Dataset Information

Two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials and one open-label, long-term trial of brexpiprazole for the acute treatment of bipolar mania.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Brexpiprazole is a dopamine/serotonin receptor partial agonist (D₂, 5-HT_1A) and antagonist (5-HT_2A) approved for treatment of schizophrenia and major depressive disorder (adjunct to antidepressants).

Aims

This study aimed to investigate brexpiprazole as monotherapy in acute mania (bipolar I disorder) in two short-term (ST) studies (study 080 and study 081) and one open-label (OL) extension (study 083).

Methods

ST studies were three-week randomized, double-blind, flexible dose (2-4 mg/day), placebo-controlled studies. The primary endpoint was mean change in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score from baseline to day 21. The OL study was a 26-week flexible dose (2-4 mg/day) study for patients completing the ST studies.

Results

A total of 164 and 158 (study 080) and 170 and 162 (study 081) inpatients with DSM-5 mania with/without mixed features were randomized to placebo or brexpiprazole, respectively. The primary analyses did not show a statistically significant difference between brexpiprazole and placebo: study 080: least squares mean difference (95% confidence limits): 0.14 (-1.74, 2.03), p = 0.8797; study 081: -1.62 (-3.56, 0.32), p = 0.1011. OL study patients (n = 381) demonstrated a gradual improvement in YMRS total score. Akathisia was the only adverse event, with an incidence of ⩾5% with brexpiprazole and more than placebo in the ST studies, or ⩾5% in the OL study. Brexpiprazole was more efficacious in patients with impaired or no insight (predominantly EU patients) than in patients with excellent insight (predominantly US patients).

Conclusions

Further studies are necessary to address the potential efficacy of brexpiprazole in acute mania, which should ensure that the study sample is severe enough (especially with regard to insight), and that the dose/titration schedule is not too modest.

SUBMITTER: Vieta E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8366183 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Placebo medications, by definition, are composed of inactive ingredients that have no physiological effect on symptoms. Nonetheless, administration of placebo in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and in clinical settings has been demonstrated to have significant impact on many physical and psychological complaints. Until recently, conventional wisdom has suggested that patients must believe that placebo pills actually contain (or, at least, might possibly contain) active medication in order to elicit a response to placebo. However, several recent RCTs, including patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), chronic low back pain, and episodic migraine, have demonstrated that individuals receiving open-label placebo (OLP) can still experience symptomatic improvement and benefit from honestly described placebo treatment.This paper describes an innovative multidisciplinary trial design (n?=?280) that attempts to replicate and expand upon an earlier IBS OLP study. The current study will compare OLP to double-blind placebo (DBP) administration which is made possible by including a nested, double-blind RCT comparing DBP and peppermint oil. The study also examines possible genetic and psychological predictors of OLP and seeks to better understand participants' experiences with OLP and DBP through a series of extensive interviews with a randomly selected subgroup.OLP treatment is a novel strategy for ethically harnessing placebo effects. It has potential to re-frame theories of placebo and to influence how physicians can optimize watch-and-wait strategies for common, subjective symptoms. The current study aims to dramatically expand what we know about OLP by comparing, for the first time, OLP and DBP administration. Adopting a unique, multidisciplinary approach, the study also explores genetic, psychological and experiential dimensions of OLP. The paper ends with an extensive discussion of the "culture" of the trial as well as potential mechanisms of OLP and ethical implications.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02802241 . Registered on 14 June 2016.

Project description:PurposeThe purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of brexpiprazole 4 mg/day (B4) and 2 mg/day (B2) for treating acute schizophrenia.Patients and methodsWe performed three categorical meta-analyses (B4 vs placebo, B2 vs placebo, and B4 vs B2) of double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trials (DBRCTs) that reported improvements in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) scores, response rate, Clinical Global Impression-Improvement and Severity (CGI-I and CGI-S) scores, discontinuation rate, and incidence of individual adverse events.ResultsWe identified three DBRCTs with 1,444 patients. Both B4 and B2 were superior to placebo for PANSS total score (B4: standardized mean difference [SMD] =-0.30, 95% CI =-0.43, -0.17; B2: SMD =-0.30, 95% CI =-0.46, -0.13), PANSS negative score, response rate, CGI-S score, and CGI-I score. B2, but not B4, was superior to placebo for the PANSS positive score. However, there was considerable heterogeneity in the meta-analysis for B4's PANSS positive score, which disappeared after excluding a 2018 Japanese study from the meta-analysis that included more patients on a high-dose antipsychotic prior to their participation. A meta-analysis that excluded the data from the abovementioned patients showed B4 to be superior to the placebo in terms of the PANSS positive score (SMD =-0.22, 95% CI =-0.40, -0.03). B2, but not B4, was associated with a lower incidence of all-cause discontinuation compared with placebo. Both B4 and B2 were superior to placebo for discontinuation due to adverse events and schizophrenia, but both were associated with a higher incidence of weight gain compared with placebo. B4 was also associated with a higher risk of extrapyramidal symptoms than B2.ConclusionBoth B4 and B2 benefitted patients with schizophrenia, particularly those who were not previously on high-dose antipsychotics. Both the regimens were well-tolerated, but carried a risk of weight gain and extrapyramidal symptoms, although the latter risk was higher for B4 than B2.

Project description:ObjectiveThe therapeutics for bipolar disorders are still far from adequate, and new options with improved effectiveness, safety, and tolerability in a wide range of patients are necessary. Preliminary data have suggested a role for dysfunctions targeting the purinergic system in mood disorders. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of the purinergic agents allopurinol and dipyridamole combined with lithium in bipolar mania.MethodA randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study was performed in adult inpatients (N = 180) with a DSM-IV-TR diagnosis of bipolar I disorder, current episode manic with or without psychotic features (rapid cyclers and mixed episodes were not included). No antipsychotic agent was used during the study. Subjects were given fixed oral doses of either allopurinol 600 mg/day (N = 60), dipyridamole 200 mg/day (N = 60), or placebo (N = 60) added to lithium for 4 weeks. Subjects were rated at baseline and days 7, 14, 21, and 28 using the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) as the primary efficacy measure. The study was conducted between September 2003 and September 2006.ResultsAllopurinol resulted in greater mean reductions in YMRS scores from baseline to day 21 (p < .001) and day 28 (p = .003) compared with placebo using a linear model analysis (d = 0.32, 95% CI = 0.07 to 0.57). Remission rates were significantly higher for allopurinol compared with dipyridamole and placebo (p = .008). Lithium showed a significant antimanic efficacy even in the placebo group. Decrease in plasma uric acid levels showed a significant positive association with antimanic effects in the allopurinol group (p < .001).ConclusionAllopurinol is clinically effective and well-tolerated adjunctively with lithium in manic episodes and may represent an alternative approach in the treatment of acute mania, especially for those presenting tolerability and safety issues with antipsychotics. The present results strongly support the involvement of the purinergic system in the pathophysiology and therapeutics of bipolar disorder. Further placebo-controlled studies with allo-purinol compared with standard mood stabilizers in mania and maintenance are warranted.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00560079.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Results from a phase 2a study indicated that treatment with the novel ?7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor agonist ABT-126 25 mg once daily (QD) was associated with a trend for improvement in cognition in subjects with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's dementia (AD). A phase 2b program was designed to evaluate a broader dose range of ABT-126 as monotherapy in subjects with mild-to-moderate AD. The program consisted of a double-blind, placebo and active controlled study of ABT-126 (dose range 25-75 mg) and an open-label extension study (75 mg). METHODS:The randomized double-blind study enrolled 438 subjects (Mini-Mental Status Examination score of 10-24, inclusive) not currently taking acetylcholinesterase inhibitors or memantine. Subjects received 24 weeks of ABT-126 25 mg QD (n?=?77), ABT-126 50 mg QD (n?=?108), ABT-126 75 mg QD (n?=?73), donepezil 10 mg QD (n?=?76), or placebo (n?=?104). The primary endpoint was the change from baseline to week 24 in the 11-item Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) total score. Subjects completing the double-blind study could enroll in the 28-week open-label extension study. Adverse events (AEs) and other safety parameters were monitored in both studies. RESULTS:A total of 367 patients (83.8 %) completed the double-blind study and 349 (79.7 %) entered the open-label study. Compared with placebo, donepezil significantly improved ADAS-Cog 11-item total scores from baseline to week 24 (-2.29?±?0.95; one-sided P?=?0.008). No ABT-126 dose demonstrated a statistically significant improvement vs placebo at week 24 in the ADAS-Cog total score: ABT-126 25 mg, -0.47?±?0.94 (P?=?0.309); ABT-126 50 mg, -0.87?±?0.85 (P?=?0.153); and ABT-126 75 mg, -1.08?±?0.94 (P?=?0.127). Rates of serious AEs and discontinuations due to AEs were similar across treatment groups. The most frequently reported AEs in both studies were constipation, fall, and headache. No clinically meaningful changes were observed in other parameters. CONCLUSIONS:In the double-blind trial, donepezil significantly improved ADAS-Cog scores but no statistically significant improvement was seen with any ABT-126 dose. ABT-126 had an acceptable safety profile in subjects with mild-to-moderate AD in both studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01527916 , Registered 3 February 2012 (randomized trial). ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01676935 . Registered 29 August 2012 (open-label extension study).