Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-6bnxx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-20T09:33:51.343Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Remission and recovery associated with lurasidone in the treatment of major depressive disorder with subthreshold hypomanic symptoms (mixed features): post-hoc analysis of a randomized, placebo-controlled study with longer-term extension

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 March 2017

Joseph F. Goldberg ,
Daisy Ng-Mak ,
Cynthia Siu ,
Chien-Chia Chuang ,
Krithika Rajagopalan  and
Antony Loebel
Joseph F. Goldberg
Affiliation:
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA
Daisy Ng-Mak*
Affiliation:
Global Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc., Marlborough, Massachusetts, USA
Cynthia Siu
Affiliation:
COS and Associates Ltd., Central, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China
Chien-Chia Chuang
Affiliation:
Global Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc., Marlborough, Massachusetts, USA
Krithika Rajagopalan
Affiliation:
Global Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc., Marlborough, Massachusetts, USA
Antony Loebel
Affiliation:
Research and Development, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc., Fort Lee, New Jersey, USA
*
*Address correspondence to: Daisy Ng-Mak, Global Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc., 84 Waterford Drive, Marlborough, Massachusetts 01748, USA. (Email: Daisy.Ng-Mak@Sunovion.com)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

This post-hoc analysis assessed rates of symptomatic and functional remission, as well as recovery (combination of symptomatic and functional remission), in patients treated with lurasidone for major depressive disorder (MDD) associated with subthreshold hypomanic symptoms (mixed features).

Method

Patients with MDD plus two or three manic symptoms (defined as per the DSM–5 mixed-features specifier) were randomly assigned to flexible-dose lurasidone 20–60 mg/day (n=109) or placebo (n=100) for 6 weeks, followed by a 3-month open-label, flexible-dose extension study for U.S. sites only (n=48). Cross-sectional recovery was defined as the presence of both symptomatic remission (Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score ≤ 12) and functional remission (all Sheehan Disability Scale [SDS] domain scores ≤3) at week 6, and at both months 1 and 3 of the extension study (“sustained recovery”).

Results

A significantly higher proportion of lurasidone-treated patients (31.3%) achieved recovery (assessed cross-sectionally) compared to placebo (12.2%, p=0.002) at week 6. The number of manic symptoms at baseline moderated the effect size for attaining cross-sectional recovery for lurasidone treatment (vs. placebo) (p=0.028). Sustained recovery rates were higher in patients initially treated with lurasidone (20.8%) versus placebo (12.5%).

Conclusions

In this post-hoc analysis of a placebo-controlled study with open-label extension that involved patients with MDD and mixed features, lurasidone was found to significantly improve the rate of recovery at 6 weeks (vs. placebo) that was sustained at month 3 of the extension study. The presence of two (as opposed to three) manic symptoms moderated recovery at the acute study endpoint.

Keywords

Major depressive disordermixed featuresfunctional remission combined symptomatic and functional remissionlurasidone

Information

Type
Original Research
Information
CNS Spectrums , Volume 22 , Issue 2: Theme: Mixed features in major depressive episodes , April 2017 , pp. 220 - 227
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2017

Introduction

Manic symptoms below the threshold for hypomania (mixed features) are prevalent in people with major depressive disorder (MDD).Reference Judd and Akiskal 1 – Reference Zimmermann, Brückl and Nocon 7 In the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS–R) study, a nationally representative, face-to-face, household survey of the U.S. population conducted between February of 2001 and April of 2003, nearly 40% of study participants with a history of MDD had subthreshold hypomania (defined as the presence of three or more manic symptoms).Reference Angst, Cui and Swendsen 2 Previous reports suggested that, compared to pure major depression, major depressive disorder with mixed features is associated with greater illness severity,Reference Perlis, Uher and Ostacher 8 – Reference Nusslock and Frank 11 increased frequency of recurrent depressive episodes,Reference Angst, Cui and Swendsen 2 , Reference Nusslock and Frank 11 increased risk of suicide attempts,Reference Angst, Cui and Swendsen 2 , Reference Zimmermann, Brückl and Nocon 7 , Reference Nusslock and Frank 11 – Reference Popovic, Vieta and Azorin 13 a high frequency of substance abuse,Reference Angst, Cui and Swendsen 2 , Reference Zimmermann, Brückl and Nocon 7 , Reference Nusslock and Frank 11 and greater functional impairment.Reference Angst, Cui and Swendsen 2 , Reference Benazzi and Akiskal 6 , Reference Nusslock and Frank 11 MDD with mixed features has recently been endorsed as a clinically distinct and valid entity by its inclusion in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5h ed. (DSM–5). 14

Lurasidone is an atypical antipsychotic agent with high affinity for D2, 5-HT2A, and 5-HT7 receptors (K i =1, 0.5, and 0.495 nM, respectively).Reference Ishibashi, Horisawa and Tokuda 15 In animal models, the antidepressant effect of lurasidone has been shown to be mediated in part by antagonist activity at the 5-HT7 receptor.Reference Hedlund 16 – Reference Cates, Roberts and Huitron-Resendiz 17 Lurasidone has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of major depressive episodes associated with bipolar I disorder (bipolar depression), both as a monotherapy and as an adjunctive therapy with lithium or valproate.Reference Loebel, Cucchiaro and Silva 18 , Reference Loebel, Cucchiaro and Silva 19 A recent placebo-controlled trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of lurasidone for MDD with subthreshold hypomanic symptoms.Reference Suppes, Silva and Cucchiaro 20

Symptomatic remission and reduction in functional impairment is considered necessary for meaningful recovery from psychiatric disorders.Reference Tohen, Frank and Bowden 21 – Reference Loebel, Siu, Rajagopalan, Pikalov, Cucchiaro and Ketter 23 A recent study evaluated recovery in bipolar depression based on rates of combined symptomatic and functional remission sustained over time.Reference Loebel, Siu, Rajagopalan, Pikalov, Cucchiaro and Ketter 23 A majority of patients with bipolar depression initially treated with lurasidone in the acute phase attained recovery status during the 6-month continuation study, and treatment with lurasidone (vs. placebo) earlier in the course of a bipolar depressive episode increased the likelihood of subsequent recovery. The objectives of our post-hoc analysis were to investigate the proportion of, and predictors for, combined symptomatic and functional remission at short-term (6 weeks) and extension (3 months) study endpoints among patients with major depressive disorder associated with subthreshold hypomanic symptoms (mixed features).

Methods

A post-hoc analysis was conducted using data from a previously reported double-blind, placebo-controlled, 6-week trial in patients with major depressive disorder associated with subthreshold hypomanic symptoms (mixed features) (Clinicaltrials.gov, no. NCT01421134),Reference Suppes, Silva and Cucchiaro 20 which was followed by a 3-month open-label extension study with lurasidone (Clinicaltrials.gov, no. NCT01423253). The present study was approved by the institutional review board at each investigational site and was conducted in accordance with the International Council on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use–Good Clinical Practice guidelines, and with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Patients

This study enrolled outpatients 18–75 years of age diagnosed with major depressive disorder who were experiencing a major depressive episode (based on DSM–IV–TR criteria), with a score >26 on the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS)Reference Montgomery and Åsberg 24 at both the screening and baseline visits. Diagnosis was confirmed by an experienced and qualified rater using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM–IV Disorders–Clinical Trial version (SCID–CT) modified to record the presence of mixed (hypomanic) symptoms.Reference First, Williams, Spitzer and Gibbon 25 In addition, patients were required to have two or three of the following manic symptoms, on most days, for at least 2 weeks prior to screening: elevated or expansive mood, inflated self-esteem or grandiosity, more talkative than usual or pressure to keep talking, flight of ideas or racing thoughts, increased energy, increased or excessive involvement in activities with a high potential for negative consequences, and decreased need for sleep. Independent external reviewers verified the diagnoses of all study participants, based on audiotaped recordings of diagnostic interviews conducted by site-based investigators.

Study design

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, flexible-dose study enrolled a total of 211 patients at 18 sites in the United States (n=62 patients) and at 26 sites in Europe (n=149 patients) between September of 2011 and October of 2014. After a washout period of at least 3 days, patients were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to 6 weeks of treatment with lurasidone or placebo. Study medication was taken once daily in the evening with a meal or within 30 minutes after eating. Patients assigned to receive lurasidone were treated with 20 mg/day for days 1–7. Patients were dosed flexibly, in the range of 20–60 mg/day, starting on day 8. The U.S. patients who completed the 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, core study were eligible to participate in an open-label, 3-month extension study, where lurasidone was flexibly adjusted (i.e., 20, 40, or 60 mg/day), based on clinical judgment, in order to optimize efficacy and tolerability.

Outcomes

The MADRS is a 10-item, clinician-rated assessment of severity of depression, with higher scores associated with greater severity of depression.Reference Montgomery and Åsberg 24 The Clinical Global Impressions Severity subscale (CGI–S) score rates overall illness severity on a 7-point scale, with higher scores associated with greater illness severity.Reference Guy 26 The Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS)Reference Sheehan, Hamett-Sheehan and Raj 27 is a well-established self-rated scale designed to assess level of functional impairment across three major functional domains, in which patients rate the extent to which (1) work, (2) social life or leisure activities, and (3) home life or family responsibilities are impaired by mood symptoms on 10-point visual analog scales (0=“not at all,” 1–3=“mildly,” 4–6=“moderately,” 7–9=“markedly,” and 10=“extremely”), with higher scores reflecting greater functional impairment. MADRS and CGI–S scores were assessed at core baseline, week 6 (end of double-blind core phase), and at months 1, 2, and 3 of the extension study. SDS scores were assessed at core baseline, week 6, and at months 1 and 3 of the extension study. We defined symptomatic remission as a MADRS total score <12 and functional remission as all SDS domain scores <3 (representing mild or absent functional impairment).Reference Loebel, Siu, Rajagopalan, Pikalov, Cucchiaro and Ketter 23 , Reference Sheehan, Hamett-Sheehan and Raj 27 Recovery was defined as the presence of both symptomatic remission (MADRS score ≤12) and functional remission (all SDS domain scores ≤3) at week 6 (“cross-sectional recovery”), and at both months 1 and 3 of the extension study (“sustained recovery”). Sensitivity analyses were performed using a MADRS score of <8 to assess rates of symptomatic remission and all SDS domain scores <2 to assess functional remission at week 6.

Statistical methods

In the present post-hoc analysis, a logistic regression model was applied to evaluate the effect of lurasidone on attaining cross-sectional recovery (defined as combined symptomatic and functional remission) at week 6. Evaluations of explanatory factors for cross-sectional recovery at week 6 and at month 3 of the extension study were conducted using multivariate logistic regression, controlling for treatment, baseline MADRS and SDS scores, and region. Predictors of sustained recovery at month 3 of the extension were not performed due to sample size limitations.

Moderator analyses were performed using a statistical interaction test in the logistic regression model to compare treatment effects in patients with two versus three protocol-specified manic symptoms at study baseline. Exploratory analyses were performed to evaluate rates of sustained recovery among patients enrolled at U.S. sites. Association between symptomatic remission and functional remission was assessed using the phi (ϕ) coefficient. The concordance between these two remission outcomes controlling for treatment was evaluated using overall kappa (κ).

Results

A total of 211 patients were randomized to receive once-daily lurasidone 20–60 mg (n=109) or placebo (n=102). Of these, 208 patients (lurasidone n=108, placebo n=100) received at least one dose of study medication and comprised the intent-to-treat population. Of the 59 patients enrolled at U.S. sites, 52 patients (89.7%) completed the 6-week, double-blind, randomized phase, of whom 48 (lurasidone-to-lurasidone n=29; placebo-to-lurasidone n=19) enrolled in the 3-month open-label extension study.

The demographic and clinical characteristics are summarized in Table 1. At week 6, a significantly higher proportion of lurasidone-treated patients met the criteria for cross-sectional recovery using the MADRS total score <12 and all SDS domain scores <3 criteria (31.1%, 33/106) compared to the placebo group (12.2%, 12/98, p=0.002, number needed to treat [NNT]=6, last observation carried forward [LOCF]) (Figure 1). In a sensitivity analysis using an MADRS total score <8 and all SDS domain scores <2, the rates of cross-sectional recovery at week 6 were 19.8% (21/106) for lurasidone versus 10.2% (10/98) for placebo (p<0.05, NNT=11) (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Cross-sectional recovery at week 6 (LOCF, intention-to-treat [ITT] population). *p<0.05, **p<0.01. Four ITT subjects had missing SDS data. A logistic regression model that included terms for treatment, region, and baseline MADRS and SDS scores was applied. Cross-sectional recovery at week 6 was defined as combined symptomatic and functional recovery at week 6.

Table 1

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics (safety population)

A significantly higher proportion of patients in the lurasidone group (49.1%, 53/108) than in the placebo group (23.0%, 23/100) met the symptomatic remission criteria (MADRS<12) at week 6 (p<0.001, NNT=4) (Figure 2). Using a more stringent MADRS score criterion (MADRS ≤ 8), the proportion of lurasidone-treated patients attaining symptomatic remission was also significantly higher (36.1%, 39/108) compared to the placebo group at week 6 (17.0%, 17/100; p=0.001, NNT=6) (Figure 2).

Figure 2

Symptomatic remission at week 6 (LOCF, ITT population). **p<0.01, ***p<0.001. A logistic regression model that included terms for treatment, region, and baseline MADRS score was applied.

A significantly higher proportion of patients in the lurasidone group than in the placebo group met the functional remission criteria (all SDS domain scores ≤ 3) at week 6, with 38.7% (41/106) in the lurasidone group versus 18.4% (18/98) in the placebo group (p=0.002, NNT=5). Lurasidone was also superior to placebo in achieving functional remission across the three SDS domains (SDS domain ≤ 3): work/school (p=0.001, NNT=3); social life (p<0.001, NNT=4); and family life (p<0.001, NNT=4). Using a more stringent SDS score criterion (all SDS domain scores ≤ 2), the proportion of patients achieving functional remission remained significantly higher in the lurasidone group (31.1%, 33/106) compared to the placebo group (14.3%, 14/98; p=0.005, NNT=6) (Figure 3).

Figure 3

SDS functional remission at week 6 (LOCF, ITT population). **p<0.01. Four ITT subjects had missing SDS data. A logistic regression model that included terms for treatment, region, and baseline MADRS and SDS scores was applied.

Reduction in depressive symptoms from baseline to week 6 mediated functional remission at week 6 (p<0.001, χ2=39.58, df=1). The concordance between symptomatic remission and functional remission was 77.9% (159/204, overall κ coefficient controlling for treatment=0.47, 95% confidence interval [CI 95%]=[0.35, 0.60]; ϕ=0.52). Demographics and baseline MADRS and SDS scores had been assessed but were found to be statistically nonsignificant predictors for cross-sectional recovery at week 6.

The protocol-specified number of manic symptoms at baseline was a significant moderator of cross-sectional recovery at week 6 (p=0.028 for treatment-by-number of manic symptoms at baseline). The effect size for attaining cross-sectional recovery at week 6 with lurasidone treatment (vs. placebo) was significantly higher (p=0.028) in patients with two manic symptoms (lurasidone 36.4%, 24/66; placebo 8.2%, 5/61; NNT=4) compared to three manic symptoms (lurasidone 22.5%, 9/40; placebo 18.9%, 7/37; NNT=28) (Figure 4).

Figure 4

Significant moderator of cross-sectional recovery at week 6 between lurasidone and placebo: baseline number of manic symptoms in treatment of MDD with mixed features. *p<0.05. Four ITT subjects had missing SDS data. A logistic regression model that included terms for treatment, region, baseline MADRS and SDS scores, number of manic symptoms, and number of manic symptom × treatment was applied. Cross-sectional recovery at week 6 was defined as combined symptomatic and functional recovery at week 6.

In the 3-month, open-label, extension study, among the U.S. lurasidone-to-lurasidone group patients, the rates of recovery increased from 27.6% (8/29) at week 6 to 34.6% (9/26) at month 1, and to 41.7% (10/24) at month 3 of the extension study. A similar trend was observed for the placebo-to-lurasidone group, whose recovery rates increased from 5.3% (1/19) at week 6 to 27.8% (5/18) and 37.5% (6/16) for the month 1 and month 3 endpoints, respectively (p<0.05) (Figure 5).

Figure 5

Cross-sectional recovery over the acute and extension treatment periods (U.S. sites only). *p<0.05 (increasing linear slope). Lurasidone-to-lurasidone: lurasidone in the 6-week randomized phase followed by flexible dosing of lurasidone in the 3-month extension study. Placebo-to-lurasidone: placebo in the 6-week randomized phase followed by flexible dosing of lurasidone in the 3-month extension study. Cross-sectional recovery was defined as combined symptomatic and functional recovery at week 6 in the core phase and at months 1 and 3 of the extension study.

The proportions of lurasidone-treated patients achieving “sustained recovery,” defined as meeting criteria for combined symptomatic remission (MADRS<12) and functional remission (all SDS domain scores<3) for both months 1 and 3 of the extension study, were 20.8% (5/24) and 12.5% (2/16) in the lurasidone-to-lurasidone and placebo-to-lurasidone groups, respectively (Figure 6). The proportion of patients attaining symptomatic remission sustained at both months 1 and 3 were 45.8% (11/24) in the lurasidone-to-lurasidone group and 31.3% (5/16) in the placebo-to-lurasidone group. The proportions of patients attaining functional remission sustained for both months 1 and 3 were 36.0% (9/25) in the lurasidone-to-lurasidone group and 31.3% (5/16) in the placebo-to-lurasidone group.

Figure 6

Recovery: sustained symptomatic and functional remission (U.S. sites only). Lurasidone-to-lurasidone: lurasidone in the 6-week randomized phase followed by flexible dosing of lurasidone in the 3-month extension study. Placebo-to-lurasidone: placebo in the 6-week randomized phase followed by flexible dosing of lurasidone in the 3-month extension study. “Sustained recovery” was defined as meeting criteria for both symptomatic and functional remission at both months 1 and 3 of the extension study.

Reduction in depressive symptoms from core study baseline to month 3 was significantly associated with functional remission at month 3 of the extension study (p=0.006, χ2=7.65, df=1; LOCF). The concordance between symptomatic remission and functional remission at month 3 (LOCF) was 65.9% (29/44) (overall κ coefficient controlling for treatment=0.31, CI 95%=[0.03, 0.59]; ϕ=0.31). The change in CGI–S scores from core study baseline to month 3 was significantly associated with cross-sectional recovery at month 3 (p=0.002, χ2=9.32, df=1).

Discussion

The present research is the first study, to our knowledge, of recovery in major depressive disorder with subthreshold hypomanic symptoms (mixed features), as defined by the integration of symptomatic remission and functional improvement.Reference Loebel, Siu, Rajagopalan, Pikalov, Cucchiaro and Ketter 23 While the construct of “recovery” from episodes of mood disorder has often been defined based mainly, if not solely, on the basis of affective symptom resolution sustained for at least 8 weeks,Reference Tohen, Frank and Bowden 21 , Reference Goldberg, Perlis and Ghaemi 28 a more rigorous definition of “recovery” that incorporates the absence of functional impairment was proposed over 30 years ago in the Research Diagnostic Criteria.Reference Spitzer, Endicott and Robins 29 However, rigorous definitions of “recovery” that incorporate both symptomatic remission and functional improvement as indicators of treatment success have been used in only a handful of outcome studies (e.g., the National Institute of Mental Health Collaborative Depression Study) by Solomon et al.Reference Solomon, Fiedorowicz and Leon 30 and Loebel et al.Reference Loebel, Siu, Rajagopalan, Pikalov, Cucchiaro and Ketter 23

Judd et al.Reference Judd, Schettler and Rush 31 proposed a definition of major depressive episode recovery as an 8-week period free of all symptoms associated with the previous major depressive episode (asymptomatic recovery). In the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) trial, which enrolled outpatients with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder,Reference Trivedi, Rush and Wisniewski 32 the primary outcome was symptomatic remission defined as a HAM–D score <7. A total of 27.5% of patients achieved remission after 8 weeks of treatment with citalopram (level 1 treatment). In the Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for Bipolar Disorder (STEP–BD) study in patients with major depressive episode associated with bipolar I or bipolar II disorder, the primary outcome was durable recovery (defined as at least 8 consecutive weeks of euthymia—no more than two depressive or two manic symptoms).Reference Sachs, Nierenberg and Calabrese 33 For patients receiving a mood stabilizer plus adjunctive antidepressant therapy and a mood stabilizer plus matching placebo, a total of 23.5 and 27.3% of patients, respectively, achieved recovery. In a recent 6-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of olanzapine in bipolar I depression, the rates of remission (defined as MADRS<8) and recovery (defined as MADRS<12 for >4 weeks plus treatment completion) for olanzapine were 38.5% (vs. 29.2% for placebo) and 13.7% (vs. 9.4% for placebo), respectively.Reference Tohen, McDonnell and Case 34 All of these definitions were based on asymptomatic remission for 6- to 8-week durations (asymptomatic recovery).

In our post-hoc analysis of a placebo-controlled trial, lurasidone was found to significantly improve rates of “cross-sectional recovery” (i.e., a combination of symptomatic remission and functional remission) at the 6-week study endpoint, with moderate effect size (NNT=6). In the 3-month open-label extension of the study (limited to patients enrolled at U.S. sites), sustained recovery was attained by 20.8% of patients who continued on lurasidone in the extension study, and by 12.5% of patients who switched from placebo to lurasidone in the extension study. Higher cross-sectional recovery rates were observed for lurasidone-to-lurasidone patients (41.7%) compared to placebo-to-lurasidone patients (37.5%) after 3 months of extension-study treatment. Rates of recovery increased over time in patients treated with both lurasidone and placebo in the acute and extension studies, suggesting that responsivity to lurasidone was not reduced based on initial assignment to placebo.

The “cross-sectional” and “sustained recovery” rates reported for lurasidone in this post-hoc analysis using multidimensional recovery criteria are at least similar and may be higher than the recovery rates reported in prior mood-disorder studies that used less stringent criteria at generally shorter treatment durations of 6–8 weeks (as noted above). Our findings therefore support the effectiveness of lurasidone in attainment of recovery, rigorously defined, in patients with a severe form of MDD.

While both symptomatic and functional improvement are important components of full recovery,Reference Tohen, Frank and Bowden 21 , Reference Loebel, Siu, Rajagopalan, Pikalov, Cucchiaro and Ketter 23 , Reference Sheehan and Sheehan 35 – Reference McIntyre, Lee and Mansur 40 and may be linked, as demonstrated in several studies,Reference Loebel, Siu, Rajagopalan, Pikalov, Cucchiaro and Ketter 23 , Reference Sheehan and Sheehan 35 – Reference Bijl and Ravelli 38 they are not necessarily always coincident.Reference Tohen, Frank and Bowden 21 , Reference Loebel, Siu, Rajagopalan, Pikalov, Cucchiaro and Ketter 23 , Reference Sheehan and Sheehan 35 – Reference Mancini, Sheehan and Demyttenaere 37 , Reference McIntyre, Lee and Mansur 40 – Reference Mojtabai 43 The observation that functional recovery often lags behind symptomatic or syndromal recoveryReference van der Voort, Seldenrijk and van Meijel 41 may account for this lack of coincidence in the components of recovery. Findings from this analysis indicated that there was a moderately high level of concordance between symptomatic remission and functional remission at the endpoints of both the core (77.9%) and extension (65.9%) studies.

In our study, functional remission at week 6 was found to be mediated through improvement in depressive symptoms from baseline to week 6, while the overall improvement in CGI–S score mediated recovery at the extension-study endpoint. These results are consistent with a recent study by Rajagopalan and colleaguesReference Rajagopalan, Bacci, Wyrwich, Pikalov and Loebel 44 which found that functional improvement in patients with bipolar depression was mediated through the reduction of depressive symptoms.

We defined mixed features in our study as the presence of two or three protocol-specified manic symptoms for at least 2 weeks prior to screening. Previous reports have suggested that a poorer prognosis and greater functional impairment were associated with mixed mood symptoms of opposite polarity (e.g., mixed mania) compared to unipolar depression.Reference Angst, Cui and Swendsen 2 , Reference Nusslock and Frank 11 , Reference Smith, Forty and Russell 12 , Reference Vieta and Valentí 45 In this analysis, we found that number of manic symptoms at baseline was a significant moderator for recovery (cross-sectional) at week 6, using a statistical interaction test in the full analysis sample (N=204). Patients with two manic symptoms (occurring on most days for at least 2 weeks prior to screening) had a greater likelihood of attaining cross-sectional recovery at week 6 (NNT=4 for lurasidone vs. placebo) than subjects with three manic symptoms (NNT=28 for lurasidone vs. placebo). However, we note that, due to the limited number of concomitant manic symptoms present in each subsample, together with their small size and variability in treatment response, definitive conclusions are precluded regarding whether subthreshold manic symptoms during major depression can attenuate treatment efficacy via a gradient or threshold effect. Interestingly, the proportion of lurasidone-treated patients attaining combined symptomatic and functional remission at week 6 was similar in patients with two subthreshold hypomanic symptoms (36.4%) compared to lurasidone-treated patients with bipolar depression (33.3%).Reference Loebel, Siu, Rajagopalan, Pikalov, Cucchiaro and Ketter 23 Further research is needed to confirm these exploratory findings, which suggest that the number and possibly the type of manic symptoms may moderate the likelihood of symptomatic and functional remission in the treatment of MDD with mixed features.

Several limitations of this post-hoc analysis should be noted. The criteria for mixed features in our study were similar to, but not exactly the same as, the DSM–5 mixed-features specifier. 14 The moderator analysis was based on a statistical interaction test utilizing a relatively small full analysis sample. We also note that only patients at U.S. sites were eligible for the extension study (which was not conducted outside the States), which limited the sample size for the extension study. While we assume that the extension study recovery data presented here are generalizable to the entire study population, this cannot be definitively established. These findings should therefore be considered preliminary and exploratory. Further investigations to confirm the long-term effectiveness of lurasidone in this novel patient population are thus warranted.

Conclusions

In this post-hoc analysis of a placebo-controlled study with open-label extension, involving patients with MDD and subthreshold hypomanic symptoms (mixed features), lurasidone was found to have significantly improved the rate of recovery at 6 weeks (vs. placebo), which was sustained after an additional 3 months of extension-study treatment. The presence of two (vs. three) manic symptoms moderated recovery at the acute study endpoint. These results underscore the importance of assessing combined symptomatic and functional remission in the evaluation of long-term recovery outcome. Further investigation and validation of our criteria for recovery and predictors of recovery in patients with MDD with mixed features are warranted.

Disclosures

Joseph F. Goldberg reports personal fees from Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc. during the conduct of the study, and personal fees from Merck, from Takeda–Lundbeck, from Vanda Pharmaceuticals, from WebMD, and from Medscape outside the submitted work. In addition, Dr. Goldberg has published a book with American Psychiatric Publishing Inc. with royalties paid.

Cynthia Siu reports personal fees from Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc. during the conduct of the study, and personal fees from Pfizer Inc. and the Chinese University of Hong Kong outside the submitted work.

Daisy Ng-Mak reports personal fees from Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc. during the conduct of the study.

Chien-Chia Chuang reports personal fees from Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc. during the conduct of the study.

Krithika Rajagopalan reports personal fees from Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc. during the conduct of the study.

Antony Loebel reports personal fees from Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc. during the conduct of the study.

Footnotes

This study is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (no. NCT01421134) and Clinicaltrials.gov (no. NCT01423253).

This research was supported by Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc., Marlborough, Massachusetts, USA.

References

1. Judd, LL, Akiskal, HS. The prevalence and disability of bipolar spectrum disorders in the US population: re-analysis of the ECA database taking into account subthreshold cases. J Affect Disord. 2003; 73(1–2): 123–131.Google Scholar
2. Angst, J, Cui, L, Swendsen, J, et al. Major depressive disorder with subthreshold bipolarity in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Am J Psychiatry. 2010; 167(10): 1194–1201. Epub ahead of print Aug 16. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3145248/. Accessed January 14, 2017.Google Scholar
3. Hoertel, N, Le Strat, Y, Angst, J, et al. Subthreshold bipolar disorder in a US national representative sample. prevalence, correlates, and perspectives for psychiatric nosography. J Affect Disord. 2013; 146(3): 338–347. Epub ahead of print Oct 3, 2012.Google Scholar
4. Angst, J, Azorin, JM, Bowden, CL, et al. Prevalence and characteristics of undiagnosed bipolar disorders in patients with a major depressive episode: the BRIDGE study. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011; 68(8): 791–798. http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/1107421. Accessed January 14, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Angst, J, Gamma, A, Bowden, CL, et al. Evidence-based definitions of bipolar-I and bipolar-II disorders among 5,635 patients with major depressive episodes in the BRIDGE Study: validity and comorbidity. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2013; 263(8): 663–673. Epub ahead of print Jan 31.Google Scholar
6. Benazzi, F, Akiskal, HS. Psychometric delineation of the most discriminant symptoms of depressive mixed states. Psychiatry Res. 2006; 141(1): 81–88. Epub ahead of print Nov 28, 2005.Google Scholar
7. Zimmermann, P, Brückl, T, Nocon, A, et al. Heterogeneity of DSM–IV major depressive disorder as a consequence of subthreshold bipolarity. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2009; 66(12): 1341–1352. http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/210481. Accessed January 14, 2017.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Perlis, RH, Uher, R, Ostacher, M, et al. Association between bipolar spectrum features and treatment outcomes in outpatients with major depressive disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011; 68(4): 351–360. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3794668/. Accessed January 14, 2017.Google Scholar
9. Perugi, G, Angst, J, Azorin, JM, et al. Mixed features in patients with a major depressive episode. the BRIDGE–II–MIX Study. J Clin Psychiatry. 2015; 76(3): e351–e358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. McIntyre, RS, Soczynska, JK, Cha, DS, et al. The prevalence and illness characteristics of DSM–5-defined “mixed feature specifier” in adults with major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder: results from the International Mood Disorders Collaborative Project. J Affect Disord. 2014; 172: 259–264. Epub ahead of print Oct 12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Nusslock, R, Frank, E. Subthreshold bipolarity: diagnostic issues and challenges. Bipolar Disord. 2011; 13(7–8): 587–603. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3397420/. Accessed January 14, 2017.Google Scholar
12. Smith, DJ, Forty, L, Russell, E, et al. Sub-threshold manic symptoms in recurrent major depressive disorder are a marker for poor outcome. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2009; 119(4): 325–329. Epub ahead of print Dec 16, 2008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Popovic, D, Vieta, E, Azorin, JM, et al. Suicide attempts in major depressive episode: evidence from the BRIDGE–II–Mix Study. Bipolar Disord. 2015; 17(7): 795–803. Epub ahead of print Sep 29.Google Scholar
14. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2013.Google Scholar
15. Ishibashi, T, Horisawa, T, Tokuda, K, et al. Pharmacological profile of lurasidone, a novel antipsychotic agent with potent 5-hydroxytryptamine 7 (5-HT7) and 5-HT1A receptor activity. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2010; 334(1): 171–181. Epub ahead of print Apr 19. http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/334/1/171.long. Accessed January 14, 2017.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Hedlund, PB. The 5-HT7 receptor and disorders of the nervous system: an overview. Psychopharmacology (Berl.). 2009; 206(3): 345–354. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2841472/. Accessed January 14, 2017.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Cates, LN, Roberts, AJ, Huitron-Resendiz, S, et al. Effects of lurasidone in behavioral models of depression: role of the 5-HT7 receptor subtype. Neuropharmacology. 2013; 70: 211–217. Epub ahead of print Feb 13.Google Scholar
18. Loebel, A, Cucchiaro, J, Silva, R, et al. Lurasidone monotherapy in the treatment of bipolar I depression: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Am J Psychiatry. 2014; 171(2): 160–168. http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/appi.ajp.2013.13070984. Accessed January 14, 2017.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Loebel, A, Cucchiaro, J, Silva, R, et al. Lurasidone as adjunctive therapy with lithium or valproate for the treatment of bipolar I depression: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Am J Psychiatry. 2014; 171(2): 169–177. http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/appi.ajp.2013.13070985. Accessed January 14, 2017.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Suppes, T, Silva, R, Cucchiaro, J, et al. Lurasidone for the treatment of major depressive disorder with mixed features: a randomized. double-blind. placebo-controlled study. Am J Psychiatry. 2016; 173(4): 400–407. Epub ahead of print Nov 10, 2015.Google Scholar
21. Tohen, M, Frank, E, Bowden, CL, et al. The International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) Task Force report on the nomenclature of course and outcome in bipolar disorder. Bipolar Disord. 2009; 11(5): 453–473.Google Scholar
22. Goldberg, JF, Harrow, M. A 15-year prospective follow-up of bipolar affective disorders, comparison with unipolar depression. Bipolar Disord. 2011; 13(2): 155–163.Google Scholar
23. Loebel, A, Siu, C, Rajagopalan, K, Pikalov, A, Cucchiaro, J, Ketter, TA. Recovery in bipolar depression: Post-hoc analysis of a placebo-controlled lurasidone trial followed by a long-term continuation study. J Affect Disord. 2015; 186: 376–382. Epub ahead of print Aug 5. http://www.jad-journal.com/article/S0165-0327(15)30168-3/pdf. Accessed January 14, 2017.Google Scholar
24. Montgomery, SA, Åsberg, M. A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. Br J Psychiatry. 1979; 134: 382–389.Google Scholar
25. First, MB, Williams, JBW, Spitzer, RL, Gibbon, M. Structured Clinical Interview for DSM–IV–TR Axis I Disorders, Clinical Trials Version (SCID–CT). New York: New York State Psychiatric Institute; 2007. https://eprovide.mapi-trust.org/instruments/structured-clinical-interview-for-dsm-iv-axis-i-disorders. Accessed January 14, 2017.Google Scholar
26. Guy, W. Early Clinical Drug Evaluation Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology Publication ADM 76–338 Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; 1976. P. 218–222. https://archive.org/details/ecdeuassessmentm1933guyw. Accessed January 14, 2017.Google Scholar
27. Sheehan, DV, Hamett-Sheehan, K, Raj, BA. The measurement of disability. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 1996; 11(Suppl. 3): S89–S95.Google Scholar
28. Goldberg, JF, Perlis, RH, Ghaemi, SN, et al. Adjunctive antidepressant use and symptomatic recovery among bipolar depressed patients with concomitant manic symptoms: findings from the STEP–BD. Am J Psychiatry. 2007; 164(9): 1348–1355. http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/appi.ajp.2007.05122032. Accessed January 14, 2017.Google Scholar
29. Spitzer, RL, Endicott, J, Robins, E. Research diagnostic criteria: rationale and reliability. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1978; 35(6): 773–782. http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/491943. Accessed January 14, 2017.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30. Solomon, DA, Fiedorowicz, JG, Leon, AC, et al. Recovery from multiple episodes of bipolar I depression. J Clin Psychiatry. 2013; 74(3): e205–e211. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3837577/. Accessed January 14, 2017.Google Scholar
31. Judd, LL, Schettler, PJ, Rush, J, et al. A new empirical definition of major depressive episode recovery and its positive impact on future course of illness. J Clin Psychiatry. 2015; 77(8): 1065–1073.Google Scholar
32. Trivedi, MH, Rush, J, Wisniewski, SR, et al. Evaluation of outcomes with citalopram for depression using measurement-based care in STAR*D: implications for clinical practice. Am J Psychiatry. 2006; 163(1): 28–40. http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/appi.ajp.163.1.28. Accessed January 14, 2017.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Sachs, GS, Nierenberg, AA, Calabrese, JR, et al. Effectiveness of adjunctive antidepressant treatment for bipolar depression. N Engl J Med. 2007; 356(17): 1711–1722. Epub ahead of print Mar 28. http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa064135. Accessed January 14, 2017.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34. Tohen, M, McDonnell, DP, Case, M, et al. Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of olanzapine in patients with bipolar I depression. Br J Psychiatry. 2012; 207(5): 376–382. Epub ahead of print Aug 23. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/5/376.long. Accessed January 14, 2017.Google Scholar
35. Sheehan, KH, Sheehan, DV. Assessing treatment effects in clinical trials with the discan metric of the Sheehan Disability Scale. Int. Clin. Psychopharmacol . 2008; 23(2): 70–83.Google Scholar
36. Sheehan, DV, Myers, AL, Prakash, A, et al. The relationship between functional outcomes and the treatment of anxious and painful somatic symptoms in patients with generalized anxiety disorder. Curr Med Res Opin. 2008; 24(9): 2457–2466. Epub ahead of print Jul 24.Google Scholar
37. Mancini, M, Sheehan, DV, Demyttenaere, K, et al. Evaluation of the effect of duloxetine treatment on functioning as measured by the Sheehan Disability Scale, pooled analysis of data from six randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 2012; 27(6): 298–309.Google Scholar
38. Bijl, RV, Ravelli, A. Current and residual functional disability associated with psychopathology: findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS). Psychol Med. 2000; 30(3): 657–668.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39. Simon, GE, Revicki, D, Heiligenstein, J, et al. Recovery from depression, work productivity and health care costs among primary care patients. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2000; 22(3): 153–162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40. McIntyre, RS, Lee, Y, Mansur, RB. Treating to target in major depressive disorder: response to remission to functional recovery. CNS Spectr. 2015; 20(Suppl. 1): 17–31.Google Scholar
41. van der Voort, TY, Seldenrijk, A, van Meijel, B, et al. Functional versus syndromal recovery in patients with major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 2015; 76(6): e809–e814.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42. Conradi, HJ, Ormel, J, de Jonge, P. Presence of individual (residual) symptoms during depressive episodes and periods of remission: a 3-year prospective study. Psychol Med. 2011; 41(6): 1165–1174.Google Scholar
43. Mojtabai, R. Residual symptoms and impairment in major depression in the community. Am J Psychiatry. 2001; 158(10): 1645–1651. http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/appi.ajp.158.10.1645. Accessed January 14, 2017.Google Scholar
44. Rajagopalan, K, Bacci, ED, Wyrwich, KW, Pikalov, A, Loebel, A. The direct and indirect effects of lurasidone monotherapy on functional improvement among patients with bipolar depression: results from a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Int J Bipolar Disord. 2016; 4(1): Epub ahead of print Mar 16. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4792823/. Accessed January 14, 2017.Google Scholar
45. Vieta, E, Valentí, M. Pharmacological management of bipolar depression: acute treatment, maintenance, and prophylaxis. CNS Drugs. 2013; 27(7): 515–529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Figure 1 Cross-sectional recovery at week 6 (LOCF, intention-to-treat [ITT] population). *p<0.05, **p<0.01. Four ITT subjects had missing SDS data. A logistic regression model that included terms for treatment, region, and baseline MADRS and SDS scores was applied. Cross-sectional recovery at week 6 was defined as combined symptomatic and functional recovery at week 6.

Figure 1

Table 1 Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics (safety population)

Figure 2

Figure 2 Symptomatic remission at week 6 (LOCF, ITT population). **p<0.01, ***p<0.001. A logistic regression model that included terms for treatment, region, and baseline MADRS score was applied.

Figure 3

Figure 3 SDS functional remission at week 6 (LOCF, ITT population). **p<0.01. Four ITT subjects had missing SDS data. A logistic regression model that included terms for treatment, region, and baseline MADRS and SDS scores was applied.

Figure 4

Figure 4 Significant moderator of cross-sectional recovery at week 6 between lurasidone and placebo: baseline number of manic symptoms in treatment of MDD with mixed features. *p<0.05. Four ITT subjects had missing SDS data. A logistic regression model that included terms for treatment, region, baseline MADRS and SDS scores, number of manic symptoms, and number of manic symptom × treatment was applied. Cross-sectional recovery at week 6 was defined as combined symptomatic and functional recovery at week 6.

Figure 5

Figure 5 Cross-sectional recovery over the acute and extension treatment periods (U.S. sites only). *p<0.05 (increasing linear slope). Lurasidone-to-lurasidone: lurasidone in the 6-week randomized phase followed by flexible dosing of lurasidone in the 3-month extension study. Placebo-to-lurasidone: placebo in the 6-week randomized phase followed by flexible dosing of lurasidone in the 3-month extension study. Cross-sectional recovery was defined as combined symptomatic and functional recovery at week 6 in the core phase and at months 1 and 3 of the extension study.

Figure 6

Figure 6 Recovery: sustained symptomatic and functional remission (U.S. sites only). Lurasidone-to-lurasidone: lurasidone in the 6-week randomized phase followed by flexible dosing of lurasidone in the 3-month extension study. Placebo-to-lurasidone: placebo in the 6-week randomized phase followed by flexible dosing of lurasidone in the 3-month extension study. “Sustained recovery” was defined as meeting criteria for both symptomatic and functional remission at both months 1 and 3 of the extension study.