapy for bipolar depression to date. Olanzapine plus fluoxetine, quetiapine, olanzapine, lurasidone, lumateperone, cariprazine, and lamotrigine were found to be more efficacious than placebo in adults with acute bipolar depression, with good confidence in the evidence, and to differ in their side-effect profiles. These findings can inform evidence-based care and the development of treatment guidelines internationally.

FUNDING

None.

Adjunctive lumateperone (ITI-007) in the treatment of bipolar depression: Results from a randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

This phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (NCT02600507) evaluated the efficacy and safety of lumateperone adjunctive therapy to lithium or valproate in patients with bipolar depression.

METHODS

Patients (18-75 years) with bipolar I or bipolar II disorder experiencing a major depressive episode (MDE), with inadequate therapeutic response to lithium or valproate, were randomized 1:1:1 to 6 weeks adjunctive therapy with lumateperone 28 mg (n = 176), lumateperone 42 mg (n = 177), or placebo (n = 176). The primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were change from baseline to Day 43 in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) Total score and the Clinical Global Impression Scale-Bipolar Version-Severity Scale (CGI-BP-S) depression subscore. Safety assessments included adverse events, laboratory evaluations, vital signs, extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), and suicidality.

RESULTS

Patients treated with adjunctive lumateperone 42 mg showed significantly greater improvement compared with adjunctive placebo in MADRS Total score (LS mean difference vs placebo [LSMD], -2.4; p = 0.02) and CGI-BP-S depression subscore (LSMD, -0.3; p = 0.01), while adjunctive lumateperone 28 mg showed numerical improvement in MADRS Total score (LSMD, -1.7; p = 0.10) and improvement in the CGI-BP-S depression subscore (LSMD, -0.3; p = 0.04). Adjunctive lumateperone treatment was well tolerated; treatment-emergent adverse events reported at rates >5% and twice placebo for lumateperone 42 mg were somnolence (11.3%), dizziness (10.7%), and nausea (8.5%), with minimal risk of EPS, metabolic abnormalities, or increased prolactin.

CONCLUSIONS

Lumateperone 42-mg treatment adjunctive to lithium or valproate significantly improved depression symptoms and was generally well tolerated in patients with MDEs associated with either bipolar I or bipolar II disorder.

Designing multi-target drugs for the treatment of major depressive disorder

INTRODUCTION

Major depressive disorders (MDD) pose major health burdens globally. Currently available medications have their limitations due to serious adverse effects, long latency periods as well as resistance. Considering the highly complicated pathological nature of this disorder, it has been suggested that multitarget drugs or multi-target-directed ligands (MTDLs) may provide long-term therapeutic solutions for the treatment of MDD.

AREAS COVERED

In the current review, recent lead design and lead modification strategies have been covered. Important investigations reported in the last ten years (2013-2022) for the pre-clinical development of MTDLs (through synthetic medicinal chemistry and biological evaluation) for the treatment of MDD were discussed as case studies to focus on the recent design strategies. The discussions are categorized based on the pharmacological targets. On the basis of these important case studies, the challenges involved in different design strategies were discussed in detail.

EXPERT OPINION

Even though large variations were observed in the selection of pharmacological targets, some potential biological targets (NMDA, melatonin receptors) are required to be explored extensively for the design of MTDLs. Similarly, apart from structure activity relationship (SAR), in silico techniques such as multitasking cheminformatic modelling, molecular dynamics simulation and virtual screening should be exploited to a greater extent.

Atypical antipsychotic-induced mania: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The possibility of atypical antipsychotics (AA) to induce manic symptoms has been raised by several articles. The objective of this study was to describe whether exposure to AA may induce mania in mood disorders.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidelines. The systematic search encompassed all relevant studies published until April 4th, 2022. A meta-analysis testing whether treatment emergent mania (TEM) is more frequent with the use of AA compared with placebo was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 52 studies were included in the systematic review. We found 24 case reports or case series describing 40 manic/hypomanic episodes allegedly induced by AA. Twenty-one placebo-controlled trials were included in a meta-analysis including 4823 individuals treated with AA and 3252 individuals receiving placebo. Our meta-analysis showed that the use of AA protects against the development of TEM (OR: 0.68 [95 % CI: 0.52-0.89], p = 0.005).

LIMITATIONS

AA-induced mania/hypomania was not the primary outcome in any of the observational or interventional studies. TEM was not homogeneously defined across studies. In most case reports it was not possible to establish causality between the use of AA and the development of manic symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

TEM is more frequent with placebo than with AA, which suggests that AA exposure does not represent a relevant risk for TEM. Mania/hypomania induced by an AA seems to be rare events, since anecdotal evidence from case reports and case series were not observed in observational prospective and interventional studies.

Taiwan consensus on biological treatment of bipolar disorder during the acute, maintenance, and mixed phases: The 2022 update

BACKGROUND

Bipolar disorder is a mood dysregulation characterized by recurrent symptoms and episodes of mania, hypomania, depression, and mixed mood. The complexity of treating patients with bipolar disorder prompted the Taiwanese Society of Biological Psychiatry and Neuropsychopharmacology (TSBPN) to publish the first Taiwan consensus on pharmacological treatment of bipolar disorders in 2012. This paper presents the updated consensus, with changes in diagnostic criteria (i.e., mixed features) and emerging pharmacological evidence published up to April 2022.

METHODS

Our working group systemically reviewed the clinical research evidence and international guidelines and determined the levels of evidence for each pharmacological treatment on the basis of the most recent World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry grading system. Four clinical-specific issues were proposed. The current TSBPN Bipolar Taskforce then discussed research evidence and clinical experience related to each treatment option in terms of efficacy and acceptability and then appraised final recommendation grades through anonymous voting.

RESULTS

In the updated consensus, we include the pharmacological recommendations for bipolar disorder with mixed features considering its high prevalence, the severe clinical prognosis, and the absence of approved medications. Cariprazine, lurasidone, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, and ketamine are incorporated as treatment options. In the maintenance phase, the application of long-acting injectable antipsychotics is emphasized, and the hazards of using antidepressants and conventional antipsychotics are proposed.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated Taiwan consensus on pharmacological treatment for bipolar disorder provides concise evidence-based and empirical recommendations for clinical psychiatric practice. It may facilitate treatment outcome improvement in patients with bipolar disorder.

Lurasidone for Treating Schizophrenia and Bipolar Depression: A Review of Its Efficacy

Lurasidone is an antipsychotic medication that blocks dopamine D2 and serotonin 5-hydroxy-tryptamine (5-HT)_2A receptors and affects other serotoninergic and noradrenergic receptors. It has rapid absorption and linear pharmacokinetics. The rates of metabolic syndrome for patients taking lurasidone are comparable to placebo groups. Lurasidone is a safe and effective treatment for patients with acute schizophrenia and bipolar depression. It has been found to improve the brief psychiatric rating scale and other secondary measures in schizophrenic patients and reduce depressive symptoms in bipolar I depression. The once-daily administration of lurasidone is generally well-tolerated and does not cause clinically significant differences in extrapyramidal symptoms, adverse effects, or weight gain compared to a placebo. However, lurasidone's effectiveness in combination with lithium or valproate has been mixed. Further research is needed to determine optimal dosing, treatment duration, and combination with other mood stabilizers. Long-term safety and effectiveness and its use in different subpopulations should also be evaluated.

Lurasidone in first-episode psychosis with predominant depressive symptoms: a case report

Lurasidone is an atypical antipsychotic approved for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar depression. It seems to have an antidepressant effect due to 5-HT7 as well as 5-HT2A and 5-HT1a receptor affinity. Here we present a case of a 19-year-old male patient with first-episode psychosis (FEP) and predominant depressive symptoms. Remarkable clinical and functional improvement was observed 3 months after the beginning of lurasidone treatment. The patient's depressive symptoms disappear with a dramatic reduction of psychotic ones, with good tolerance of the drug and without adverse effects. Lurasidone seems to be a promising treatment option for FEP with predominant depressive symptoms.

Efficacy and safety of adjunctive therapy to lamotrigine, lithium, or valproate monotherapy in bipolar depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of adjunctive therapy are unclear in bipolar depression. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of second-generation antipsychotic, lamotrigine, lithium, or valproate therapy used in adjunction with lamotrigine, lithium, or valproate monotherapy in bipolar depression. A literature search of major electronic databases was conducted in February 2021, and all articles published until then were eligible. Two researchers independently screened relevant publications, extracted data, and evaluated methodological quality according to the Cochrane criteria.

RESULTS

Five studies met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis revealed significant differences in the following outcomes: (i) remission rates from depressive episodes (risk ratio [RR]: 1.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.50, p = 0.04), (ii) improvement in depressive symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 0.21, 95% CI 0.09-0.34, p = 0.001), (iii) improvement in quality of life (SMD: 0.22, 95% CI 0.06-0.37, p = 0.005), and (iv) rate of adverse events during the study period (RR: 1.12, 95% CI 1.03-1.22, p = 0.008). There was no significant difference between adjunctive therapy and monotherapy in the emergence of suicide-related behaviors, dropout rate during the study period, or rate of manic switching.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that adjunctive second-generation antipsychotics, lamotrigine, lithium, or valproate increase both the benefits and risks in patients with bipolar depression, although there is no significant difference in severe adverse events. Adjunctive therapy should be provided through shared decision-making while considering the patients' condition in clinical settings.

A Longitudinal Study of the Association between the LEPR Polymorphism and Treatment Response in Patients with Bipolar Disorder

Patients with bipolar disorder (BD) exhibit individual variability in the treatment outcome, and genetic background could contribute to BD itself and the treatment outcome. Leptin levels significantly change in BD patients treated with valproate (VPA), but whether LEPR polymorphisms are associated with treatment response is still unknown. This longitudinal study aimed to investigate the associations between LEPR polymorphisms and VPA treatment response in BD patients who were drug naïve at their first diagnosis of BD. The single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of LEPR (rs1137101, rs1137100, rs8179183, and rs12145690) were assayed, and the LEPR polymorphism frequencies of alleles and genotypes were not significantly different between the controls (n = 77) and BD patients (n = 130). In addition, after the 12-week course of VPA treatment in BD patients, the LEPR polymorphisms showed significant effects on changes in disease severity. Moreover, considering the effect of the LEPR haplotype, the frequency of the CAGG haplotype in BD patients was higher than that in the controls (9.3 vs. 2.9%, p = 0.016), and the LEPR CAGG haplotype was associated with a better treatment response than the other haplotypes in BD patients receiving VPA treatment. Therefore, LEPR polymorphisms might serve as mediators involved in the therapeutic action of VPA treatment.

Risk of Drug-induced Movement Disorders with Newer Antipsychotic Agents

Background:

The last decade has seen development of numerous novel antipsychotic drugs with unique mechanisms including long-acting formulations for clinical use. A comparative assessment of these new drugs with each other and previous antipsychotics have not been performed with regards to risk for drug-induced movement disorders (DIMD).

Methods:

Medline was searched from January 2010 to February 2022 for primary research articles and review articles in English using the search terms “extrapyramidal” and “tardive” with individual drug names of novel antipsychotics.

Results:

We identified articles describing the risk of DIMD with 6 novel antipsychotics, 4 novel formulations, and 3 experimental antipsychotics. Both short- and long-term data generally showed comparable to lower risk of DIMD with novel antipsychotics and recent long-acting formulations compared to previously marketed antipsychotics.

Discussion:

Several novel antipsychotics, particularly lumateperone and pimavanserin, show promise in being able to treat psychosis while reducing the risk of DIMD. Long-acting paliperidone may reduce risk of DIMD while other long-acting injectable formulations of SGA have similar risk of DIMD compared to oral formulations. New drug targets for treating psychosis without dopamine blockade also show promise.

Advances in the psychopharmacotherapy of bipolar disorder type I

INTRODUCTION

Research into the pharmacologic management of bipolar type I illness continues to progress.

AREAS COVERED

Randomized clinical trials performed with type I bipolar disorder in the years 2015 to August 2020 are reviewed. There are new indications for the use of cariprazine, for bipolar mania and depression, and a long-acting injectable formulation of aripiprazole has also been approved for relapse prevention in bipolar illness. Most of the randomized clinical trials are effectiveness studies.

EXPERT OPINION

Over the 20 years from 1997 through 2016, the use of lithium and other mood stabilizers has declined by 50%, while the use of both second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) and antidepressants has increased considerably. Over the same time period (1990-2017), disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) increased by 54.4%, from 6.02 million in 1990 to 9.29 million in 2017 which is greater than the 47.74% increase in incidence of the disease, suggesting that the changes in prescribing patterns have not been helpful for our patients. Furthermore, recent effectiveness studies continue to confirm the superiority of lithium and other mood stabilizers in the management of bipolar illness for both psychiatric and medical outcomes, reaffirming their role as foundational treatments in the management of type I bipolar disorder. Clinicians need to reassess their prescribing habits.

Comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological treatments for the treatment of acute bipolar depression: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We investigated the comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological treatment strategies for the treatment of acute bipolar depression.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic review and network meta-analysis was conducted by searching eight registries for published and unpublished, double-blind, randomized controlled trials of pharmacotherapies for the acute treatment of bipolar depression.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

PRISMA guidelines were used for abstracting data, while the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used to assess data quality. Data extraction was done independently by two reviewers, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcomes were efficacy (response and remission rate) and acceptability (completion of treatment and dropouts due to adverse events). Summary odds ratios (ORs) were estimated using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects.

RESULTS

Identified citations (4,404) included 50 trials comprising 11,448 participants. Escitalopram, phenelzine, moclobemide, carbamazepine, sertraline, lithium, paroxetine, aripiprazole, gabapentin and ziprasidone appear to be ineffective as compared to placebo in treatment of bipolar depression. Divalproex, olanzapine/fluoxetine, olanzapine, quetiapine, cariprazine, and lamotrigine, appear to be effective as compared to placebo in treatment of bipolar depression according to the network meta-analysis. Aripiprazole showed higher discontinuation rates versus placebo due to the appearance of any adverse event. Quetiapine was better than placebo at reducing treatment-emergent affective switches. For Bipolar I Disorder, cariprazine, fluoxetine, imipramine, lamotrigine, lurasidone, olanzapine-fluoxetine, and olanzapine were significantly better than placebo at response, while fluoxetine, imipramine, cariprazine, lurasidone, olanzapine-fluoxetine, and olanzapine were significantly better than placebo at remission.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These results could serve evidence-based practice and inform patients, physicians, guideline developers, and policymakers on the relative benefits of the different antidepressants, antipsychotics, and mood-stabilizing agents for the treatment of bipolar depression.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42019122172).

The CINP Guidelines on the Definition and Evidence-Based Interventions for Treatment-Resistant Bipolar Disorder

BACKGROUND

Resistant bipolar disorder is a major mental health problem related to significant disability and overall cost. The aim of the current study was to perform a systematic review of the literature concerning (1) the definition of treatment resistance in bipolar disorder, (2) its clinical and (3) neurobiological correlates, and (4) the evidence-based treatment options for treatment-resistant bipolar disorder and for eventually developing guidelines for the treatment of this condition.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The PRISMA method was used to identify all published papers relevant to the definition of treatment resistance in bipolar disorder and the associated evidence-based treatment options. The MEDLINE was searched to April 22, 2018.

RESULTS

Criteria were developed for the identification of resistance in bipolar disorder concerning all phases. The search of the literature identified all published studies concerning treatment options. The data were classified according to strength, and separate guidelines regarding resistant acute mania, acute bipolar depression, and the maintenance phase were developed.

DISCUSSION

The definition of resistance in bipolar disorder is by itself difficult due to the complexity of the clinical picture, course, and treatment options. The current guidelines are the first, to our knowledge, developed specifically for the treatment of resistant bipolar disorder patients, and they also include an operationalized definition of treatment resistance. They were based on a thorough and deep search of the literature and utilize as much as possible an evidence-based approach.

Asenapine in the Treatment of Bipolar Depression

OBJECTIVES

Asenapine, a potent serotonin 7 (5-HT₇) receptor antagonist, was examined for efficacy as an antidepressant in depressed bipolar subjects. It was predicted that subjects with the genetic variant of the short form of the serotonin transporter (5HTTR) would be more likely to respond.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

A subset of patients participating in a randomized, placebo-controlled study of the efficacy of asenapine in bipolar I depression also underwent genetic testing for the 5HTTR. Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score was ≥ 26 prior to randomization to asenapine or placebo for 8 weeks. Gene testing was performed before breaking the blind.

PRINCIPAL OBSERVATIONS

Nine patients completing the study also underwent gene testing. At study end, the average MADRS improvement was -19.80 ± SD 8.59 for the 4 people randomized to asenapine and -3.80 ± 9.01 for the 5 people receiving placebo (P = 0.021, t = 2.88). Anxiety, as measured by the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A), also improved in asenapine-treated patients (-15.40 ± 6.15 vs. -2.80 ± 7.95, P = 0.023, t = 2.803). Six participants had the short form of the 5HTTR, and it is believed they influenced the significant outcome in this small sample.

CONCLUSIONS

While this is a very small sample, asenapine appears to have a beneficial effect on both depression and anxiety in depressed bipolar I patients compared to treatment with placebo. Due to the large fraction of subjects with the short form, the hypothesis that the SF-5HTTR might increase asenapine response could not be adequately tested.

Efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive modafinil/armodafinil in bipolar depression: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the dopaminergic-enhancing agent modafinil/armodafinil (MoArm) as adjunctive treatment for bipolar depression.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of major electronic databases was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adjunctive MoArm that included patients with bipolar I (BP-I) or bipolar II (BP-II) depression. Data for response/remission and all-cause discontinuation were analyzed. Effect size was summarized by relative risk (RR) using a random effect model.

RESULTS

Of 58 studies, five RCTs (N = 795 drug, N = 792 placebo) met inclusion criteria. Four armodafinil studies included only BP-I patients and one modafinil study included both bipolar subtypes with limited heterogeneity (I²  = 34%, P = .19; I²  = 18%, P = .30). Compared to placebo, augmentation with MoArm was associated with significantly greater rates of treatment response (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.01-1.37; P = .03) and remission (RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.10-1.73; P = .005). All-cause discontinuation was not different than placebo (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.89-1.30; P = .45) with no evidence of increased risk of mood switch or suicide attempts with MoArm (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.39-2.5; P = .98; RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.37-2.85; P = .97).

CONCLUSION

This narrower scope meta-analysis of one drug for one disease suggests that adjunctive MoArm may represent a novel therapeutic intervention. Further studies delineating the subtypes of bipolar depression responsive to these novel dopaminergic-enhancing agents are encouraged.

Efficacy and safety of lurasidone versus placebo as adjunctive to mood stabilizers in bipolar I depression: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Few evidence-based treatments and guidelines reflect greater uncertainty regarding consensus treatment algorithms than those for unipolar disorder. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and side effects of lurasidone by comparing with placebo in bipolar I depression.

METHODS

Electronic databases, such as PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase, were searched until May 30, 2018, for randomized controlled trials on comparison lurasidone therapy with placebo. The primary efficacy assessment included MADRS total score and CGI-BP-S total score, the secondary efficacy assessment included the response and the remission rates and the safety and tolerability were also evaluated applying the Simpson-Angus Scale.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis compromised 7 studies. Efficacy analysis suggested that lurasidone was more effective than placebo: MADRS total score (MD:-4.31, 95%CI: (-6.93,-1.7), P = 0.001) and the CGI-BP-S total score (MD:-0.37, 95%CI: (-0.59,-0.15), P = 0.0008) were obtained for both lurasidone-treated and placebo groups. Response rates (RR: 1.73, 95%CI: (1.46, 2.05), P < 0.00001) and Remission rates (RR: 1.57, 95%CI: (1.38, 1.79), P < 0.00001). The safety analysis between lurasidone and placebo showed no difference: at least one event (RR: 1.12, 95% CI :(1.00, 1.26), p = 0.05 and the influence on glucose (MD: 0.35, 95% CI :(-1.09, 1.79), p = 0.63.

LIMITATION

The present conclusion is limited by the limited included studies. The different dose of lurasidone should be considered in the future.

CONCLUSION

Compared with placebo, adjunctive lurasidone significantly improved depressive symptoms and is very well tolerated with minimal side effects on the endocrine and cardiovascular systems in clinical patients with bipolar I depression. Key words: Bipolar I depression; Lurasidone; Meta-analysis; Remission rates; Adverse effect.

The Treatment of Bipolar Depression: Current Status and Future Perspectives

Purpose of Review

This paper aims to review current available treatment options and to consider future directions in the treatment of bipolar depression.

Recent Findings

There are a limited number of established treatments that have demonstrated varied efficacy in acute bipolar depression including modern antipsychotics (quetiapine, lurasidone, olanzapine ± fluoxetine and recently cariprazine) and mood stabilisers (lamotrigine and valproate). Lithium has a role in protecting against depressive relapses and suicide. Alternative and experimental treatments including pramipexole, modafinil/armodafinil, omega-3 fatty acids and thyroxine may be used to augment the treatment of bipolar depression. Ketamine represents a major breakthrough, producing rapid reductions in depressive symptoms even in cases of treatment-resistance, but challenges remain in how best to maintain response and reduce unwanted side effects.

Summary

There remains uncertainty with regard to the relative efficacy and safety of established and experimental treatments for bipolar depression. Further work using consistent, optimal trial designs as well as further investigation into novel compounds and treatment interventions is warranted.

Pharmacological Treatment of Bipolar Depression: What are the Current and Emerging Options?

Depression accounts for the predominant burden associated with bipolar disorder. The identification and management of bipolar depression are challenging, since bipolar depression differs from unipolar depression, responding poorly to traditional antidepressants, which may also induce a switch to hypomania/mania, mixed states and/or cause rapid cycling. Current treatment options for bipolar depression are limited and guidelines vary greatly in their recommendations, reflecting gaps and inconsistencies in the current evidence base. Moreover, some treatment options, such as quetiapine and olanzapine-fluoxetine, although clearly efficacious, may be associated with adverse cardiometabolic side effects, which can be detrimental to the long-term physical health and well-being of patients, increasing the likelihood of treatment non-adherence and relapse. Evidence for some more recent therapeutic options, including lurasidone and cariprazine, suggests that patients' symptoms can be effectively managed without compromising their physical health. In addition, novel agents targeting alternative neurotransmitter pathways and inflammatory processes (such as ketamine and N-acetyl cysteine) are emerging as promising potential options for the treatment of bipolar depression in the future.

The Potential Utility of Aripiprazole Augmentation for Major Depressive Disorder with Mixed Features Specifier: A Retrospective Study

Objective

The present study aimed to observe potential benefit of aripiprazole augmentation in the treatment of major depressive disorder with mixed specifier (MDDM) in naturalistic treatment setting.

Methods

Data were collected from MDDM patients using a retrospective chart review for 8 weeks (week –8 and week 0) in routine practice. All patients were on current antidepressants upon starting of aripiprazole. Patients were treated without restriction of doses of aripiprazole. The primary endpoint was the mean change of Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total scores along with various secondary endpoint measures.

Results

In total 38 patients were analyzed. The changes of MADRS, Clinical Global Impression (CGI)-severity, Young Mania Rating Scale, Sheehan Disability Scale, and CGI-clinical benefit total scores from baseline to the endpoint were −7.1, −0.8, −4.9, −4.1, and −3.6, respectively (all p < 0.0001). At the endpoint, the responder and remitter rates by MADRS score criteria were approximately 32% and 21%, respectively.

Conclusion

The present findings have clearly shown the effectiveness and tolerability of aripiprazole augmentation for MDDM patients in routine practice. The present study warrants subsequent, adequately-powered, well-controlled studies for generalizability near future.

Novel antipsychotics specificity profile: A clinically oriented review of lurasidone, brexpiprazole, cariprazine and lumateperone

Second generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are effective options in the treatment of schizophrenia and mood disorders, each with characteristic efficacy and safety features. In order to optimize the balance between efficacy and side effects, it is of upmost importance to match compound specificity against patient clinical profile. As the number of SGAs increased, this review can assist physicians in the prescription of three novel SGAs already on the market, namely lurasidone, brexpiprazole, cariprazine, and lumateperone, which is in the approval phase for schizophrenia treatment at the FDA. Besides schizophrenia, EMA and/or FDA approved lurasidone for bipolar depression, brexpiprazole as augmentation in major depressive disorder and cariprazine for the acute treatment of manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder. These new antipsychotics were developed with the aim of improving efficacy on negative and depressive symptoms and reducing metabolic and cardiovascular side effects compared to prior SGAs, while keeping the risk of extrapyramidal symptoms low. They succeeded quite well in containing these side effects, despite weight gain during acute treatment remains a possible concern for brexpiprazole, while cariprazine and lurasidone show higher risk of akathisia compared to placebo and other SGAs such as olanzapine. The available studies support the expected benefits on negative symptoms, cognitive dysfunction and depressive symptoms, while the overall effect on acute psychotic symptoms may be similar to other SGAs such as quetiapine, aripiprazole and ziprasidone. The discussed new antipsychotics represent useful therapeutic options but their efficacy and side effect profiles should be considered to personalize prescription.

Medication-Induced Akathisia with Newly Approved Antipsychotics in Patients with a Severe Mental Illness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Akathisia is a common and distressing movement disorder that can be associated with the use of antipsychotics. It is characterized by a subjective (inner restlessness) and an objective (excessive movements) component. Akathisia can have a negative impact on clinical outcome and even lead to treatment discontinuation. Although medication-induced akathisia is more commonly associated with the use of first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs), it also occurs with second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs), including the newly approved antipsychotics (NAPs) asenapine, lurasidone, iloperidone, cariprazine, and brexpiprazole. Until now, no meta-analysis has been published on the risk of akathisia for all NAPs, as monotherapy or adjunctive treatment, in patients with a severe mental illness.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to (i) compare akathisia incidence rates of the NAPs, as monotherapy or adjunctive treatment, in adult patients with a severe mental illness (i.e., schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depressive disorder), using data from published and unpublished randomized controlled trials; and (ii) examine the role of several study characteristics explaining differences in akathisia incidence rates between studies.

METHODS

A systematic literature search, using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases (until October 2018), was conducted for English-language placebo- as well as active-controlled clinical trials, including subjective (percentage of patients reporting akathisia) and/or scale-defined medication-induced akathisia incidence rates with NAPs (as monotherapy or as adjunctive treatment) in adult patients with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depressive disorder. Additional unpublished clinical trials were identified through the ClinicalTrials.gov electronic database. Two meta-analyses (incidence rates and odds ratio [OR] [placebo vs. active] of medication-induced akathisia with NAPs) were performed to obtain an optimal estimation of akathisia risks of adult patients with a severe mental illness under these treatment conditions and to assess the role of study characteristics.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirteen reports were selected as potentially eligible for our meta-analysis. Of these, 48 met the inclusion criteria. Eight records, identified through the ClinicalTrials.gov database and cross-referencing, and which fulfilled the inclusion criteria, were added, resulting in a total of 56 records (iloperidone = 5, asenapine = 11, lurasidone = 15, brexpiprazole = 13, cariprazine = 12). The estimated weighted mean incidence rate of akathisia was 7.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.5-9.1), with estimates being 3.9% (95% CI 2.4-6.3) for iloperidone, 6.8% (95% CI 5.1-9.0) for asenapine, 10.0% (95% CI 7.4-13.5) for brexpiprazole, 12.7% (95% CI 10.1-16.1) for lurasidone, and 17.2% (95% CI 13.4-22.1) for cariprazine. After Tukey-adjustment for multiple testing, the incidence rate of akathisia was significantly (p < 0.05) lower for iloperidone than for brexpiprazole, lurasidone, and cariprazine. In addition, the incidence rate of akathisia was significantly (p < 0.05) lower for asenapine than for lurasidone and cariprazine. Finally, the incidence rate of akathisia was significantly (p < 0.05) lower for brexpiprazole than for cariprazine. Type of medication (p < 0.0001), diagnosis (p = 0.02), and race (p = 0.0003) significantly explained part of the heterogeneity of the incidence estimates of akathisia between studies. The estimated weighted OR of akathisia under medication, compared with placebo, was 2.43 (95% CI 1.91-3.10). The OR was smallest for iloperidone (OR 1.20; 95% CI 0.42-3.45) and increased for brexpiprazole (OR 2.04; 95% CI 1.09-3.83), asenapine (OR 2.37; 95% CI 1.32-4.27), lurasidone (OR 3.74; 95% CI 2.32-6.02), and cariprazine (OR 4.35; 95% CI 2.80-6.75). Only type of medication (p = 0.03) explained systematic differences in the OR for akathisia between placebo versus active treatment across studies. After Tukey-adjustment for multiple testing, no significant differences between these ORs were found. The severity of akathisia with NAPs generally is mild to moderate, only leading to treatment discontinuation in a minority of cases (< 5%).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a NAP raises the akathisia risk more than two-fold when compared with patients receiving placebo. Although distinctions between the different NAPs were not clear in placebo-controlled trials, the results of our meta-analyses and systematic review generally indicate that these differences more than likely reflect real differences, with iloperidone showing the most and cariprazine showing the least benign akathisia profile. Moreover, due to patient characteristics and methodological issues, incidence rates of akathisia with NAPs found in this meta-analysis may even be an underestimation of true incidence rates.

Modulation of anterior cingulate cortex reward and penalty signalling in medication-naive young-adult subjects with depressive symptoms following acute dose lurasidone

BACKGROUND

Aberrations in reward and penalty processing are implicated in depression and putatively reflect altered dopamine signalling. This study exploits the advantages of a placebo-controlled design to examine how a novel D2 antagonist with adjunctive antidepressant properties modifies activity in the brain's reward network in depression.

METHODS

We recruited 43 medication-naïve subjects across the range of depression severity (Beck's Depression Inventory-II score range: 0-43), including healthy volunteers, as well as people meeting full-criteria for major depressive disorder. In a double-blind placebo-controlled cross-over design, all subjects received either placebo or lurasidone (20 mg) across two visits separated by 1 week. Functional magnetic resonance imaging with the Monetary Incentive Delay (MID) task assessed reward functions via neural responses during anticipation and receipt of gains and losses. Arterial spin labelling measured cerebral blood flow (CBF) at rest.

RESULTS

Lurasidone altered fronto-striatal activity during anticipation and outcome phases of the MID task. A significant three-way Medication-by-Depression severity-by-Outcome interaction emerged in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) after correction for multiple comparisons. Follow-up analyses revealed significantly higher ACC activation to losses in high- v. low depression participants in the placebo condition, with a normalisation by lurasidone. This effect could not be accounted for by shifts in resting CBF.

CONCLUSIONS

Lurasidone acutely normalises reward processing signals in individuals with depressive symptoms. Lurasidone's antidepressant effects may arise from reducing responses to penalty outcomes in individuals with depressive symptoms.

Mixed states in bipolar and major depressive disorders: systematic review and quality appraisal of guidelines

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review provided a critical synthesis and a comprehensive overview of guidelines on the treatment of mixed states.

METHOD

The MEDLINE/PubMed and EMBASE databases were systematically searched from inception to March 21st, 2018. International guidelines covering the treatment of mixed episodes, manic/hypomanic, or depressive episodes with mixed features were considered for inclusion. A methodological quality assessment was conducted with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-AGREE II.

RESULTS

The final selection yielded six articles. Despite their heterogeneity, all guidelines agreed in interrupting an antidepressant monotherapy or adding mood-stabilizing medications. Olanzapine seemed to have the best evidence for acute mixed hypo/manic/depressive states and maintenance treatment. Aripiprazole and paliperidone were possible alternatives for acute hypo/manic mixed states. Lurasidone and ziprasidone were useful in acute mixed depression. Valproate was recommended for the prevention of new mixed episodes while lithium and quetiapine in preventing affective episodes of all polarities. Clozapine and electroconvulsive therapy were effective in refractory mixed episodes. The AGREE II overall assessment rate ranged between 42% and 92%, indicating different quality level of included guidelines.

CONCLUSION

The unmet needs for the mixed symptoms treatment were associated with diagnostic issues and limitations of previous research, particularly for maintenance treatment.

Longer-Term Effectiveness and Tolerability of Adjunctive Open Lurasidone in Patients With Bipolar Disorder

PURPOSE

To retrospectively assess lurasidone effectiveness/efficacy/tolerability in bipolar disorder (BD) patients.

METHODS

Outpatients assessed with Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for BD Affective Disorders Evaluation received naturalistically administered (primarily adjunctive) open lurasidone while monitored at visits with the Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for BD Clinical Monitoring Form.

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients (32 type I, 26 type II, 3 type not otherwise specified; mean ± SD age, 45.1 ± 14.0 years; 63.9% were female) received lurasidone with 3.1 ± 1.4 (≥2 in 88.5%, monotherapy in only 3.3%) other nonanxiolytic/hypnotic prescription psychotropics, started during syndromal depression in 57.4%, subsyndromal depression in 23.0%, and euthymia in 19.7%. Lurasidone was taken for median 126 days, with final dose 55.6 ± 30.8 mg/d. By final visit taking lurasidone, syndromal depression rate decreased by nearly one-half to 31.1%, and euthymia rate more than doubled to 42.6%, whereas subsyndromal depression rate was unchanged at 23.0%. Clinical Global Impressions-BD-Overall Severity improved significantly only in patients with baseline syndromal depression. Seventy-seven percent of patients discontinued lurasidone after median 103 days, because of adverse events in 54.1% (most often akathisia, sedation/somnolence, nausea, and weight gain), inefficacy in 16.4%, and other reasons in 6.6%; 12.1% had equal to or greater than 7% weight gain, and 3.3% developed hypomania. Limitations to this study were the open design and demographically homogeneous (relatively affluent, predominantly white female) small sample taking complex pharmacotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In American specialty clinic BD outpatients, adjunctive longer-term lurasidone commonly relieved syndromal depression and maintained euthymia, suggesting possible effectiveness/efficacy. However, lurasidone was discontinued in 54.1% because of adverse events, suggesting tolerability limitations in these challenging patients, nearly 90% of whom were already taking at least 2 other nonanxiolytic/hypnotic prescription psychotropics.

The World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) Guidelines for the Biological Treatment of Bipolar Disorders: Acute and long-term treatment of mixed states in bipolar disorder

OBJECTIVES

Although clinically highly relevant, the recognition and treatment of bipolar mixed states has played only an underpart in recent guidelines. This WFSBP guideline has been developed to supply a systematic overview of all scientific evidence pertaining to the acute and long-term treatment of bipolar mixed states in adults.

METHODS

Material used for these guidelines is based on a systematic literature search using various data bases. Their scientific rigour was categorised into six levels of evidence (A-F), and different grades of recommendation to ensure practicability were assigned. We examined data pertaining to the acute treatment of manic and depressive symptoms in bipolar mixed patients, as well as data pertaining to the prevention of mixed recurrences after an index episode of any type, or recurrence of any type after a mixed index episode.

RESULTS

Manic symptoms in bipolar mixed states appeared responsive to treatment with several atypical antipsychotics, the best evidence resting with olanzapine. For depressive symptoms, addition of ziprasidone to treatment as usual may be beneficial; however, the evidence base is much more limited than for the treatment of manic symptoms. Besides olanzapine and quetiapine, valproate and lithium should also be considered for recurrence prevention.

LIMITATIONS

The concept of mixed states changed over time, and recently became much more comprehensive with the release of DSM-5. As a consequence, studies in bipolar mixed patients targeted slightly different bipolar subpopulations. In addition, trial designs in acute and maintenance treatment also advanced in recent years in response to regulatory demands.

CONCLUSIONS

Current treatment recommendations are still based on limited evidence, and there is a clear demand for confirmative studies adopting the DSM-5 specifier with mixed features concept.

Safety and Effectiveness of Long-Term Treatment with Lurasidone in Older Adults with Bipolar Depression: Post-Hoc Analysis of a 6-Month, Open-Label Study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of 6 months of treatment with lurasidone in older adults with a diagnosis of bipolar I depression.

DESIGN

Post-hoc analysis of a multicenter, 6-month, open-label extension study.

SETTING

Outpatient.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 55 to 75 years with a DSM-IV-TR diagnosis of bipolar I depression who had completed 6 weeks of double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment with either lurasidone monotherapy (1 study) or adjunctive therapy with lithium or valproate (2 studies).

INTERVENTION

Flexible doses of lurasidone, 20 to 120 mg/day, either as monotherapy, or adjunctive with lithium or valproate.

MEASUREMENTS

Effectiveness was assessed using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS; change from open-label-baseline to month-6, observed case analysis).

RESULTS

A total of 141 older adults entered the extension study (monotherapy, N = 55; 39%; adjunctive therapy, N = 86; 61%). At the end of 6 months of open-label treatment with lurasidone, as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy, minimal changes were observed in the older adult sample in mean weight (-1.0 kg and -0.4 kg, respectively); and median total cholesterol (-2.0 mg/dL and +6.0 md/dL, respectively), triglycerides (+2.5 mg/dL and +6.0 mg/dL, respectively), and HbA1c (0.0% and -0.1%, respectively). Patients treated with 6 months of lurasidone showed a mean improvement on the MADRS in both the monotherapy (-6.2) and adjunctive therapy (-6.7) groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of these post-hoc analyses found that up to 7.5 months of lurasidone treatment for bipolar depression in older adults was associated with minimal effects on weight and metabolic parameters, with low rates of switching to hypomania or mania, and was well tolerated. The antidepressant effectiveness of lurasidone in this age group was maintained over the 6-month treatment period.

Lurasidone: efficacy and safety in the treatment of psychotic and mood disorders

INTRODUCTION

Lurasidone ([3aR,4S,7R,7aS]-2-[(1R,2R)-2-[4-(1,2-benzisothiazol-3-yl)piperazin-1yl-methyl] cyclohexylmethyl]-hexahydro-4,7-methano-2H-isoindole-1,3-dione hydrochloride; Latuda®) is a novel benzisothiazole, second-generation antipsychotic drug developed by Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma Corporation in Japan. Similar to other atypical antipsychotics it has a distinctive pharmacodynamic profile, Areas covered: This review updates reported research findings on the efficacy, safety and tolerability of LRSD for treatment of psychotic and major affective disorders, with meta-analyses. Short-term efficacy of LRSD in schizophrenia is supported by several randomized, controlled trials with daily doses of 40-160 mg, yielding relatively modest symptomatic improvements. Lurasidone has regulatory approval for treatment of undefined duration in schizophrenia. Long-term benefits and effects in schizophrenia, and both short- and long-term use for other psychotic disorders and mania have not been tested. LRSD shows unusual efficacy in acute bipolar depression even without psychotic features. However, trials of adding LRSD to lithium or valproate for bipolar disorder have yielded inconsistent findings. Expert opinion: Available research findings indicate that LRSD is effective and well-tolerated for short-term treatment of schizophrenia, and for acute bipolar depression. It has low risk of inducing weight-gain, metabolic, or cardiac abnormalities, but its risk of akathisia may exceed that of other modern antipsychotics. Needed is adequate long-term testing in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and testing for other indications, including against alternative treatments.

Lurasidone in the Treatment of Bipolar Depression: Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews

INTRODUCTION

A burgeoning number of systematic reviews considering lurasidone in the treatment of bipolar depression have occurred since its Food and Drug Administration extended approval in 2013. While a paucity of available quantitative evidence still precludes preliminary meta-analysis on the matter, the present quality assessment of systematic review of systematic reviews, nonetheless, aims at highlighting current essential information on the topic.

METHODS

Both published and unpublished systematic reviews about lurasidone mono- or adjunctive therapy in the treatment of bipolar depression were searched by two independent authors inquiring PubMed/Cochrane/Embase/Scopus from inception until October 2016.

RESULTS

Twelve included systematic reviews were of moderate-to-high quality and consistent in covering the handful of RCTs available to date, suggesting the promising efficacy, safety, and tolerability profile of lurasidone. Concordance on the drug profile seems to be corroborated by a steadily increasing number of convergent qualitative reports on the matter.

LIMITATIONS

Publication, sponsorship, language, citation, and measurement biases.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite being preliminary in nature, this overview stipulates the effectiveness of lurasidone in the acute treatment of Type I bipolar depression overall. As outlined by most of the reviewed evidence, recommendations for future research should include further controlled trials of extended duration.

Benefits and harms of low and high second-generation antipsychotics doses for bipolar depression: A meta-analysis

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was testing whether low versus high doses of second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are associated with different clinical benefits and harms for the acute treatment of bipolar depression. We included clinical trials comparing different doses of the same SGA monotherapy for bipolar depression. SGAs defined daily doses were used to define high and low doses. Clinical benefit outcomes included improvement, response and remission rates on Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale. Clinical harm outcomes included all-cause and adverse effect-related discontinuation rates. Data from seven clinical trials testing high and low doses of quetiapine (4 trials), cariprazine, lurasidone, and ziprasidone (1 trial each), showed no differences between lower and higher doses of selected SGAs on improvement, response and remission rates, without significant heterogeneity across studies (I² = 0%). Subgroup analyses based on single SGAs confirmed the clinical benefit comparability between low and high doses. However, clinical harm favorable differences for low doses on all-cause (p = 0.01) and adverse effects-related discontinuation (p = 0.001) were found. In sum, this meta-analysis showed that, although no benefits were found in terms of symptoms improvement, response and remission rates, there were clear disadvantages in prescribing higher rather than lower doses of selected SGAs. The uniform methodological strength of studies increases confidence in our findings. These data need to be integrated with individual patient characteristics (e.g., clinical urgency and adverse effect sensitivity) to optimize management of acute bipolar depression.

Lurasidone for major depressive disorder with mixed features and anxiety: a post-hoc analysis of a randomized, placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this post-hoc analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of lurasidone in treating patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) with mixed features who present with mild and moderate-to-severe levels of anxiety.

METHODS

The data in this analysis were derived from a study of patients meeting the DSM-IV-TR criteria for unipolar MDD, with a Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score ≥26, presenting with two or three protocol-defined manic symptoms, who were randomized to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with either lurasidone 20-60 mg/day (n=109) or placebo (n=100). Anxiety severity was evaluated using the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A). To evaluate the effect of baseline anxiety on response to lurasidone, the following two anxiety groups were defined: mild anxiety (HAM-A≤14) and moderate-to-severe anxiety (HAM-A≥15). Change from baseline in MADRS total score was analyzed for each group using a mixed model for repeated measures.

RESULTS

Treatment with lurasidone was associated with a significant week 6 change versus placebo in MADRS total score for patients with both mild anxiety (-18.4 vs. -12.8, p<0.01, effect size [ES]=0.59) and moderate-to-severe anxiety (-22.0 vs. -13.0, p<0.001, ES=0.95). Treatment with lurasidone was associated with a significant week 6 change versus placebo in HAM-A total score for patients with both mild anxiety (-7.6 vs. -4.0, p<0.01, ES=0.62), and moderate-to-severe anxiety (-11.4 vs. -6.1, p<0.0001, ES=0.91).

CONCLUSIONS

In this post-hoc analysis of an MDD with mixed features and anxiety population, treatment with lurasidone was associated with significant improvement in both depressive and anxiety symptoms in subgroups with mild and moderate-to-severe levels of anxiety at baseline.

Long-term use of lurasidone in patients with bipolar disorder: safety and effectiveness over 2 years of treatment

BACKGROUND

Bipolar disorder is a chronic illness with a 2-year recurrence rate of approximately 50% among individuals receiving treatment in the community. The aim of this 18-month, open-label, continuation study was to evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of lurasidone in patients who initially presented with a major depressive episode associated with bipolar disorder, and who had completed at least 6 months of initial treatment with lurasidone.

METHODS

Patients with bipolar I depression were enrolled in one of three 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (monotherapy with lurasidone, 1 study; adjunctive therapy with lurasidone; and lithium or valproate, 2 studies). Study completers were eligible for a 6-month, open-label extension study of lurasidone utilizing flexible daily doses of 20-120 mg; extension completers were then eligible for an additional 18 months of continuation treatment with flexible, once-daily doses of lurasidone in the range of 20-80 mg. Concomitant therapy with mood stabilizers was permitted throughout the open-label extension and continuation studies.

RESULTS

A total of 1199 patients entered, and 941 (78.5%) completed initial, double-blind, acute treatment, of whom 817/941 (86.8%) entered, and 559 (68.4%) completed the 6-month extension study; 122/559 patients (21.8%) entered the 18-month continuation study, of whom 19.7% of discontinued, including 6.6% due to adverse events and 1.6% due to insufficient efficacy. The mean dose of lurasidone during the 18-month continuation study was 61.8 mg/day, and the modal dose was 60 mg/day. Mean change in weight, from acute baseline to 18-month continuation endpoint was +0.8 kg (completers, n = 55); median changes in cholesterol and triglycerides were -3.0 mg/dL and +26.0 mg/dL, respectively. Based on a Kaplan-Meier analysis, the probability of relapse during 18 months of continuation treatment with lurasidone was estimated to be 18.3% in the monotherapy group and 29.1% in the adjunctive therapy group. Improvement in global illness severity was also maintained during 18 months of continuation therapy (CGI-S at continuation baseline, 2.1; 18-month completers, 1.7; LOCF-endpoint, 1.9).

CONCLUSIONS

Up to 2 years of treatment with lurasidone was safe and well tolerated in this bipolar disorder population presenting with an index episode of depression. Improvement in depressive symptoms was maintained in the majority of patients treated with lurasidone, with relatively low rates of relapse, and with minimal effects on weight and metabolic parameters.