26
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      What Is Causing the Reduced Drug-Placebo Difference in Recent Schizophrenia Clinical Trials and What Can be Done About It?

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references13

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) for schizophrenia.

          The variable results of positive-negative research with schizophrenics underscore the importance of well-characterized, standardized measurement techniques. We report on the development and initial standardization of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) for typological and dimensional assessment. Based on two established psychiatric rating systems, the 30-item PANSS was conceived as an operationalized, drug-sensitive instrument that provides balanced representation of positive and negative symptoms and gauges their relationship to one another and to global psychopathology. It thus constitutes four scales measuring positive and negative syndromes, their differential, and general severity of illness. Study of 101 schizophrenics found the four scales to be normally distributed and supported their reliability and stability. Positive and negative scores were inversely correlated once their common association with general psychopathology was extracted, suggesting that they represent mutually exclusive constructs. Review of five studies involving the PANSS provided evidence of its criterion-related validity with antecedent, genealogical, and concurrent measures, its predictive validity, its drug sensitivity, and its utility for both typological and dimensional assessment.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Selection bias in clinical trials with antipsychotics.

            Although the selection of patients is known to be a powerful factor affecting the results of clinical trials, little is known about recruitment issues. Many patients with schizophrenia who are screened for a clinical trial of an investigational antipsychotic are ultimately not included in the study. Therefore, the question arises of whether the results obtained by studying a selected group of patients are really representative of the general population of patients with schizophrenia. The authors studied possible reasons for selective sampling in 200 patients who were consecutively admitted to inpatient units of Innsbruck's Department of Psychiatry with a diagnosis of schizophreniform or schizophrenic disorder over a time period of 33 months. Apart from demographic data and a psychopathologic rating (using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale), the authors recorded whether or not a patient was included in a phase III study and whether or not those were not included would have theoretically been eligible for such a study. Twenty-seven patients were finally recruited for a clinical trial. These patients were younger, on average, had a more recent onset of illness, and had experienced fewer psychotic episodes in the past. A history of noncompliance with previous treatment and the refusal of consent were the most common reasons for not including theoretically eligible patients in a clinical trial.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Methodological issues in current antipsychotic drug trials.

              Every year numerous reports on antipsychotic drug trials are being published in neuropsychiatric journals, adding new information to our knowledge in the field. The information however is often hard for the reader to interpret, sometimes contradictory to comparable available studies and leaves more questions open than it actually answers. Although the overall quality of the studies is rather good, there are manifold options for further improvement in the conception, conduct, and reporting of antipsychotic drug trials. In this survey, we address methodological challenges such as the limited generalizability of outcomes due to patient selection and sample size; the vague or even lacking definition of key outcome parameters such as response, remission or relapse, insufficient blinding techniques, the pitfalls of surrogate outcomes and their assessment tools; the varying complex statistical approaches; and the challenge of balancing various ways of reporting outcomes. The authors present practical examples to highlight the current problems and propose a concrete series of suggestions on how to further optimize antipsychotic drug trials in the future.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Schizophr Bull
                schbul
                schbul
                Schizophrenia Bulletin
                Oxford University Press
                0586-7614
                1745-1701
                May 2010
                22 August 2008
                22 August 2008
                : 36
                : 3
                : 504-509
                Affiliations
                [2 ]Psychiatry and Human Behavior, University of California, Irvine, CA
                [3 ]Psychiatry, Downstate Medical Center, State University of New York, Brooklyn, NY
                [4 ]Quintiles Inc, San Diego, CA
                [5 ]Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, CA
                [6 ]Ortho-McNeil Janssen Scientific Affairs, Titusville, NJ
                [7 ]Anand Pharma Consulting, Oberwil, Switzerland
                [8 ]Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, University of Toronto and Mental Health Program, Humber River Regional Hospital, Toronto, Canada
                [9 ]Psychiatry, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel
                [10 ]Lilly Development Laboratories, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN
                [11 ]California Clinical Trials, Los Angeles, CA
                [12 ]Hoffman-La Roche, Medical Affairs, Nutley, NJ
                [13 ]Psychiatry and Public Health, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY
                [14 ]Service de Psychiatrie, Hôpital Lariboisière Fernand Widal, Paris, France
                [15 ]Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development, Beerse, Belgium
                Author notes
                [1 ]To whom correspondence should be addressed; tel: 714-456-8690; fax: 714-456-5967, UCI Neuropsychiatric Center, 101 The City Drive South, Orange, CA 92868; e-mail: akemp@ 123456uci.edu .
                Article
                10.1093/schbul/sbn110
                2879679
                18723840
                31b2df12-23a5-4edc-bf71-2afcff58da90
                © 2008 The Authors

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/uk/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Categories
                Regular Articles

                Neurology
                clinical trials,signal detection,iscdd,isctm,placebo response,meeting summary,schizophrenia
                Neurology
                clinical trials, signal detection, iscdd, isctm, placebo response, meeting summary, schizophrenia

                Comments

                Comment on this article