The direct and indirect effects of lurasidone monotherapy on functional improvement among patients with bipolar depression: results from a randomized placebo-controlled trial

Lurasidone versus Quetiapine for Cognitive Impairments in Young Patients with Bipolar Depression: A Randomized, Controlled Study

The clinical efficacy of lurasidone and quetiapine, two commonly prescribed atypical antipsychotics for bipolar depression, has been inadequately studied in young patients. In this randomized and controlled study, we aimed to compare the effects of these two drugs on cognitive function, emotional status, and metabolic profiles in children and adolescents with bipolar depression. We recruited young participants (aged 10-17 years old) with a DSM-5 diagnosis of bipolar disorder during a depressive episode, who were then randomly assigned to two groups and treated with flexible doses of lurasidone (60 to 120 mg/day) or quetiapine (300 to 600 mg/day) for consecutive 8 weeks, respectively. All the participants were clinically evaluated on cognitive function using the THINC-it instrument at baseline and week 8, and emotional status was assessed at baseline and the end of week 2, 4, and 8. Additionally, the changes in weight and serum metabolic profiles (triglyceride, cholesterol, and fasting blood glucose) during the trial were also analyzed. In results, a total of 71 patients were randomly assigned to the lurasidone group (n = 35) or the quetiapine group (n = 36), of which 31 patients completed the whole treatment course. After an 8-week follow-up, participants in the lurasidone group showed better performance in the Symbol Check Reaction and Accuracy Tests, when compared to those in the quetiapine group. No inter-group difference was observed in the depression scores, response rate, or remission rate throughout the trial. In addition, there was no significant difference in serum metabolic profiles between the lurasidone group and the quetiapine group, including triglyceride level, cholesterol level, and fasting blood glucose level. However, the quetiapine group presented a more apparent change in body weight than the lurasidone group. In conclusion, the present study provided preliminary evidence that quetiapine and lurasidone had an equivalent anti-depressive effect, and lurasidone appeared to be superior to quetiapine in improving the cognitive function of young patients with bipolar depression.

The impact of lurasidone on functioning and indirect costs in adults with bipolar depression: a post-hoc analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this post-hoc analysis was to assess the impact of lurasidone monotherapy on functional impairment, productivity, and associated indirect costs in patients with bipolar depression.

METHODS

Data were analyzed from a 6-week randomized, double-blind (DB; NCT00868699), placebo-controlled trial of lurasidone monotherapy and a 6-month open label extension (OLE; NCT00868959) study. Patients with bipolar depression who completed the 6-week DB trial were subsequently enrolled in the OLE. Analysis of the OLE was limited to patients who either continued lurasidone (LUR-LUR) or switched from placebo to lurasidone monotherapy (PBO-LUR). The Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), which measures functional impairment and productivity, was collected at DB baseline, DB week 6/OLE baseline, OLE month 3, and OLE month 6. Annual indirect costs were calculated based on days lost or unproductive from work/school due to symptoms. Effect sizes (ES) in functioning and days lost/unproductive were reported for the DB trial and mean changes for the OLE.

RESULTS

A total of 485 patients were enrolled in the DB trial (lurasidone: n = 323; placebo: n = 162) and 316 were in the lurasidone monotherapy group during the OLE (LUR-LUR: n = 210; PBO-LUR: n = 106). In the DB trial, improvements in functioning (work: ES = 0.36, p = .0071; social: ES = 0.55, p < .0001; family: ES = 0.50, p < .0001) were significantly greater for lurasidone compared to placebo. Reductions in days lost (ES = 0.33, p = .0050) and unproductive (ES = 0.45, p = .0001) were significantly higher for lurasidone vs. placebo. This resulted in a greater reduction in indirect costs for lurasidone vs. placebo (least squares mean (standard error) = -$32,322 ($2,100) vs. -$20,091 ($2,838)). Improvements in functioning and productivity were sustained during the 6-month OLE for both LUR-LUR and PBO-LUR.

CONCLUSIONS

Lurasidone monotherapy for the treatment of bipolar depression significantly improved functioning and reduced indirect costs vs. placebo at week 6. Significant improvements in functioning and productivity were sustained for 6 months for both LUR-LUR and PBO-LUR.

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.

Antidepressants in Bipolar Depression: An Enduring Controversy

(Reprinted with permission from Int J Bipolar Discord (2018) 6:25).

Antidepressants in bipolar depression: an enduring controversy

The proper place and the optimal use of antidepressants in treating bipolar depression continues to be an area of great interest and greater controversy with passionate opinions more common than good studies. Even the handful of meta-analyses in the area disagree with each other. Overall, the evidence that antidepressants are effective in treating bipolar depression is weak. Additionally, many experts and clinicians worry greatly about the capacity of antidepressants to cause affective switching or mood destabilization. Yet, in short term controlled studies, with most patients also taking mood stabilizers, antidepressants are not associated with switches into mania/hypomania. Evidence of cycle acceleration with antidepressants primarily reflects treatment with older antidepressants, e.g., tricyclics. Similar evidence with modern antidepressants such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) is lacking. The key questions should not be: are antidepressants effective in bipolar depression?; And: do antidepressants worsen the course of bipolar disorder? Rather, the question should be focused on subgroups: for which patients are antidepressants helpful and safe, and for which patients will they be harmful? Predictors of affective switching with antidepressants include: bipolar I disorder (vs. bipolar II), mixed features during depression, tricyclics vs. modern antidepressants, rapid cycling and possibly a history of drug abuse, especially stimulant abuse. Additionally, a number of recent studies have demonstrated both the safety and efficacy of antidepressant monotherapy in treating bipolar II depression. Finally, a subgroup of bipolar individuals need antidepressants in addition to mood stabilizers as part of an optimal maintenance treatment regimen.

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

This post-hoc analysis assessed rates of symptomatic and functional remission, as well as recovery (combination of symptomatic and functional remission), in patients treated with lurasidone for major depressive disorder (MDD) associated with subthreshold hypomanic symptoms (mixed features).

METHOD

Patients with MDD plus two or three manic symptoms (defined as per the DSM-5 mixed-features specifier) were randomly assigned to flexible-dose lurasidone 20-60 mg/day (n=109) or placebo (n=100) for 6 weeks, followed by a 3-month open-label, flexible-dose extension study for U.S. sites only (n=48). Cross-sectional recovery was defined as the presence of both symptomatic remission (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score ≤ 12) and functional remission (all Sheehan Disability Scale [SDS] domain scores ≤3) at week 6, and at both months 1 and 3 of the extension study ("sustained recovery").

RESULTS

A significantly higher proportion of lurasidone-treated patients (31.3%) achieved recovery (assessed cross-sectionally) compared to placebo (12.2%, p=0.002) at week 6. The number of manic symptoms at baseline moderated the effect size for attaining cross-sectional recovery for lurasidone treatment (vs. placebo) (p=0.028). Sustained recovery rates were higher in patients initially treated with lurasidone (20.8%) versus placebo (12.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this post-hoc analysis of a placebo-controlled study with open-label extension that involved patients with MDD and mixed features, lurasidone was found to significantly improve the rate of recovery at 6 weeks (vs. placebo) that was sustained at month 3 of the extension study. The presence of two (as opposed to three) manic symptoms moderated recovery at the acute study endpoint.

The International College of Neuro-Psychopharmacology (CINP) Treatment Guidelines for Bipolar Disorder in Adults (CINP-BD-2017), Part 2: Review, Grading of the Evidence, and a Precise Algorithm

Background

The current paper includes a systematic search of the literature, a detailed presentation of the results, and a grading of treatment options in terms of efficacy and tolerability/safety.

Material and Methods

The PRISMA method was used in the literature search with the combination of the words 'bipolar,' 'manic,' 'mania,' 'manic depression,' and 'manic depressive' with 'randomized,' and 'algorithms' with 'mania,' 'manic,' 'bipolar,' 'manic-depressive,' or 'manic depression.' Relevant web pages and review articles were also reviewed.

Results

The current report is based on the analysis of 57 guideline papers and 531 published papers related to RCTs, reviews, posthoc, or meta-analysis papers to March 25, 2016. The specific treatment options for acute mania, mixed episodes, acute bipolar depression, maintenance phase, psychotic and mixed features, anxiety, and rapid cycling were evaluated with regards to efficacy. Existing treatment guidelines were also reviewed. Finally, Tables reflecting efficacy and recommendation levels were created that led to the development of a precise algorithm that still has to prove its feasibility in everyday clinical practice.

Conclusions

A systematic literature search was conducted on the pharmacological treatment of bipolar disorder to identify all relevant random controlled trials pertaining to all aspects of bipolar disorder and graded the data according to a predetermined method to develop a precise treatment algorithm for management of various phases of bipolar disorder. It is important to note that the some of the recommendations in the treatment algorithm were based on the secondary outcome data from posthoc analyses.