Search

These updated Good Publication Practice (GPP) guidelines include recommendations for publishing company-sponsored biomedical research. The GPP guidelines apply to peer-reviewed or peer-oriented biomedical publications, such as manuscripts, meeting presentations, posters, and abstracts, as well as enhanced content, such as plain-language summaries. The current GPP guidelines incorporate guidance on ethics and transparency as well as the planning, development, review, and approval of biomedical publications and policies and procedures that describe these practices. Supplemental materials lay out processes for steering committees, publication plans, publication working groups, determining authorship, and documentation. Information about new topics, such as alliances and working with patients, has been included where appropriate within these supplemental materials. Incorporating the principles and best practices presented in these GPP guidelines will result in increased transparency and a firm ethical footing. This guidance is also intended to enable the compliant incorporation of new and emerging publication tools for the ethical publication of company-sponsored research.

This study assessed the healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and cost burden of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and acute suicidal ideation or behavior (SIB; MDSI) versus those with MDD without SIB and those without MDD.Adults were selected from the MarketScan® Databases (10/2015-02/2020). The MDSI cohort received an MDD diagnosis within 6 months of a claim for acute SIB (index date). The index date was a random MDD claim in the MDD without SIB cohort and a random date in the non-MDD cohort. Patients had continuous eligibility ≥12 months pre- and ≥1 month post-index. HRU and costs were compared during 1- and 12-month post-index periods between MDSI and control cohorts matched 1:1 on demographics.The MDSI cohort included 73,242 patients (mean age 35 years, 60.6% female, 37.2% Medicaid coverage). At 1 month post-index, the MDSI cohort versus the MDD without SIB/non-MDD cohorts had 12.8/67.2 times more inpatient admissions and 3.3/8.9 times more emergency department visits; they had 2.9 times more outpatient visits versus the non-MDD cohort (all p 0.001). The MDSI cohort had incremental mean healthcare costs of $5255 and $6674 per-patient-month versus the MDD without SIB and non-MDD cohorts (all p 0.001); inpatient costs drove up to 89.5% of incremental costs. At 12 months post-index, HRU and costs remained higher in MDSI versus control cohorts.SIB are underreported in claims; unobserved confounders may cause bias.MDSI is associated with substantial excess healthcare costs driven by inpatient costs, concentrated in the first month post-index, and persisting during the following year.

Agitation is common in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). Although nonpharmacologic de-escalation strategies are recommended as first-line treatment, medication is often needed to treat agitation. Currently, there are no FDA-approved medications for this indication. Psychotropics used to treat agitation include antipsychotics, which are notable for their efficacy but also their potential to cause serious side effects. AXS-05, a combination of dextromethorphan and bupropion, is currently being investigated for this indication.This review will discuss the pharmacology of AXS-05 and available clinical trial results from completed Phase I and Phase II/III studies assessing the potential for this compound to treat agitation in patients with AD. Ongoing research investigating AXS-05 for this indication will also be highlighted. Resources used for this review include PubMed, Embase, clinicaltrials.gov, and literature available on the manufacturer's website.Early released clinical trial data indicate that AXS-05 may be a useful option to treat agitation in patients with AD and that it appears to be generally well tolerated. AXS-05 may be especially helpful for patients with comorbid depression, when considering available data from separate phase III studies assessing the efficacy and safety of this compound in the treatment of depression.

Journals have begun to publish papers in which chatbots such as ChatGPT are shown as co-authors. The following WAME recommendations are intended to inform editors and help them develop policies regarding chatbots for their journals, to help authors understand how use of chatbots might be attributed in their work, and address the need for all journal editors to have access manuscript screening tools. In this rapidly evolving field, we expect these recommendations to evolve as well.

IntroductionHP-3070, a once-daily asenapine transdermal system, is FDA-approved for adults with schizophrenia. In a pivotal phase 3 randomized controlled study, patients with schizophrenia who were treated once daily with HP-3070 demonstrated significant improvement in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total scores compared with placebo. The PANSS score’s five-factor structure can also assess treatment efficacy across different domains. This post-hoc analysis of the pivotal study evaluated the efficacy of HP-3070 by examining these domains.MethodsIn the pivotal phase 3 study, adults with acute exacerbations of schizophrenia were randomized to 6 weeks of treatment with HP-3070 3.8mg/24h, 7.6mg/24h, or placebo. Factor analysis of PANSS scores was performed using five domains (negative symptoms, positive symptoms, disorganized thought, uncontrolled hostility/excitement, anxiety/depression). Mixed-model repeated-measures (MMRM) analysis included change from baseline in PANSS factor score as the repeated dependent variable, with country, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline PANSS score as covariates.ResultsThe analysis included 607 patients. Least-squares mean estimates (standard error) of the difference from placebo in change from baseline to Week 6 for each factor were as follows: negative symptoms, 3.8mg/24h, -0.9 (0.43), P=0.045, and 7.6mg/24h, -0.4 (0.43), P=0.41; positive symptoms, 3.8mg/24h, -2.3 (0.57), PConclusionsHP-3070 demonstrated treatment effects on a PANSS five-factor model, with the results indicating impact on negative symptoms, positive symptoms, disorganized thought, uncontrolled hostility/excitement, and anxiety/depression. These findings suggest that HP-3070 may address a broad range of symptoms in schizophrenia.FundingNoven Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hisamitsu Pharmaceutical, Co.

BackgroundAripiprazole 2-month ready-to-use 960 mg (Ari 2MRTU 960) is a new long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic formulation for gluteal administration every 2 months. This 32-week trial evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of multiple-dose administration of Ari 2MRTU 960 in clinically stable adults with schizophrenia or bipolar I disorder (BP-I), versus that of aripiprazole once-monthly 400 mg (AOM 400; an LAI indicated for the maintenance treatment of schizophrenia in adult patients stabilized with oral aripiprazole [indication varies by country]). Safety and efficacy outcomes in the subpopulation of patients with schizophrenia are reported here.MethodsPatients with schizophrenia were randomized to receive Ari 2MRTU 960 every 56±2 days or AOM 400 every 28±2 days. Safety and tolerability assessments included adverse event (AE) reporting, Visual Analogue Scale [VAS] scores (scale range: 0–100) for patient-reported injection site pain, and extrapyramidal symptom (EPS) monitoring. Efficacy was evaluated at Week 32 using mean (standard deviation [SD]) Clinical Global Impression – Improvement (CGI-I) score, and mean (SD) change from baseline in Clinical Global Impression – Severity (CGI-S) score, Subjective Well-being under Neuroleptic Treatment – Short Form [SWN-S] Total score, and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) Total score.ResultsStudy completion rate was 79.3% (73/92 patients) in the Ari 2MRTU 960 group and 67.7% (63/93 patients) in the AOM 400 group. Demographics and disease characteristics were well balanced between groups at baseline (mean [SD] PANSS Total score: Ari 2MRTU 960, 62.0 [13.5]; AOM 400, 61.8 [13.5]; mean (SD) CGI-S score: Ari 2MRTU 960, 3.3 [0.9]; AOM 400, 3.1 [0.9]). Treatment-emergent AE (TEAE) incidence was 66.3% with Ari 2MRTU 960 and 63.4% with AOM 400. The most frequent TEAEs were increased weight (Ari 2MRTU 960, 21.7%; AOM 400, 18.3%) and injection site pain (Ari 2MRTU 960, 15.2%; AOM 400, 9.7%). Mean (SD) VAS score for pain after last injection was 1.5 (4.58) with Ari 2MRTU 960 and 1.3 (2.79) with AOM 400. Minimal change was seen in EPS in either group. At Week 32, mean (SD) CGI-I score was similar between groups (Ari 2MRTU 960, 3.5 [1.0]; AOM 400, 3.6 [0.9]). Minimal change from baseline was seen at Week 32 in CGI-S score and SWN-S Total score. There was no clinically meaningful difference between the groups for PANSS Total score (difference of least squares mean change from baseline [95% confidence interval]: -0.9 [-3.5, 1.8]; p=0.5154).ConclusionsIn patients with schizophrenia, administration of Ari 2MRTU 960, as compared with AOM 400, was generally well tolerated, and clinical stability was maintained during the study.FundingOtsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization, Inc. (Princeton, NJ, USA) and H. Lundbeck A/S (Valby, Denmark).

Tardive dyskinesia (TD) is a hyperkinetic movement disorder caused by the use of dopamine receptor-blocking agents (DRBAs), a category of medications that includes first- and second-generation antipsychotics (APs) and agents such as metoclopramide that are used for the treatment of nausea and gastrointestinal dysmotility. While TD can affect people of all ages, older age is associated with increased risk of TD and also with the emergence of TD occurring after shorter treatment durations and lower dosages of DRBAs. TD is characterized by involuntary movements that include the face, limbs, and trunk, and is associated with increased comorbidities, social stigmatization, and impaired physical and mental health. Once present, TD tends to persist despite AP dose adjustment or discontinuation. Even with the use of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved medications for TD, symptoms may persist. Because the leading hypothesis for the pathophysiology of TD has been dysregulation of dopamine transmission due to treatment with DRBAs, APs that avoid postsynaptic dopamine receptor blockade may provide an alternative therapeutic approach for patients who require an AP. In this review, we discuss the risks, burdens, prevention, and management of TD, with a focus on older people.

Introduction Pre-existing conditions relevant for adverse events (AE) and the potential for drug–drug interactions (DDIs) may limit safe pharmacotherapeutic augmentation options for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). This concern may be heightened among patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD), who often have comorbid medical disorders. Methods Adults with MDD and ≥ 1 antidepressant claim within the first observed major depressive episode were identified in the MarketScan® Databases. Those initiating a new regimen after two regimens at adequate dose and duration were considered to have TRD. The index date was defined at TRD onset or on a random antidepressant claim among patients with non-TRD MDD. Pre-existing conditions 12 months pre-index and potential DDIs 3 months pre/post-index associated with specific non-antidepressant augmentation therapies, including atypical antipsychotics (APs), buspirone, psychostimulants, anticonvulsants, thyroid hormone, and lithium were compared between 1:1 matched TRD and non-TRD MDD cohorts. Results Overall, 3414 patients with TRD and non-TRD MDD (mean age 39.7 years, 69% female) were matched. Relative to non-TRD MDD, patients with TRD had 33% higher likelihood of ≥ 1 pre-existing condition relevant for AEs listed in product labels of non-antidepressant augmentation therapies (p

Introduction Subcutaneous galcanezumab was an effective, well-tolerated preventive treatment for adults with episodic (EM) or chronic migraine (CM) in 4 phase 3 randomized controlled trials: EVOLVE-1, EVOLVE-2, REGAIN, and CONQUER. Number needed to treat (NNT) and to harm (NNH) are metrics of effect size used to evaluate benefit–risk profiles. This study evaluated NNT, NNH, and benefit–risk profiles (measured as likelihood to be helped or harmed, LHH) of galcanezumab 120 mg versus placebo in patients with EM or CM. Methods Primary efficacy outcomes were responses defined as ≥ 30%, ≥ 50%, and ≥ 75% reductions from baseline in number of monthly migraine headache days in patients with EM (EVOLVE-1; EVOLVE-2; CONQUER) and CM (REGAIN; CONQUER); corresponding NNTs to achieve respective responses; and corresponding NNHs for discontinuations due to adverse events (DCAEs) among the safety population. Secondary efficacy outcomes were responses for patients with ≥ 2 failed prior preventive treatments due to lack of efficacy and/or for tolerability reasons. All LHHs were based on ≥ 50% response and DCAEs. Results During double-blind treatment periods with galcanezumab 120 mg, NNT to achieve ≥ 30% and ≥ 50% responses ranged from 4 to 10 and NNT to achieve ≥ 75% responses ranged from 5 to 23 in individual trials. NNH ranged from 93 to 1000, while LHH ranged from 18.6 to 104.6. NNTs were generally more robust among patients with EM than with CM; however, in patients with failure of ≥ 2 prior preventive treatments, NNTs to achieve ≥ 30% and ≥ 50% responses were similar between patients with CM and EM. NNHs were imputed as 1000 for both migraine types. Resulting LHHs were 178.8 (EM) and 127 (CM). Conclusion Across 4 trials, galcanezumab 120 mg demonstrated a favorable benefit–risk profile versus placebo, based on low NNTs to achieve response and high NNHs associated with DCAEs. LHH values consistently far exceeded 1. Trial Registration Numbers EVOLVE-1: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02614183; EVOLVE-2: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02614196; REGAIN: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02614261; CONQUER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03559257. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01848-x.

Akathisia is a neuropsychiatric syndrome that is commonly related to the use of dopamine receptor antagonists/partial agonists. The characteristics of cariprazine-related akathisia, restlessness, and extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) were investigated in patients with bipolar I depression.Akathisia-related data from 3 fixed-dose clinical studies of cariprazine 1.5 mg/d and 3 mg/d in bipolar depression were evaluated in pooled post hoc analyses. Outcomes related to treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) included incidence, time to onset, time to resolution, severity, discontinuations, and rescue medication use.The incidence of akathisia was 7.6% for overall cariprazine (1.5 mg/d=5.5%; 3 mg/d=9.6%) and 2.1% for placebo; acute EPS occurred in 4.5% of cariprazine-treated (1.5 mg/d=3.8%; 3 mg/d=5.1%) and 2.1% of placebo-treated patients. Findings were similar for restlessness. Most TEAEs were mild/moderate (95%), occurred during the first 3 weeks of cariprazine initiation or dose increase, and resulted in few discontinuations (3%); median time to resolution of an akathisia or EPS TEAE after the last dose of cariprazine was ~1 week. Rescue medication was used by3% of patients to manage akathisia/EPS events.Post hoc analyses; no active comparator.In patients with bipolar depression, the incidence of cariprazine-related akathisia was higher than acute EPS or restlessness, with lower cariprazine doses associated with lower incidences of events. Akathisia and EPS TEAEs occurred early in treatment and were mild/moderate in severity. Few patients with akathisia or acute EPS discontinued treatment. Cariprazine-related akathisia and EPS can be minimized with conservative dosing and titration strategies.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT01396447, NCT02670538, NCT02670551.

The objective was to use the evidence-based medicine metrics of number needed to treat, number needed to harm, and likelihood to be helped or harmed to appraise the clinical efficacy and tolerability of sublingual dexmedetomidine in adults with agitation associated with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.Sublingual dexmedetomidine data for this post hoc analysis were obtained from two similarly designed, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies of adults with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Response to treatment was defined as a ≥ 40% reduction from baseline in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Excited Component (PEC). Tolerability was assessed by evaluating rates of adverse events.The number needed to treat (95% confidence interval) estimate versus placebo for PEC response at 2 h post-dose was 3 (2, 3) for the sublingual dexmedetomidine 180-µg group (n = 125) and 3 (3, 4) for the 120-µg group (n = 129) in the study of patients with schizophrenia and 3 (2, 3) for the sublingual dexmedetomidine 180-µg group (n = 126) and 4 (3, 6) for the 120-µg group (n = 126) in the study of patients with bipolar disorder. Number needed to harm values versus placebo were greater than 10 for all adverse events except somnolence, where the number needed to harm (95% confidence interval) was 7 (5, 10) for all doses pooled from both studies. In all instances, likelihood to be helped or harmed values were greater than 1 for efficacy versus applicable tolerability outcomes.The number needed to treat, number needed to harm, and likelihood to be helped or harmed of sublingual dexmedetomidine support a favorable benefit-risk profile in adults with acute agitation associated with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04268303 , NCT04268303.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04276883 , NCT04276883.

Purpose Tardive dyskinesia (TD) is a hyperkinetic movement disorder in which patients experience abnormal involuntary movements that can have profound negative impacts on physical, cognitive, and psychosocial functioning. Use of measures to assess the functional impact of TD in routine clinical practice is lacking. To address this gap, an advisory panel of experts in psychiatry and movement disorder neurology was convened to develop consensus recommendations on assessment of the impact of TD on patients' functioning that can be used in clinical practice. Methods An advisory panel provided recommendations using an iterative process, beginning with a narrative literature review regarding current practices for assessing the impact of TD in clinical settings. A detailed summary was generated, and the advisory panel provided comments about the content and answered questions about assessing TD impact in clinical practice. The panelists' responses were discussed during a virtual meeting held on August 28, 2020. A second meeting on September 25, 2020, focused on developing and refining recommendations for assessment of the impact of TD in clinical practice. At the conclusion of the second meeting, general consensus was reached on all recommendation statements. Results As part of routine clinical practice, it is imperative to assess the impact of TD on the patient's life to help guide treatment decisions. Key domains for assessing the overall impact of TD include social, physical, vocational, and psychological functioning and the impact of TD on the underlying psychiatric disorder. Assessment of TD impact should be performed at every patient visit. Impact assessments should include consultation with patients, caregivers, and family members. Shared decision-making to initiate TD treatment should consider impact. Conclusion The impact of TD should be assessed routinely, including the key domains of social, physical, vocational, and psychological functioning and the impact of TD on the underlying psychiatric disorder.

Current guidelines for the treatment of patients with schizophrenia advocate that patients receive treatment with a long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic medication if they prefer such treatment or if they have a history of poor or uncertain adherence. Available LAI formulations in the United States include first-generation antipsychotics (fluphenazine decanoate and haloperidol decanoate), risperidone/paliperidone containing products (risperidone microspheres, paliperidone palmitate, and risperidone subcutaneous), aripiprazole containing products (aripiprazole monohydrate and aripiprazole lauroxil), and olanzapine pamoate. LAI antipsychotics can address the guesswork about adherence status and patients may prefer them if they are offered this as a choice, including individuals early in their disease course. Additional approved indications in the United States for LAI antipsychotics include bipolar I disorder maintenance treatment for risperidone microspheres and aripiprazole monohydrate, and schizoaffective disorder for paliperidone palmitate once monthly. Differences and similarities among the different products are discussed, including guidance regarding optimal treatment selection. Tips are provided to enhance effective patient communication to maximize the likelihood of acceptance of this treatment modality.

Introduction Patients with insomnia disorder have difficulty initiating or maintaining sleep and have impaired daytime functioning. Daridorexant is a dual orexin receptor antagonist approved for the treatment of insomnia. This analysis reports the number needed to treat (NNT), number needed to harm (NNH), and likelihood to be helped or harmed (LHH) with daridorexant 25 mg or 50 mg versus placebo over 3 months. Methods Phase 3 data from one of two pivotal trials (N=930: randomized 1:1:1 to daridorexant 25 mg, 50 mg, or placebo) were used to calculate NNT, NNH, and LHH. For the NNT analysis, wakefulness after sleep onset, latency to persistent sleep, self-reported total sleep time, the Insomnia Daytime Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire, and the Insomnia Severity Index were explored. NNT was assessed using a range of clinically meaningful thresholds (CMTs), from minimal clinical improvement (MiCI) to marked clinical improvement. NNH analysis was performed on adverse events (AEs) occurring in >1% of participants in any treatment arm. LHH values were calculated for all NNT outcomes using the NNH estimates for somnolence and fatigue AEs. Results At Month 1 and 3, NNT values at MiCI thresholds for daridorexant 50 mg ranged from 5–9 and 6–12, respectively, and were all statistically significantly different versus placebo, indicating a good therapeutic response. Daridorexant 50 mg had at least one NNT < 10 for CMTs across all outcomes. NNTs at MiCI thresholds for daridorexant 25 mg ranged between 7–328 and 8–1666. NNH values for daridorexant 25 and 50 mg were negative or not significantly different from placebo, confirming a good tolerability profile. For a somnolence AE, LHH values ranged from 83.3–200 for daridorexant 50 mg versus placebo. For a fatigue AE, LHH ranged from 4.3–10.2. Conclusion Daridorexant 25 mg and 50 mg both have a positive benefit-risk ratio compared with placebo over 3 months. Furthermore, daridorexant 50 mg showed ‘good’ NNT values (i.e. NNT < 10) over all efficacy endpoints in relation to the CMTs. NNH results confirmed the good tolerability profile of both doses. Support (if any) Funded by Idorsia Pharmaceutical Ltd.

BackgroundTo describe lemborexant and daridorexant for insomnia treatment using number needed to treat (NNT), number needed to harm (NNH), and likelihood to be helped or harmed (LHH).MethodsDichotomous outcomes were identified from the two registrational daridorexant randomized controlled trials. Analogous data were then extracted for lemborexant from the two lemborexant registration studies.ResultsUsing pooled dosage data, lemborexant had a clinically relevant magnitude of therapeutic effect, as evidenced by NNT values versus placebo 10, suggesting that lemborexant is relatively tolerable. When comparing response versus discontinuation because of an adverse event (AE) for Month 3, the LHH ranges 5.2 to 10.4 for lemborexant pooled 5 mg and 10 mg doses (a favorable result). For daridorexant, the efficacy outcomes for pooled 25 mg and 50 mg doses generally result in NNT values versus placebo ≥10; in all instances, doses of 50 mg yield more robust NNT estimates than for the 25 mg dose. The rate of discontinuation because of an AE at Month 3 was higher for placebo than for daridorexant, rendering favorable LHH calculations for daridorexant despite the less robust NNT estimates, with an LHH in the range of 90.9 to 125 for Month 3 when comparing response versus discontinuation because of an AE (a favorable result).ConclusionsBenefit-risk ratio for lemborexant and daridorexant is favorable as measured by NNT, NNH, and LHH. Indirect comparisons suggest an efficacy advantage for lemborexant and a tolerability advantage for daridorexant.FundingEisai Inc.

BackgroundLumateperone is an FDA-approved antipsychotic to treat schizophrenia and depressive episodes associated with bipolar I or bipolar II disorder as monotherapy and as adjunctive therapy with lithium or valproate. This post hoc analysis investigated the efficacy and tolerability of lumateperone in patients with schizophrenia via number needed to treat (NNT), number needed to harm (NNH), and likelihood to be helped or harmed (LHH).MethodsData were pooled from three late-phase 4–6 week placebo-controlled studies of lumateperone 42 mg/day in adults with schizophrenia and an acute exacerbation of psychosis (Study 005 [NCT01499563], Study 301 [NCT02282761], Study 302 [NCT02469155]). NNT and NNH were calculated vs placebo for several different Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale [PANSS] Total score response cutoffs (percent reduction from baseline) and for adverse events (AEs), respectively.ResultsIn the two informative studies (placebo, n=221; lumateperone, n=224), the NNT vs placebo for lumateperone was statistically significant for PANSS Total score reductions from baseline to 4 weeks/endpoint of ≥20% (NNT=9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5–36) and ≥30% (NNT=8; 95%CI 5–21). In all studies pooled (placebo, n=412; lumateperone, n=406), study discontinuations due to AEs were uncommon and the NNH (389) was not statistically significant from placebo. The only AE with NNH vs placebo >1 for all AEs (range 13.6–48.6) except somnolence/sedation (LHH~1).ConclusionLumateperone’s benefit-risk profile was favorable in late-phase schizophrenia trials.FundingIntra-Cellular Therapies, Inc.

To compare health care resource utilization (HCRU), short-term disability days, and costs between states of persistence on antidepressant lines of therapy after evidence of treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) were identified in the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Databases (01/01/2013���03/04/2019), Multi-State Medicaid Database (01/01/2013���12/31/2018), and Health Productivity Management Database (01/01/2015���12/31/2018). The index date was the date of the first evidence of TRD during the first observed major depressive episode. The follow-up period was divided into 45-day increments and categorized into persistence states: (1) evaluation (first 45 days after evidence of TRD); (2) persistence on the early line after evidence of TRD; (3) persistence on a late line; and (4) non-persistence. HCRU, short-term disability days, and costs were compared between persistence states using multivariate generalized estimating equations. Among 10,053 patients with TRD, the evaluation state was associated with higher likelihood of all-cause inpatient admissions (odds ratio [OR; 95% confidence interval (CI)] = 1.79 [1.49, 2.14]), emergency department visits (OR [95% CI] = 1.23 [1.12, 1.34]), and outpatient visits (OR [95% CI] = 3.83 [3.51, 4.18]; all p p p p = .028) relative to the early line. Medication may have been dispensed but not actually taken. Higher costs during the first 45 days after evidence of the presence of TRD and during persistence on a late line relative to persistence on the early-line therapy suggest there are benefits to using more effective treatments earlier.

Purpose Of the 3 major eating disorders, anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and binge eating disorder (BED), BED is the most common and exists in the practices of most primary care and psychiatric clinicians. However, BED often goes unrecognized and thus untreated. Methods Reviewed in this commentary are the basic elements in the diagnosis of BED, demographic and clinical characteristics, screening options, the importance of comorbidities, pathophysiology, and available treatments. Findings Psychological treatments, including cognitive-behavioral therapy, interpersonal therapy, and behavioral weight loss, have been recommended as first-line options and are supported by several different meta-analytic reviews. Lisdexamfetamine is currently the only medication approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of BED. Effect sizes for lisdexamfetamine versus placebo for response, remission, and avoidance of relapse in BED are robust, but its use may be limited by tolerability. This is also the case for topiramate, an anticonvulsant that has been used “off-label” to treat BED. Implications Additional medication choices approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of BED are needed. Moving forward, opportunities to leverage modern technology to broaden access to treatment are highly desirable.

Purpose of review Agitation associated with schizophrenia remains an important clinical concern and if not managed effectively, can escalate into aggressive behavior. This is a review of the recent biomedical literature on agitation in individuals with schizophrenia. Recent findings Themes in the recent literature include consideration of comorbidities such as cigarette smoking and cannabis use. Surveys reveal that pharmacological approaches to manage agitation have changed little, with haloperidol remaining in common use and intramuscular administration of antipsychotics and/or benzodiazepines being frequently administered to more severely agitated/aggressive individuals. Of note, ketamine has been recently adopted for use in severe agitation in medical emergency departments, but the risk of this medication for people with schizophrenia is unclear. At present, inhaled loxapine remains the only rapidly acting noninjectable FDA-approved treatment for agitation associated with schizophrenia. In development is an intranasal formulation for olanzapine (a well characterized atypical antipsychotic already approved to treat agitation) and a sublingual film for dexmedetomidine (an α2-adrenergic agonist used as an anesthetic and now being repurposed). Summary Comorbidities can contribute to agitation and can make an accurate differential diagnosis challenging. The ongoing development of rapidly acting novel formulations of antiagitation medications, if successful, may facilitate clinical treatment by providing additional options.

Over half of Parkinson's disease (PD) patients develop psychotic symptoms, and PD psychosis (PDP) is associated with significant distress to patients, caregiver burden, and impairs quality of life. Pharmacological therapy is limited to atypical antipsychotics.This review will summarize efficacy but will focus on the safety of antipsychotics for treating PDP, and in particular the off-target safety issues including cognitive impairment, sleep disturbance, cardiovascular effects, and motor function.Pimavanserin is the only medication approved in the US for treating PDP, however clozapine is also considered efficacious. Despite lack of substantial evidence for efficacy, quetiapine is commonly used to treat PDP. Despite the effectiveness of pimavanserin and clozapine for treating PDP, a need exists for additional pharmacological agents that are effective for PDP while providing an acceptable safety and tolerability profile. Medications to treat PDP should avoid worsening motor function, and also minimize sleep disturbances, cognitive impairment, cardiovascular effects, and other non-motor safety concerns. A neutral effect or reduction in mortality risk associated with PD and PDP would be ideal, and low rate of discontinuation due to AEs is desirable. Lastly, medications that can be used safely in combination with other pharmacological agents is essential.

Although olanzapine remains one of the most efficacious antipsychotic medications for the treatment of schizophrenia, there are significant tolerability concerns related to its weight and metabolic profile. Olanzapine-samidorphan combination tablets (OLZ/SAM), branded as Lybalvi, is a newly FDA approved formulation aimed at attenuating antipsychotic induced weight gain via modulation of the endogenous opioid system with samidorphan, while retaining the robust antipsychotic efficacy of olanzapine.We reviewed the published literature of OLZ/SAM for the management of schizophrenia using the US National Library of Medicine's PubMed.gov resource. Topics covered in this narrative review include the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, efficacy, and tolerability of OLZ/SAM.OLZ/SAM is an effective and well-tolerated pharmacologic option in mitigating olanzapine induced weight gain while retaining olanzapine's efficacy. OLZ/SAM cumulatively tends to attenuate weight gain rather than promote weight loss. Effect on metabolic laboratory variables appears limited. Additional research will be needed to determine its effectiveness compared to alternative strategies to attenuate antipsychotic induced weight gain.

Background The endogenous opioid system affects metabolism, including weight regulation. Evidence from preclinical and clinical studies provides a rationale for targeting this system to mitigate weight-related side effects of antipsychotics. This review describes the role of the opioid system in regulating weight and metabolism, examines the effects of opioid receptor antagonism on those functions, and explores the use of opioid antagonists to mitigate antipsychotic-associated weight gain and/or metabolic effects. Methods A PubMed literature search was conducted to identify representative opioid antagonists and associated preclinical and clinical studies examining their potential for the regulation of weight and metabolism. Results The mu opioid receptor (MOR), delta opioid receptor (DOR), and kappa opioid receptor (KOR) types have overlapping but distinct patterns of central and peripheral expression, and each contributes to the regulation of body weight and metabolism. Three representative opioid antagonists (eg, naltrexone, samidorphan, and LY255582) were identified for illustration. These opioid antagonists differed in their receptor binding and pharmacokinetic profiles, including oral bioavailability, systemic clearance, and half-life, and were associated with varying effects on food intake, energy utilization, and metabolic dysregulation. Conclusions Preclinical and clinical data suggest that antagonism of the endogenous opioid system is a mechanism to address antipsychotic-associated weight gain and metabolic dysregulation. However, evidence suggests that the differing roles of MOR, DOR, and KOR in metabolism, together with the differences in receptor binding, pharmacokinetic, and functional activity profiles of the opioid receptor antagonists discussed in this review, likely contribute to their differential pharmacodynamic effects and clinical outcomes observed regarding antipsychotic-associated weight gain.

Despite treatment with antipsychotic medication, approximately 1/3 of individuals with schizophrenia will fail to have an adequate response. To treat these patients, a commonly utilized approach is antipsychotic combination therapy. Antipsychotic combination therapy is controversial with mixed efficacy and tolerability results. It is also unclear if antipsychotic combination therapy reduces or increases the risk of psychiatric hospitalization.: The authors review the prevalence, efficacy and tolerability concerns, and rationale behind antipsychotic combination therapy. Evidence comparing antipsychotic monotherapy vs polypharmacy using hospitalization as an outcome measure is summarized.: Psychiatric rehospitalization is a useful measure of treatment effectiveness, incorporating aspects of treatment efficacy and tolerability. The evidence comparing the impact of antipsychotic monotherapy vs combination therapy on rehospitalization is mixed. Evidence is primarily retrospective in nature, and there is high heterogeneity between studies, which could partially explain the mixed results. There is likely a subset of patients for whom antipsychotic combination therapy reduces the risk of hospitalization greater than antipsychotic monotherapy. Patients should be treated individually taking into account their specific pattern of response.

This post hoc study assessed the evidence-base for esketamine nasal spray for management of treatment-resistant depression (TRD) using number needed to treat (NNT), number needed to harm (NNH), and likelihood to be helped or harmed (LHH).Data sources were four phase III randomized, double-blind studies including two positive studies (acute flexible-dose; maintenance) in patients with TRD. Key efficacy study outcomes: acute response (≥50% decrease from baseline on Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] total score), acute remission (MADRS scores ≤12). NNT, NNH were calculated for esketamine nasal spray+newly initiated oral antidepressant (esketamine+AD) vs. placebo+AD.In the pivotal acute flexible-dose study, MADRS response (63.4% vs. 49.5%) and remission (48.2% vs. 30.3%) at 4 weeks resulted in NNT of 8 and 6 for esketamine+AD vs. placebo+AD. NNH values10 included dissociation (26.1% vs. 3.7%), vertigo (26.1% vs. 2.8%), nausea (26.1% vs. 6.4%), dizziness (20.9% vs. 4.6%), and dysgeusia (24.3% vs. 11.9%). Discontinuation rates due to adverse events (AE) (7.0% vs. 0.9%) yielded NNH=17. LHH comparing MADRS remission vs. discontinuation due to AE was 17 vs. 6. Maintenance use of esketamine+AD demonstrated NNT values10 for relapse and/or maintenance of remission. In maintenance study, discontinuation due to AE (2.6% vs. 2.1%) yielded NNH=178 (non-significant).Only dichotomous outcomes were included.NNT10 for efficacy outcomes suggests potential benefit of esketamine+AD for both acute and maintenance use. LHH was favorable: esketamine+AD was 3 times likely to result in acute remission vs. discontinuations due to AE.