Clozapine therapy demonstrated superiority to olanzapine therapy in preventing suicide attempts in patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder at high risk for suicide. Use of clozapine in this population should lead to a significant reduction in suicidal behavior.

These results indicate that asenapine is rapidly acting, efficacious, and well tolerated for patients with bipolar I disorder experiencing an acute manic episode.

The rational treatment of the negative symptoms of schizophrenia requires a careful differentiation of those secondary to a range of other factors and those that constitute enduring primary or deficit symptoms. Secondary negative symptoms are usually responsive to treatment of the underlying cause. In contrast, there is no intervention currently available with established efficacy in treating deficit symptoms. These distinctions serve to reduce the heterogeneity of negative symptoms. A discussion of the diagnosis and treatment of the various forms of secondary negative symptoms is followed by suggestions for future research in the treatment of deficit symptoms.

No abstract

These preliminary findings indicate that intranasal esketamine compared with placebo, given in addition to comprehensive standard-of-care treatment, may result in significantly rapid improvement in depressive symptoms, including some measures of suicidal ideation, among depressed patients at imminent risk for suicide.

Asenapine is approved by the Food and Drugs Administration in adults for acute treatment of schizophrenia or of manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder with or without psychotic features. In a double-blind 6-week trial, 458 patients with acute schizophrenia were randomly assigned to fixed-dose treatment with asenapine at 5 mg twice daily (BID), asenapine at 10 mg BID, placebo, or haloperidol at 4 mg BID (to verify assay sensitivity). With last observations carried forward (LOCF), mean Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score reductions from baseline to endpoint were significantly greater with asenapine at 5 mg BID (-16.2) and haloperidol (-15.4) than placebo (-10.7; both P < 0.05); using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM), changes at day 42 were significantly greater with asenapine at 5 and 10 mg BID (-21.3 and -19.4, respectively) and haloperidol (-20.0) than placebo (-14.6; all P < 0.05). On the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale positive subscale, all treatments were superior to placebo with LOCF and MMRM; asenapine at 5 mg BID was superior to placebo on the negative subscale with MMRM and on the general psychopathology subscale with LOCF and MMRM. Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 44% and 52%, 57%, and 41% of the asenapine at 5 and 10 mg BID, haloperidol, and placebo groups, respectively. Extrapyramidal symptoms reported as AEs occurred in 15% and 18%, 34%, and 10% of the asenapine at 5 and 10 mg BID, haloperidol, and placebo groups, respectively. Across all groups, no more than 5% of patients had clinically significant weight change. Post hoc analyses indicated that efficacy was similar with asenapine and haloperidol; greater contrasts were seen in AEs, especially extrapyramidal symptoms.

Objective:The Paliperidone Palmitate Research in Demonstrating Effectiveness (PRIDE) study compared the effects of once-monthly paliperidone palmitate with daily oral antipsychotics on treatment failure in adults with schizophrenia.

On September 18, 2007, a collaborative session between the International Society for CNS Clinical Trials and Methodology and the International Society for CNS Drug Development was held in Brussels, Belgium. Both groups, with membership from industry, academia, and governmental and nongovernmental agencies, have been formed to address scientific, clinical, regulatory, and methodological challenges in the development of central nervous system therapeutic agents. The focus of this joint session was the apparent diminution of drug-placebo differences in recent multicenter trials of antipsychotic medications for schizophrenia. To characterize the nature of the problem, some presenters reported data from several recent trials that indicated higher rates of placebo response and lower rates of drug response (even to previously established, comparator drugs), when compared with earlier trials. As a means to identify the possible causes of the problem, discussions covered a range of methodological factors such as participant characteristics, trial designs, site characteristics, clinical setting (inpatient vs outpatient), inclusion/exclusion criteria, and diagnostic specificity. Finally, possible solutions were discussed, such as improving precision of participant selection criteria, improving assessment instruments and/or assessment methodology to increase reliability of outcome measures, innovative methods to encourage greater subject adherence and investigator involvement, improved rater training and accountability metrics at clinical sites to increase quality assurance, and advanced methods of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling to optimize dosing prior to initiating large phase 3 trials. The session closed with a roundtable discussion and recommendations for data sharing to further explore potential causes and viable solutions to be applied in future trials.