isctm « ISCTM | The International Society for CNS Clinical Trials and Methodology

Working Group Co-Chairs: Hank Riordan PhD, Steven Potkin MD

Updates will be provided on qualitative grading data presented at the Autumn Conference session as well as a review of the quantitative data, with a discussion on best method for publishing both the qualitative and quantitative data.

Group will then discuss next steps, whether to remain within schizophrenia(e.g. focus on biomarkers other than imaging) or to continue to examine imaging or another biomarker in a different therapeutic area like AD, PD, neuropathic pain etc. that might be more closely aligned with upcoming meeting topics, and finally, develop a long range (>2 years) strategy for the group.

Experts Tackle Difficult Issues of Sleep Disorders, Alcohol Abuse, at ISCTM Autumn Conference

As awareness of the societal impact of insomnia and sleep disorders gains new attention, the International Society for CNS Clinical Trials and Methodology gathered an international roster of experts at the 2011 Autumn Conference, 3-4 October in Amelia Island, FL.

“While Non-Restorative Sleep is a common symptom among individuals with sleep as well as other medical disorders, there are patients where it occurs in isolation,” according to Tom Roth, PhD, from the Henry Ford Hospital Sleep Center in Detroit, MI. “The pathophysiology and possible therapeutics

Representatives from Academia, Industry, Regulatory and Governmental agencies joined in a collaborative effort to resolve some of the most challenging issues in CNS drug development.

Raymond F. Anton, MD, Medical University of South Carolina, and Nina Schooler, PhD, State University of New York Downstate, chaired a session addressing the challenges of developing new treatments for alcohol dependence. “This was an historic session at ISCTM. It is gratifying to see the enthusiasm for alcohol treatment from so many different sectors, including industry leaders and US and European regulatory representatives. Many of the important methodological issues are in the process of being tackled by the Alcohol Clinical Trials Initiative,” Dr. Anton stated. “We are currently analyzing the latest data sets so this work proceeds based upon real-world considerations.”

Other topics covered during this ‘working meeting’: Meta-Analysis: Methods and Applications to Policy; How Can Large Registries Contribute to the Development and Evaluation of CNS Therapeutics?; Evaluating Biomarkers for Schizophrenia: Assessing Assessment Methodologies: Suicidal Ideation and Behavior Assessment; and Adaptive Design in Clinical Trials.

“Once again, a diverse group of global leaders from the CNS research community had the opportunity to address the challenges we face in this field,” states Richard Keefe, PhD, Duke University Medical Center, and president-elect of ISCTM. “ISCTM’s commitment to working synergistically with leaders in industry, academia and government to advance innovative CNS trial methodology is crucial at this time, and was very clearly represented in the program presented in our Autumn Meeting.”

ISCTM is scheduled to meet again in Washington D.C., 21-23 February 2012. (Preliminary Schedule)

Imaging Biomarkers in Schizophrenia Literature Review

O Agid, D Mamo, N Ginovart, I Vitcu, AA Wilson, RB Zipursky, S Kapur. Striatal Vs Extrastriatal Dopamine D2 Receptors in Antipsychotic Response-A Double-Blind PET Study in Schizophrenia. Neuropsychopharmacology (2007) 32, 1209–1215.
Article: http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v32/n6/full/1301242a.html

O Agid, D Mamo, N Ginovart, I Vitcu, AA Wilson, RB Zipursky, S Kapur. Striatal Vs Extrastriatal Dopamine D2 Receptors in Antipsychotic Response-A Double-Blind PET Study in Schizophrenia. Neuropsychopharmacology (2007) 32, 1209–1215.
Article: http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v32/n6/full/1301242a.html

George Bartzokis, Po H. Lu, Stephanie B. Stewart, Bolanle Oluwadara, Andrew J. Lucas, Joanna Pantages, Erika Pratt, Jonathan E. Sherin, Lori L. Altshuler, Jim Mintz, Michael J. Gitlin, Kenneth L. Subotnik, and Keith H. Nuechterlein. In vivo evidence of differential impact of typical and atypical antipsychotics on intracortical myelin in adults with schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 2009 Sep;113(2-3):322-31. Epub 2009 Jul 17.
Article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2862048/?tool=pubmed/
Schizophrenia, second generation antipsychotic medication, atypical, intracortical myelin, white matter, gray matter, oligodendrocyte, trajectory, development, lipid, age, prevention

George Bartzokis, Po H. Lu, Chetan P. Amar, Erika P. Raven, Nicole R. Detore, Lori L. Altshuler, Jim Mintz, Joseph Ventura, Laurie R. Casaus, John S. Luo, Kenneth L. Subotnik, Keith H. Nuechterlein. Long acting injection versus oral risperidone in ﬁrst-episode schizophrenia: Differential impact on white matter myelination trajectory. Schizophr Res. 2011 Jul 16. [Epub ahead of print].
Article: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0920996411003665/
Antipsychotic; Medication; Dopamine; Second generation; Atypical; Myelin; White matter; Gray matter; Oligodendrocyte; Development; Aging

Giuseppe Blasi, Teresa Popolizio, Paolo Taurisano, Grazia Caforio, Raffaella Romano, Annabella Di Giorgio, Fabio Sambataro, Valeria Rubino, Valeria Latorre, Luciana Lo Bianco, Leonardo Fazio, Marcello Nardini, Daniel R. Weinberger, and Alessandro Bertolinoa. Changes in prefrontal and amygdala activity during olanzapine treatment in schizophrenia. Psychiatry Res. 2009 July 15; 173(1): 31–38.Article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2736305/?tool=pubmed
Amygdala, Antipsychotic drugs, Emotions, Functional magnetic resonance imaging, Schizophrenia

Benedicto Crespo-Facorroa, Roberto Roiz-Santiáñeza, Rocío Pérez-Iglesiasa, José M. Pelayo-Terána, José M. Rodríguez-Sáncheza, Diana Tordesillas-Gutiérreza, MariLuz Ramíreza, Obdulia Martíneza, Agustin Gutiérrezb, Enrique Marco de Lucasb and José L. Vázquez-Barqueroa. Effect of antipsychotic drugs on brain morphometry: A randomized controlled one-year follow-up study of haloperidol, risperidone and olanzapine. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2008 Dec 12;32(8):1936-43. Epub 2008 Oct 7.
Article: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278584608002935
Antipsychotic drugs; First episode psychosis; Structural neuroimaging

C. Ervin Davis, Dilip V. Jeste and Lisa T. Eylera. Review of longitudinal functional neuroimaging studies of drug treatments in patients with schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 2005 Oct 1;78(1):45-60.
Article: http://www.schres-journal.com/article/S0920-9964%2805%2900199-4/abstract
Functional neuroimaging, Longitudinal studies, Schizophrenia, Drug treatments

R de Greef, A Maloney, P Olsson-Gisleskog, J Schoemaker, J Panagides. Dopamine D2 Occupancy as a Biomarker for Antipsychotics: Quantifyingthe Relationship with Efficacy and Extrapyramidal Symptoms. The AAPS Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, March 2011 (# 2010).
Article: http://www.pharmagateway.net/ArticlePage.aspx?DOI=10.1208/s12248-010-9247-4

L de Haan, M van Bruggen, J Lavalaye, J Booij, P Dingemans, D Linszen. Subjective Experience and D2 Receptor Occupancy in Patients With Recent-Onset Schizophrenia Treated With Low-Dose Olanzapine or Haloperidol: A Randomized, Double-Blind Study. Am J Psychiatry 2003; 160:303–309.
Article: http://www.cnsforum.com/commenteditem/444615d2-2d2e-4da8-81ba-d4b3e7fed615/default.aspx

Ebdrup BH, Skimminge A, Rasmussen H, Aggernaes B, Oranje B, Lublin H, Baaré W, Glenthøj B. Progressive striatal and hippocampal volume loss in initially antipsychotic-naive, first-episode schizophrenia patients treated with quetiapine: relationship to dose and symptoms. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2011 Feb;14(1):69-82. Epub 2010 Aug 12.
Article: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7928650
Brain imaging (MRI), hippocampus, psychopathology, schizophrenia, second-generation, antipsychotic (SGA), striatum

H Ehrenreich, D Degner, J Meller, M Brines, M Be´he´, M Hasselblatt, H Woldt, P Falkai, F Knerlich, S Jacob, N von Ahsen, W Maier, W Bruck, E Ruther, A Cerami, W Becker, and A-L Siren. Erythropoietin: a candidate compound for neuroprotection in schizophrenia. Molecular Psychiatry (2004) 9, 42–54.
Article: http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v9/n1/full/4001442a.html

A Ertugrula, B Volkan-Salancib, K Basara, K Karli Oguzc, B Demira, E Lay Ergunb, S Senturkc, B Erbasb, A Cilac, B Uluga. The effect of clozapine on regional cerebral blood flow and brain metabolite ratios in schizophrenia: Relationship with treatment response. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging 174 (2009) 121–129
Article: http://www.psyn-journal.com/article/S0925-4927(09)00107-3/abstract

Foong J, Maier M, Clark CA, Barker GJ, Miller DH, Ron MA. Neuropathological abnormalities of the corpus callosum in schizophrenia: a diffusion tensor imaging study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2000 Feb;68(2):242-4.
Article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1736778/?tool=pubmed
DTI, schizophrenia, corpus callosum

Friedman JI, Tang C, Carpenter D, Buchsbaum M, Schmeidler J, Flanagan L, Golembo S, Kanellopoulou I, Ng J, Hof PR, Harvey PD, Tsopelas ND, Stewart D, Davis KL. Diffusion tensor imaging findings in first-episode and chronic schizophrenia patients. Am J Psychiatry. 2008 Aug;165(8):1024-32.
Article: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/165/8/1024
DTI, schizophrenia, chronic

P Fusar-Polia, J Perez, M Broome, S Borgwardt, A Placentino, E Caverzasi, M Cortesi, P Veggiotti, P Politia, F Barale, P McGuire. Neurofunctional correlates of vulnerability to psychosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 31 (2007) 465–484
Article: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763406001345

Garver DL, Holcomb JA, Christensen JD. Compromised myelin integrity during psychosis with repair during remission in drug-responding schizophrenia. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2008 Feb;11(1):49-61.
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17708778
DTI, schizophrenia, drug response

G Gründer, C Fellows, H Janouschek,T Veselinovic, C Boy, A Bröcheler, KM Kirschbaum, S Hellmann, KM Spreckelmeyer, C Hiemke, F Rösch, WM Schaefer, I Vernaleken. Brain and Plasma Pharmacokinetics of Aripiprazole in Patients With Schizophrenia: An [18F]Fallypride PET Study. Am J Psychiatry 2008; 165:988–995.
Article; http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/165/8/988

Y Hodé, M Reimold, A Demazières, G Reischl, F Bayle, P Nuss, A Hameg, M Dib, J.P Macher. A positron emission tomography (PET) study of cerebral dopamine D2 and serotonine 5-HT2A receptor occupancy in patients treated with cyamemazine (Tercian). Psychopharmacology (2005) 180: 377–384.
Article: http://www.springerlink.com/content/ql40q3358170lw4l/

Kanaan R, Barker G, Brammer M, Giampietro V, Shergill S, Woolley J, Picchioni M, Toulopoulou T, McGuire P. White matter microstructure in schizophrenia: effects of disorder, duration and medication. Br J Psychiatry. 2009 Mar;194(3):236-42.
Article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2802507/?tool=pubmed
DTI, schizophrenia, medication

S Kapur, G Remington, C Jones, A Wilson, J DaSilva, S Houle, R Zipursky. High Levels of Dopamine D2 Receptor Occupancy With Low-Dose Haloperidol Treatment: A PET Study. Am J Psychiatry 153:7, July 1996.
Article: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/reprint/153/7/948

S Kapur, R Zipursky, C Jones, G Remington, S Houle. Relationship Between Dopamine D2 Occupancy, Clinical Response, and Side Effects: A Double-Blind PET Study of First-Episode Schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry 2000; 157:514–520.
Article: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/157/4/514

S Kapur, R Zipursky, C Jones, CS Shammi, G Remington, P Seeman. A Positron Emission Tomography Study of Quetiapine in Schizophrenia: A Preliminary Finding of an Antipsychotic Effect With Only Transiently High Dopamine D2 Receptor Occupancy. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2000;57:553-559.
Article: http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/57/6/553

S Kapur, R Zipursky, G Remington. Clinical and Theoretical Implications of 5-HT2 and D2 Receptor Occupancy of Clozapine,Risperidone, and Olanzapine in Schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry 156:2, February 1999.
Article: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/156/2/286

S Kapur, R Zipursky, G Remington, C Jones, J DaSilva, AA Wilson, S Houle. 5-HT2 and D2 Receptor Occupancy of Olanzapine in Schizophrenia: A PET Investigation. Am J Psychiatry 155:7, July 1998.
Article: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/155/7/921

S Kapur, R Zipursky, P Roy, C Jones, G Remington, K Reed, S Houle. The relationship between D2 receptor occupancy and plasma levels on low dose oral haloperidol: a PET study. Psychopharmacology (1997) 131:148-152.
Article: http://www.springerlink.com/content/t3rhab14hfcy67ht/

LS Kegeles, Slifstein, WG Frankle, X Xu, El Hackett, S Bae, R Gonzales, J Kim, B Alvarez, R Gil, M Laruelle, A Abi-Dargham. Dose–Occupancy Study of Striatal and Extrastriatal Dopamine D2 Receptors by Aripiprazole in Schizophrenia with PET and [18F]Fallypride. Neuropsychopharmacology (2008) 33, 3111–3125.
Article: http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v33/n13/full/npp200833a.html

AC Lahti, MA Weiler, HH Holcomb, CA Tamminga and KL Cropsey. Modulation of limbic circuitry predicts treatment response to antipsychotic medication: a functional imaging study in schizophrenia. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2009 Dec;34(13):2675-90. Epub 2009 Aug 12.
Article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784027/Schizophrenia, PET, rCBF, haloperidol, olanzapine

Lang DJ, Kopala LC, Vandorpe RA, Rui Q, Smith GN, Goghari VM, Honer WG. An MRI study of basal ganglia volumes in first-episode schizophrenia patients treated with risperidone. Am J Psychiatry. 2001 Apr;158(4):625-31.
Article: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/158/4/625

Lieberman JA, Tollefson GD, Charles C, Zipursky R, Sharma T, Kahn RS, Keefe RS, Green AI, Gur RE, McEvoy J, Perkins D, Hamer RM, Gu H, Tohen M; HGDH Study Group. Antipsychotic drug effects on brain morphology in first-episode psychosis. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005 Apr;62(4):361-70.
Article: http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/62/4/361

D Mamo, A Graff, R Mizrahi, C Shammi, F Romeyer, S Kapur. Differential Effects of Aripiprazole on D2, 5-HT2, and 5-HT1A Receptor Occupancy in Patients With Schizophrenia: A Triple Tracer PET Study. Am J Psychiatry 2007; 164:1411–1417.
Article: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/ajp;164/9/1411

D Mamo, S Kapur, M Keshavan, M Laruelle, C Taylor, P Kothare, P Barsoum, D McDonnell. D2 Receptor Occupancy of Olanzapine Pamoate Depot UsingPositron Emission Tomography: An Open-label Study in Patients with Schizophrenia. Neuropsychopharmacology (2008) 33, 298–304.
Article: http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v33/n2/full/1301409a.html

D Mamo, S Kapur, CM Shammi, G Papatheodorou, S Mann, F Therrien, G Remington. A PET Study of Dopamine D2 and Serotonin 5-HT2 Receptor Occupancy in Patients With Schizophrenia Treated With Therapeutic Doses of Ziprasidone. Am J Psychiatry 2004; 161:818–825.
Article: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/161/5/818

J Mateos, F Lomeña, E Parellada, F Mireia, E Fernandez-Egea, J Pavia, A Prats, F Pons, M Bernardo. Lower striatal dopamine transporter binding in neuroleptic-naive schizophrenic patients is not related to antipsychotic treatment but it suggests an illness trait. Psychopharmacology (2007) 191:805–811
Article: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18710281

Meisenzahl EM, Scheuerecker J, Zipse M, Ufer S, Wiesmann M, Frodl T, Koutsouleris N, Zetzsche T, Schmitt G, Riedel M, Spellmann I, Dehning S, Linn J, Bruckmann H, Moller HJ. Effects of treatment with the atypical neuroleptic quetiapine on working memory function: a functional MRI follow-up investigation. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2006;256(8):522-31.Article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=17151834

E Meisenzahl, G Schmitt, G Gründer, S Dresel, T Frodl, C la Fougère , J Scheuerecker, M Schwarz, R Boerner, J Stauss, K Hahn, H Möller. Striatal D2/ D3 Receptor Occupancy, Clinical Response and Side Effects with Amisulpride: An Iodine-123-Iodobenzamide SPET Study. Pharmacopsychiatry 2008; 41: 169– 175
Article: https://www.thieme-connect.com/DOI/DOI?10.1055/s-2008-1076727

Mitelman SA, Nikiforova YK, Canfield EL, Hazlett EA, Brickman AM, Shihabuddin L, Buchsbaum MS. A longitudinal study of the corpus callosum in chronic schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 2009 Oct;114(1-3):144-53.
Article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2763416/?tool=pubmed
DTI, schizophrenia, longitudinal, corpus callosum

Mori T, Ohnishi T, Hashimoto R, Nemoto K, Moriguchi Y, Noguchi H, Nakabayashi T, Hori H, Harada S, Saitoh O, Matsuda H, Kunugi H. Progressive changes of white matter integrity in schizophrenia revealed by diffusion tensor imaging. Psychiatry Res. 2007 Feb 28;154(2):133-45.
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ 7276660
DTI, schizophrenia

Nahas Z, George MS, Horner MD, Markowitz JS, Li X, Lorberbaum JP, Owens SD, McGurk S, DeVane L, Risch SC. Augmenting atypical antipsychotics with a cognitive enhancer (donepezil) improves regional brain activity in schizophrenia patients: a pilot double-blind placebo controlled BOLD fMRI study. Neurocase. 2003;9(3):274-82.Article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=12925933

John-Paul Nicolo, Gregor E. Berger, Belinda A. Garner, Dennis Velakoulis, Connie Markulev, Melissa Kerr, Patrick D. McGorry, Tina-Marie Proffitt, Mirabel McConchie, Christos Pantelis, Stephen J. Wood. The effect of atypical antipsychotics on pituitary gland volume in patients with first-episode psychosis: A longitudinal MRI study.
Article: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0920996409004927
Pituitary, Schizophrenia, Antipsychotics. First-episode psychosis, Stress

Okugawa G, Nobuhara K, Minami T, Tamagaki C, Takase K, Sugimoto T, Sawada S, Kinoshita T. Subtle disruption of the middle cerebellar peduncles in patients with schizophrenia. Neuropsychobiology. 2004;50(2):119-23.
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ 15292664
DTI, schizophrenia, cerebellar

F Paquet, JP Soucy, E Stip, M Levesque, A Elie, M Bedard. Comparison Between Olanzapine and Haloperidol on Procedural Learning and the Relationship With Striatal D2 Receptor Occupancy in Schizophrenia. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 16:1, Winter 2004
Article: http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/16/1/47

G Remington, D Mamo, A Labelle, J Reiss, C Shammi, E Mannaert, S Mann, S Kapur. A PET Study Evaluating Dopamine D2 ReceptorOccupancy for Long-Acting Injectable Risperidone. Am J Psychiatry 2006; 163:396–401.
Article: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/163/3/396

Christian H. Röder, Janna Marie Hoogendam, and Frederik M. van der Veen. FMRI, Antipsychotics and Schizophrenia. Influence of Different Antipsychotics on BOLD-Signal. Curr Pharm Des. 2010;16(18):2012-25
Article: http://www.benthamdirect.org/pages/content.php?CPD/2010/00000016/00000018/0005B.SGM
Schizophrenia, FMRI, antipsychotics, BOLD, review, dopamine receptor

Schlagenhauf F, Dinges M, Beck A, Wustenberg T, Friedel E, Dembler T, Sarkar R, Wrase J, Gallinat J, Juckel G, Heinz A. Switching schizophrenia patients from typical neuroleptics to aripiprazole: effects on working memory dependent functional activation. Schizophr Res. 2008;118(1-3):189-200.Article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=20189356

J Stone, J Davis, S Leucht, and L Pilowsky. Cortical Dopamine D2/D3 Receptors Are a Common Site of Action for Antipsychotic Drugs—An Original Patient Data Meta-analysis of the SPECT and PET In Vivo Receptor Imaging Literature. Schizophrenia Bulletin vol. 35 no. 4 pp. 789–797, 2009.
Article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2696370/

Szeszko PR, Ardekani BA, Ashtari M, Kumra S, Robinson DG, Sevy S, Gunduz-Bruce H, Malhotra AK, Kane JM, Bilder RM, Lim KO. White matter abnormalities in first-episode schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder: a diffusion tensor imaging study. Am J Psychiatry. 2005 Mar;162(3):602-5.
Article: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=15741480
Diffusion tensor imaging, white matter, schizophrenia, first-episode

Szeszko PR, Robinson DG, Ashtari M, Vogel J, Betensky J, Sevy S, Ardekani BA, Lencz T, Malhotra AK, McCormack J, Miller R, Lim KO, Gunduz-Bruce H, Kane JM, Bilder RM. Clinical and neuropsychological correlates of white matter abnormalities in recent onset schizophrenia. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2008 Apr;33(5):976-84.
Article: http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v33/n5/full/1301480a.html
DTI, schizophrenia, white matter, neuropsychological

Tauscher-Wisniewski S, Kapur S, Tauscher J, Jones C, Daskalakis ZJ, Papatheodorou G, Epstein I, Christensen BK, Zipursky RB. Quetiapine: an effective antipsychotic in first-episode schizophrenia despite only transiently high dopamine-2 receptor blockade. J Clin Psychiatry. 2002 Nov;63(11):992-7.
Article: http://www.psychiatrist.com/abstracts/abstracts.asp?abstract=200211/110205.htm

J Thompson, N Urban, A Abi-Dargham. How have developments in molecular imaging techniques furthered schizophrenia research? Imaging Med. 2009 December 1; 1(2): 135–153.
Article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3020795/

van Veelen NM, Vink M, Ramsey NF, van Buuren M, Hoogendam JM, Kahn RS. Prefrontal lobe dysfunction predicts treatment response in medication-naive first-episode schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 2011;129(2-3):156-162.Article: http://www.schres-journal.com/article/S0920-9964(11)00174-5/abstract
Schizophrenia, fMRI, Medication-naive, Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, Treatment, Treatment response

Voineskos AN, Lobaugh NJ, Bouix S, Rajji TK, Miranda D, Kennedy JL, Mulsant BH, Pollock BG, Shenton ME. Diffusion tensor tractography findings in schizophrenia across the adult lifespan. Brain. 2010 May;133(Pt 5):1494-504.
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20237131
Diffusion tensor imaging, schizophrenia, age-related

R Zipursky, B Christensen, Z Daskalakis, I Epstein, P Roy, I Furimsky, T Sanger, S Kapur. Treatment Response to Olanzapine and Haloperidol and its Association With Dopamine D2 Receptor Occupancy in First-Episode Psychosis. Can J Psychiatry, Vol 50, No 8, July 2005.Article: http://ww1.cpa-apc.org/Publications/Archives/CJP/2005/july/Zipursky-OR.asp

Bibliography on Mitochondria/Mitochondrial Function (relative to CNS/Mental Disorders, Dementia, and Aging)

Alexeyev MF, LEDoux SP and Wilson GL. Mitochondrial DNA and aging. Clin Sci (Lond). 2004 Oct;107(4):355-64
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15279618
DNA, RNA, aging, oxidative phosphorylation

Andreopoulos et al. Lithium & Valproate restore glutamate-glutamine ratios and Ca homeostasis. Pharmacogenom J. 4:365, 2004
Abstract: http://www.nature.com/tpj/journal/v4/n6/abs/6500266a.html
Calcium, glutamate, lithium, vaproic acid

Berk M,Kapczinski F, Andreazza AC, Dean OM, Giorlando F, Maes M, Yücel M, Gama CS, Dodd S, Dean B, Magalhães PVS, Amminger P, McGorry P, Malhi GS:Pathways underlying neuroprogression in bipolar disorder: focus on inflammation, oxidative stress and neurotrophic factors. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2011 Jan;35(3):804-17. Epub 2010 Oct 8.
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20934453
Bipolar disorder, oxidative stress

Bishop NA, Lu T, Yankner BA: Neural mechanisms of ageing and cognitive decline. Nature 2010 Mar 25;464(7288):529-35.
Free Full Text: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2927852/
Aging, cognitive decline

Brandon NJ,Millar JK, Korth C, Sive H, Singh KK, Sawa A: Understanding the role of DISC1 in psychiatric disease and during normal development. JNeurosci. 2009 Oct 14;29(41):12768–75.
Free Full Text: http://www.jneurosci.org/content/29/41/12768.long
Genomics

Caballero A,Ugidos A,Liu B,Öling D,Kvint K,Hao X,Mignat C, Nachin L,Molin M,Nyström T: Absence of mitochondrial translation control proteins extends life span by activating sirtuin-dependent silencing. Mol Cell 2011 May 6;42(3):390–400.
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21549315
Aging, neuroplasticity

Chuang DM, Leng Y, Marinova Z, Kim HJ and Chiu CT. Multiple roles of HDAC inhibition in neurodegenerative conditions. Trends in Neurosciences 32:591 601, 2009
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleListURL&_method=list&_ArticleListID=1786097870&_sort=r&_st=13&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=dd97f3dbf55a814ddb5ff3b150b0aa6e&searchtype=a&view=f
Alzheimer’s Disease, bipolar disorder, glutamate, histone deacetylase, neuroprotection, Parkinson’s disease, stroke, valproic acid
HDAC inhibitor valproic acid protects against excitotoxicity in cultured primary neurons induced by exposure to glutamate, Bipolar disorder, classical mitochondrial disorders and Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, Stroke are potentially treatable by enhancing mitochondrial vigor with HDAC’s

Do KQ, Cabungcal JH, Frank A, Steullet P, Cuenod M: Redox dysregulation, neurodevelopment, and schizophrenia. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2009 Apr;19(2):220–30.
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19481443
Oxidative phosphorylation, schizophrenia

Du H,Guo L et al. Early deficits in synaptic mitochondria in an Alzheimer’s disease mouse model.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2010) Oct. 26, 107 (43): 18670-5.
Free Full text: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2972922/
Alzheimer’s Disease, synaptic transmission

Du J, Wang Y, Hunter R, Wei Y, Blumenthal R, Falke C, Khairova R, Zhou R, Yuan P, Machado-Vieira R, McEwen BS, Manji HK: Dynamic regulation of mitochondrial function by glucocorticoids. PNAS 2009 Mar 3;106(9):3543–8.
Free Full text: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2637276/
Synaptic strength, neuroplasticity, glucocorticoids

Durieux J,Wolff J,Dillin A:The cell-non-autonomous nature of electron transport chain-mediated longevity. Cell 2011 Jan 7;144(1):79–91.
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21215371
Aging, oxidative phosophorylation

Giulivi C, Zhang Y-F, Omanska-Klusek A, Ross-Inta C, Wong S, Hertz-Picciotto I, Tassone F, Pessah IN: Mitochondrial dysfunction in autism. JAMA 2010 Dec 1;304(21):2389-96.
Free Full Text: http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/304/21/2389.long
Autism, neuronal development

Glorioso C, Oh S, Douillard GG, Sibille E: Brain molecular aging, promotion of neurological disease and modulation by Sirtuin5 longevity gene polymorphism. Neurobiol Dis. 2011 Feb;41(2):279–290. Epub 2010 Sep 29.
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20887790
Aging, neurology, genomics, sirtuin 5

Glorioso C, Sibille E: Between destiny and disease: genetics and molecular pathways of human central nervous system aging. Prog Neurobiol. 2011 Feb;93(2):165-81. Epub 2010 Dec 2.
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21130140
Aging

Grossman I, Lutz MW, Crenshaw DG, Saunders AM, Burns DK, Roses AD: Alzheimer’s disease: diagnostics, prognostics and the road to prevention. EPMA J. 2010 Jun;1(2):293–303.
Free Full text: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2987528/?tool=pubmed
Alzheimer, oxidative phosphorylation

Hirai K, Aliev G et al. Mitochondrial Abnormalities in Alzheimer’s Disease. The Journal of Neuroscience (2001) 21 (9): 3017-3023.
Free Full Text: http://www.jneurosci.org/content/21/9/3017.long
Alzheimer’s Disease

Innocenti P, Morrow EH, Dowling DK: Experimental evidence supports a sex-specific selective sieve in mitochondrial genome evolution. Science 2011 May 13;332:845-8.
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21566193
Mt RNA, mt DNA, heritability

Iwamoto K, Bundo M, Kato T: Altered expression of mitochondria-related genes in postmortem brains of patients with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, as revealed by large-scale DNA microarray analysis. Hum Mol Genet. 2005 Jan 15;14(2):241–53. Epub 2004 Nov 24.
Free Full text: http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/2/241.long
Bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, genomics

Jazwinski SM: The retrograde response links metabolism with stress responses, chromatin-dependent gene activation, and genome stability in yeast aging. Gene 2005 Jul 18;354:22–7.
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15890475
Aging, epigenetics, oxidative phosphorylation, yeast

Jazwinski SM: Yeast longevity and aging—the mitochondrial connection. Mech Ageing Dev. 2005 Feb;126(2):243–8.
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15621203
Aging, neurophasticity

Joels M, et al. Acute stress increases calcium current amplitude in rat hippocampus: temporal changes in physiology and gene expression. Eur J Neurosci. 18:1315, 2003
Free Full Text: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1460-9568.2003.02845.x/full
Neuroprotection

Kapogiannis D, Mattson MP. Disrupted energy metabolism and neuronal circuit dysfunction in cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease. Lancet Neurol2011 (10): 187-98.
Free Full text: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3026092/
Alzheimer, oxidative phosphorylation, cognition, circuit

Kato T et al. Mechanisms of altered Ca2+ signalling in transformed lymphoblastoid cells from patients with bipolar disorder. Int J Neuropsych 6:379, 2003
Abstract: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=190573&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S1461145703003717
Calcium, glutamate, lithium, valproic acid

Kelly DP: Aging theories unified. Nature 2011 Feb 17;470(7334):342-3. Epub 2011 Feb 14.
Abstract: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09896.html
Aging

Konradi et al. Arch 42% of genes reduced in BD brains coded for mitochondrial proteins. Gen Psychiat 61:300, 2004
Abstract: http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/61/3/300
Bipolar disorder, gene, mithchondrial proteins

Kudin AP,Kudina TA, Seyfried J, Vielhaber S, Beck H,Elgerand CE Wolfram, Kunz S. Seizure-dependent modulation of mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation in rat hippocampus. Eur J Neurosci. 2002 Apr;15(7):1105-14
Free Full Text: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1460-9568.2002.01947.x/abstract;jsessionid=6C6A0FDC1526A5760D15F90DB97EDA03.d02t04
Oxidative phosphorylation, schizophrenia

Lakatos A. Derbeneva O. Younes D. Keator D. Bakken T. Lvova M. Brandon M. Guffanti G. Reglodi D. Saykin A. Weiner M. Macciardi F. Schork N. Wallace DC. Potkin SG. Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Association between mitochondrial DNA variations and Alzheimer’s disease in the ADNI cohort. Neurobiology of Aging. 31(8):1355-63, 2010
Abstract: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019745801000206X
Alzheimer, DNA, brain imaging

Larsen F J. , Schiffer TA. et al. Dietary Inorganic Nitrate Improves Mitochondrial Efficiency in Humans. Cell Metabolism 13 (2011) 149-159.
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21284982
Oxidative stress, nitrates

Lavu S, Boss O, Eliott PJ, Lambert PD: Sirtuins—novel therapeutic targets to treat age-associated diseases. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2008 Oct;7(10):841-53. Erratum in: Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2009 Jun;(8(6):516.
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18827827
Aging

Lee J, Kim C, Simon DK, Aminova LR, Andreyev AY, Kushnareva YE, Murphy AN, Lonze BE, Kim K, Ginty DD, Ferrante RJ, Ryu H, and Ratan RR. Mitochondrial cyclic AMP response element-binding protein (CREB) mediates mitochondrial gene expression and neuronal survival. J Biol Chem. 2005 Dec 9;280(49):40398-401
Free Full Text: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2612541/
Neuroplasticity, genomics, CREB

Leng, Y. et al. Lithium and VPA provide synergistic neuroprotective effects of in aging CGC cultures. J. Neurosci. 2008;28:2576-2588.
Abstract: http://www.jneurosci.org/content/28/10/2576.abstract?sid=1ab7710e-30b4-46d0-9456-00cf2ec1cbfa
lithium, neuroprotection, valproic acid, Alzheimer’s Diseaes, genomics, mitochondrial membrane 2

Lutz MW, Crenshaw DG, Saunders AM, Roses AD: Genetic variation at a single locus and age of onset for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement. 2010 Mar;6(2):125–31.
Free Full text: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2874876/
Aging, Alzheimer’s disease

Mancuso M, Calsolaro V, Orsucci D et al. Mitochondria, Cognitive Impairment, and Alzheimer’s Disease.Inter Jour Alzh Disease. (2009) July 6, 8 pages.
Free Full Text: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2925259/
Alzheimer’s Disease, cognition

McFarland R, Taylor RW, Turnbull DM. A neurological perspective on mitochondrial disease. Lancet Neurol. (2010);9: 829-40.
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20650404
Neurology, oxidative phosphorylation

McMahon F et al Am J Hum. Patterns of maternal transmission in bipolar affective disorder. Genet 56:1277, 1995
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7762550?dopt=Abstract
mtDNA, oxidative phosphorylation
Function occurs via maternal transmission. Only organelle containing non-nuclear genetic information, consequent to female gamete containing more cytoplasm than male. mtDNA encodes polypeptides essential in oxidative phosphorylation Excess of affected maternal relatives vs male relatives positive for BD (27% vs 14%, P=.004, with 2.3 to 2.8-fold increased risk in offspring of affected mothers.
Mitochondria is only organelle containing non-nuclear genetic information, consequent to female gamete containing more cytoplasm than male. mtDNA encodes polypeptides essential in oxidative phosphorylation . Excess of affected maternal relatives vs male relatives positive for BD (27% vs 14%, P=.004, with 2.3 to 2.8-fold increased risk in offspring of affected mothers.

Navarro A and Boveris A. Brain mitochondrial dysfunction in aging, neurodegeneration, and Parkinson’s disease. Front Aging Neurosci.2010 Sep 1;2. pii: 34
Free Full Text: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2947925/
Alzheimer’s Disease, Parkinson’s Disease, neuroplasticity

Nunomura A, Perry G, Aliev G et al. Oxidative Damage is the Earliest Event in Alzheimer Disease. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol.(2001) Aug; 60 (8): 759-67.
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11487050
Alzheimer’s Disease, oxidative stress

Perova T, Kwan M, Li PP, Warsh JJ. Differential modulation of intracellular Ca2+ responses in B lymphoblasts by mood stabilizers. International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology (2010), 13, 693–702
Abstract: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7819873&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S1461145709000261
bipolar disorder, calcium, lymphoblast, valproate, lithium

Prabakaran S, Swatton JE, Ryan MM, Huffaker SJ, Huang JT, Griffin JL, Wayland M, Freeman T, Dudbridge F, Lilley KS, Karp NA, Hester S, Tkachev D, Mimmack ML, Yolken RH, Webster MJ, Torrey EF, Bahn S: Mitochondrial dysfunction in schizophrenia: evidence for compromised brain metabolism and oxidative stress. Mol. Psychiatry 2004 Jul;9(7):684–97, 643.
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15098003
Schizophrenia, oxidative stress

Quiroz JA1, Gray NA Kato T, Manji HK. Mitochondrially Mediated Plasticity in the Pathophysiology and Treatment of Bipolar Disorder. Neuropsychopharmacology 33, 2551–2565, 2008
Abstract: http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v33/n11/abs/1301671a.html
bipolar disorder; mitochondria; synaptic plasticity; bcl-2; lithium; calcium regulation

Reddy PH , Beal MF. Are mitochondria critical in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease? Brain Research Reviews. 49 (2005) : 618-632.
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16269322
Alzheimer’s Disease

Roses AD: An inherited variable poly-T repeat genotype in TOMM40 in Alzheimer Disease. Arch Neurol.2010 May;67(5):536-41.
Free Full Text: http://archneur.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/67/5/536
Genomics, Alzheimer’s Disease

Roses AD, Lutz MW, Amrine-Madsen H, Saunders AM, Crenshaw DG, Sundseth SS, Huentelman MJ, Welsh-Bohmer KA, Reiman EM: A TOMM40 variable-length polymorphism predicts the age of late-onset Alzheimer’s disease. Pharmacogenomics J. 2010 Oct;10(5):375–84. Epub 2009 Dec 22.
Free Full text: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2946560/
Alzheimer’s disease, genomics, TOMM40

Rossignol DA,Frye RE. Mitochondrial dysfunction in autism spectrum disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Mol Psychiatry (2011) Jan. 25.
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21263444
Autism

Sahin E, Colia S, Liesa M et al. Telomere dysfunction induces metabolic and mitochondrial compromise. (2011) Nature 470 (7334): 359-365.
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21307849
Genomics

Srinivasan V, Kriete A, Sacan A, Jazwinski SM: Comparing the yeast retrograde response and NF-?B stress responses: implications for aging. Aging Cell 2010 Dec;9(6):933–41. Epub 2010 Oct 21.
Free Full text: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1474-9726.2010.00622.x/abstract;jsessionid=B4A083A8FF0FE7D601F7FC179ED5D2CF.d02t01
Aging, oxidative stress

Srinivasan V, Spence DW, Pandi-Perumal SR, Brown GM, Cardinali DP: Melatonin in mitochondrial dysfunction and related disorders. Int J Alzheimers Dis. 2011:326320. Epub 2011 May 4.
Free Full Text: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3100547/?tool=pubmed
Aging, melatonin

Su B, Wang X, Bonda D, Perry G, Smith M, Zhu X. Abnormal Mitochondrial Dynamics – A Novel Therapeutic Target for Alzheimer’s Disease.Mol Neurobiol. (2010) 41: 87-96.
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20101529
Alzheimer’s Disease, oxidative stress

Wallace DC. Colloquium paper: bioenergetics, the origins of complexity, and the ascent of man. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 107 Suppl 2:8947-53, 2010
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3024017/
Genomics, oxidative phosphorylation

Wallace DC. Bioenergetics and the epigenome: interface between the environment and genes in common diseases. [Review] Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews. 16(2):114-9, 2010
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20818725
Genomics, oxidative phosphorylation

Wang X, Su B, Lee H et al. Impaired Balance of Mitochondrial Fission and Fusion in Alzheimer’s Disease.The Journal of Neuroscience (2009) 29 (28): 9090-9103.
Free Full Text: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2735241/
Alzheimer’s Disease

Yang W, Hekimi S: A mitochondrial superoxide signal triggers increased longevity in Caenorhabditis elegans. PLoS Biol. 2010 Dec 7;8(12):e1000556. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000556
Free Full Text: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2998438/
Aging, oxidative stress

Zhou R, Yazdi AS, Menu P, Tschopp J: A role for mitochondria in NLRP3 inflammasome activation. Nature 2011 Jan 13;469(7329):221-5. Epub 2010 Dec 1.
Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21124315
Inflammation

Comments on AHRQ Draft Workgroup Report: Antipsychotics in Adults: Comparative Effectiveness of First‐Generation versus Second‐Generation Medications

Chair: Larry Alphs, MD, PhD, President of ISCTM, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc
Co‐chair: Navid Samad, MD, MPH, Samad Pharma & Biotech Consulting, LLC
Ross J. Baldessarini, MD, Harvard Medical School
Jesse Berlin, ScD, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc
Doug Feltner, MD, Douglas E Feltner, LLC
Reuven Ferziger, MD, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc
Jean‐Pierre Lindenmayer, MD, New York University
Rajiv Radhakrishnan, MD, Yale University School of Medicine
Tanya Ramey, MD, PhD, Pfizer, Inc
Gary Sachs, MD, MA, United BioSource Corporation
Cynthia Siu, PhD, MBA, Data Power, Inc
Paul Stang, PhD, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc
Douglas Vanderburg, MD, Pfizer, Inc

GENERAL COMMENTS
The International Society for CNS Clinical Trials and Methodology (ISCTM) appreciates having an opportunity to comment on a draft report (2011‐0606) prepared by the Evidence‐Based Practice Center of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) of the US Department of Health and Human Services, entitled Antipsychotics in Adults: Comparative Effectiveness of First‐Generation versus Second‐Generation Medications. Recognizing the potential importance of this document to clinicians, clinical investigators and other stakeholders, ISCTM convened the working group listed above to review and comment on this report. As a society interested primarily in methods employed in clinical research on CNS‐active agents, our comments focus largely on methodological considerations and the validity of the conclusions that can be drawn from the analyses reported.

ISCTM recognizes that a great deal of effort has gone into the draft report, and understands that the approaches utilized represent several widely accepted methods to analyze disparate sets of data. We support AHRQ’s intentions to provide information aimed at helping clinicians, employers, insurers, manufacturers, policymakers, and other stakeholders to make informed decisions about providing health care services involving older and newer antipsychotic drugs. We further note that AHRQ states that the conclusions of this report do not necessarily represent its views or those of the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services.

This report is being issued by an influential agency of the federal government and its conclusions are likely to be read with great interest and acted upon by a variety of interested persons. Consequently, the work should meet rigorous scientific standards. ISCTM agrees with the writers of the AHRQ draft report that most studies considered for analysis are not of sufficient quality to resolve questions of comparative effectiveness or to support the report’s conclusions. On this basis and due to concerns about the methods employed (see below), ISCTM proposes that the current state of comparative effectiveness data available to support meta‐analyses of efficacy data pertaining to older (“first‐generation” [FGA]) and more recently introduced (“second‐generation” [SGA]) antipsychotic drugs is so low that very few claims regarding the comparative therapeutic efficacy and side effects of these highly pharmacologically and clinically heterogeneous classes of agents. We are further concerned that the sheer volume of material presented in the AHRQ report may suggest that more or firmer conclusions can be made than are possible. Consequently, we suggest that many of the tables presented in the main report be provided in an appendix, with the main report focusing on the few valid conclusions, with critical discussion of limitations, and suggestions for improving the state of the research data on this topic. We are particularly concerned that limited and potentially unreliable and misleading findings of an apparent lack of statistically significant differences between types of drugs might be misconstrued as providing firm support for similarity of efficacy or safety. We suggest that concerns expressed in our commentary be highlighted in the Structured Abstract of the AHRQ report so that even casual and non‐expert readers will be aware of the major limitations of the available evidence and their valid interpretation.

STRUCTURED ABSTRACT AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Primary Conclusion
Our most important recommendation is that the AHRQ report emphasize as a primary conclusion that the studies available for analysis were not adequately designed to support sound comparative effectiveness analyses, and that biases inherent in them make it difficult, if not impossible, to draw conclusions about the relative efficacy of FGAs versus SGAs, particularly as the comparison groups are frankly arbitrary classes of highly pharmacologically and clinically dissimilar agents. Overall, ISCTM reviewers find the draft AHRQ report to be inconclusive, and are concerned about incomplete, inconsistent, or erroneous reporting of clinical trial results in several sections of the report, some of which are highlighted below.

Overall rationale for the AHRQ analysis
As a general observation, a clear, compelling rationale for this study is not provided. The AHRQ report indicates that “both FGA and SGA are associated with a range of side effects.” The differences identified represent commonly held perceptions regarding dissimilar adverse‐event profiles between SGAs and FGAs. However, the range of adverse effects varies extensively among specific drugs in both classes, as well as among doses, so as to yield largely inconclusive comparisons of agents considered as FGA vs. SGA drugs. With respect to SGAs, it is stated that “SGAs are generally thought to have a lower risk of motor side effects, but most are associated with a higher risk of weight gain, elevated lipid and prolactin levels, and development of type 2 diabetes mellitus.” This statement is too broad and over‐inclusive, especially regarding risk of developing type 2 diabetes or hyperprolactinemia as well as risk of adverse neurological effects (notably including akathisia), which vary markedly among the class of SGAs and with their doses. Further, the draft AHRQ report asserts that “SGAs have shown greater benefits in many outcome domains compared with FGAs” (page 2). This statement is both confusing and inappropriate as it presents as a prior conclusion the question being asked by the study, and is not supported by the evidence reviewed in the report itself, and indeed may not be possible to answer given the limitations of the data available.

Based on the preceding considerations, we do not agree that there are fundamental defining pharmacological or clinical differences between FGA and SGA other than an arbitrary time of their discovery or licensing, and some differences in their receptor‐binding profiles, so that focusing on putative clinical differences between FGA and SGA with respect to either antipsychotic efficacy or adverse effects risks being arbitrary as well as being poorly supported by the data analyzed. Indeed, the highly heterogeneous pharmacologic and adverse‐event characteristics among so‐called FGA and SGA or ‘typical versus atypical’ antipsychotics surely limit groups differences between them. Further, it is a matter of considerable concern that the AHRQ report lacks comment on effects of drug dose, route of administration, or patient characteristics (notably, age and current clinical status) on risks or severity of many adverse effects. With respect to FGA, the database is limited by the number of studies and the predominance of haloperidol as the most commonly employed FGA comparator. The over‐representation of haloperidol as a prototypical FGA is likely to be misleading and not to support generalizations, especially as haloperidol is a high‐potency FGA and has often been administered at relatively high doses. Further, existing data suggest that FGAs of high and low potency may have meaningfully dissimilar adverse‐effect profiles. It would be preferable for the AHRQ report to focus on individual drug comparisons with large numbers of trials, and to provide additional, critical assessments of the generally low quality of available data.

Examples of inconsistencies
The Structured Abstract, states (Page v): “Risperidone was favored over haloperidol for positive symptoms and total psychosis score.” At the same time, the Executive Summary, states (Page ES 7, Table ES 2 – under “Positive Symptoms”): “Significant difference favoring risperidone for PPI. No difference for PANSS or SAPS.”

It may appear to a reader that the conclusion “Significant difference favoring risperidone for PPI” (with a “Low” strength of evidence) was drawn from 24 RCTs. However, Table 20 (Evidence summary table: haloperidol versus risperidone) clearly shows that PPI data came from only one of 24 (4.2%) trials, involving only 30 (0.7%) of all 4317 subjects, included in the positive symptom analysis for comparing risperidone vs. haloperidol. Authors found non‐significant difference in PANSS (pooling 20 studies, n=4064) between risperidone and haloperidol [effect estimate 0.51 (‐0.15 to 1.17)].

Since additional inconsistent, incomplete, or erroneous reporting was found throughout the AHRQ report, we urge that the findings and conclusions summarized in the Structured Abstract and Executive Summary provide additional essential information for each reported outcome: [a] a general assessment of the quality of studies included, [b] specific assessment of the comparability of studies and their suitability for pooling, [c] the numbers of trials and of subjects contributing to specific findings (e.g., only one trial and 30 subjects for positive symptoms, out of 24 trials analyzed), [d] an indication of the quality of evidence specific to each major outcome, whether pre‐specified or not.

Discrepant Findings
The conclusion in the AHRQ reports that there was “No difference for PANSS or SAPS” (Page ES 7, Table ES 2 – under “Positive Symptoms”) for haloperidol vs. risperidone contradicts the meta‐analytic findings pooled from RCTs as reported by Leucht et al. (2009). That review reported significant differences favoring risperidone over haloperidol with respect to positive symptoms (21 studies, n=2739, Hedges’g = –0.12, p=0.002; web appendix cs4, page 8), overall symptoms (27 studies, n=3258, g = –0.15, p=0.001; web appendix cs4, page 8), and negative symptoms (23 studies, n=2908, g = –0.13, p=0.001; web appendix cs4, page 8). Similar results also were found in comparisons of various doses of risperidone versus haloperidol given at daily doses of ≤12 mg (web appendix cs4, page 8), or all FGAs (p 34, Table 2).

Furthermore, we found that the AHRQ analysis results (Table ES‐2) with respect to effectiveness of clozapine and olanzapine (vs. FGAs) stand in contradiction to findings from a recent, well conducted meta‐analysis by Leucht et al. (2009, Lancet). Such inconsistencies of the AHRQ analyses with another
important and relevant meta‐analysis should be addressed in the report.

High or Uncertain Risk of Bias
The AHRQ report recognizes that reasons for an “uncertain risk of bias” include unclear reporting regarding sequencing of treatments, concealment of allocation to specific treatment‐arms, and methods of blinding. Common reasons for trials to be assessed as having a “high risk of bias” include lack of convincing blinding procedures or inadequate analysis or reporting of outcome data. We recommend that these limitations be stated more strongly in the report when they are identified, and specifically highlighted in the Structured Abstract before any results are stated or conclusions drawn.

Selective reporting of adverse events
Justification should be provided for why only four adverse event categories were selected for emphasis (diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome, tardive dyskinesia, and mortality). No reason is given why other forms of adverse neurological effects (including acute dystonia or dyskinesia, akathisia, and bradykinesia, as well as excess sedation), cardiovascular effects (including hypotension and cardiac conduction defects or arrthymias), or risks associated with pregnancy are not considered. These significant omissions suggest under‐appreciation of the occurrence of a range of adverse effects, particularly with respect to FGAs. In addition, the ability of the included trials to detect meaningful differences in adverse‐event risks should be discussed, especially in trials relying on typically passive and incidental reporting of clinically observed adverse events or patient‐complaints, rather than specific assessments. It is problematic that studies with radically different approaches to adverse‐event reporting are combined for this meta‐analysis. Since many comparisons are made among adverse‐event rates associated with individual drugs, it would be useful to evaluate the validity of the comparisons based on critical assessments of the quality of the methods of ascertainment, the number of trials, analyses, and subjects involved, and to limit comparisons to instances where the available data are abundant and of plausible quality.

Adverse events often exert a highly variable impact on the ‘effectiveness’ of drug‐treatment. Many experts consider it important to weight adverse events (as is done for other measures of effectiveness). For example, tardive dyskinesia or akathisia are far more distressing to patients than minor elevations in serum concentrations of transaminases or glucose, and far more likely to impact treatment‐adherence and long‐term effectiveness. Weighting of the likely clinical importance of each adverse effect (by subjective distress and by clinical significance) should improve estimates of effectiveness and better support assessment of trade‐off decisions that must be made clinically. We recognize that this approach is still emerging but it would be valuable to highlight its potential value in the AHRQ report.

Failure to address clinical heterogeneity of schizophrenia
Another significant limitation of analyses of trials in subjects diagnosed with schizophrenia is that their clinical status at the time of randomization is often heterogeneous and poorly defined: past history, illness‐severity, and previous or even current treatments are rarely documented. For instance, patients considered to be in first‐lifetime episodes of schizophrenia, those in acute phases of exacerbation of chronic psychotic illnesses, or in relatively stable chronic phases, as well as those with prominent negative versus positive symptoms, ill‐defined ‘schizoaffective’ disorders, or substantial evidence of dementia, tend to be lumped together within or among trials, despite their obvious clinical heterogeneity. Further, trials typically vary greatly in patient descriptions, locations and cultures, assessment methods, drug doses and durations, drop‐out rates, and adverse‐event reporting techniques. Many other sources of variance are not often defined or measured, but may severely limit comparability of trials and generalizability of findings. Even more troubling is that studies of acutely exacerbated patients (that examine treatment of acute symptoms and their maintenance) and stable patients (that examine only maintenance of therapeutic effect) have been lumped together in the same analysis. As outlined below, this represents a major methodological and logical shortcoming, with a high likelihood for heterogeneous, and therefore, inconclusive outcomes. Signal detection will be very different in these different study populations. Overly broad and heterogeneous inclusion criteria foster noisy outcomes, especially when the number of included studies is small. Significant heterogeneity and bias in the data (e.g., reviewer bias, publication bias, etc) lead to discordant results on the main outcome variables studied. Overall, these limitations will increase heterogeneity and reduce the ability to detect signals when studies are pooled.

Limitations in assessments of data quantity and quality
We agree with the AHRQ report’s conclusion that the quality and abundance of evidence are low for almost all of the questions addressed in the report. Even when the available evidence is of even moderate quality, numbers of comparisons and of subjects is often low. Overall, these circumstances make it difficult or risky to draw firm conclusions and to make clinical or treatment‐policy recommendations. They also cast serious doubts on the overall quality and strength of conclusions generated by this report, and severely limit their potential value to guide clinical care or policies. We certainly agree with the report’s conclusion that more studies are required to support recommendations to clinicians, patients, payers, and policy‐makers.

Outcome measures
Statements to the effect that clinically‐relevant outcome measures are rarely assessed appear in several places in the draft report, including in the sub‐section Conclusions. (“Outcomes potentially important to patients were rarely assessed.”) Typically reported are scores from standardized symptom‐rating scales, which may or may not be clinically important, and usually change very little in treatment trials involving chronically psychotic participants. Measures pertaining to functional status and quality‐of‐life have historically been infrequently included in trials of antipsychotic drugs or in their meta‐analytic reviews. Yet, many symptomatic outcomes (sedation, restlessness, awkwardness, depression, anxiety, and others) that typically are not assessed, are prevalent and perceived as important by patients and their families, and as needing relief and perhaps tending toward discontinuation of treatment. These limitations call for more explicit discussion in the report.

Efficacy versus effectiveness
Most of the treatment trials evaluated in the AHRQ report are studies of efficacy and not effectiveness. As mentioned in the draft report, there are very few effectiveness studies available for analysis. An early report by AHRQ itself (Criteria for Distinguishing Effectiveness from Efficacy Trials in Systematic Reviews) discusses the sensitivity and specificity of seven criteria to distinguish effectiveness from efficacy. If these criteria were applied to the AHRQ’s own report on antipsychotic drug‐comparisons, some of the trials included surely would be assessed as “poor” with respect to criteria for effectiveness, and it would be appropriate to include this information in an ARHQ‐sponsored document.

Responses in subgroups
Many clinicians will want to know which drugs (or combinations) are likely to be safer and better tolerated, as well as most effective, for particular types of patients. However, most of the analyses provided in the AHRQ report deal with effects observed in heterogeneous populations and poorly controlled drug doses, without regard to potential subgroups defined by especially high or low efficacy or tolerability. The little information that does consider subgroups usually arises from comparisons of rare trials and few subjects. The resulting data are likely to provide only weak support for conclusions about sub‐populations. We understand that this outcome reflects the limitations of the available data, but it would be valuable to discuss this limitation and to include it as an unmet need.

Limitations of data presented
The amount of detail provided in the AHRQ report across comparisons varies markedly, and may give the impression that some conclusions rest on more abundant or robust data than is the case. Rather than attempting to draw conclusions from sparse and heterogeneous data, it would be more valuable to identify the limitations of the evidence underlying each comparison and conclusion presented, and to restrict those reported to relatively adequate data, with recommendations of additional information that is needed from future studies. In addition, numerous clinical outcome measures and rating‐scale scores are included, which may or may not address the same or comparable endpoints. It would be helpful to base comparisons on similar outcome measures across trials, or to address variance in outcome measures when it arises.

Types of trials included and excluded
The AHRQ report focuses on direct, head‐to‐head, comparison trials, which are not common in studies of most types of psychotropic drugs. This strategy should improve internal validity of the comparisons since the conditions of observation are presumably well‐matched. However, this decision led to the exclusion of a very large body of trial‐results based on comparisons to placebo, or other designs. Moreover, head‐to‐head trials without a placebo‐control condition carry high risks of finding “no apparent difference” leading to potentially false conclusions of equal efficacy. An alternative is to carry out indirect comparisons using such statistical approaches as mixed‐treatment meta‐analysis. Such analytic methods are most credibly applied when patient samples are truly comparable across trials, and other potentially relevant factors can fairly be assumed to be comparable or irrelevant to measured treatment‐effects (e.g. calendar time, severity and duration of illness, prior treatment resistance, sex, age). ). Given increasingly recognized secular trends in findings from clinical trials that include rising placebo‐associated effects and lower effect‐sizes, if indirect comparisons are made, their limitations should be clearly identified.

METHODS

Definition of key terms
An important limitation of the draft AHRQ report is that several key terms are not defined. Instead, we urge inclusion of a list of abbreviations used, and definitions of key terms and constructs. Further, studies selected for analysis should use terms consistent with the definitions provided. It is impossible to list all terms that should be defined, but they should include, at least: ‘effectiveness,’ ‘efficacy,’ ‘comparative effectiveness,’ ‘comparative efficacy,’ ‘first generation antipsychotics (FGA),’ ‘second generation antipsychotics (SGA),’ ‘total psychosis score,’ and others. Failure to provide clear definitions leads to both confusion and potential misinterpretations.

Comparison AHRQ and Leucht reviews
The AHRQ report provides comprehensive analyses of apparent comparative efficacy of first‐generation (FGA) versus second‐generation agents (SGA) arising from direct, head‐to‐head comparisons in individual, randomized, controlled trials. However, three of the SGAs (clozapine, olanzapine, risperidone), involve results that do not accord with a similar analysis of their efficacy compared to FGAs in a recent, well conducted meta‐analysis by Leucht et al. (Lancet, 2009). Given the high quality of the methods used in the Leucht meta‐analysis, the AHRQ report should note their differences and attempt to explain them, including consideration of approaches to identifying, retrieving, analyzing and interpreting data. Some differences in approach between the AHRQ report and that of Leucht et al. that may have led to differing conclusions are provided below. In particular, it may be instructive to consider the comparison of responses to haloperidol vs. risperidone based on BPRS or PANSS ratings.

Among the 20 comparisons of FGAs versus individual SGAs in the AHRQ report (Table 6, page 20), 12 (60%) involved only one study. For the key efficacy measures (changes in BPRS or PANSS total scores), there were 14 studies of olanzapine‐vs.‐haloperidol and 20 studies of risperidone‐vs.‐haloperidol. The modest numbers of trials involved in these comparisons, severely limit statistical power to identify differences or variance in outcomes (page 15), and limit the value of the comparisons. In contrast, Leucht et al. (2009) pooled outcomes for all FGAs, and compared individual SGAs with pooled FGAs or with haloperidol (in a sensitivity analysis). Haloperidol was the most‐often used FGA in both the AHRQ report (Table 6) and in Leucht et al. (2009).

Sampling
The search cut‐off date for the AHRQ report was July 2010, or nearly four years later than October 2006 in Leucht et al. (2009). Nevertheless, by combining key efficacy measures (PANSS, BPRS or BPRS derived from PANSS scores), Leucht et al. (2009) included a greater number of double‐blind, randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) in comparisons of individual SGAs vs. FGAs for efficacy assessments (aripiprazole [n=5], clozapine [23], olanzapine [28], quetiapine [11], risperidone [34], and ziprasidone [5]). This greater number of trials allowed separate analyses for: [a] comparison of individual SGAs with haloperidol, [b] separate analysis of short‐term studies (<12 weeks), and [c] exclusion of studies conducted in Asia as potentially incomparable clinically to Western trials. Results were consistent with those obtained in pooling all double‐blind studies (see Leucht et al. [2009], web Appendix cs4.pdf, pages 5 to 10).

Dosing variance
The AHRQ draft report states “we combined data across the available dosing arms before conducting the meta‐analysis” (AHRQ report, page 16). In contrast, the report by Leucht et al. (2009) states that “For fixed‐dose studies, we selected only those with optimum doses of second‐generation antipsychotic drugs as reported in dose‐finding studies” (Leucht et al. [2009, p 32). These included the following total daily mg‐doses: amisulpride 50–300 for predominantly negative symptoms and 400–800 for positive symptoms; aripiprazole 10–30; olanzapine 10–20; quetiapine >250; risperidone 4–6; sertindole 16–24; and ziprasidone 120–160 (Leucht 2009, page 32). Because most fixed‐dose trials included multiple arms and clinically suboptimal dose groups for SGAs, estimates of treatment‐effects extracted from pooled dosing arms can be seriously biased. For example, comparison of a fixed daily dose of haloperidol 10 mg (n=226) with a range of doses of risperidone 1–16 mg (n=1136) as reported by Pueskens et al. (1995) is unlikely to be clinically meaningful.

Estimates of treatment effects
For individual continuous outcome measures, the AHRQ report “extracted the mean with the accompanying measure of variance for each treatment group or the mean difference (MD) between treatments” and “analyzed continuous data as post‐treatment score or absolute difference (or change score) from baseline” (page 14). In contrast, Leucht et al. (2009) “assessed the mean overall change in symptoms, with the following order: change in PANSS total score from baseline, if not available then the change in the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), and then values of these scales at study endpoint” (page 32).

Study selection‐bias
In the AHRQ draft report, comparisons of haloperidol (total N=676) and risperidone (N=1875) based on BPRS total‐scores involved 12 studies in patients with acutely exacerbated (7 studies) or chronic schizophrenia (5 studies) (page K‐16). An overall estimate of efficacy was calculated as a weighted average of the difference in group means. Small variances were observed with haloperidol (least squares (LS) mean –0.14 ± 0.22 [SD], N=30) and with risperidone (LS mean 0.14 ± 0.23, N=33) in a 2‐year maintenance trial involving initially clinically stable schizophrenia patients (Marder et al. 2003), and 44.4% of total weighting for meta‐analysis was assigned to this single study. In contrast, Leucht et al. (2009) assigned a relatively small weight to this trial among a total of 34 studies (see in Figure 1f in Leucht et al. [2009], web Appendix). The second largest weight (34.9%) was assigned to a practical clinical trial for comparing haloperidol (mean improvement: –23.1 ± 1.40, n=56) and risperidone (–23.9 ± 1.4, n=61) involving short‐term treatment of a variety of first‐episode nonaffective psychotic illnesses (Crespo‐Facorro et al. 2006). It is particularly troubling that the heavily‐weighted Marder et al. (2003) study followed patients who were already stably‐treated at baseline, with little expected improvement and low variance, whereas many other trials involved acutely exacerbated psychotic patients with greater room for improvement, but larger variance. It is questionable whether such dissimilar trial can fairly be pooled.

The AHRQ draft report states that 8,798 records were screened 1,162 (13%) were considered further, and only 122 (1.4%) included for analysis. This highly selected sampling surely required a great deal of reviewer‐judgment and risk of including many reports that most likely provided insufficient information to exclude major potential biases.

It is also likely that trials comparing an index antipsychotic agent with placebo and not an active comparator were excluded from analysis or that those that may have been included lacked a placebo‐control group, or were biased toward unmatched subject‐counts and variance across treatment‐arms, as is typical of trials that include both placebo and active comparators. This possibility should be addressed and clarified in the report.

Analytical models
The reported AHRQ analysis employed a DerSimonian‐Laird method of meta‐analysis to estimate the average true effect and its variability of FGAs (most often haloperidol) and various SGAs. Given the small number of studies involved in most of the comparisons, can introduce statistical problems with this method, and suggest that limited statistical power and sub‐optimal methods to pool the available research findings are likely.

Quality and bias assessment
The AHRQ report states that “The overall assessment was based on the responses to individual domains. If one or more of the individual domains had a high risk of bias, we rated the overall score as having high risk of bias. We rated the overall risk of bias as low only if all components were assessed as having a low risk of bias. The overall risk of bias was unclear for all other studies” (page 13). Currently, the use of quality scores in meta‐analysis is discouraged in favor of considering individual aspects of study design, such as dropout rates.

Assessments of depressive and anxiety symptoms
Page 4 of the AHRQ report states, “The MADRS is a generic depression diagnostic questionnaire used by psychiatrists to measure the severity of depressive episodes.” The MADRS is neither “generic” nor “diagnostic,” rather, it is a depression symptom severity measure intended for use in subjects already diagnosed with major depressive disorder. It has also been used empirically in samples involving other diagnoses, but the levels of psychometric support for such applications are limited. These statements should be corrected, and a rationale for considering depressive symptoms in schizophrenia patients provided.

There are additional basic errors in understanding in the AHRQ report of how other scales should be used. Examples include: [i] the Covi Anxiety Scale is referenced as a measure to evaluate positive symptoms for answering key question #1 (page 53); however, this scale is not designed to assess positive symptoms, and is therefore not an appropriate measurement tool to address this aspect of key question #1; [ii] the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS) is used to compare negative symptoms; however this rating scale designed to assess depressive symptoms and not negative symptoms of schizophrenia; [iii] YMRS, MADRS, and CGI‐BP are listed as “Measures of neurocognition for schizophrenia” although they are, respectively, measures for mania, major depression symptoms, and overall clinical impressions regarding bipolar disorder. These inconsistencies and errors are likely to affect evaluations of antipsychotic drug treatments among subgroups (key question #5, page 54). They require correction and further discussion and justification for their use in the AHRQ report.

Bipolar Disorder
It is highly questionable to lump comparisons involving such dissimilar illnesses as bipolar disorder and schizophrenia (p 60), especially as bipolar disorder presents in a range of episodic clinical syndromes (mania, mixed‐states, depression, sometimes psychosis) and levels of severity. For key question 1, comparison of treatment with olanzapine and haloperidol focuses on sleep, which may not respond similarly in bipolar disorder and in schizophrenia. This comparison also involves a “total score,” which is not adequately defined, and the descriptions involved will be hard to follow by non‐experts.

Moreover, comparisons of antipsychotic treatments among bipolar disorder patients (Table 51) are confounded by differences in doses of haloperidol used for this disorder and for schizophrenia. A key trial comparing olanzapine with relatively low doses of haloperidol for bipolar disorder patients, found “no difference” between the treatments. On the other hand, a major comparison of haloperidol with ziprasidone in bipolar disorder used relatively high doses of haloperidol, and found haloperidol to be significantly superior to the SGA. These dissimilar conclusions may simply reflect differences in dosing, and call for comment.

REFERENCE

Leucht S, Corves C, Arbter D, Engel RR, Li C, Davis JM, Second‐generation versus first‐generation antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia: a meta‐analysis. Lancet. 2009 Jan 3;373(9657):31‐41. Epub 2008 Dec 6.

FINAL STATEMENT

Again, ISCTM thanks AHRQ for the opportunity to review this draft document. It is our hope that our comments will be helpful for revising the report. Should there be questions about any of our comments, we would be happy to discuss them with the AHRQ authors.

Contact Information:
Larry Alphs, President ISCTM
lalphs@its.jnj.com

Carlotta McKee, Executive Director ISCTM
cmckee@isctm.org

ISCTM
PO Box 128061
Nashville, TN 37212
www.isctm.org

WS3: Assessing Assessment Methodologies: Weighing Choices Based on Indications, Study Design and Needs

The increasing number of failed trials and unexpected negative results have raised the need to re-visit assessment methodology both in terms of study entry criteria and of ongoing severity assessments. Reducing the number of raters, better raters training, videotaping and reviewing ratings, use of patient-reported outcomes in various ways, and centralized rating have been proposed and utilized as alternatives to the traditional ratings. In this workshop we will discuss strengths and limitations of each, applicability to indications, and study designs. There will be a particular emphasis on data addressing how reliable and valid the alternatives are, and whether they improve drug-placebo signal or reduce placebo response relative to traditional site-based ratings. The discussion will focus on gaps in the existing data and future studies that are needed.

WS2: Evaluating Imaging Biomarkers for Schizophrenia: Issues in Identification, Categorization and Evaluation

Chairs: Nathan Chen, MD, PhD; Susan DeSanti, PhD; Steven Potkin, MD; Henry Riordan, PhD

Identifying relevant biomarkers for schizophrenia is increasingly important for drug development and use in personalized medicine. This workshop will focus on identifying and evaluating imaging biomarkers in schizophrenia. It will include those related to anatomical, functional, and circuitry measures and will seek to describe their value, their limitations and gaps in our understanding about them that must be filled to optimize their value. At this workshop, data from a review of current literature will be presented for evaluation and discussion with the objective of developing a white paper or manuscript for publication.

2012 Autumn: Approaches to Improve Signal Detection in Studies Comparing Drug and Placebo Workshop

Chair: Amir Kalali, MD

Previous work by participants in this workshop has identified four areas of focus: Fit for purpose design, sponsor engagement, data sharing, and patient selection. This session will focus on developing strategies to address these issues as well as continue development of manuscript.

WS1: How Can Large Registries Contribute to the Development and Evaluation of CNS Therapeutics?

Objective of workshop is to discuss the role of patient registries as an approach to collecting data related to efficacy and safety of a pharmacological treatment.

WS4: Suicidal Thinking and Behavior Assessment: Implementation in Current Trials

Chairs: Adam Butler, Michelle Stewart, PhD

Workshop will review and discuss data collected from survey assessing site experiences with implementing suicidal behavior and thinking (SBT) assessments in clinical trials in various phases of development. Focus will be on interpretation of the results and implications for future work in this area. Group will develop white paper or manuscript following the workshop.

Author Archive

Biomarkers Working Group Dinner