Search

If treatments for cognitive impairment are to be utilized successfully, clinicians must be able to determine whether they are effective and which patients should receive them. In order to develop consensus on these issues, the International Society for CNS Clinical Trials and Methodology (ISCTM) held a meeting of experts on March 20, 2014, in Washington, DC. Consensus was reached on several important issues. Cognitive impairment and functional disability were viewed as equally important treatment targets. The group supported the notion that sufficient data are not available to exclude patients from available treatments on the basis of age, severity of cognitive impairment, severity of positive symptoms, or the potential to benefit functionally from treatment. The group reached consensus that cognitive remediation is likely to provide substantial benefits in combination with procognitive medications, although a substantial minority believed that medications can be administered without nonpharmacological therapy. There was little consensus on the best methods for assessing cognitive change in clinical practice. Some participants supported the view that performance-based measures are essential for measurement of cognitive change; others pointed to their cost and time requirements as evidence of impracticality. Interview-based measures of cognitive and functional change were viewed as more practical, but lacking validity without informant involvement or frequent contact from clinicians. The lack of consensus on assessment methods was viewed as attributable to differences in experience and education among key stakeholders and significant gaps in available empirical data. Research on the reliability, validity, sensitivity, and practicality of competing methods will facilitate consensus.

Impairments in willingness to exert effort contribute to the motivational deficits characteristic of the negative symptoms of schizophrenia. The current study evaluated the psychometric properties of 5 new or adapted paradigms to determine their suitability for use in clinical trials of schizophrenia. This study included 94 clinically stable participants with schizophrenia and 40 healthy controls. The effort-based decision-making battery was administered twice to the schizophrenia group (baseline, 4-week retest) and once to the control group. The 5 paradigms included 1 that assesses cognitive effort, 1 perceptual effort, and 3 that assess physical effort. Each paradigm was evaluated on (1) patient vs healthy control group differences, (2) test-retest reliability, (3) utility as a repeated measure (ie, practice effects), and (4) tolerability. The 5 paradigms showed varying psychometric strengths and weaknesses. The Effort Expenditure for Rewards Task showed the best reliability and utility as a repeated measure, while the Grip Effort Task had significant patient-control group differences, and superior tolerability and administration duration. The other paradigms showed weaker psychometric characteristics in their current forms. These findings highlight challenges in adapting effort and motivation paradigms for use in clinical trials.

Effort-based decision making has strong conceptual links to the motivational disturbances that define a key subdomain of negative symptoms. However, the extent to which effort-based decision-making performance relates to negative symptoms, and other clinical and functionally important variables has yet to be systematically investigated. In 94 clinically stable outpatients with schizophrenia, we examined the external validity of 5 effort-based paradigms, including the Effort Expenditure for Rewards, Balloon Effort, Grip Strength Effort, Deck Choice Effort, and Perceptual Effort tasks. These tasks covered 3 types of effort: physical, cognitive, and perceptual. Correlations between effort related performance and 6 classes of variables were examined, including: (1) negative symptoms, (2) clinically rated motivation and community role functioning, (3) self-reported motivational traits, (4) neurocognition, (5) other psychiatric symptoms and clinical/demographic characteristics, and (6) subjective valuation of monetary rewards. Effort paradigms showed small to medium relationships to clinical ratings of negative symptoms, motivation, and functioning, with the pattern more consistent for some measures than others. They also showed small to medium relations with neurocognitive functioning, but were generally unrelated to other psychiatric symptoms, self-reported traits, antipsychotic medications, side effects, and subjective valuation of money. There were relatively strong interrelationships among the effort measures. In conjunction with findings from a companion psychometric article, all the paradigms warrant further consideration and development, and 2 show the strongest potential for clinical trial use at this juncture.

Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety profile of add‐on cannabidiol (CBD) in patients with Lennox–Gastaut syndrome (LGS) and Dravet syndrome (DS) on clobazam and in the overall population of four randomized, controlled phase 3 trials. Methods: Patients received plant‐derived, highly purified CBD medicine (Epidiolex® in the USA; Epidyolex® in Europe; 100 mg/ml oral solution) at a dose of 10 or 20 mg/kg/day, or placebo for 14 weeks. A subgroup analysis of patients on clobazam and meta‐analysis by syndrome were conducted. The primary endpoint was percentage reduction in primary seizure type during the treatment period. Results: 396 patients with LGS (49% on clobazam) and 318 patients with DS (64% on clobazam) were included. CBD treatment resulted in a reduction in primary seizure frequency vs placebo in the overall population (treatment ratio [95% confidence interval]: LGS, 0.70 [0.62‐0.80]; DS, 0.71 [0.60‐0.83]) and in patients receiving clobazam (LGS, 0.56 [0.47‐0.67]; DS, 0.63 [0.52‐0.77]). The antiseizure efficacy of CBD was also demonstrated across other endpoints vs placebo (≥50% responder rate, total seizure frequency, number of seizure‐free days, and Subject/Caregiver Global Impression of Change scores) in the overall populations and in patients receiving clobazam. There were higher incidences of somnolence and sedation in patients on CBD and clobazam. Most incidences of elevated transaminases occurred in patients on concomitant valproate and, to a lesser extent, clobazam. Conclusions: Add‐on CBD was effective in reducing seizures in the overall populations and in conjunction with clobazam. Somnolence and sedation occurred more frequently in patients on CBD and clobazam. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]