8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      TULIP study: Trail of Lurasidone in bipolar disorder in Pakistan

      research-article

      Read this article at

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

          Abstract

          Background

          This study examined usefulness and efficiency of Lurasidone in appraisal with the placebo as for the treatment of Bipolar Disorders.

          Methods

          Seven treatment centers in Pakistan were selected for the purpose of starting a six week-long control trial (randomized and double-blind placebo). 76 subjects, already diagnosed with Bipolar I or II based on DSM 5 diagnosis, were selected after randomization. Patients were allocated in one of the two groups. Primary efficacy of the drug was measured using Young Mania Rating Scale. Positive response of the drug was defined as 50% reduction in symptoms from the baseline/13 point less than the baseline score on Young Mania Rating Scale. Efficacy and safety of the drug was assessed using variety of markers such as administering extra-pyramidal symptoms rating scale, adverse side effects reported, electrocardiograms, body weight, vital signs changes, and laboratory investigations.

          Results

          Patients treated with Lurasidone showed enhanced improvement in their overall health and symptoms manifestation in comparison to patients who were given placebo . Lurasidone treated patients showed a better response to the drug (66%), in comparison with the placebo treated patients (42%).

          Limitations

          Study was conducted on small scale due to complexity.

          Conclusion

          Patients treated with Lurasidone showed reduction in bipolar symptoms and tolerate the drug well.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

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

          The MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery, part 1: test selection, reliability, and validity.

          The lack of an accepted standard for measuring cognitive change in schizophrenia has been a major obstacle to regulatory approval of cognition-enhancing treatments. A primary mandate of the National Institute of Mental Health's Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia (MATRICS) initiative was to develop a consensus cognitive battery for clinical trials of cognition-enhancing treatments for schizophrenia through a broadly based scientific evaluation of measures. The MATRICS Neurocognition Committee evaluated more than 90 tests in seven cognitive domains to identify the 36 most promising measures. A separate expert panel evaluated the degree to which each test met specific selection criteria. Twenty tests were selected as a beta battery. The beta battery was administered to 176 individuals with schizophrenia and readministered to 167 of them 4 weeks later so that the 20 tests could be compared directly. The expert panel ratings are presented for the initially selected 36 tests. For the beta battery tests, data on test-retest reliability, practice effects, relationships to functional status, practicality, and tolerability are presented. Based on these data, 10 tests were selected to represent seven cognitive domains in the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery. The structured consensus method was a feasible and fair mechanism for choosing candidate tests, and direct comparison of beta battery tests in a common sample allowed selection of a final consensus battery. The MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery is expected to be the standard tool for assessing cognitive change in clinical trials of cognition-enhancing drugs for schizophrenia. It may also aid evaluation of cognitive remediation strategies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Comparative efficacy and tolerability of 15 antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis.

            The question of which antipsychotic drug should be preferred for the treatment of schizophrenia is controversial, and conventional pairwise meta-analyses cannot provide a hierarchy based on the randomised evidence. We aimed to integrate the available evidence to create hierarchies of the comparative efficacy, risk of all-cause discontinuation, and major side-effects of antipsychotic drugs. We did a Bayesian-framework, multiple-treatments meta-analysis (which uses both direct and indirect comparisons) of randomised controlled trials to compare 15 antipsychotic drugs and placebo in the acute treatment of schizophrenia. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's specialised register, Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov for reports published up to Sept 1, 2012. Search results were supplemented by reports from the US Food and Drug Administration website and by data requested from pharmaceutical companies. Blinded, randomised controlled trials of patients with schizophrenia or related disorders were eligible. We excluded trials done in patients with predominant negative symptoms, concomitant medical illness, or treatment resistance, and those done in stable patients. Data for seven outcomes were independently extracted by two reviewers. The primary outcome was efficacy, as measured by mean overall change in symptoms. We also examined all-cause discontinuation, weight gain, extrapyramidal side-effects, prolactin increase, QTc prolongation, and sedation. We identified 212 suitable trials, with data for 43 049 participants. All drugs were significantly more effective than placebo. The standardised mean differences with 95% credible intervals were: clozapine 0·88, 0·73-1·03; amisulpride 0·66, 0·53-0·78; olanzapine 0·59, 0·53-0·65; risperidone 0·56, 0·50-0·63; paliperidone 0·50, 0·39-0·60; zotepine 0·49, 0·31-0·66; haloperidol 0·45, 0·39-0·51; quetiapine 0·44, 0·35-0·52; aripiprazole 0·43, 0·34-0·52; sertindole 0·39, 0·26-0·52; ziprasidone 0·39, 0·30-0·49; chlorpromazine 0·38, 0·23-0·54; asenapine 0·38, 0·25-0·51; lurasidone 0·33, 0·21-0·45; and iloperidone 0·33, 0·22-0·43. Odds ratios compared with placebo for all-cause discontinuation ranged from 0·43 for the best drug (amisulpride) to 0·80 for the worst drug (haloperidol); for extrapyramidal side-effects 0·30 (clozapine) to 4·76 (haloperidol); and for sedation 1·42 (amisulpride) to 8·82 (clozapine). Standardised mean differences compared with placebo for weight gain varied from -0·09 for the best drug (haloperidol) to -0·74 for the worst drug (olanzapine), for prolactin increase 0·22 (aripiprazole) to -1·30 (paliperidone), and for QTc prolongation 0·10 (lurasidone) to -0·90 (sertindole). Efficacy outcomes did not change substantially after removal of placebo or haloperidol groups, or when dose, percentage of withdrawals, extent of blinding, pharmaceutical industry sponsorship, study duration, chronicity, and year of publication were accounted for in meta-regressions and sensitivity analyses. Antipsychotics differed substantially in side-effects, and small but robust differences were seen in efficacy. Our findings challenge the straightforward classification of antipsychotics into first-generation and second-generation groupings. Rather, hierarchies in the different domains should help clinicians to adapt the choice of antipsychotic drug to the needs of individual patients. These findings should be considered by mental health policy makers and in the revision of clinical practice guidelines. None. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Pharmacological profile of lurasidone, a novel antipsychotic agent with potent 5-hydroxytryptamine 7 (5-HT7) and 5-HT1A receptor activity.

              Lurasidone [(3aR,4S,7R,7aS)-2-[(1R,2R)-2-[4-(1,2-benzisothiazol-3-yl)piperazin-1-ylmethyl]cyclohexylmethyl]hexahydro-4,7-methano-2H-isoindole-1,3-dione hydrochloride; SM-13496] is an azapirone derivative and a novel antipsychotic candidate. The objective of the current studies was to investigate the in vitro and in vivo pharmacological properties of lurasidone. Receptor binding affinities of lurasidone and several antipsychotic drugs were tested under comparable assay conditions using cloned human receptors or membrane fractions prepared from animal tissue. Lurasidone was found to have potent binding affinity for dopamine D(2), 5-hydroxytryptamine 2A (5-HT(2A)), 5-HT(7), 5-HT(1A), and noradrenaline alpha(2C) receptors. Affinity for noradrenaline alpha(1), alpha(2A), and 5-HT(2C) receptors was weak, whereas affinity for histamine H(1) and muscarinic acetylcholine receptors was negligible. In vitro functional assays demonstrated that lurasidone acts as an antagonist at D(2) and 5-HT(7) receptors and as a partial agonist at the 5-HT(1A) receptor subtype. Lurasidone showed potent effects predictive of antipsychotic activity, such as inhibition of methamphetamine-induced hyperactivity and apomorphine-induced stereotyped behavior in rats, similar to other antipsychotics. Furthermore, lurasidone had only weak extrapyramidal effects in rodent models. In animal models of anxiety disorders and depression, treatment with lurasidone was associated with significant improvement. Lurasidone showed a preferential effect on the frontal cortex (versus striatum) in increasing dopamine turnover. Anti-alpha(1)-noradrenergic, anticholinergic, and central nervous system (CNS) depressant actions of lurasidone were also very weak. These results demonstrate that lurasidone possesses antipsychotic activity and antidepressant- or anxiolytic-like effects with potentially reduced liability for extrapyramidal and CNS depressant side effects.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Saudi J Biol Sci
                Saudi J Biol Sci
                Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences
                Elsevier
                1319-562X
                2213-7106
                24 November 2020
                January 2021
                24 November 2020
                : 28
                : 1
                : 1128-1132
                Affiliations
                [a ]Division of Developmental Disabilities, Queens University, Kingston, ON, Canada
                [b ]Department of Psychiatry, Queens University, Kingston, ON, Canada
                [c ]Gujranwala Medical and Dental College, Gujranwala, Pakistan
                [d ]Services Institute of Medical Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan
                [e ]Allama Medical College, Lahore, Pakistan
                [f ]Services Institute of Medical Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan
                [g ]Shaukat Khanum Cancer Research Center, Lahore, Pakistan
                [h ]Lady Reading Hospital, Peshawar, Pakistan
                [i ]Chair Bolan Institute of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences Quetta, Pakistan
                [j ]Fatima Jinnah Medical University, Lahore, Pakistan
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author. mnsk@ 123456queensu.ca
                Article
                S1319-562X(20)30608-2
                10.1016/j.sjbs.2020.11.044
                7783817
                66acf2fd-5cb9-431a-a11b-365f1c86c37c
                Crown Copyright © 2020 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University.

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 22 September 2020
                : 8 November 2020
                : 10 November 2020
                Categories
                Original Article

                bipolar affective disorders,pakistan,mania,lurasidone
                bipolar affective disorders, pakistan, mania, lurasidone

                Comments

                Comment on this article