Depression Rating Scale Total Score Research Articles

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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

Altered regional brain activity moderating the relationship between childhood trauma and depression severity

ObjectiveChildhood trauma (CT) is a major environmental risk factor for an adverse course and treatment outcome of major depressive disorder (MDD). Evidence suggests that an altered regional brain activity may play a crucial role in the relationship between CT and MDD. This study aimed to clarify the relationship between CT, regional brain activity, and depression severity. MethodsIn this study, 96 patients with MDD and 82 healthy controls (HCs) participated. Regional brain activity was measured using the fractional amplitude of low-frequency fluctuation (fALFF) and regional homogeneity (ReHo). These measures were compared between the MDD and HC groups, and the values of different brain regions were extracted as moderators. ResultsIncreased fALFF and ReHo values were observed in the left middle temporal gyrus in the MDD group compared with the HC group (p < 0.001). Furthermore, the fALFF and ReHo values moderated the positive correlation between the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ) score, 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17) total score, and retardation factor score in the MDD group (all, p < 0.05). Finally, as the fALFF and ReHo values increased, the positive correlations between CTQ, HAMD-17 total, and retardation dimension scores became stronger. ConclusionOur study highlighted the crucial role of altered brain function in connecting childhood maltreatment with depressive symptoms. Our findings indicate that an altered regional brain activity could explain the potential neurobiological mechanisms of MDD symptoms, offering the opportunity to function as a powerful diagnostic biomarker.

Clinical Outcomes of Magnetic Seizure Therapy vs Electroconvulsive Therapy for Major Depressive Episode

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is highly effective and rapid in treating depression, but it carries a risk of significant cognitive adverse effects. Magnetic seizure therapy (MST), an investigational antidepressant treatment, may maintain the robust antidepressant efficacy of ECT while substantially reducing adverse effects due to its enhanced focality and weaker stimulation strength; however, previous clinical trials of MST were limited by small sample sizes. To compare the antidepressant efficacy of MST vs ultrabrief pulse right unilateral (RUL) ECT. A between-participants, double-blinded, randomized clinical trial was conducted at 3 academic hospitals from June 2007 to August 2012. Adults aged 18 to 90 years who were referred for treatment with ECT, had a major depressive episode in the context of major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder, and had a baseline 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-24) total score of 18 or higher were included. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to treatment with MST or ultrabrief pulse RUL ECT. After the treatment course, patients were naturalistically followed up for up to 6 months to examine the durability of clinical effects. Treatment with MST, applied at 100 Hz at 100% of the maximum device power for 10 seconds, or ultrabrief pulse RUL ECT, applied at 6 times seizure threshold. The primary outcome was change from baseline in HDRS-24 total score, with patients followed up for up to 6 months. A reduction of at least 50% in the HDRS-24 score indicated response, and at least a 60% decrease in the HDRS-24 score and a total score of 8 or less indicated remission. Of the 73 participants (41 [56.2%] female; mean [SD] age, 48 [14.1] years), 35 were randomized to MST and 38 to ECT. Among them, 53 (72.6%) were classified as completers (29 in the MST group and 24 in the ECT group). Both MST and ECT demonstrated clinically meaningful antidepressant effects. In the intent-to-treat sample, 18 participants (51.4%) in the MST group and 16 (42.1%) in the ECT group met response criteria; 13 (37.1%) in the MST group and 10 (26.3%) in the ECT group met remission criteria. Among completers, 17 of 29 (58.6%) in the MST group and 15 of 24 (62.5%) in the ECT group met response criteria; 13 of 29 (44.8%) in the MST group and 10 of 24 (41.7%) in the ECT group met remission criteria. There was no significant difference between MST and ECT for either response or remission rates. However, the mean (SD) number of treatments needed to achieve remission was 9.0 (3.1) with MST and 6.7 (3.3) with ECT, a difference of 2.3 treatments (t71.0 = 3.1; P = .003). Both MST and ECT showed a sustained benefit over a 6-month follow-up period, again with no significant difference between them. Compared with MST, ECT had significantly longer time to orientation after treatment (threshold level: F1,56 = 10.0; P = .003) and greater severity of subjective adverse effects, particularly in the physical and cognitive domains. This randomized clinical trial found that the efficacy of MST was indistinguishable from that of ultrabrief pulse RUL ECT, the safest form of ECT currently available. These results support the continued development of MST and provide evidence for advantages relative to state-of-the-art ECT. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00488748.

Efficacy and safety of esketamine nasal spray in addition to standard of care in patients with major depressive disorder who have active suicidal ideation with intent: A subgroup analysis of the Asian cohort of ASPIRE I (a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study).

This post-hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of intranasal esketamine in the Asian subgroup from ASPIRE I. Patients with major depressive disorder and suicidal ideation with intent received intranasal esketamine (n = 26) or placebo (n = 27), plus standard of care for 25 days. The primary endpoint was the change in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score from baseline to Day 2. The MADRS score improved in favor of esketamine (least squares mean difference: -3.8). No unexpected safety concerns were noted. The Asian subgroup showed a similar efficacy and safety profile as the total ASPIRE I cohort.

Esketamine versus placebo on time to remission in major depressive disorder with acute suicidality

BackgroundEsketamine (ESK) nasal spray, taken with oral antidepressant therapy, is approved for the treatment of depressive symptoms in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) with acute suicidal ideation or behavior. In pooled analyses of two pivotal phase 3 studies, ASPIRE I and II, remission rates were consistently higher among patients with MDD with active suicidality who were treated with ESK + standard of care (SOC) versus placebo (PBO) + SOC at all time points in the double-blind and most time points in the follow-up phases. The current analysis of the ASPIRE data sets assessed the effect of ESK + SOC versus PBO + SOC on additional remission-related endpoints: time to achieving remission and consistent remission, proportion of patients in remission and consistent remission, and days in remission.MethodsPost hoc analysis of pooled data from ASPIRE I and II (N = 451). Remission and consistent remission were defined as Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score ≤ 12 at any given visit or two consecutive visits, respectively. Combined endpoints utilizing Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Suicidality-revised version [CGI-SS-r] ≤ 1 (i.e., not suicidal/questionably suicidal) along with the remission and consistent remission definitions (i.e., MADRS total score ≤ 12) were also examined.ResultsThe median times to remission and consistent remission of MDD were significantly shorter in ESK + SOC versus PBO + SOC (15 versus 23 [p = 0.005] and 23 versus 50 days [p = 0.007], respectively) and a greater proportion of patients in ESK + SOC achieved remission and consistent remission by Day 25 (65.2% versus 55.5% and 54.2% versus 39.8%, respectively). Similar results were obtained using the combined endpoint for both remission definitions. The median percent of days in remission during the double-blind treatment phase was significantly greater in ESK + SOC (27.1% or 5 days) versus PBO + SOC (8.3% or 2 days; p = 0.006), and the significant difference was maintained during follow-up.ConclusionTreatment with ESK + SOC versus PBO + SOC resulted in significantly shorter time to remission, greater proportion of patients in remission, and greater percent of days in remission using increasingly rigorous definitions of remission. These findings underscore the clinical benefits of ESK for adults with MDD with suicidality.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov registry NCT03039192 (registered February 1, 2017) and NCT03097133 (registered March 31, 2017).

Dextromethorphan-bupropion (Auvelity) for the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder.

Depression is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Although various pharmacologic options exist for depression, treatments are limited by delayed or incomplete therapeutic response, low rates of remission, and adverse effects necessitating effective, fast-acting, and better tolerated alternatives. The purpose of this review is to describe the safety and efficacy of dextromethorphan-bupropion (Auvelity), a Food and Drug Administration approved treatment for major depressive disorder in adults. Dextromethorphan modulates glutamate signaling through uncompetitive antagonism of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors and sigma-1 agonism, while bupropion increases the bioavailability of dextromethorphan by CYP2D6 inhibition. In a phase 3 trial with dextromethorphan-bupropion 45-105 mg for patients with major depressive disorder saw significant reductions in their Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total scores compared to placebo. A phase 2 trial comparing dextromethorphan-bupropion 45-105 mg to bupropion monotherapy led to significant reduction in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score. Changes in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale with dextromethorphan-bupropion were seen within two weeks in both clinical trials. Remission and response rates were significantly higher with dextromethorphan-bupropion in both studies. The medication was well-tolerated in both trials, with the most common adverse events being rated as mild-to-moderate. Two long-term, open-label studies with dextromethorphan-bupropion saw large reductions in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale scores that were maintained through 12 and 15 months of treatment. In both long-term studies, remission rates approached 70%, while response rates were greater than 80%. These data suggest that dextromethorphan-bupropion is an effective, fast-acting, and well tolerated option for depression treatment and produced remission in a large percentage of patients.

Psilocybin for treatment resistant depression in patients taking a concomitant SSRI medication.

Psilocybin is being investigated as a treatment in adults with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Withdrawal from serotonergic antidepressant drugs is a common prerequisite for taking part in trials of psilocybin due to the possibility of ongoing antidepressant drugs altering the psychedelic effect. This phase II, exploratory, international, fixed-dose, open-label study explored the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of a synthetic form of psilocybin (investigational drug COMP360) adjunct to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor in participants with TRD. Participants received a single 25 mg dose of psilocybin alongside psychological support and were followed-up for 3 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was change in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score from Baseline at Week 3. Secondary end points were safety, including treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), the proportion of responders and remitters at Week 3, and the change from Baseline to Week 3 in Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) score. Nineteen participants were dosed and the mean Baseline MADRS total score was 31.7 (SD = 5.77). Twelve (63.2%) participants had a TEAE, most of which were mild and resolved on the day of onset. There were no serious TEAEs or indication of increased suicidal ideation or behavior. At Week 3, mean change from Baseline in MADRS total score was -14.9 (95% CI, -20.7 to -9.2), and -1.3 (SD = 1.29) in the CGI-S. Both response and remission were evident in 8 (42.1%) participants. Larger, comparator-controlled trials are necessary to understand if this paradigm can optimize treatment-outcome where antidepressant drug withdrawal would be problematic.

Arketamine for bipolar depression: Open-label, dose-escalation, pilot study

There are significantly fewer options for the treatment of bipolar depression than major depressive disorder, with an urgent need for alternative therapies. In this pilot study, we treated six subjects with bipolar disorder types I and II (according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) criteria) who had been in a current depressive episode for at least four weeks. Four subjects were female (66.66%), and the mean age was 45.33 (±12.32). Subjects received adjunct treatment with two arketamine intravenous infusions one week apart—0.5 mg/kg first and then 1 mg/kg. The mean baseline Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score was 36.66, which decreased to 27.83 24h after the first infusion of 0.5 mg/kg of arketamine (p = 0.036). In respect of the 1 mg/kg dose, the mean MADRS total score before the second infusion was 32.0, which dropped to 17.66 after 24h (p < 0.001). Arketamine appears to have rapid-acting antidepressant properties, consistent with previous animal studies on major depression. All individuals tolerated both doses, exhibiting nearly absent dissociation, and no manic symptoms. To the best of our knowledge, this pilot trial is the first to test the feasibility and safety of the (R)-enantiomer of ketamine (arketamine) for bipolar depression.

Effectiveness of vortioxetine in patients with major depressive disorder and early-stage dementia: The MEMORY study

BackgroundDepression and dementia are highly prevalent in older adults and often co-occur. This Phase IV study investigated the effectiveness and tolerability of vortioxetine in improving depressive symptoms, cognitive performance, daily and global functioning and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and comorbid early-stage dementia. MethodsPatients (n = 82) aged 55–85 years with a primary diagnosis of MDD (onset before age 55 years) and comorbid early-stage dementia (diagnosed ≥6 months before screening and after onset of MDD; Mini-Mental State Examination-2 total score, 20–24) received vortioxetine for 12 weeks (initiated at 5 mg/day and up-titrated to 10 mg/day at day 8, with flexible dosing thereafter [5–20 mg/day]). The primary endpoint was change from baseline in Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score at week 12. ResultsSignificant improvement in depressive symptom severity was seen from week 1 onwards (P < 0.0001). At week 12, the least-square mean (standard error) change in MADRS total score from baseline was −12.4 (0.78). Significant improvements in cognitive performance were observed (from week 1 for the Digit Symbol Substitution Test and week 4 for the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test). Patients also experienced significant improvements in daily and global functioning, and HRQoL. Vortioxetine was well tolerated. From week 4 onwards, more than 50 % of patients were receiving 20 mg/day. LimitationsOpen-label study. ConclusionsVortioxetine demonstrated effectiveness in clinically significantly improving depressive symptoms, cognitive performance, daily and global functioning, and HRQoL in patients with MDD and comorbid early-stage dementia treated for 12 weeks. Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04294654.

The efficacy and safety of lurasidone in bipolar I depression with and without rapid cycling: A pooled post-hoc analysis of two randomized, placebo-controlled trials

BackgroundThe efficacy and safety of lurasidone monotherapy in patients with bipolar I depression with or without rapid cycling has not been previously investigated. MethodsWe performed subgroup analysis (rapid cycling/non-rapid cycling) of pooled data from two 6-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of lurasidone monotherapy (20–60 mg/day or 80–120 mg/day). Analyses included mean change from baseline to week 6 in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. Safety assessments included the number of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and laboratory assessments. ResultsOf 1024 patients randomized, 85 were rapid cycling. Mean change in MADRS total score in patients with non-rapid cycling and rapid cycling, respectively, was −14.8 (effect size = 0.47) and − 12.8 (effect size = 0.04) in the lurasidone 20–60 mg/day group, −14.3 (effect size = 0.41) and − 13.0 (effect size = 0.02) in the lurasidone 80–120 mg/day group and −10.6 and −13.3 in the placebo group. The most common TEAE in each subgroup was akathisia in both lurasidone groups. Treatment-emergent mania was reported only in a small number of rapid cycling and non-rapid cycling patients. LimitationsThis was a post-hoc analysis of a short-term study that excluded patients with ≥8 cycles in the past year. ConclusionsIn patients with non-rapid cycling bipolar depression, lurasidone monotherapy significantly improved depressive symptoms relative to placebo at both the 20–60 mg/day and 80–120 mg/day doses. In patients with rapid cycling, both doses of lurasidone displayed depressive symptom score reduction from baseline, but significant improvement was not observed likely due to high levels of improvement on placebo and small sample size.

Head-To-Head Comparison of Vortioxetine Versus Desvenlafaxine in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder With Partial Response to SSRI Therapy: Results of the VIVRE Study.

Objective: To compare the efficacy of vortioxetine and the serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) desvenlafaxine in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) experiencing partial response to initial treatment with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI).Methods: This randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group, 8-week study of vortioxetine (10 or 20 mg/d; n = 309) versus desvenlafaxine (50 mg/d: n = 293) was conducted from June 2020 to February 2022 in adults with a DSM-5 diagnosis of MDD who experienced partial response to SSRI monotherapy. The primary endpoint was mean change from baseline to week 8 in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. Differences between groups were analyzed using mixed models for repeated measures.Results: Non-inferiority of vortioxetine versus desvenlafaxine was established in terms of mean change from baseline to week 8 in MADRS total score; however, a numeric advantage was observed in favor of vortioxetine (difference, -0.47 MADRS points [95% CI, -1.61 to 0.67]; P = .420). At week 8, significantly more vortioxetine-treated than desvenlafaxine-treated patients had achieved symptomatic and functional remission (ie, Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale [CGI-S] score ≤ 2) (32.5% vs 24.8%, respectively; odds ratio = 1.48 [95% CI, 1.03 to 2.15]; P = .034). Vortioxetine-treated patients also experienced significantly greater improvements in daily and social functioning assessed by the Functioning Assessment Short Test (P = .009 and .045 vs desvenlafaxine, respectively) and reported significantly greater satisfaction with their medication assessed by the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (P = .044). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 46.1% and 39.6% of patients in the vortioxetine and desvenlafaxine groups, respectively; these were mostly mild or moderate in intensity (> 98% of all TEAEs in each group).Conclusions: Compared with the SNRI desvenlafaxine, vortioxetine was associated with significantly higher rates of CGI-S remission, better daily and social functioning, and greater treatment satisfaction in patients with MDD and partial response to SSRIs. These findings support the use of vortioxetine before SNRIs in the treatment algorithm in patients with MDD.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04448431.

Long-term safety and maintenance of response with esketamine nasal spray in participants with treatment-resistant depression: interim results of the SUSTAIN-3 study

Patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) have higher rates of relapse and pronounced decreases in daily functioning and health-related quality of life compared to patients with major depressive disorder who are not treatment-resistant, underscoring the need for treatment choices with sustained efficacy and long-term tolerability. Adults with TRD who participated in ≥1 of 6 phase 3 “parent” studies could continue esketamine treatment, combined with an oral antidepressant, by enrolling in phase 3, open-label, long-term extension study, SUSTAIN-3. Based on their status at parent-study end, eligible participants entered a 4-week induction phase followed by an optimization/maintenance phase, or directly entered the optimization/maintenance phase of SUSTAIN-3. Intranasal esketamine dosing was flexible, twice-weekly during induction and individualized to depression severity during optimization/maintenance. At the interim data cutoff (01 December 2020), 1148 participants were enrolled, 458 at induction and 690 at optimization/maintenance. Mean (median) cumulative duration of maintenance esketamine treatment was 31.5 (37.7) months (totaling 2769 cumulative patient-years). Common treatment-emergent adverse events (≥20%) were headache, dizziness, nausea, dissociation, somnolence, and nasopharyngitis. Mean Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score decreased during induction, and this reduction persisted during optimization/maintenance (mean [SD] change from the baseline to the endpoint of each phase: induction −12.8 [9.73]; optimization/maintenance +1.1 [9.93]), with 35.6% and 46.1% of participants in remission (MADRS total score ≤12) at induction and optimization/maintenance endpoints, respectively. Improvement in depression ratings generally persisted among participants who remained in maintenance treatment, and no new safety signal was identified during long-term treatment (up to 4.5 years) using intermittent-dosed esketamine in conjunction with daily antidepressant.

A phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial to verify the efficacy and safety of ansofaxine (LY03005) for major depressive disorder

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is the most prevalent form of depression and is becoming a great challenge for public health and medical practice. Although first-line antidepressants offer therapeutic benefits, about 35% of depressed patients are not adequately treated, creating a substantial unmet medical need. A multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 clinical trial was conducted in patients with MDD in China to assess the efficacy and safety of ansofaxine (LY03005), a potential triple reuptake inhibitor of serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine. Eligible 588 MDD patients were included and randomly assigned (1:1:1) to 8-week treatment with ansofaxine 80 mg/day(n = 187), ansofaxine 160 mg/day(n = 186), or placebo(n = 185). The primary efficacy endpoint was the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score change from baseline to the end of the study. Safety indexes included adverse events, vital signs, physical examination, laboratory tests, 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG), and evaluation of suicide tendency and sexual function. Significant differences were found in mean changes in MADRS total score at week 8 in the two ansofaxine groups (80 mg, −20.0; 160 mg, −19.9) vs. placebo (−14.6; p < 0.0001). All doses of ansofaxine were generally well-tolerated. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 137 (74.46%) patients in ansofaxine 80 mg group, 144 (78.26%) patients in ansofaxine 160 mg and 125 (67.93%) patients in the placebo group. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) was 59.2% (109 patients), 65.22% (120 patients) in the 80, 160 mg ansofaxine groups, and 45.11% (83 patients) in the placebo group. The initial results of this trial indicate that ansofaxine at both the 80 mg/day and 160 mg/day was effective and safe in adult patients with MDD. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04853407.

The Efficacy of Lumateperone in Patients With Bipolar Depression With Mixed Features.

Objective: A post hoc analysis of a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled outpatient study investigated efficacy of lumateperone 42 mg in patients with bipolar I or bipolar II disorder and experiencing a major depressive episode (MDE) stratified by the presence of mixed features.Methods: Adults (18-75 years) with bipolar I or bipolar II disorder experiencing an MDE, defined by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, criteria, were randomized 1:1 to 6-week oral lumateperone 42 mg/d or placebo (conducted November 2017-March 2019). Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score, Clinical Global Impression Scale-Bipolar Version-Severity (CGI-BP-S) total score, and Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire-Short Form (Q-LES-Q-SF) were analyzed in patients (N = 376) categorized as having mixed features (Young Mania Rating Scale [YMRS] score ≥ 4 and ≤ 12, 41.5%) or not having mixed features (YMRS < 4, 58.5%) at baseline. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) including mania/hypomania were assessed.Results: At day 43, lumateperone significantly improved MADRS and CGI-BP-S total scores change from baseline compared with placebo for patients with mixed features (MADRS least squares mean difference [LSMD] = -4.4, P < .01; CGI-BP-S LSMD = -0.7, P < .05) and without mixed features (MADRS LSMD = -4.2, P < .001, CGI-BP-S LSMD = -1.0, P < .001). Q-LES-Q-SF percent score significantly improved at day 43 with lumateperone vs placebo in patients with mixed features (LSMD = 5.9, P < .05), with numerical improvements in patients without mixed features (LSMD = 2.6, P = .27). TEAEs of mania/hypomania were rare.Conclusions: Lumateperone 42 mg significantly improved symptoms of depression and disease severity in patients with an MDE associated with bipolar I or bipolar II disorder, with or without mixed features.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03249376.

Effects of low-dose combined olanzapine and sertraline on negative and depressive symptoms in treatment-resistant outpatients with acute exacerbated schizophrenia.

Background: Treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) is a major clinical challenge. Current antipsychotic medications do not adequately address negative and depressive symptoms in patients with TRS, and novel treatments are thus needed. This study examines the efficacy of low-dose combined olanzapine (OLA) and sertraline on depressive and negative symptoms in patients with TRS. Methods: A total of 34 TRS outpatients with acutely exacerbated schizophrenia were randomly assigned to OLA monotherapy (12.5-20mg/day) (control group) or low-dose combined OLA (7.5-10mg/day) and sertraline (50-100mg/day) (OS group). Clinical symptoms were assessed using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) at baseline and at the end of treatment in weeks 4, 8, 12, and 24. Depressive symptoms and social functioning were also assessed. Results: Compared to the control group, the OS group showed significant improvements in depressive and negative symptoms over time. In addition, the low-dose combination of OLA and sertraline significantly improved social functioning compared with OLA monotherapy. There were no significant between-group differences in psychotic symptom improvement. However, the reduction in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total score and PANSS negative subscore were not associated with improvements in social functioning, suggesting that these effects of combined treatment are independent. Conclusion: Low-dose combined OLA and sertraline may be effective in the treatment of negative and depressive symptoms compared with standard OLA monotherapy in patients with TRS who are experiencing an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia. Clinical Trial Registration: [ClinicalTrials.gov], identifier [NCT04076371].

Bangpungtongsung-san for patients with major depressive disorder: study protocol for a randomized controlled phase II clinical trial

BackgroundBangpungtongsung-san (BTS) is a representative herbal medicine that has been widely used for patients with obesity in east Asian countries. Various preclinical studies have demonstrated the anti-depressive effect of BTS granules in various animal models of depression. This phase II trial aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of BTS in human patients with depression.MethodsA total of 126 patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder and who are not underweight (body mass index ≥ 18.5 kg/m2) will be enrolled in this study. Eligible participants will be randomly allocated into three groups: the high-dose BTS, low-dose BTS, and placebo groups in a 1:1:1 ratio. BTS or placebo granules will be orally administered twice a day for 8 weeks. The BTS and placebo granules will be made to have identical color, scent, and shape, and participants and investigators will be blinded to the allocation. The primary efficacy endpoint is the change from baseline of the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total score at 8 weeks. The superiority of the high- and low-dose BTS granules to the placebo granules will be tested.DiscussionThe results of this clinical trial will provide evidence on the efficacy and safety of BTS for patients with major depressive disorder. This study will be conducted in accordance with ethical and regulatory guidelines, and the results will be submitted and published in international peer-reviewed journals.Trial registrationCRIS registration Number: KCT0007571; registered on 2022/07/26 (https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/search/detailSearch.do/23192).

Categorical Improvement in Depressive Symptom Severity: Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial of Cariprazine for Adjunctive Treatment of MDD

AbstractBackgroundPatients with major depressive disorder (MDD) often do not respond to antidepressant (ADT) monotherapy alone and may require adjunctive treatment to provide adequate symptom relief. Cariprazine (CAR) is a dopamine D3-preferring D3/D2 and serotonin 5-HT1A receptor partial agonist approved to treat adults with schizophrenia and manic, mixed, or depressive episodes of bipolar I disorder. Post hoc analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial evaluated clinically relevant improvements in depressive symptom severity with adjunctive cariprazine in patients with MDD and inadequate response to ADT monotherapy.MethodsPost hoc analysis evaluated data from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled MDD trial (NCT03738215) in patients treated with CAR (1.5 mg/d or 3 mg/d) + ADT or placebo + ADT; the primary outcome was change from baseline to week 6 in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. Post hoc analysis evaluated category shifts from baseline to week 6 in MADRS severity (normal &lt;6, mild 7–19, moderate 20–34, severe ≥35). MADRS severity shifts were reported as the percentage of patients with no change or worsened severity, 1 category improvement, ≥1 category improvement, and ≥2 category improvement. Examples of categorical shifts in depressive symptoms at week 6 include change from severe at baseline to moderate (1 category improvement) and change from severe at baseline to mild (2 category improvement).ResultsOf the 751 patients in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (CAR: 1.5 mg/d=250, 3.0 mg/d=252; placebo=249), baseline MADRS severity was mild in 1.5%, moderate in 64%, and severe in 35%. Fewer CAR + ADT patients compared to placebo + ADT had no change or worsened MADRS severity at week 6 (CAR: 1.5 mg/d=32%, 3.0 mg/d=33%; placebo=42%). Approximately 68% of patients treated with CAR + ADT demonstrated a MADRS severity improvement of 1 category or greater by week 6 (CAR: 1.5 mg/d=68%, 3.0 mg/d=67%; placebo=58%). A greater percentage of patients in the CAR 1.5 mg/d group also had a 2 or greater category improvement versus CAR 3.0 mg/d or placebo 6 (CAR: 1.5 mg/d=28%, 3.0 mg/d=17%; placebo=19%).ConclusionsIn this post hoc analysis, CAR + ADT was associated with a greater proportion of patients with improvements in depressive symptom severity categories compared with placebo + ADT. These results may suggest that CAR + ADT is associated with clinically meaningful depressive symptom improvement in MDD patients.FundingAbbVie

Cariprazine for the Adjunctive Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder: Results of a Randomized Phase 3 Placebo-Controlled Study (Study 301)

AbstractBackgroundPatients with major depressive disorder (MDD) often do not respond to antidepressant (ADT) monotherapy; adjunctive treatment is often used to address this unmet need. Cariprazine (CAR), a dopamine D3-preferring D3/D2 and serotonin 5-HT1A receptor partial agonist approved to treat adults with manic, mixed, or depressive episodes of bipolar I disorder, is under investigation as adjunctive therapy for patients with MDD.MethodsThis randomized, double-blind, phase 3 placebo (PBO)-controlled study assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of CAR 1.5 and 3 mg/d as an adjunct to ADT in adult patients with MDD (18–65 years) and inadequate response to ADT alone (NCT03738215). The primary endpoint was change from baseline to week 6 in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17), Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A), and Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) were also assessed. Treatment response was defined as at least 50% decrease in MADRS total score at week 6.ResultsPatients (n=751) in the modified intent-to-treat population were randomly assigned to CAR 1.5 mg/d+ADT (n=250), CAR 3 mg/d+ADT (n=252), or PBO+ADT (n=249). Mean age was 44.8 years and 73.4% were female; mean baseline total scores were: MADRS=32.5, HAMD-17=25.9, HAM-A= 21.4. Overall, 89.7% of patients completed the study; rates of discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs) and lack of efficacy were 3.6% and 0.5%, respectively. The difference in MADRS total score change from baseline to week 6 was statistically significant after multiplicity adjustment for CAR 1.5 mg/d vs PBO (-14.1 vs -11.5; adjusted P=.0050), but not for CAR 3 mg/d (-13.1; P=.0727). Differences for CAR 1.5 mg/d vs PBO were observed by week 2 (nominal P=.0453) and maintained at weeks 4 (nominal P&lt;.0001) and 6 (nominal P=.0025). At week 6, more CAR 1.5 mg/d patients (44%) than PBO patients (34.9%) responded to treatment (nominal P=.0446). Greater improvement in the CGI-I scores was observed for CAR 1.5 (nominal P=.0026) and 3 mg/d (nominal P=.0076) vs PBO. At week 6, improvement in HAMD-17 total score reached nominal significance for CAR 1.5 mg/d vs PBO (-13.1 vs -11.1; nominal P=.0017), but not for CAR 3 mg/day (-12.2; P=.0783). HAM-A improvement was greater for CAR 1.5 mg/d vs PBO (nominal P=.0370). There were no deaths; 2 serious AEs occurred in each group (CAR: kidney infection, social stay hospitalization; PBO: depression, multiple sclerosis). The most common CAR AEs (≥5% and twice PBO) were akathisia and nausea.ConclusionCariprazine 1.5 mg/d was effective as adjunctive treatment in adults with MDD and inadequate response to ADT. Cariprazine was generally well tolerated, with a safety profile that was consistent with other indications. Together with results from a prior flex-dose study, these results suggest that adjunctive cariprazine may be an effective option for patients with inadequate response to ADT alone.FundingAbbVie

Long-term safety and efficacy, including anhedonia, of vortioxetine for major depressive disorder: findings from two open-label studies

Objective Evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of vortioxetine in the management of major depressive disorder (MDD) in two open-label one-year studies, including a post-hoc analysis of its effects on symptoms related to anhedonia. Methods Both studies were 52-week, open-label, flexible-dose extension studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of vortioxetine in adult patients with MDD following prior double-blind studies. Patients in the first study (NCT00761306) were flexibly treated with vortioxetine 5 or 10 mg/day (N = 74), and patients in the second study (NCT01323478) received vortioxetine 15 or 20 mg/day (N = 71). Results The safety and tolerability profile of vortioxetine was similar between the two studies; treatment-emergent adverse events with the highest incidence were nausea, dizziness, headache, and nasopharyngitis. Across both studies, improvements achieved during the preceding double-blind studies period were maintained, and additional improvements were observed with open-label treatment. Patients showed a mean ± SD reduction (improvement) in Montgomery and Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score from open-label baseline to Week 52 of 4.3 ± 9.2 points in the 5–10 mg study, and 10.9 ± 10.0 in the 15–20 mg study. Post-hoc MMRM analyses of MADRS anhedonia factor scores also showed continued improvements over long-term treatment; patients showed a mean ± SE reduction from an open-label baseline to Week 52 of 3.10 ± 0.57 points in the 5–10 mg study, and 5.62 ± 0.60 in the 15–20 mg study. Conclusions Data from both studies confirm the safety and efficacy of flexibly dosed vortioxetine over 52 weeks of treatment and demonstrate that MADRS anhedonia factor scores continue to improve with long-term maintenance treatment.

Exposure-response Modeling From the CLARITY Trial of Pimavanserin for Adjunctive Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder.

In the 10-week, phase 2 CLARITY study of patients with major depressive disorder, adjunctive therapy to antidepressants with pimavanserin 34mg once daily statistically significantly improved the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17) total score (primary endpoint) and Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) score (secondary endpoint) versus placebo. This analysis characterized the exposure-response (E-R) relationships of pimavanserin in this CLARITY patient population. Exposure measures were estimated for each patient based on population-pharmacokinetic empirical Bayesian estimates. E-R models were developed to describe exposure-efficacy (HAMD-17, SDS, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement [CGI-I] scale) and exposure-safetyrelationships (Karolinska Sleepiness Scale [KSS], Massachusetts General Hospital Sexual Functioning Inventory [MGH-SFI], and adverse events [AEs] of headache, sedation, and somnolence) relationships. For the primary efficacy endpoint (HAMD-17 scores), a sigmoid maximum-effect model described the time course of response, and a linear function of pimavanserin exposure was statistically significant. HAMD-17 scores decreased steadily over time following placebo and pimavanserin treatment; separation from placebo increased as peak pimavanserin plasma concentration (Cmax ) increased. At median pimavanserin Cmax (34-mg dose), the reduction from baseline in HAMD-17 scores was -11.1 and -13.5 at weeks 5 and 10, respectively. Relative to placebo, the model predicted comparable reductions in HAMD-17 scores at weeks 5 and 10. Similar improvements in favor of pimavanserin were detected with SDS, CGI-I, MGH-SFI, and KSS scores. No E-R relationship was found for AEs. E-R modeling predicted a relationship between higher pimavanserin exposure and improvement in HAMD-17 score and improvement across multiple secondary efficacy endpoints.