Effect of Lumateperone (ITI-007) on Quality of Life and Functional Disability in the Treatment of Bipolar Depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction In patients with bipolar disorder, depression symptoms are associated with greater reduction in function and quality of life than hypomania/mania symptoms. Lumateperone (LUMA), is an FDA-approved antipsychotic to treat schizophrenia and depressive episodes associated with bipolar I or bipolar II disorder. In a recent phase 3 clinical trial (Study 404, NCT03249376) in people with bipolar depression, LUMA 42 mg monotherapy significantly improved symptoms of depression compared with placebo (PBO). This analysis of Study 404 investigated the effects of LUMA on functional disability and quality of life as measured using the secondary outcome measure, the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire-Short Form (Q-LES-Q-SF). Methods Patients (18–75 years) with bipolar I or bipolar II disorder experiencing a major depressive episode (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] Total score ≥20 and Clinical Global Impression Scale-Bipolar Version-Severity [CGI-BP-S] score ≥4) were randomized to LUMA 42 mg or PBO orally, once daily in the evening for 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline to Day 43 in MADRS Total score, analyzed using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) approach in the intent-to-treat population (ITT). This post hoc analysis evaluated the mean change from baseline to Day 43 in the Q-LES-Q-SF individual item scores using an analysis of covariance with last observation carried forward (ANCOVA-LOCF) in the ITT. Categorical shifts in individual items were also analyzed. Results The ITT comprised 376 patients (LUMA 42 mg, 188; PBO, 188). Patients in the LUMA 42 mg group had significantly greater improvement on MADRS Total score change from baseline to Day 43 compared with PBO (least squares mean difference vs PBO [LSMD], −4.585; 95% CI, −6.344 to −2.826; effect size vs PBO [ES], −0.56; P<.0001). LUMA 42 mg treatment significantly improved Q-LES-Q-SF Total score from baseline to Day 43 compared with PBO (LSMD, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.15 to 4.59; P=.001). The Q-LES-Q-SF items with the lowest mean scores at baseline in both groups were mood, leisure time activities, and sexual drive, interest, and/or performance. By Day 43, LUMA 42 mg treatment significantly improved 8 of the 14 items in the Q-LES-Q-SF (P<0.05). Overall life satisfaction also significantly improved with LUMA treatment (P=.0016). The largest improvements with LUMA 42 mg compared with PBO (ES>0.3,) were seen for the ability to function in daily life, family relationships, household activities, leisure time activities, and mood (all LSMD=0.3; all P<.01). Conclusion In patients with bipolar depression, treatment with LUMA 42 mg compared with PBO significantly improved patient quality of life and functional impairment. These results support LUMA 42 mg as treatment of MDEs associated with bipolar I or bipolar II disorder in adults. Funding Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".