Remission and recovery associated with lurasidone in the treatment of major depressive disorder with subthreshold hypomanic symptoms (mixed features): post-hoc analysis of a randomized, placebo-controlled study with longer-term extension

Efficacy of Quetiapine Monotherapy and Combination Therapy for Patients with Bipolar Depression with Mixed Features: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study

Effective pharmacotherapy of bipolar depression with mixed features defined by DSM-5 remains unclear in clinical treatment guidelines. Quetiapine (QTP) and valproate have potential treatment utility but are often inadequate as monotherapy. Meanwhile, the efficacy of combination therapies of QTP plus valproate or lithium have yet to be verified. Hence, we conducted a randomized controlled pilot study to evaluate the efficacy of QTP monotherapy in patients with bipolar depression with mixed features defined by DSM-5 and compared the combination therapy of QTP plus valproate (QTP + V) versus QTP plus lithium (QTP + L) for those patients who responded insufficiently to QTP monotherapy. Data was analyzed according to the intent-to-treat population. Generalized linear mixed model was performed by using "nlme" package in R software. A total 56 patients were enrolled, among which, 35 patients responded to QTP alone, and 11 and 10 patients were randomly assigned to QTP + V and QTP + L group, respectively. Nearly 60% enrolled patients responded to QTP monotherapy at the first two weeks treatment. No statistically significant difference in efficacy between QTP + V and QTP + L was observed. In conclusion, QTP monotherapy appeared to be efficacious in patients with bipolar depression with mixed features, and for those who responded insufficiently to QTP, combining with either valproate or lithium appeared to have positive effects.

Oral and long-acting antipsychotics for relapse prevention in schizophrenia-spectrum disorders: a network meta-analysis of 92 randomized trials including 22,645 participants

According to current evidence and guidelines, continued antipsychotic treatment is key for preventing relapse in people with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders, but evidence-based recommendations for the choice of the individual antipsychotic for maintenance treatment are lacking. Although oral antipsychotics are often prescribed first line for practical reasons, long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) are a valuable resource to tackle adherence issues since the earliest phase of disease. Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CENTRAL and CINAHL databases and online registers were searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing LAIs or oral antipsychotics head-to-head or against placebo, published until June 2021. Relative risks and standardized mean differences were pooled using random-effects pairwise and network meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were relapse and dropout due to adverse events. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool to assess study quality, and the CINeMA approach to assess the confidence of pooled estimates. Of 100 eligible trials, 92 (N=22,645) provided usable data for meta-analyses. Regarding relapse prevention, the vast majority of the 31 included treatments outperformed placebo. Compared to placebo, "high" confidence in the results was found for (in descending order of effect magnitude) amisulpride-oral (OS), olanzapine-OS, aripiprazole-LAI, olanzapine-LAI, aripiprazole-OS, paliperidone-OS, and ziprasidone-OS. "Moderate" confidence in the results was found for paliperidone-LAI 1-monthly, iloperidone-OS, fluphenazine-OS, brexpiprazole-OS, paliperidone-LAI 1-monthly, asenapine-OS, haloperidol-OS, quetiapine-OS, cariprazine-OS, and lurasidone-OS. Regarding tolerability, none of the antipsychotics was significantly worse than placebo, but confidence was poor, with only aripiprazole (both LAI and OS) showing "moderate" confidence levels. Based on these findings, olanzapine, aripiprazole and paliperidone are the best choices for the maintenance treatment of schizophrenia-spectrum disorders, considering that both LAI and oral formulations of these antipsychotics are among the best-performing treatments and have the highest confidence of evidence for relapse prevention. This finding is of particular relevance for low- and middle-income countries and constrained-resource settings, where few medications may be selected. Results from this network meta-analysis can inform clinical guidelines and national and international drug regulation policies.

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.

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.

Epidemiology of Adult DSM-5 Major Depressive Disorder and Its Specifiers in the United States

IMPORTANCE

No US national data are available on the prevalence and correlates of DSM-5-defined major depressive disorder (MDD) or on MDD specifiers as defined in DSM-5.

OBJECTIVE

To present current nationally representative findings on the prevalence, correlates, psychiatric comorbidity, functioning, and treatment of DSM-5 MDD and initial information on the prevalence, severity, and treatment of DSM-5 MDD severity, anxious/distressed specifier, and mixed-features specifier, as well as cases that would have been characterized as bereavement in DSM-IV.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In-person interviews with a representative sample of US noninstitutionalized civilian adults (≥18 years) (n = 36 309) who participated in the 2012-2013 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions III (NESARC-III). Data were collected from April 2012 to June 2013 and were analyzed in 2016-2017.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Prevalence of DSM-5 MDD and the DSM-5 specifiers. Odds ratios (ORs), adjusted ORs (aORs), and 95% CIs indicated associations with demographic characteristics and other psychiatric disorders.

RESULTS

Of the 36 309 adult participants in NESARC-III, 12-month and lifetime prevalences of MDD were 10.4% and 20.6%, respectively. Odds of 12-month MDD were significantly lower in men (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.46-0.55) and in African American (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.54-0.68), Asian/Pacific Islander (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.45-0.67), and Hispanic (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.62-0.78) adults than in white adults and were higher in younger adults (age range, 18-29 years; OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 2.48-3.55) and those with low incomes ($19 999 or less; OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.49-2.04). Associations of MDD with psychiatric disorders ranged from an aOR of 2.1 (95% CI, 1.84-2.35) for specific phobia to an aOR of 5.7 (95% CI, 4.98-6.50) for generalized anxiety disorder. Associations of MDD with substance use disorders ranged from an aOR of 1.8 (95% CI, 1.63-2.01) for alcohol to an aOR of 3.0 (95% CI, 2.57-3.55) for any drug. Most lifetime MDD cases were moderate (39.7%) or severe (49.5%). Almost 70% with lifetime MDD had some type of treatment. Functioning among those with severe MDD was approximately 1 SD below the national mean. Among 12.9% of those with lifetime MDD, all episodes occurred just after the death of someone close and lasted less than 2 months. The anxious/distressed specifier characterized 74.6% of MDD cases, and the mixed-features specifier characterized 15.5%. Controlling for severity, both specifiers were associated with early onset, poor course and functioning, and suicidality.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among US adults, DSM-5 MDD is highly prevalent, comorbid, and disabling. While most cases received some treatment, a substantial minority did not. Much remains to be learned about the DSM-5 MDD specifiers in the general population.