throbber
Mattingly et al. BMC Psychiatry
`
`https://doiorg/10.1186/s12888 020 02523 1
`
`(2020) 20:199
`
`BMC Psychiatry
`
` RESEARCH ARTICLE
`Open Access
`Switching to Lurasidone following 12

`monthsof treatment with Risperidone:
`“
`results of a 6-month, open-label study
`Greg W.Mattingly’, Peter M. Haddad*3*°, Michael Tocco®, Jane Xu®, Debra Phillips®, Andrei Pikalov® and
`Antony Loebel®
`
`Keywords: Lurasidone, Antipsychotic agents, Schizophrenia, Adverse effects, Weight, Metabolic, Lipids, Prolactin
`
`Abstract
`
`Background:Patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia are at an increased risk for developing metabolic syndrome,
`which is associated with greater cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Treatment with some commonly used
`antipsychotic medications may increase the risk of developing metabolic syndrome. The aim of the study was to
`evaluate the safety of lurasidone in patients who continued lurasidone or switched from risperidone to lurasidone. A
`secondary aim was assessmentof the effect of long term lurasidone on the Positive and Negative SyndromeScale
`(PANSS).
`Methods: The treatment sample in the current study consisted of clinically stable patients with schizophrenia
`(N= 223) who had completed a 12 month, double blind study of lurasidone vs. risperidone. In the current
`extension study, all patients received 6 months of open label treatment with lurasidone, either continuing
`lurasidone assigned during the preceding doubleblind trial, or switching from double blind risperidone to
`lurasidone. Safety and tolerability parameters included body weight, prolactin, and metabolic laboratory tests.
`Results: Six months of OL treatment with lurasidone was generally well tolerated, with a low incidence of parkinsonism
`(4.5%) and akathisia (3.1%). Overall, few adverse events were rated as severe (4.9%), and discontinuation due to an adverse
`event was low in the lurasidone continuation vs. risperidone switch groups (3.7% vs. 6.9%). In the lurasidone continuation
`versus risperidone switch groups, change from OL baseline to 6 month endpoint (observed case) was observed in mean
`body weight (— 0.6 vs. 26 kg), median total cholesterol (— 4.0 vs. + 4.5 mg/dL), triglycerides (— 4.5 vs. 5.5 mg/dL), glucose (0.0
`vs. 3.0 mg/dL) and prolactin (males, +0.15 vs. 112 ng/mL; females, + 1.3 vs. 308 ng/mL). Improvement in PANSS total score
`was maintained, from OL baseline to endpointin the continuation vs. switch groups (+ 1.0 vs. 1.0; OC).
`Conclusions: |n this 6 month extension study, lurasidone treatment was generally well tolerated and associated with
`minimal effects on weight, metabolic parameters, and prolactin levels. Patients who switched from risperidone to lurasidone
`experienced reductions in weight, metabolic parameters and prolactin levels commensurate with increases in these safety
`parameters experienced during the previous 12 monthsof treatment with risperidone.
`Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00641745 (Date of Registration: March 24, 2008).
`
`* Correspondence: paladinmed@gmail.com
`SSunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc, Fort Lee, NJ, 84 Waterford Dr, Marlborough,
`MA 01752, USA
`Full list of authorinformationis available at the end of the article
`
`© The Author(s). 2020 Open Access This artide is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Intemational License,
`which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give
`appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, providealink to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if
`changes were made. The images or other third party material in this artide are indudedin the article's Creative Commons
`licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons
`licence and yourintended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain
`permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
`The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http.//creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the
`data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a cedit line to the data.
`
`1
`
`Exhibit 2087
`Slayback v. Sumitomo
`IPR2020-01053
`
`

`

`Mattingly et al. BMC Psychiatry (2020) 20:199
`
`Page 2 of 13
`
`Background
`Non-response to treatment with an initial antipsychotic
`occurs in at least 50% of patients with first episode
`schizophrenia and increases as the illness becomes more
`chronic and recurrent [1, 2]. The recommended next-
`step treatment option in non-responders is switching to
`an alternative antipsychotic [3, 4]. In addition to lack of
`efficacy, problems with safety or tolerability frequently
`necessitate switching antipsychotics [5].
`Lurasidone is an atypical antipsychotic agent that has
`demonstrated efficacy in short-term [6–9] and long-term
`studies [10–12] of patients with schizophrenia, with a
`safety profile indicating minimal effects on weight, meta-
`bolic parameters, and prolactin [13, 14].
`Previously, the effectiveness of switching patients with
`schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder to lurasidone
`using 3 different dosing strategies has been evaluated
`[15]. At the time of the switch, patients were in a non-
`acute phase of their illness and were being treated with a
`wide range of typical or atypical antipsychotics. This 6-
`week study demonstrated that switching patients to lura-
`sidone was associated with good efficacy and tolerability
`and low rates of treatment failure (8%), regardless of
`switching strategy (rapid or slow titration of lurasidone).
`Initial improvement in weight and lipids was observed
`after 6 weeks of treatment. In a 6-month, open-label
`extension of this study, improvements in efficacy on lur-
`asidone were maintained, with minimal long-term effects
`on weight, metabolic parameters, and prolactin [16].
`The effect on safety parameters of switching patients
`with schizophrenia from olanzapine to lurasidone has
`also been evaluated in a 6-month, open-label extension
`study in which patients who completed 6 weeks of
`double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment with olanza-
`pine or lurasidone were switched to 6 months of open-
`lurasidone 40–120 mg/d [17]. At 6-month end-
`label
`point, switching from olanzapine to lurasidone resulted
`in clinically meaningful (≥7%) reduction in weight in
`29.0% of patients; and median reduction in lipid parame-
`ters, including total cholesterol (− 15.0 mg/dL) and tri-
`glycerides (− 28.0 mg/dL).
`We now report results of an open-label extension study
`in which patients with schizophrenia who completed a
`double-blind, 12-month study of lurasidone versus risperi-
`done [18] either continued lurasidone or switched from
`risperidone to lurasidone for an additional 6 months of
`open-label treatment. Notable safety results for lurasidone
`vs. risperidone at endpoint of the initial double-blind
`study included: mean reduction in weight (− 1.0 vs. + 1.5
`kg) and waist circumference (− 0.6 vs. + 1.6 cm); smaller
`mean increases in prolactin for females (+ 34.9 vs. 53.3 ng/
`mL) but similar increases for males (13.5 vs. 14.1 ng/mL).
`The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the
`long-term safety, tolerability and overall effectiveness of
`
`lurasidone in both the continuation and risperidone
`switch groups.
`
`Methods
`Study design
`Detailed methods for the initial 12-month, double-blind
`study have been previously reported [18]. Briefly, clinic-
`ally stable outpatients, ages 18–75 years, with a diagnosis
`of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, were ran-
`domly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive lurasidone (flex-
`ibly dosed, 40–120 mg/d) or risperidone (flexibly dosed,
`2–6 mg/d). Study completers were eligible to continue
`into the current 6-month, open-label extension study
`that was conducted from March 2009 to January 2011 at
`sites in the United States (n = 40), South Africa (n = 7),
`Argentina (n = 5), Chile (n = 5), Brazil (n = 4), Croatia
`(n = 3), Thailand (n = 3), and Israel (n = 1). To maintain
`the double-blind in the initial 12-month study, all
`patients entering the current open-label study received
`3 days of single-blind placebo washout followed by 7
`days of lurasidone 80 mg/d. After 7 days, the lurasidone
`dose could be titrated, based on the judgment of the in-
`vestigator, in the range of 40–120 mg/d.
`The study was conducted in accordance with the Good
`Clinical Practice Guidelines of the International Confer-
`ence on Harmonisation and with the ethical principles
`of the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was approved
`by an institutional review board or independent ethics
`committee at each study site, and all patients provided
`written informed consent prior to initiation of study
`procedures. No important changes in study design or
`methodology were made after the study was initiated.
`
`Assessments
`Assessment visits occurred at baseline of the open-label
`extension study and monthly thereafter. Adverse events
`were based on patient self-report in response to an
`open-ended question or were based on investigator
`observation of changes in the patient during examin-
`ation. Movement disorder symptoms were evaluated
`with the Simpson-Angus Scale (SAS)
`[19], Barnes
`Akathisia Rating Scale (BARS)
`[20], and Abnormal
`Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) [21]. Safety assess-
`ments
`included
`laboratory
`tests
`(chemistry
`and
`hematology panels, lipid panel, glycosylated hemoglobin
`[HbA1c], bone alkaline phosphatase, N-telopeptide,
`osteocalcin, parathyroid hormone, prolactin, and testos-
`terone), electrocardiograms (ECG), physical examina-
`tions, and vital sign measurements.
`In a subset of
`patients (at selected US sites), bone mineral density
`assessments were performed (BMD, using dual-energy
`x-ray absorptiometry [DXA]). T-scores were calculated
`([patient’s BMD – mean BMD of sex-matched young
`adults] / 1-SD of young adults), and standard criteria
`
`2
`
`

`

`Mattingly et al. BMC Psychiatry
`
`(2020) 20:199
`
`Page 3 of 13
`
`were used to determine BMD category (normal vs.
`osteopenia vs. osteoporosis) [22]. Ophthalmologic exam-
`inations, including dilated funduscopic andslit lamp eye
`examinations, were also performed.
`Efficacy was assessed using the Positive and Negative
`Syndrome Scale (PANSS) [23], Clinical Global Impres-
`sion, Severity scale [21], and the Montgomery-Asberg
`Depression Rating Scale (MADRS)
`[24]. Training and
`certification of raters at each investigational site on study
`assessments was provided prior to initiation of the
`double-blind study.
`
`Statistical analysis
`The primary safety analysis population consisted ofall
`patients who received at least one dose of lurasidone
`during the 6-month open-label extension study. All
`safety and efficacy outcomes were pre-specified and were
`analyzed for the overall treatment sample, and for 2
`patient subgroups: patients who received lurasidone in
`the double-blind study, and patients who received risper-
`idone in the double-blind study. Change scores werecal-
`culated from double-blind baseline to open-label study
`endpoint and from open-label baseline to open-label
`study endpoint (month 6). Observed cases (OC) andlast
`observation carried forward (LOCF-endpoint) analyses
`were performed.
`
`Results
`Patient disposition and study treatment
`Of the 236 patients who completed the initial 12-month
`double-blind study, 223 (94.5%) continued into the current
`open-label extension study. Overall, 90.1% of patients com-
`pleted at least 3 months of open-label treatmentwith lurasi-
`done, and 174/223 (78.0%) completed 6months of
`treatment. Reasons for premature discontinuation included
`adverse events (11/223; 4.9%), withdrew consent (11/223;
`4.9%), lost to follow-up (10/223; 4.5%), insufficient clinical
`response (8/223; 3.6%), and miscellaneous other reasons (9/
`223; 4.0%). Figure 1 summarizes patient disposition for the
`two pre-specified patient subgroups (based on double-blind
`treatment assignment in theinitial double-blind study.
`Patient characteristics were similar at open-label base-
`line in both the lurasidone continuation subgroup, and
`the risperidone-to-lurasidone switch subgroup (Table 1).
`The mean daily dose of lurasidone during open-label ex-
`tension was 81.1 mg. Twenty-nine percent of patients
`(n =65) received at least one concomitant medication,
`most commonly anxiolytics (22%), hypnotics/sedatives
`(18%), antidepressants (15%), and anticholinergics (13%).
`
`Safety
`Adverse events
`The most commonly reported adverse events were head-
`ache (6.3%), psychotic disorder (5.4%), and parkinsonism
`
`
`
`
`
`Double-blind Study
`12 Months
`
`Randomized to
`lurasidone
`N= 427
`
`Randomized to
`risperidone
`N = 202
`
`Completed
`double-blind study
`n= 147
`
`Completed
`double-blind study
`n=89
`
`Open-label Study
`6 Months
`
`Continued on
`lurasidone in open-label
`study (LUR-LUR)
`n= 136
`
`Switched to lurasidone
`in open-label study
`(RIS-LUR)
`n=87
`
`Discontinued open-label study, n(%)
`Withdrew consent
`Insufficient clinical response
`Adverse event
`Lost to follow-up
`Administrative
`
`Protocolviolation
`
`)
`
`27 (19.
`
`Protocol violation
`
`22 (25.3)
`(4.6)
`3.4
`35
`6.9
`5.7
`1.1
`3.4
`
`13
`
`Discontinued open-label study, n (%)
`Withdrew consent
`Insufficientclinical response
`Adverse event
`Lost to follow-up
`Administrative
`
`Completed
`open-label study
`= 65 (74.7%)
`
`Completed
`
`open-label study
`
`= 109 (80.1%)
`
`L Fig. 1 Patient Disposition. LUR = lurasidone; RIS = risperidone; DB: double blind; OLE: open label extension
`
`

`

`Mattingly et al. BMC Psychiatry (2020) 20:199
`
`Page 4 of 13
`
`(4.5%; Table 2), with minimal differences between the
`lurasidone continuation versus risperidone switch groups.
`For both groups combined, a total of 11 patients (4.9%)
`experienced an adverse event rated as severe; and 10
`patients (4.5%) experienced a serious adverse event, con-
`sisting of schizophrenia (n = 3), psychotic disorder (n = 3),
`ankle fracture (n = 1),
`lung carcinoma (n = 1), possible
`seizure (n = 1), attempted suicide (n = 1; patient recovered
`and completed the study), and a completed suicide (n = 1;
`on open-label day 22 in a patient who had previously
`received 12 months of double-blind lurasidone, and who
`was experiencing recurrent psychotic symptoms).
`
`Extrapyramidal symptoms
`In the combined patient groups, the proportion who
`reported an extrapyramidal
`symptom (EPS)-related
`adverse event during the extension study was 7.6%, and
`the proportion with akathisia was 3.1%. EPS-related
`adverse events reported in more than 1 patient were
`parkinsonism (4.5%) and dystonia (1.3%). The incidence
`of an EPS-related adverse event was similar in the lurasi-
`done continuation versus risperidone switch groups
`(Table 2). No patient discontinued due to an EPS-
`related adverse event or akathisia. Mean change from
`open-label baseline to study endpoint (LOCF) was 0.0
`on the Simpson-Angus Scale, 0.0 on the Barnes Akathi-
`sia Rating Scale global clinical assessment of akathisia,
`and + 0.3 on the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale
`total score.
`
`Table 1 Patient Characteristics (Open-Label Baseline, Safety
`Population)
`Characteristic
`Male, n (%)
`
`LUR LURa (N = 136) RIS LURb (N = 87)
`102 (75.0)
`58 (66.7)
`
`Age, mean (SD), y
`
`43.9 (10.7)
`
`42.8 (10.8)
`
`Race, n (%)
`
`White
`
`Black
`
`Asian
`
`Other
`
`50 (36.8)
`
`67 (49.3)
`
`6 (4.4)
`
`13 (9.6)
`
`Ethnicity, Hispanic/Latino, n (%)
`
`36 (26.5)
`
`Duration of illness, mean (SD), y 16.9 (10.7)
`≥4 hospitalizations, n (%)
`
`30 (22.1)
`
`PANSS total score, mean (SD)
`
`55.4 (13.6)
`
`CGI S score, mean (SD)
`
`2.8 (0.8)
`
`39 (44.8)
`
`40 (46.0)
`
`1 (1.1)
`
`7 (8.0)
`
`25 (28.7)
`
`17.6 (11.9)
`
`25 (28.8)
`
`55.5 (11.2)
`
`2.9 (0.8)
`
`4.3 (4.4)
`5.1 (5.6)
`MADRS score, mean (SD)
`CGI S Clinical Global Impression Severity Scale, LUR lurasidone, MADRS
`Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, PANSS Positive and Negative
`Syndrome Scale, RIS risperidone, SD standard deviation
`a Patients who received lurasidone in both double blind and
`open label studies
`b Patients who received risperidone during the double blind study and were
`switched to lurasidone in the open label study
`
`Table 2 Adverse Events Reported in ≥2% of Patients During
`Open-Label Treatment With Lurasidone
`Adverse Event, n (%)
`
`LUR LURa
`(N = 136)
`80 (58.8)
`
`RIS LURb
`(N = 87)
`51 (58.6)
`
`≥1 adverse event
`
`Headache
`
`Psychotic disorder
`
`Parkinsonism
`
`Anxiety
`
`Blood creatine phosphokinase increased
`
`Insomnia
`
`Nasopharyngitis
`
`Akathisia
`
`Somnolence
`
`Influenza
`
`Nausea
`
`Upper respiratory infection
`
`Vomiting
`
`Back pain
`
`Decreased appetite
`
`7 (5.1)
`
`6 (4.4)
`
`5 (3.7)
`
`2 (1.5)
`
`5 (3.7)
`
`3 (2.2)
`
`5 (3.7)
`
`5 (3.7)
`
`5 (3.7)
`
`6 (4.4)
`
`3 (2.2)
`
`6 (4.4)
`
`3 (2.2)
`
`2 (1.5)
`
`3 (2.2)
`
`7 (8.0)
`
`6 (6.9)
`
`5 (5.7)
`
`6 (6.9)
`
`3 (3.4)
`
`5 (5.7)
`
`3 (3.4)
`
`2 (2.3)
`
`2 (2.3)
`
`1 (1.1)
`
`3 (3.4)
`
`0 (0)
`
`3 (3.4)
`
`3 (3.4)
`
`2 (2.3)
`
`Weight decreased
`LUR lurasidone, RIS risperidone
`a Patients who received lurasidone in both double blind and
`open label studies
`b Patients who received risperidone during the double blind study and were
`switched to lurasidone in the open label study
`
`4 (2.9)
`
`1 (1.1)
`
`Body weight, BMI, waist circumference
`Mean weight, BMI, and waist circumference were
`reduced, from double-blind to open-label baseline,
`in
`patients who received 12 months of treatment with lura-
`sidone (− 1.1 kg, − 0.55 kg/m2, and − 0.4 cm,
`respect-
`ively), and were increased in patients who received 12
`months of treatment with risperidone (+ 2.4 kg, + 2.1 kg/
`m2, + 2.8 cm, respectively; Table 3; Fig. 2).
`Mean changes
`in mean weight, BMI, and waist
`circumference at 6-month open-label endpoint
`(OC
`analysis) were minimal
`in the lurasidone continuation
`subgroup; in contrast, notable reductions were observed
`in the subgroup that switched from risperidone to lurasi-
`done (− 2.9 kg, − 1.0 kg/m2, − 1.6 cm, respectively; [OC]);
`and the proportion of patients who experienced ≥7%
`weight loss was 19.7%; Table 3).
`
`Metabolic parameters
`Median total cholesterol, triglycerides, and glucose were
`reduced,
`from double-blind to open-label baseline,
`in
`patients who received 12 months of treatment with lurasi-
`done (− 8.5 mg/dL, − 13.0 mg/dL, − 1.0 mg/dL, respectively);
`and in patients who received 12 months of treatment with
`risperidone, median triglycerides and glucose were minimally
`increased (+ 1.0 mg/dL, + 3.0 mg/dL, respectively), while total
`
`4
`
`

`

`Mattingly et al. BMC Psychiatry (2020) 20:199
`
`Page 5 of 13
`
`Table 3 Change From Double-blind Baseline in Safety Parameters After 12-months of Treatment With Lurasidone or Risperidone,
`Followed by 6-months of Open-label Treatment With Lurasidone (OC analysis)
`Parameter
`Weight, kg
`
`LUR LUR
`n = 109a
`
`RIS LUR
`n = 66a
`
`DB Baseline mean (SD)
`
`Mean change to OL Baseline (after 12 mo DB Tx)
`
`Mean change from OL Baseline to Month 6 OL
`≥ 7% weight increase from DB Baseline, %
`≥ 7% weight decrease from DB Baseline, %
`≥ 7% weight increase from OL Baseline, %
`≥ 7% weight decrease from OL Baseline, %
`Body mass index, kg/m2
`
`DB Baseline mean (SD)
`
`Mean change to OL Baseline (after 12 mo DB Tx)
`
`Mean change from OL Baseline to Month 6 OL
`
`Waist circumference, cm
`
`DB Baseline mean (SD)
`
`Mean change to OL Baseline (after 12 mo DB Tx)
`
`Mean change from OL Baseline to Month 6 OL
`
`Total cholesterol, mg/dL
`
`DB Baseline mean (SD)
`
`Median change to OL Baseline (after 12 mo DB Tx)
`
`Median change from OL Baseline to Month 6 OL
`
`Triglycerides, mg/dL
`
`DB Baseline mean (SD)
`
`81.1 (18.25)
`
`82.9 (18.65)
`
`1.1
`
`0.6
`
`12.8
`
`28.4
`
`1.8
`
`6.4
`
`n = 109
`
`27.7 (5.3)
`
`0.55
`
`0.2
`
`n = 104
`
`93.8 (14.1)
`
`0.4
`
`0.9
`
`n = 108
`
`196.4 (45.4)
`
`8.5
`
`4.0
`
`n = 108
`
`127.5 (57.7)
`
`+ 2.4
`
`2.9
`
`13.6
`
`18.2
`
`3.0
`
`19.7
`
`n = 66
`
`28.8 (5.6)
`
`+ 2.1
`
`1.0
`
`n = 62
`
`97.5 (14.3)
`
`+ 2.8
`
`1.6
`
`n = 64
`
`188.0 (49.0)
`
`9.0
`
`+ 4.5
`
`n = 64
`
`125.5 (88.8)
`
`Median change to OL Baseline (after 12 mo DB Tx)
`
`Median change from OL Baseline to Month 6 OL
`
`Glucose, mg/dL
`
`DB Baseline mean (SD)
`
`Median change to OL Baseline (after 12 mo DB Tx)
`
`Median change from OL Baseline to Month 6 OL
`
`Hemoglobin A1c, %
`
`DB Baseline mean (SD)
`
`Median change to OL Baseline (after 12 mo DB Tx)
`
`Median change from OL Baseline to Month 6 OL
`
`Bone alkaline phosphatase, mcg/L
`
`DB Baseline mean (SD)
`
`Median change to OL Baseline (after 12 mo DB Tx)
`
`Median change from OL Baseline to Month 6 OL
`
`N telopeptide (urine), nmol BCE/mmol creatinine
`
`DB Baseline mean (SD)
`
`Median change to OL Baseline (after 12 mo DB Tx)
`
`Median change from OL Baseline to Month 6 OL
`
`Osteocalcin, ng/mL
`
`DB Baseline mean (SD)
`
`Median change to OL Baseline (after 12 mo DB Tx)
`
`13.0
`
`4.5
`
`n = 105
`
`95.1 (14.5)
`
`1.0
`
`0.0
`
`n = 103
`
`5.7 (0.4)
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`n = 106
`
`13.6 (5.2)
`
`0.9
`
`+ 1.5
`
`n = 104
`
`41.2 (120.3)
`
`+ 1.5
`
`1.0
`
`n = 104
`
`5.25 (3.38)
`
`0.85
`
`+ 1.0
`
`5.5
`
`n = 63
`
`94.6 (13.7)
`
`+ 3.0
`
`3.0
`
`n = 63
`
`5.6 (0.4)
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`n = 61
`
`13.9 (4.3)
`
`0.3
`
`0
`
`n = 62
`
`37.0 (35.8)
`
`4.0
`
`+ 0.5
`
`n = 61
`
`5.70 (4.36)
`
`1.0
`
`5
`
`

`

`Mattingly et al. BMC Psychiatry (2020) 20:199
`
`Page 6 of 13
`
`Table 3 Change From Double-blind Baseline in Safety Parameters After 12-months of Treatment With Lurasidone or Risperidone,
`Followed by 6-months of Open-label Treatment With Lurasidone (OC analysis) (Continued)
`Parameter
`LUR LUR
`Median change from OL Baseline to Month 6 OL
`0
`
`RIS LUR
`0
`
`Parathyroid hormone, pg/mL
`
`DB Baseline mean (SD)
`
`Median change to OL Baseline (after 12 mo DB Tx)
`
`Median change from OL Baseline to Month 6 OL
`
`Prolactin, ng/mL, males
`
`DB Baseline mean (SD)
`
`Median change to OL Baseline (after 12 mo DB Tx)
`
`Median change from OL Baseline to Month 6 OL
`
`Prolactin, ng/mL, females
`
`DB Baseline mean (SD)
`
`Median change to OL Baseline (after 12 mo DB Tx)
`
`Median change from OL Baseline to Month 6 OL
`
`Testosterone, total, ng/dL, males
`
`DB Baseline mean (SD)
`
`Median change to OL Baseline (after 12 mo DB Tx)
`
`Median change from OL Baseline to Month 6 OL
`
`Testosterone, free, pg/mL, males
`
`DB Baseline mean (SD)
`
`Median change to OL Baseline (after 12 mo DB Tx)
`
`n = 105
`
`38.6 (17.4)
`
`0
`
`+ 2.0
`
`n = 84
`
`7.7 (6.7)
`
`0.6
`
`+ 0.15
`
`n = 24
`
`20.0 (24.7)
`
`0.75
`
`+ 1.3
`
`n = 84
`
`498.1 (198.4)
`
`+ 24.9
`
`23.5
`
`n = 84
`
`10.3 (5.5)
`
`0.015
`
`1.06
`Median change from OL Baseline to Month 6 OL
`BCE bone collagen equivalent, LUR lurasidone, RIS risperidone, DB double blind, OL open label, SD standard deviation, OC observed case
`a Results presented are an observed case analysis of the number of patients available with test results at Month 18
`
`n = 61
`
`43.2 (27.8)
`
`2.0
`
`+ 4.0
`
`n = 43
`
`10.2 (6.5)
`
`+ 12.8
`
`11.2
`
`n = 21
`
`18.6 (40.8)
`
`+ 35.2
`
`30.8
`
`n = 42
`
`481.3 (231.5)
`
`103.0
`
`+ 43.5
`
`n = 40
`
`9.6 (6.2)
`
`1.405
`
`0.095
`
`cholesterol was reduced (− 9.0 mg/dL; Table 3). Median
`hemoglobin A1c levels were unchanged at double-blind
`endpoint in both treatment groups.
`In the lurasidone continuation group, minimal changes
`were observed at 6-month open-label endpoint in median
`total cholesterol, triglycerides, glucose, and hemoglobin
`A1c (Table 3). In the risperidone switch group, small
`reductions were observed in triglycerides and glucose
`from open-label baseline to 6-month endpoint (− 5.5 mg/
`dL, − 3.0 mg/dL, respectively; OC); while total cholesterol
`increased (+ 4.5 mg/dL; Table 3). Median hemoglobin A1c
`levels were unchanged from open-label baseline to 6-
`month endpoint in both patient groups.
`
`Prolactin
`Median change in prolactin were notably different, from
`double-blind to open-label baseline, after 12 months of
`double-blind treatment with lurasidone and risperidone
`in both men (− 0.6 ng/mL vs. + 12.8 ng/mL), and women
`(− 0.75 ng/mL vs. + 35.2 ng/mL).
`In the lurasidone
`continuation group, median change in prolactin was
`minimal, from open-label baseline to 6-month endpoint
`(OC analysis), for men (+ 0.15 ng/mL) and women (+
`
`in the risperidone switch group notable
`1.3 ng/mL);
`reductions were observed after 6 months of treatment
`with lurasidone for men (− 11.2 ng/mL) and women (−
`30.8 ng/mL; Table 3; Fig. 3a and b). No galactorrhea,
`amenorrhea or gynecomastia were observed in patients
`treated with open-label lurasidone.
`
`Bone turnover markers and bone mineral density
`As summarized in Table 3, minimal changes were
`observed in markers of bone turnover (bone alkaline
`phosphatase, osteocalcin, bone collagen equivalents, and
`urinary N-telopeptide) for both lurasidone and risperidone
`during 12 months of double-blind treatment, and during
`6 months of open-label treatment with lurasidone.
`In a subset of patients at US sites, bone mineral
`density (BMD) was assessed by dual-energy x-ray ab-
`sorptiometry [DXA]. Based on DXA assessments, no
`loss of bone mineral density was observed during 6
`months of open-label treatment with lurasidone in ei-
`ther the lurasidone continuation group (n = 46) or the
`risperidone switch group (n = 27). Median percent
`change in BMD, from open-label baseline to 6-month
`endpoint
`(OC) was
`+ 0.4% in
`the
`lurasidone
`
`6
`
`

`

`Mattingly et al. BMC Psychiatry
`
`(2020) 20:199
`
`Page 7 of 13
`
`—*=LUR-LUR (n = 136)" = RIS (n = 87)*F
`
`== RIS-LUR (n = 87)*
`
`12-month
`double-blind
`study
`
`=O
`
`bx==
`2=
`x)
`
`s£o0ca=o
`
`
`
`Oco
`
`Oo
`=
`
`3
`Double-blind
`Baseline
`
`Open-label
`Baseline
`
`Month
`1
`
`Month
`2
`
`Month
`3
`
`Month
`4
`
`Month
`5
`
`Month
`6
`
`LOCF
`endpoint
`
`Fig. 2 Median Change in Weight From Double Blind Baseline Through 6 Months of Open Label! Treatment With Lurasidone, by Treatment Assignment in the
`Double Blind Study. LUR = lurasidone; RIS = risperidone. “Subgroup entering open label extension; 6 month completer analysis: LUR LUR, n= 109; RIS LUR,
`n= 66. ‘Patients in the RIS LUR groupreceived risperidone in the 12 month, double blind study
`
`continuation group (m= 31) and 1.5% in the risperi-
`done switch group (n=13). For the combined treat-
`ment groups, 4/44 patients (9.1%) experienced a gain,
`from open-label baseline to 6-month endpoint,
`in
`lumbar spine BMD resulting in a shift in BMD cat-
`egory from osteoporosis to osteopenia, or from osteo-
`penia to normal. A gain in lumbar spine BMD was
`more common in patients switched from risperidone
`to lurasidone (15.4% [2/13]) compared with patients
`continuing lurasidone (6.5% [2/31]). No patient expe-
`rienced a loss in BMD.
`
`Electrocardiographic parameters
`There were noclinically meaningful changes in mean
`ECG parameters during 6 months of open-label treatment
`with lurasidone. One patient had a QTcF >500 msec at
`the month 3 assessment, which represented a >60-msec
`increase from open-label baseline; at the next assessment,
`the patient had a QTcF <450 msec with a QTcF change
`score < 60 msec.
`
`Physical examination andvital signs
`There were no clinically meaningful changes in vital
`signs (heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure,
`body temperature) during open-label
`treatment with
`lurasidone.
`In the subset of patients (n =57) with an ophthalmo-
`logic assessment that included dilated funduscopic and
`slit
`lamp eye examinations,
`there were no clinically
`significant
`treatment-emergent abnormalities
`in any
`ophthalmologic parameter.
`
`Efficacy
`Patients (per protocol) were clinically stable at entry
`into the double-blind study (mean baseline PANSS
`
`total score of 65.1). At open-label baseline, after com-
`pletion of 12months of treatment with lurasidone or
`risperidone, patients showed improvement in PANSS
`total score (- 8.7 and - 8.3, respectively). Improvementin
`PANSStotal score was maintained during 6 months of
`treatment with lurasidone (mean [95%-CI] change from
`OL baseline to LOCF-endpoint, +1.0 [-0.1, +2.2]).
`Improvement was maintained on the PANSStotal score
`in both the lurasidone continuation group (+ 1.0 [- 0.5, +
`2.6]) and in the risperidone switch group (+ 1.0 [- 0.9, +
`2.8]; LOCF-endpointanalysis; Fig. 4). Mean improvement
`on the CGI-S was also maintained during 6 months of
`open-label treatment, both in the lurasidone continuation
`group (0.0 [-0.1, +0.2]) and in the risperidone switch
`group (0.0 [-0.1, +0.1]; LOCF-endpoint analysis of
`change from open-label baseline).
`At double-blind baseline, mean MADRS scores were
`similar for patients randomized to lurasidone andrisper-
`idone (6.8 and 6.9, respectively). After completion of 12
`months of double-blind treatment with lurasidone or
`risperidone, mean change scores were-1.7 and- 2.6,
`respectively. Mean improvement on the CGI-S was
`maintained during 6 months of open-label
`treatment,
`both in the lurasidone continuation group (+ 0.2 [- 0.6,
`+1.0]) and in the risperidone switch group (+ 1.0 [0.1,
`2.0]; LOCF-endpoint analysis of change from open-label
`baseline).
`
`Discussion
`Patients with schizophrenia who completed a previously
`reported [18] 12-month, double-blind,
`flexible-dose
`study of lurasidone versus
`risperidone,
`received 6
`months of additional open-label lurasidone treatment,
`with patients in the double-blind risperidone group
`switching to lurasidone. At the end of the initial 12-
`
`

`

`Mattingly et al. BMC Psychiatry
`
`(2020) 20:199
`
`Page 8 of 13
`
`
`
`MedianProlactinLevelng/mL)
`
`
`
`
`
`12-month
`double-blind
`study
`
`e—LUR-LUR (n= 102)"
`-™-RIS-LUR (n = 58)*
`
` =<m=RIS (n = 58)**
`
`0
`Double-blind
`Baseline
`
`Open-label
`Baseline
`
`Month
`1
`
`LOCF
`endpoint
`
`—*—LUR-LUR (n= 34)*—=mRIS (n = 29)*t
`=—™—RIS-LUR (n = 58)*
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MedianProlactinLevelng/mL)
`
`Double-blind
`Baseline
`
`Open-label
`Baseline
`
`Month
`1
`
`Month
`3
`
`Month
`6
`
`LOCF
`endpoint
`
`Fig. 3 Median Changein Prolactin From Double Blind Baseline Through 6 Months of Open Label Treatment With Lurasidone, by Treatment
`Assignmentin the Double Blind Study. 3 A. Males, LUR =lurasidone; RIS = risperidone. “Subgroupentering openlabel extension; 6 month completer
`analysis: LUR LUR, n= 102; RIS LUR, n= 68. ‘Patients in the RIS LUR groupreceived risperidone in the 12 month, double blind study. 3 B. Females.
`LUR= lurasidone;RIS = risperidone. “Subgroup entering open label extension; 6 month completer analysis: LUR LUR, n = 34; RIS LUR, n= 29. ‘Patients in
`the RIS LUR groupreceived risperidone in the 12 month, doubleblind study
`
`month, double-blind phase, treatment with risperidone
`was associated with statistically significant
`increases
`compared to lurasidone in weight, BMI, waist circumfer-
`ence, prolactin levels, glucose, and insulin [18]. After 6
`months of treatment in the current extension study,
`patients who switched from risperidone to lurasidone
`demonstrated consistent improvement in these safety
`parameters, with reductions
`in weight, BMI, waist
`circumference, glucose, and prolactin levels.
`The patient group treated with lurasidone during the
`initial
`12-month
`study
`demonstrated
`consistent
`improvement from double-blind baseline in weight,
`BMI, glycemic indices, and metabolic parameters. Small
`but consistent additional improvement was noted in
`
`these parameters during the current 6 months of exten-
`sion phase treatment with lurasidone.
`The weight and metabolic results of the current study
`are consistent with findings reported from previouslura-
`sidone studies in which long-term treatment with lurasi-
`done was associated with minimal effects on weight,
`BMI, waist circumference, glycemic indices, and lipid
`parameters [10-—12, 16, 17, 25, 26].
`The current results are also consistent with two
`previously reported lurasidone switch studies. In the
`first study patients who weretreated for 6 weeks with
`olanzapine showed clinically meaningful
`reductions
`in
`weight, waist circumference, and selected metabolic parame-
`ters after switching to 6 months of treatment with lurasidone
`
`

`

`Mattingly et al. BMC Psychiatry
`
`(2020) 20:199
`
`Page 9 of 13
`
`12-month
`double-blind
`study
`
`—LUR-LUR (n = 136)*
`“mRIS-LUR (n = 87)*
`
` =<m=RIS (n = 87)*t
`
`29°°”
`
`a2-w
`
`
`
`nnw
`Zz
`&coOa
`
`=
`
`Double-blind
`Baseline
`
`Open-label
`Baseline
`
`Month
`1
`
`3
`
`Month
`6
`
`LOCF
`endpoint
`
`Fig. 4 Mean PANSS Total Score From Double Blind Baseline Through 6 Months of Open Label Treatment With Lurasidone, by Treatment
`Assignmentin the Double Blind Study. LUR =lurasidone; PANSS = Positive and Negative SyndromeScale;RIS = risperidone. “Subgroup entering
`openlabel extension; 6 month completer analysis: LUR LUR, n = 115; RIS LUR, n= 71. ‘Patients in the RIS LUR groupreceived risperidone in the
`12 month, double blind study
`
`[17]. In the second study [15] patients (N= 240) with a diag-
`nosis of schizophrenia who were stable on treatment with a
`range of typical and atypical (eg. olanzapine, quetiapine,
`risperidone) antipsychotics were switched to lurasidone, 40—
`120 mg/d. After 6 weeks of open-label treatment with lurasi-
`done, improvement in weight and lipid parameters were
`observed. In a 6-month, open-label extension of this study,
`improvements in efficacy on lurasidone were maintained,
`with minimal long-term effects on weight, metabolic param-
`eters, and prolactin [17].
`Amongpatients in the initial double-blind phase of
`the current study, treatment with risperidone was asso-
`ciated with notable increases in prolactin levels, with
`commensurate reduction in prolactin in males (- 11.2
`ng/mL) and females
`(-30.8ng/mL)
`following the
`switch to lurasidone. Previous systematic reviews and
`meta-analyses h

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket