Dataset Information

Double-blind, placebo-controlled study of lurasidone monotherapy for the treatment of bipolar I depression.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

Previous studies conducted primarily in the USA and Europe have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of lurasidone 20-120?mg/day for the treatment of bipolar I depression. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lurasidone monotherapy for the treatment of bipolar I depression among patients from diverse ethnic backgrounds, including those from Japan.

Methods

Patients were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment for 6?weeks with lurasidone, 20-60?mg/day (n = 184) or 80-120?mg/day (n = 169), or placebo (n = 172). The primary end-point was change from baseline to Week 6 on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).

Results

Lurasidone treatment significantly reduced mean MADRS total scores from baseline to Week 6 for the 20-60-mg/day group (-13.6; adjusted P = 0.007; effect size = 0.33), but not for the 80-120-mg/day group (-12.6; adjusted P =?0.057; effect size = 0.22) compared with placebo (-10.6). Treatment with lurasidone 20-60?mg/day also improved MADRS response rates, functional impairment, and anxiety symptoms. The most common adverse events associated with lurasidone were akathisia and nausea. Lurasidone treatments were associated with minimal changes in weight, lipids, and measures of glycemic control.

Conclusion

Monotherapy with once daily doses of lurasidone 20-60?mg, but not 80-120?mg, significantly reduced depressive symptoms and improved functioning in patients with bipolar I depression. Results overall were consistent with previous studies, suggesting that lurasidone 20-60?mg/day is effective and safe in diverse ethnic populations, including Japanese.

SUBMITTER: Kato T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7756283 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Double-blind, placebo-controlled study of lurasidone monotherapy for the treatment of bipolar I depression.

Kato Tadafumi T Ishigooka Jun J Miyajima Mari M Watabe Kei K Fujimori Tomohiro T Masuda Takahiro T Higuchi Teruhiko T Vieta Eduard E

Psychiatry and clinical neurosciences 20200924 12

<h4>Aim</h4>Previous studies conducted primarily in the USA and Europe have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of lurasidone 20-120 mg/day for the treatment of bipolar I depression. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lurasidone monotherapy for the treatment of bipolar I depression among patients from diverse ethnic backgrounds, including those from Japan.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment for 6 weeks with lurasidone, 2 ...[more]

PMID: 32827348

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine monotherapy for anxiety symptoms in patients with bipolar disorder experiencing depression in the BipOLar DEpRession (BOLDER I and II) studies. METHOD:A post hoc analysis of anxiety symptoms in 1,051 acutely depressed patients with bipolar I or II disorder (DSM-IV) from 2 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled 8-week studies of quetiapine (300 or 600 mg once daily) was conducted. Anxiety symptoms were assessed using Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS) total and psychic (items 1-6, 14) and somatic (items 7-13) anxiety subscale scores (mixed-model repeated measure and last-observation-carried-forward analysis of change from baseline at each assessment). The BOLDER I study was conducted between September 2002 and October 2003, and the BOLDER II study was conducted between June 2004 and August 2005. RESULTS:Mean baseline HARS total scores were similar across the treatment groups (300 mg/d: 18.9, 600 mg/d and placebo: both 18.6). There was a significantly greater improvement from baseline in mean HARS total scores at the first evaluation (week 1) in both quetiapine groups compared with placebo (300 mg/d: -4.6, P < .001 and 600 mg/d: -4.1, P = .003 vs placebo: -2.8). These improvements were sustained through week 8 with both quetiapine doses (300 mg/d: -10.1, P < .001 and 600 mg/d: -10.5, P < .001 vs placebo: -6.9). At week 8, there was also significant improvement from baseline in HARS psychic and somatic anxiety subscale scores compared with placebo (P < .001). The baseline severity of anxiety did not impact the improvement in depressive symptoms. Common adverse events included dry mouth, sedation, somnolence, and dizziness. CONCLUSIONS:In this pooled analysis, quetiapine monotherapy was more effective than placebo and generally well tolerated for the treatment of both depressive and anxiety symptoms in patients with bipolar disorder. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00060489 (BOLDER I) and NCT00083954 (BOLDER II).

Project description:Depressive episodes are a major cause of morbidity and dysfunction in individuals suffering from bipolar disorder. Currently available treatments for this condition have limited efficacy and new therapeutic options are needed. Extensive research in the pathophysiology of bipolar disorder points to the existence of mitochondrial and bioenergetic dysfunction. We hypothesized that creatine monohydrate, a nutraceutical that works as a mitochondrial modulator, would be effective as an adjunctive therapy for bipolar depression. We conducted a double-blind trial in which 35 patients with bipolar disorder type I or II in a depressive episode by DSM-IV criteria and in use of regular medication for the treatment of this phase of the disease were randomly allocated into two adjunctive treatment groups for 6 weeks: creatine monohydrate 6 g daily (N = 17) or placebo (N = 18). Primary efficacy was assessed by the change in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). We did not find a statistically significant difference in the comparison between groups for the change in score on the MADRS after 6 weeks in an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis (p = 0.560; Cohen's d = 0.231). However, we found significant superiority of creatine add-on vs. placebo when we considered the remission criterion of a MADRS score ? 12 at week 6 analyzing the outcome of the 35 randomized patients on ITT (52.9% remission in the creatine group vs. 11.1% remission in the placebo group) and of the 23 completers (66.7% remission in the creatine group vs. 18.2% remission in the placebo group) (p = 0.012; OR = 9.0 and p = 0.036; OR = 9.0, respectively). Two patients who received creatine switched to hypomania/mania early in the trial. No clinically relevant physical side-effects were reported or observed. This proof-of-concept study, aiming to restore brain bioenergetics using an adjunctive mitochondrial modulator, is not conclusive on the efficacy of creatine add-on for bipolar depression, but suggests that this compound may have a role in the adjunctive treatment of this phase of the illness. Further investigation through randomized controlled trials with larger samples should be conducted to verify the efficacy of creatine supplementation for bipolar depression and also for subsyndromal depressive symptoms.

Project description:BackgroundBipolar depression is characterized by depressive symptoms and impairment in many areas of functioning, including work, family, and social life. The objective of this study was to assess the independent, direct effect of lurasidone treatment on functioning improvement, and examine the indirect effect of lurasidone treatment on functioning improvement, mediated through improvements in depression symptoms.MethodsData from a 6-week placebo-controlled trial assessing the effect of lurasidone monotherapy versus placebo in patients with bipolar depression was used. Patient functioning was measured using the Sheehan disability scale (SDS). Descriptive statistics were used to assess the effect of lurasidone on improvement on the SDS total and domain scores (work/school, social, and family life), as well as number of days lost and unproductive due to symptoms. Path analyses evaluated the total effect (β1), as well as the indirect effect (β2×β3) and direct effect (β4) of lurasidone treatment on SDS total score change, using standardized beta path coefficients and baseline scores as covariates. The direct effect of treatment on SDS total score change and indirect effects accounting for mediation through depression improvement were examined for statistical significance and magnitude using MPlus.ResultsIn this 6-week trial (N = 485), change scores from baseline to 6-weeks were significantly larger for both lurasidone treatment dosage groups versus placebo on the SDS total and all three SDS domain scores (p < 0.05). Through path analyses, lurasidone treatment predicted improvement in depression (β2 = -0.33, p = 0.009), subsequently predicting improvement in functional impairment (β3 = 0.70, p < 0.001; indirect effect = -0.23). The direct effect was of medium magnitude (β4 = -0.17, p = 0.04), indicating lurasidone had a significant and direct effect on improvement in functional impairment, after accounting for depression improvement.ConclusionsResults demonstrated statistically significant improvement in functioning among patients on lurasidone monotherapy compared to placebo. Improvement in functioning among patients on lurasidone was largely mediated through a reduction in depression symptoms, but lurasidone also had a medium and statistically significant independent direct effect in improving functioning.

Project description:AimsRapid-cycling bipolar disorder is difficult to treat and associated with greater morbidity than non-rapid-cycling disease. This post hoc analysis evaluated 28 patients with rapid-cycling bipolar I disorder from a 100-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study assessing long-term efficacy, safety and tolerability of aripiprazole in patients with bipolar I disorder (most recently manic/mixed).MethodsFollowing >or= 6 consecutive weeks' stabilisation with open-label aripiprazole, patients were randomised (1 : 1) to aripiprazole or placebo. Patients completing 26 weeks treatment without relapse could continue for a further 74 weeks. Primary end-point was time to relapse for manic, mixed or depressive symptoms, defined as discontinuation due to lack of efficacy. Safety assessments included adverse event (AE) monitoring and changes in weight and lipid, glucose and prolactin levels.ResultsOf the 28 patients (aripiprazole, n = 14; placebo, n = 14) with rapid-cycling bipolar disorder, 12 (aripiprazole, n = 7; placebo, n = 5) completed the initial 26-week treatment period and three (all aripiprazole treated) completed the 100-week, double-blind period. Time to relapse was significantly longer with aripiprazole vs. placebo at week 26 [log-rank p = 0.033; 26-week hazard ratio = 0.21 (95% CI: 0.04, 1.03)] and week 100 [log-rank p = 0.017; 100-week hazard ratio = 0.18 (95% CI: 0.04, 0.88)]. The most commonly reported AEs with aripiprazole during the 100 weeks (>or= 10% incidence and twice placebo) were anxiety (n = 4), sinusitis (n = 4), depression (n = 3) and upper respiratory infection (n = 3). One aripiprazole-treated patient discontinued due to an AE (akathisia). There were no significant between-group differences in mean changes in weight or metabolic parameters.ConclusionIn this small, post hoc subanalysis, aripiprazole maintained efficacy and was generally well tolerated in the long-term treatment of rapid-cycling bipolar disorder. Further research with prospectively designed and adequately powered trials is warranted.

Project description:The efficacy and safety of olanzapine monotherapy are evaluated in Japanese patients from a large, global study of bipolar depression.This is an analysis of Japanese patients from a 6-week, global (Japan, China, Korea, Taiwan, and the United States), randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase 3 study of patients with a depressive episode of bipolar I disorder. The primary outcome was baseline-to-endpoint change in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. Secondary outcome measures included the Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar Version Severity of Illness Scale (CGI-BP), the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17) total score, the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score, and rates of response (?50% baseline-to-endpoint reduction in MADRS total score), recovery, and remission.Of the 156 Japanese patients, 104 had been allocated to olanzapine and 52 to placebo. All results are baseline-to-endpoint change. Compared to placebo, patients in the olanzapine group experienced greater improvement in the primary outcome measure, MADRS total score (-14.9 vs. -10.7; p?=?.01). They also had greater reductions in the following secondary measures: CGI- BP Depression (-1.41 vs. -0.89; p?=?.008), CGI-BP Bipolar (-1.31 vs. -0.83; p?=?.01), HAMD-17 (-11.7 vs. -7.9; p?<?.01), and YMRS (-0.32 vs. 0.34; p?=?.03). Differences in rates of response, recovery, and remission were not statistically significant. A greater proportion of olanzapine-treated patients reported treatment- emergent adverse events (87.5% vs. 59.6%; p?<?.001). Patients treated with olanzapine had greater increases in weight (p?<?.001) and fasting total cholesterol (p?=?.008); fasting triglycerides (p?=?.02), and fasting low-density lipoprotein (p?=?.01). There was a greater reduction in fasting high-density lipoprotein in olanzapine-treated patients (p?=?.01). Compared with placebo-group patients, more olanzapine-group patients shifted from borderline to high cholesterol (25.0% vs. 0.0%; p?=?.007) and had clinically significant weight gain (?7% body weight) (20.2% vs. 1.9%; p?=?.001).Results of this analysis support the efficacy and tolerability of olanzapine for the treatment of bipolar depression in Japanese patients. Results in this population were consistent with those seen in the more ethnically diverse parent study. In making treatment decisions for individual patients, clinicians should carefully consider the risks and benefits of olanzapine treatment.Clinicatrials.gov ID NCT00510146 Olanzapine Treatment of Patients with Bipolar I Disorder.

Project description:BackgroundDepression in bipolar I disorder responds to the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine. This subpopulation analysis assessed whether olanzapine is superior to placebo specifically in the treatment of Chinese patients with bipolar I depression.MethodsThis was a subpopulation analysis of a 6-week, multicenter, double-blind, parallel, randomized, placebo-controlled trial among 12 Chinese study centers. Eligible inpatients and outpatients were randomized to olanzapine (5 to 20 mg/day) or placebo. Patients were primarily assessed by the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score. Secondary assessments used a range of other efficacy and safety measures. This subpopulation analysis was underpowered to show statistically significant differences between treatment groups.ResultsIn total, 210 patients (mean age 32.9 years at baseline, 54.3% females) were random-ized. Similar proportions of patients treated with olanzapine (75.0%) and placebo (72.9%) completed the double-blind phase. Baseline-to-endpoint least-squares mean ± standard error decrease in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score in the olanzapine group (-13.55±0.80) was similar to that noted in the parent trial (-13.82±0.65). However, the difference between olanzapine and placebo groups was not statistically significant (P=0.44); this finding was also true for the secondary efficacy measures. A post hoc analysis showed a greater emergence of mania in the placebo group, which likely reduced the treatment difference between olanzapine and placebo in the primary efficacy measure. Safety data were consistent with the known safety profile of olanzapine, including a higher incidence of weight gain (≥7%) in the olanzapine group (24.1% vs 1.4%, P<0.001).ConclusionOlanzapine provides similar improvement in depression among Chinese and non-Chinese bipolar I patients. The lack of a statistically significant difference between the olanzapine and placebo groups in this Chinese subpopulation analysis may relate to an a priori lack of study power, and underestimation of the effect of olanzapine because of a greater emergence of mania in placebo-treated patients and missing data associated with a high early discontinuation rate.

Dataset Information

Double-blind, placebo-controlled study of lurasidone monotherapy for the treatment of bipolar I depression.

Aim

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Double-blind, placebo-controlled study of lurasidone monotherapy for the treatment of bipolar I depression.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets