It remains unclear which individuals with subthreshold depression benefit most from psychological intervention, and what long-term effects this has on symptom deterioration, response and remission.

To synthesise psychological intervention benefits in adults with subthreshold depression up to 2 years, and explore participant-level effect-modifiers.

Randomised trials comparing psychological intervention with inactive control were identified via systematic search. Authors were contacted to obtain individual participant data (IPD), analysed using Bayesian one-stage meta-analysis. Treatment–covariate interactions were added to examine moderators. Hierarchical-additive models were used to explore treatment benefits conditional on baseline Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) values.

IPD of 10 671 individuals (50 studies) could be included. We found significant effects on depressive symptom severity up to 12 months (standardised mean-difference [s.m.d.] = −0.48 to −0.27). Effects could not be ascertained up to 24 months (s.m.d. = −0.18). Similar findings emerged for 50% symptom reduction (relative risk = 1.27–2.79), reliable improvement (relative risk = 1.38–3.17), deterioration (relative risk = 0.67–0.54) and close-to-symptom-free status (relative risk = 1.41–2.80). Among participant-level moderators, only initial depression and anxiety severity were highly credible (P > 0.99). Predicted treatment benefits decreased with lower symptom severity but remained minimally important even for very mild symptoms (s.m.d. = −0.33 for PHQ-9 = 5).

Psychological intervention reduces the symptom burden in individuals with subthreshold depression up to 1 year, and protects against symptom deterioration. Benefits up to 2 years are less certain. We find strong support for intervention in subthreshold depression, particularly with PHQ-9 scores ≥ 10. For very mild symptoms, scalable treatments could be an attractive option.

Patients with Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) are prone to Multidrug-Resistant Organism (MDRO) colonization and infections, thus at risk for worse outcomes during critical illness. Understanding the prevalence and predictors of MDRO infections is essential to optimize interventions and treatments.

Retrospective cohort study.

The study evaluated the prevalence of MDRO isolation among adults with OUD admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) between January 1, 2018, and July 31, 2023. It included adults admitted to an ICU with bacterial infections and positive cultures obtained within 48 hours of admission. Demographics, clinical traits, and MDRO isolation rates were analyzed using descriptive statistics, univariate methods, and Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regression.

MDRO isolation occurred in 178 of 790 patients (22.5%), with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus as the most frequently isolated organism. LASSO regression identified housing insecurity (OR: 1.79, 95% CI 1.09–2.93, P = .022), no receipt of medications for OUD treatment (OR: 1.56, 95% CI 1.06–2.29, P = .023), positive hepatitis C virus (HCV) status (OR: 2.19, 95% CI 1.19–4.03, P = .012), and intravenous antibiotic use in the prior 90 days (OR: 1.04 per 24 h, 95% CI 1.01–1.07, P = .007) as significant predictors of MDRO isolation.

The study highlights a high prevalence of MDRO isolation in critically ill OUD patients admitted for infection-related issues with positive cultures obtained within 48 hours of admission, influenced by factors like housing insecurity, no receipt of medications for OUD treatment, HCV status, and prior antibiotic use.

Negative symptoms are a key feature of several psychiatric disorders. Difficulty identifying common neurobiological mechanisms that cut across diagnostic boundaries might result from equifinality (i.e., multiple mechanistic pathways to the same clinical profile), both within and across disorders. This study used a data-driven approach to identify unique subgroups of participants with distinct reward processing profiles to determine which profiles predicted negative symptoms.

Participants were a transdiagnostic sample of youth from a multisite study of psychosis risk, including 110 individuals at clinical high-risk for psychosis (CHR; meeting psychosis-risk syndrome criteria), 88 help-seeking participants who failed to meet CHR criteria and/or who presented with other psychiatric diagnoses, and a reference group of 66 healthy controls. Participants completed clinical interviews and behavioral tasks assessing four reward processing constructs indexed by the RDoC Positive Valence Systems: hedonic reactivity, reinforcement learning, value representation, and effort–cost computation.

k-means cluster analysis of clinical participants identified three subgroups with distinct reward processing profiles, primarily characterized by: a value representation deficit (54%), a generalized reward processing deficit (17%), and a hedonic reactivity deficit (29%). Clusters did not differ in rates of clinical group membership or psychiatric diagnoses. Elevated negative symptoms were only present in the generalized deficit cluster, which also displayed greater functional impairment and higher psychosis conversion probability scores.

Contrary to the equifinality hypothesis, results suggested one global reward processing deficit pathway to negative symptoms independent of diagnostic classification. Assessment of reward processing profiles may have utility for individualized clinical prediction and treatment.

Although atypical antipsychotics have lowered the prevalence and severity of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), they still contribute to the overall side-effect burden of approved antipsychotics. Drugs with novel mechanisms without D2 dopamine receptor blocking activity have shown promise in treating schizophrenia without the side effects of currently available treatments. KarXT (xanomeline–trospium chloride) represents a possible alternative that targets muscarinic receptors. KarXT demonstrated efficacy compared with placebo in 3 out of 3 short-term acute studies and has not been associated with many of the side effects of D2 dopamine receptor antagonists. Here, we further characterize EPS rates with KarXT in these trials.

EMERGENT-1 (NCT03697252), EMERGENT-2 (NCT04659161), and EMERGENT-3 (NCT04738123) were 5-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, inpatient trials in people with schizophrenia experiencing acute psychosis. Data from the safety populations, defined as all participants who received ³1 dose of trial medication, were pooled. For this analysis, we used a broader definition of EPS-related adverse events (AEs) to encompass any new onset of dystonia, dyskinesia, akathisia, or extrapyramidal disorder reported any time after the first dose of medication. Additionally, EPS were assessed by examining change from baseline to week 5 on the Simpson-Angus Scale (SAS), Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale (BARS), and Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS).

A total of 683 participants (KarXT, n=340; placebo, n=343) were included in the analyses. The rate of treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) associated with EPS was 3.2% in the KarXT group vs 0.9% in the placebo group. The most commonly reported TEAE was akathisia (KarXT, 2.4%; placebo 0.9%); half of possible akathisia cases in the KarXT group (4/8 TEAEs) were from a single US site, considered by the investigator to be unrelated to trial drug, and resolved without treatment. Overall rates of akathisia TEAEs deemed related to trial drug were low (KarXT, 0.6%; placebo 0.3%). Dystonia, dyskinesia, and extrapyramidal disorder TEAEs were reported by only a single subject each (0.3%) in the KarXT arm. All reported TEAEs were mild to moderate in severity. KarXT was associated with no clinically meaningful mean±SD changes from baseline to week 5 on the SAS (-0.1±0.6), BARS (-0.1±0.9), or AIMS (0.0±0.7).

The incidence of EPS-related TEAEs with KarXT was low in comparison to those observed in similar trials of antipsychotics (D2 dopamine receptor antagonists), although head-to-head studies have not been completed. Moreover, KarXT was not associated with increased scores on EPS scales (SAS, BARS, AIMS) across 5 weeks of treatment. These results, combined with the robust efficacy of KarXT in trials to date, suggest that KarXT’s novel mechanism of action may provide therapeutic benefit in the absence of EPS frequently associated with currently available antipsychotics.

Karuna Therapeutics

In prior studies, the dual M1/M4 preferring muscarinic receptor agonist xanomeline demonstrated antipsychotic activity in people with schizophrenia and Alzheimer’s disease, but its further clinical development was limited primarily by gastrointestinal side effects. KarXT combines xanomeline and the peripherally restricted muscarinic receptor antagonist trospium chloride. KarXT is designed to preserve xanomeline’s beneficial central nervous system effects while mitigating adverse events (AEs) due to peripheral muscarinic receptor activation. The efficacy and safety of KarXT in schizophrenia was demonstrated in the 5-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled EMERGENT-1 (NCT03697252), EMERGENT-2 (NCT04659161), and EMERGENT-3 (NCT04738123) trials.

The EMERGENT trials enrolled people with a recent worsening of positive symptoms warranting hospitalization, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score ≥80, and Clinical Global Impression–Severity score ≥4. Eligible participants were randomized 1:1 to KarXT or placebo. KarXT dosing (xanomeline/trospium) started at 50 mg/20 mg twice daily (BID) and increased to a maximum of 125 mg/30 mg BID. Safety was assessed by monitoring for spontaneous AEs after administration of the first dose of trial drug until the time of discharge on day 35. Data from the EMERGENT trials were pooled, and all safety analyses were conducted in the safety population, defined as all participants who received ≥1 dose of trial drug.

A total of 683 participants (KarXT, n=340; placebo, n=343) were included in the pooled safety analyses. Across the EMERGENT trials, 51.8% of people in the KarXT group compared with 29.4% in the placebo group reported ≥1 treatment-related AE. The most common treatment-relatedAEs occurring in ≥5% of participants receiving KarXT and at a rate at least twice that observed in the placebo group were nausea (17.1% vs 3.2%), constipation (15.0% vs 5.2%), dyspepsia (11.5% vs 2.3%), vomiting (10.9% vs 0.9%), and dry mouth (5.0% vs 1.5%). The most common treatment-related AEs in the KarXT group were all mild or moderate in severity.

In pooled analyses from the EMERGENT trials, KarXT was generally well tolerated in people with schizophrenia experiencing acute psychosis. These findings, together with the efficacy results showing a clinically meaningful reduction in the symptoms of schizophrenia, support the potential of KarXT to be the first in a new class of antipsychotic medications based on muscarinic receptor agonism and a well-tolerated alternative to currently available antipsychotics.

Karuna Therapeutics

Prior studies demonstrated the antipsychotic activity of the dual M1/M4 preferring muscarinic receptor agonist xanomeline in people with schizophrenia and Alzheimer’s disease, but its further clinical development was limited primarily by gastrointestinal side effects. KarXT combines xanomeline and the peripherally restricted muscarinic receptor antagonist trospium chloride. KarXT is designed to preserve xanomeline’s beneficial central nervous system effects while mitigating side effects due to peripheral muscarinic receptor activation. The efficacy and safety of KarXT in schizophrenia were demonstrated in the 5-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled EMERGENT-1 (NCT03697252), EMERGENT-2 (NCT04659161), and EMERGENT-3 (NCT04738123) trials.

The EMERGENT trials randomized people with a recent worsening of positive symptoms warranting hospitalization, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score ≥80, and Clinical Global Impression–Severity (CGI-S) score ≥4. KarXT dosing (xanomeline/trospium) started at 50 mg/20 mg twice daily (BID) and increased to a maximum of 125 mg/30 mg BID. In each trial, the primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 5 in PANSS total score. Other efficacy measures included change from baseline to week 5 in PANSS positive subscale, PANSS negative subscale, PANSS Marder negative factor, and CGI-S scores. Data from the EMERGENT trials were pooled, and efficacy analyses were conducted in the modified intent-to-treat population, defined as all randomized participants who received ≥1 trial drug dose and had a baseline and ≥1 postbaseline PANSS assessment.

The pooled analyses included 640 participants (KarXT, n=314; placebo, n=326). Across trials, KarXT was associated with a significantly greater reduction in PANSS total score at week 5 compared with placebo (KarXT, -19.4; placebo, -9.6 [least squares mean (LSM) difference, -9.9; 95% CI, -12.4 to -7.3; P<0.0001; Cohen’s d, 0.65]). At week 5, KarXT was also associated with a significantly greater reduction than placebo in PANSS positive subscale (KarXT, -6.3; placebo, -3.1 [LSM difference, -3.2; 95% CI, -4.1 to -2.4; P<0.0001; Cohen’s d, 0.67]), PANSS negative subscale (KarXT, -3.0; placebo, -1.3 [LSM difference, -1.7; 95% CI, -2.4 to -1.0; P<0.0001; Cohen’s d, 0.40]), PANSS Marder negative factor (KarXT, -3.8; placebo, -1.8 [LSM difference, -2.0; 95% CI, -2.8 to -1.2; P<0.0001; Cohen’s d, 0.42]), and CGI-S scores (KarXT, -1.1; placebo, -0.5 [LSM difference, -0.6; 95% CI, -0.8 to -0.4; P<0.0001; Cohen’s d, 0.63]).

In pooled analyses from the EMERGENT trials, KarXT demonstrated statistically significant improvements across efficacy measures with consistent and robust effect sizes. These findings support the potential of KarXT to be first in a new class of medications to treat schizophrenia based on muscarinic receptor agonism and without any direct dopamine D2 receptor blocking activity.

Karuna Therapeutics

We compared the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s (ICER) ratings of comparative clinical effectiveness with the German Federal Joint Committee’s (G-BA) added benefit ratings, and explored what factors, including the evidence base, may explain disagreement between the two organizations.

Drugs were included if they were assessed by ICER under its 2020–2023 Value Assessment Framework and had a corresponding assessment by G-BA as of March 2023 for the same indication, patient population, and comparator drug. To compare assessments, we modified ICER’s proposed crosswalk between G-BA and ICER benefit ratings to account for G-BA’s extent and certainty ratings. We also determined whether each assessment pair was based on similar or dissimilar evidence. Assessment pairs exhibiting disagreement based on the modified crosswalk despite a similar evidence base were qualitatively analyzed to identify reasons for disagreement.

We identified 15 assessment pairs and seven out of fifteen were based on similar evidence. G-BA and ICER assessments disagreed for each of these drugs. For 4/7 drugs, G-BA (but not ICER) determined the evidence was unsuitable for assessment: for 2/4 drugs, G-BA concluded the key trials did not appropriately assess the comparator therapy; for 1/4, G-BA did not accept results of a before-and-after study due to non-comparable study settings; for 1/4, G-BA determined follow-up in the key trial was too short. Among assessment pairs where both organizations assessed the evidence, reasons for disagreement included concerns about long-term safety, generalizability, and study design.

This study underscores the role of value judgments within assessments of clinical effectiveness. These judgments are not always transparently presented in assessment summaries. The lack of clarity regarding these value-based decisions underscores the need for improvements in transparency and communication, which are essential for promoting a more robust health technology assessment process and supporting transferability of assessments across jurisdictions.