To compare time to relapse in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) stabilised on antidepressant treatment (ADT) + brexpiprazole who were randomised to continued adjunctive brexpiprazole or brexpiprazole withdrawal (switch to placebo).

This Phase 3, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm, randomised withdrawal study enrolled adults with MDD and inadequate response to 2–3 ADTs. All patients started on adjunctive brexpiprazole 2–3 mg/day (Phase A, 6–8 weeks). Patients whose symptoms stabilised (Phase B, 12 weeks) were randomised 1:1 to adjunctive brexpiprazole or adjunctive placebo (Phase C, 26 weeks). The primary endpoint was time to relapse in Phase C. Depression rating scale score changes were secondary endpoints.

1149 patients were enrolled and 489 patients were randomised (ADT + brexpiprazole n = 240; ADT + placebo n = 249). Median time to relapse was 63 days from randomisation in both treatment groups for patients who received ≥1 dose. Relapse criteria were met by 22.5% of patients (54/240) on ADT + brexpiprazole and 20.6% (51/248) on ADT + placebo (hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.78–1.67; p = 0.51, log-rank test). Depression scale scores improved during Phases A–B and were maintained in Phase C. Mean weight increased by 2.2 kg in Phases A–B and stabilised in Phase C.

Time to relapse was similar between continued adjunctive brexpiprazole and brexpiprazole withdrawal; in both groups, ∼80% of stabilised patients remained relapse free at their last visit. Adjunctive brexpiprazole therapy was generally well tolerated over up to 46 weeks, with minimal adverse effects following brexpiprazole withdrawal.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03538691. Funding: Otsuka, Lundbeck.

Cariprazine has been shown to be efficacious in placebo-controlled clinical trials. In this pooled analysis, the safety of cariprazine in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) with inadequate response to antidepressants was evaluated using data from placebo-controlled studies of up to 8 weeks’ duration and a long-term open-label safety study.

The safety, tolerability, and efficacy of cariprazine as an adjunctive treatment for patients with MDD with inadequate response to antidepressant alone was assessed in five placebo-controlled studies (two 6-week fixed-dose studies [NCT03738215; NCT03739203] and three 8-week flexible-dose studies [NCT00854100; NCT01715805; NCT01469377]) and one 26-week open-label flexible-dose study (NCT01838876). Fixed doses of cariprazine 1.5 and 3 mg/d and flexible doses of 0.1-4.5 mg/d were evaluated. Safety assessments included adverse event (AE) reporting, clinical laboratory tests, weight and other vital signs, and suicide evaluation with Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS). Pooled analyses of the incidence of safety endpoints overall and within each treatment arm were performed using the most frequent (modal) daily dose taken by patients during the study.

A total of 2,222 MDD patients with an ongoing antidepressant received treatment with cariprazine, representing 370 patient-years of exposure in placebo-controlled and open-label studies. In the placebo-controlled studies, 1,969 patients were randomized to cariprazine (dose range, 0.1–4.5 mg/d) and 1,108 patients were randomized to placebo. Overall, treatment-emergent AEs occurred in 61% of cariprazine- and 48% of placebo-treated patients; discontinuation due to an AE occurred with 6% of cariprazine- and 2% of placebo-treated patients. The 2 AEs that occurred in at least 5% of cariprazine-treated patients and at a rate at least twice the rate in placebo-treated patients were akathisia (cariprazine=11%; placebo=2%) and restlessness (cariprazine=6%; placebo=2%). Changes in metabolic parameters, including shifts in fasting glucose and lipid parameters, were similar in cariprazine- and placebo-treated patients. In the long-term safety study, mean weight change was 1.6 kg over 6 months. In the placebo-controlled and long-term studies, other safety endpoints including laboratory and C-SSRS assessments of suicidality were generally consistent with the safety profile of cariprazine in approved indications of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.

Cariprazine is generally safe and well-tolerated in MDD patients with inadequate response to antidepressant monotherapy. Safety analysis of 2,222 cariprazine-treated patients with MDD revealed no new safety signals, and the data is consistent with the currently approved prescribing information.

AbbVie

Pharmacogenomic testing has emerged to aid medication selection for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) by identifying potential gene-drug interactions (GDI). Many pharmacogenomic tests are available with varying levels of supporting evidence, including direct-to-consumer and physician-ordered tests. We retrospectively evaluated the safety of using a physician-ordered combinatorial pharmacogenomic test (GeneSight) to guide medication selection for patients with MDD in a large, randomized, controlled trial (GUIDED).

Patients diagnosed with MDD who had an inadequate response to ≥1 psychotropic medication were randomized to treatment as usual (TAU) or combinatorial pharmacogenomic test-guided care (guided-care). All received combinatorial pharmacogenomic testing and medications were categorized by predicted GDI (no, moderate, or significant GDI). Patients and raters were blinded to study arm, and physicians were blinded to test results for patients in TAU, through week 8. Measures included adverse events (AEs, present/absent), worsening suicidal ideation (increase of ≥1 on the corresponding HAM-D17 question), or symptom worsening (HAM-D17 increase of ≥1). These measures were evaluated based on medication changes [add only, drop only, switch (add and drop), any, and none] and study arm, as well as baseline medication GDI.

Most patients had a medication change between baseline and week 8 (938/1,166; 80.5%), including 269 (23.1%) who added only, 80 (6.9%) who dropped only, and 589 (50.5%) who switched medications. In the full cohort, changing medications resulted in an increased relative risk (RR) of experiencing AEs at both week 4 and 8 [RR 2.00 (95% CI 1.41–2.83) and RR 2.25 (95% CI 1.39–3.65), respectively]. This was true regardless of arm, with no significant difference observed between guided-care and TAU, though the RRs for guided-care were lower than for TAU. Medication change was not associated with increased suicidal ideation or symptom worsening, regardless of study arm or type of medication change. Special attention was focused on patients who entered the study taking medications identified by pharmacogenomic testing as likely having significant GDI; those who were only taking medications subject to no or moderate GDI at week 8 were significantly less likely to experience AEs than those who were still taking at least one medication subject to significant GDI (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.15–0.99, p=0.048). No other significant differences in risk were observed at week 8.

These data indicate that patient safety in the combinatorial pharmacogenomic test-guided care arm was no worse than TAU in the GUIDED trial. Moreover, combinatorial pharmacogenomic-guided medication selection may reduce some safety concerns. Collectively, these data demonstrate that combinatorial pharmacogenomic testing can be adopted safely into clinical practice without risking symptom degradation among patients.

Myriad Neuroscience/Assurex Health

The Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) is commonly used for the assessment of depressive symptom changes in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) or bipolar depression. Categories of depression severity that correspond to ranges of MADRS total score have been previously reported in patients with MDD, but it appears that MADRS severity ranges have not been reported for patients with bipolar I disorder. The objective of this study was to evaluate MADRS total score ranges that correspond with different grades of depression severity in patients with bipolar I depression.

Data were pooled from 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 6- or 8-week trials of cariprazine in patients with bipolar I depression. MADRS severity ranges were evaluated using an anchor-based approach with the clinician-rated, 7-category Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) scale. CGI-S has previously been used to determine severity thresholds in MDD. Correlations between MADRS total score and CGI-S score were assessed in the pooled dataset at week 6; placebo and active treatment arms were pooled together. Youden index from receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves was used to determine the optimal threshold for MADRS total score corresponding to each CGI-S severity level.

The pooled dataset included 1523 patients with bipolar depression. Mean CGI-S scores were highly correlated with mean MADRS total scores at week 6 (r=.87; P<.0001), with MADRS total scores increasing with CGI-S severity. Using the ROC curves, MADRS total score ranges corresponding to each CGI-S severity category were estimated as follows: score of 0-6 for “normal, not at all ill”, 7-12 for “borderline mentally ill”, 13-18 for “mildly ill”, 19-23 for “moderately ill”, 24-36 for “markedly ill”, 37-39 for “severely ill”, and 40 or greater for “extremely ill”. Area under the curve (AUC) values for these cutoffs ranged from 0.930 to 0.997, representing outstanding sensitivity and specificity.

Utilizing data from 3 recent clinical trials of subjects with bipolar depression, we were able to identify MADRS severity thresholds. These empirical findings may help clinicians to understand and contextualize MADRS results from bipolar clinical research and apply to their patients in practice.

AbbVie Inc.

Although mania is the hallmark symptom of bipolar I disorder (BD-I), most patients initially present for treatment with depressive symptoms. Misdiagnosis of BD-I as major depressive disorder (MDD) is common, potentially resulting in poor outcomes and inappropriate antidepressant monotherapy treatment. Screening patients with depressive symptoms is a practical strategy to help healthcare providers (HCPs) identify when additional assessment for BD-I is warranted. The new 6-item Rapid Mood Screener (RMS) is a pragmatic patient-reported BD-I screening tool that relies on easily understood terminology to screen for manic symptoms and other BD-I features in <2 minutes. The RMS was validated in an observational study in patients with clinically confirmed BD-I (n=67) or MDD (n=72). When 4 or more items were endorsed (“yes”), the sensitivity of the RMS for identifying patients with BP-I was 0.88 and specificity was 0.80; positive and negative predictive values were 0.80 and 0.88, respectively. To more thoroughly understand screening tool use among HCPs, a 10-minute survey was conducted.

A nationwide sample of HCPs (N=200) was selected using multiple HCP panels; HCPs were asked to describe their opinions/current use of screening tools, assess the RMS, and evaluate the RMS versus the widely recognized Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ). Results were reported by grouped specialties (primary care physicians, general nurse practitioners [NPs]/physician assistants [PAs], psychiatrists, and psychiatric NPs/PAs). Included HCPs were in practice <30 years, spent at least 75% of their time in clinical practice, saw at least 10 patients with depression per month, and diagnosed MDD or BD in at least 1 patient per month. Findings were reported using descriptive statistics; statistical significance was reported at the 95% confidence interval.

Among HCPs, 82% used a tool to screen for MDD, while 32% used a tool for BD. Screening tool attributes considered to be of the greatest value included sensitivity (68%), easy to answer questions (66%), specificity (65%), confidence in results (64%), and practicality (62%). Of HCPs familiar with screening tools, 70% thought the RMS was at least somewhat better than other screening tools. Most HCPs were aware of the MDQ (85%), but only 29% reported current use. Most HCPs (81%) preferred the RMS to the MDQ, and the RMS significantly outperformed the MDQ across valued attributes; 76% reported that they were likely to use the RMS to screen new patients with depressive symptoms. A total of 84% said the RMS would have a positive impact on their practice, with 46% saying they would screen more patients for bipolar disorder.

The RMS was viewed positively by HCPs who participated in a brief survey. A large percentage of respondents preferred the RMS over the MDQ and indicated that they would use it in their practice. Collectively, responses indicated that the RMS is likely to have a positive impact on screening behavior.

AbbVie Inc.

Sexual dysfunction occurs in 40%-60% of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), due to either the illness itself and/or the effects of antidepressant treatment. The phase-2 CLARITY trial recently demonstrated the efficacy of adjunctive pimavanserin (PIM) for MDD when added to ongoing selective serotonin or serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SSRI/SNRI) treatment. No new safety observations were reported in this study. This post-hoc analysis examines the potential impact of PIM treatment on sexual function.

Study methodology has been presented previously (APA 2019). Adult male and female patients with moderate-to-severe MDD were randomized to PIM 34 mg/day (n=51) or placebo (PBO, n=152) added to ongoing SSRI/SNRI treatment. Massachusetts General Hospital–Sexual Functioning Inventory (MGH-SFI) and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, 17-item version (HAMD-17) item 14 (sexual interest) scores were examined by analysis of covariance.

Adjunctive PIM resulted in significantly greater 5-week reduction (improvement) relative to SSRI/SNRI treatment plus placebo on mean MGH-SFI scores (difference –0.634, SE 0.167; P<0.001; effect size [ES], Cohen’s d 0.614). Similarly, PIM resulted in greater improvement compared with placebo on individual MGH-SFI items that applied to both males and females: Interest in Sex (P=0.006; ES=0.483), Ability to Get Sexually Aroused/Excited (P=0.001; ES=0.560), Ability to Achieve Orgasm (P<0.001; ES=0.609), Overall Sexual Satisfaction (P=0.003; ES=0.524). HAMD-17 item 14 scores were also significantly more reduced (improved) with PIM (P<0.001; ES=0.574).

These results underscore the potential of adjunctive PIM for improving sexual function in patients with MDD and inadequate response to SSRIs/SNRIs. Potential benefits should be confirmed in further studies.

ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Depression is the leading cause of disability worldwide, with fewer than 50% of treated patients achieving full remission. This study (“CLARITY,” ACP-103-042: NCT03018340) examined the 5-HT2A inverse agonist pimavanserin (PIM) as a potential adjunctive treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD).

Adult female and male subjects with a DSM-5 primary diagnosis of a major depressive episode as part of MDD, inadequate response to ongoing SSRIs or SNRIs of adequate dose and duration as confirmed by the Massachusetts General Hospital Antidepressant Treatment History Questionnaire, and a MADRS total score >20 were randomized to PIM 34 mg/day or placebo (PBO) added to their SSRI/SNRI treatment. A sequential parallel comparison design was used, consisting of two 5-week stages. PBO nonresponders in Stage-1 who met prespecified criteria were re-randomized to PIM or PBO for the second period (Stage-2). The primary efficacy measure was the weighted average of Stage-1 and Stage-2 total scores of the HAMD-17.

Of the 207 patients enrolled, 52 received PIM, and 155 received PBO in Stage 1. Mean age was 46.2 years, and 72.9% of patients were female. Baseline MADRS total (mean [SD]: 31.5 [0.4]) and HAMD-17 total scores (22.2 [0.3]) indicated a moderate overall severity of illness. PIM met the primary endpoint, reducing the weighted Stage-1/Stage-2 HAMD-17 total score relative to PBO (least-square means [LSM] difference, –1.7; standard error [SE], 0.9; P=0.04). Stage-1 PIM patients demonstrated highly significant 5-week improvement on the HAMD-17 (LSM difference=–4.0, SE=1.1; P<0.001; effect size, Cohen’s d: 0.626), separating from placebo by the end of Week 1 (LSM difference=–1.7, SE=0.8; P=0.04). Stage-2 results showed no significant separation among Stage-1 placebo nonresponders (P=0.69). In Stage 2, a substantively smaller number of subjects (n=58) were rerandomized than planned, likely due to restrictive criteria for re-randomization. Greater overall improvement was seen with PIM relative to PBO on the key secondary endpoint, the Sheehan Disability Scale (LSM difference=–0.8, SE=0.3; P=0.004), and positive results were also seen on 7 of the 11 other secondary endpoints, including responder rate (≥50% reduction in HAMD-17 total; P=0.007), Massachusetts General Hospital Sexual Functioning Index (P<0.001), and Karolinska Sleepiness Scale for daytime sleepiness (P=0.02). Discontinuations due to adverse events were low (PIM 1.2%, PBO 3.2%). One serious adverse event was reported in each treatment group, deemed unrelated to treatment. No deaths were reported. Laboratory assessments, electrocardiography, and changes in vital signs were unremarkable, and no new safety signals were reported.

Study data provide evidence of the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of adjunctive PIM in treating MDD inadequately responsive to SSRI or SNRI therapy. Efforts to confirm these results are ongoing in a Phase 3 program.

ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc.

The Genomics Used to Improve DEpresssion Decisions (GUIDED) trial assessed outcomes associated with combinatorial pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). Analyses used the 17-item Hamilton Depression (HAM-D17) rating scale; however, studies demonstrate that the abbreviated, core depression symptom-focused, HAM-D6 rating scale may have greater sensitivity toward detecting differences between treatment and placebo. However, the sensitivity of HAM-D6 has not been tested for two active treatment arms. Here, we evaluated the sensitivity of the HAM-D6 scale, relative to the HAM-D17 scale, when assessing outcomes for actively treated patients in the GUIDED trial.

Outpatients (N=1,298) diagnosed with MDD and an inadequate treatment response to >1 psychotropic medication were randomized into treatment as usual (TAU) or combinatorial PGx-guided (guided-care) arms. Combinatorial PGx testing was performed on all patients, though test reports were only available to the guided-care arm. All patients and raters were blinded to study arm until after week 8. Medications on the combinatorial PGx test report were categorized based on the level of predicted gene-drug interactions: ‘use as directed’, ‘moderate gene-drug interactions’, or ‘significant gene-drug interactions.’ Patient outcomes were assessed by arm at week 8 using HAM-D6 and HAM-D17 rating scales, including symptom improvement (percent change in scale), response (≥50% decrease in scale), and remission (HAM-D6 ≤4 and HAM-D17 ≤7).

At week 8, the guided-care arm demonstrated statistically significant symptom improvement over TAU using HAM-D6 scale (Δ=4.4%, p=0.023), but not using the HAM-D17 scale (Δ=3.2%, p=0.069). The response rate increased significantly for guided-care compared with TAU using both HAM-D6 (Δ=7.0%, p=0.004) and HAM-D17 (Δ=6.3%, p=0.007). Remission rates were also significantly greater for guided-care versus TAU using both scales (HAM-D6 Δ=4.6%, p=0.031; HAM-D17 Δ=5.5%, p=0.005). Patients taking medication(s) predicted to have gene-drug interactions at baseline showed further increased benefit over TAU at week 8 using HAM-D6 for symptom improvement (Δ=7.3%, p=0.004) response (Δ=10.0%, p=0.001) and remission (Δ=7.9%, p=0.005). Comparatively, the magnitude of the differences in outcomes between arms at week 8 was lower using HAM-D17 (symptom improvement Δ=5.0%, p=0.029; response Δ=8.0%, p=0.008; remission Δ=7.5%, p=0.003).

Combinatorial PGx-guided care achieved significantly better patient outcomes compared with TAU when assessed using the HAM-D6 scale. These findings suggest that the HAM-D6 scale is better suited than is the HAM-D17 for evaluating change in randomized, controlled trials comparing active treatment arms.

Assurex Health, Inc.

Immune system markers may predict affective disorder treatment response, but whether an overall immune system marker predicts bipolar disorder treatment effect is unclear.

Bipolar CHOICE (N = 482) and LiTMUS (N = 283) were similar comparative effectiveness trials treating patients with bipolar disorder for 24 weeks with four different treatment arms (standard-dose lithium, quetiapine, moderate-dose lithium plus optimised personalised treatment (OPT) and OPT without lithium). We performed secondary mixed effects linear regression analyses adjusted for age, gender, smoking and body mass index to investigate relationships between pre-treatment white blood cell (WBC) levels and clinical global impression scale (CGI) response.

Compared to participants with WBC counts of 4.5–10 × 109/l, participants with WBC < 4.5 or WBC ≥ 10 showed similar improvement within each specific treatment arm and in gender-stratified analyses.

An overall immune system marker did not predict differential treatment response to four different treatment approaches for bipolar disorder all lasting 24 weeks.

To evaluate the effects of levomilnacipran extended-release (ER) on suicidal ideation and behavior in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD).

Post hoc analyses were conducted in patients from 4 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials and a long-term, open-label extension study of levomilnacipran ER (40-120 mg/d) in adults with MDD. Analyses included incidence of suicide-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs); incidence of Columbia–Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) suicidal ideation (score=1–5) and behavior (score=6-10); percent of patients who shifted from no C-SSRS suicidal ideation/behavior at baseline to suicidal ideation during treatment (worsened from score=0 to score=1–5), or vice-versa (improved from score=1-5 to score=0).

Suicide-related TEAEs occurred in<1% of patients in the levomilnacipran ER studies. The incidence of C-SSRS suicidal ideation was 22.2%, 23.9%, and 21.7% for placebo, short-term levomilnacipran ER, and long-term levomilnacipran ER, respectively; C-SSRS suicidal behavior was<1% in all of these groups. In the short-term studies, the percentage of patients with C-SSRS shifts were as follows: worsening from score=0 to score=1–5 (placebo, 8.6%; levomilnacipran ER, 11.0%); improvement from score=1–5 to score=0 (placebo, 24.0%; levomilnacipran ER, 27.7%).

In adult MDD patients, the incidence of suicidal ideation and behavior was similar between placebo and short-term levomilnacipran ER as indicated by TEAE reports and C-SSRS scores. Worsening in C-SSRS scores was also similar between placebo and levomilnacipran ER. There was no indication of increased suicidality during longer courses of continued therapy. Together, these findings suggest that this medication is not associated with increased risks of suicidal ideation or behavior.

The aim of this post-hoc analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of lurasidone in treating patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) with mixed features who present with mild and moderate-to-severe levels of anxiety.

The data in this analysis were derived from a study of patients meeting the DSM–IV–TR criteria for unipolar MDD, with a Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score ≥26, presenting with two or three protocol-defined manic symptoms, who were randomized to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with either lurasidone 20–60 mg/day (n=109) or placebo (n=100). Anxiety severity was evaluated using the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM–A). To evaluate the effect of baseline anxiety on response to lurasidone, the following two anxiety groups were defined: mild anxiety (HAM–A≤14) and moderate-to-severe anxiety (HAM–A≥15). Change from baseline in MADRS total score was analyzed for each group using a mixed model for repeated measures.

Treatment with lurasidone was associated with a significant week 6 change versus placebo in MADRS total score for patients with both mild anxiety (–18.4 vs. –12.8, p<0.01, effect size [ES]=0.59) and moderate-to-severe anxiety (–22.0 vs. –13.0, p<0.001, ES=0.95). Treatment with lurasidone was associated with a significant week 6 change versus placebo in HAM–A total score for patients with both mild anxiety (–7.6 vs. –4.0, p<0.01, ES=0.62), and moderate-to-severe anxiety (–11.4 vs. –6.1, p<0.0001, ES=0.91).

In this post-hoc analysis of an MDD with mixed features and anxiety population, treatment with lurasidone was associated with significant improvement in both depressive and anxiety symptoms in subgroups with mild and moderate-to-severe levels of anxiety at baseline.