Section 3 of 6
Product information and disease description
519 evidence topics · 325 sources
Product description
Phase of product development
Investigational status
Current development phase
Phase 2 NOVA-1 trial: completed, topline results January 2025, published in JAMA Psychiatry
Phase 3 NOVA-2 trial: initiated March 2026
Phase 3 NOVA-3 trial: 52-week open-label safety trial, enrolling
FDA end-of-phase 2 feedback on the registration package
Status of NOVA-1 as one of two adequate and well-controlled trials: company caveats
Safety database required to support an NDA
NOVA-2 topline timing: moved in July 2026 to the first half of 2027
Pre-NDA meeting timing
Pre-NDA meeting and NDA sequence stated in March 2026, before the July 2026 timing update
Regulatory submission
No evidence found.
Launch
No evidence found.
Fast track, breakthrough therapy, or priority review designation
No evidence found.
Planned NDA pathway under section 505(b)(1) or section 505(b)(2)
No evidence found.
New chemical entity status and regulatory exclusivity
Patent protection: composition of matter expiry
Predominantly negative symptoms of schizophrenia: planned program
Pipeline in other indications: bipolar depression (ILLUMINATE-1) and adjunctive major depressive disorder
Long-acting injectable formulation in development
Development outside the United States
Marketing application, scientific advice, or designation from a regulator outside the United States
No evidence found.
Product information
Generic, brand name and therapeutic class of product
Product names: development code and chemical names
| Field | Quoted record |
|---|---|
| Preferred substance name | “LB-102” |
| Unique ingredient identifier | “N81WKW91XF” |
| Formula | “C18H29N3O4S” |
| Synonym | “N'-METHYL AMISULPRIDE” |
| Systematic name | “4-(METHYLAMINO)-N-(((2RS)-1-ETHYLPYRROLIDIN-2-YL)METHYL)-5-(ETHYLSULFONYL)-2-METHOXYBENZAMIDE.” |
| Chemical Abstracts Service registry number | “2227154-23-4” |
International nonproprietary name, United States adopted name, and brand name
No evidence found.
Therapeutic class
Dosage forms and strengths
Oral tablet: phase 3 NOVA-2
| Arm or intervention | Quoted record |
|---|---|
| Experimental arm 1 | “LB-102 (50 mg tablet)” |
| Experimental arm 2 | “LB-102 (100 mg tablet)” |
| Intervention description | “LB-102 oral tablet given for six weeks” |
| Placebo | “Placebo tablet given orally for six weeks” |
Strengths studied: open-label NOVA-3
Oral capsule: phase 1 receptor occupancy study
Strengths studied: phase 1 single and multiple ascending dose study
| Cohort | Quoted record |
|---|---|
| Part A Cohort 1 | “LB-102 50 mg (n=6) or Matching Placebo (n=2) x 1 day” |
| Part A Cohort 2 | “LB-102 15 mg (n=6) or Matching Placebo (n=2) x 1 day” |
| Part A Cohort 3 | “LB-102 100 mg (n=6) or Matching Placebo (n=2) x 1 day” |
| Part A Cohort 4 | “LB-102 200 mg (n=6) or Matching Placebo (n=2) x 1 day” |
| Part A Cohort 5 | “LB-102 150 mg (n=6) or Matching Placebo (n-2) x 1 day” |
| Part B Cohort 6 | “LB-102 50 mg (n=6) or Matching Placebo (n=2) BID x 7 days (QD on Day 7)” |
| Part B Cohort 7 | “LB-102 100 mg (n=6) or Matching Placebo (n=2) BID x 7 days (QD on Day 7)” |
| Part B Cohort 8 | “LB-102 75 mg (n=6) or Matching Placebo (n=2) BID x 7 days (QD on Day 7)” |
Doses selected to inform commercial use
Commercial dosage form, strengths, and package configurations
No evidence found.
Average sales price and wholesale acquisition cost
Product price and anticipated annual cost of treatment
Not applicable.
American hospital formulary service (AHFS), or other drug classification
Mechanistic and chemical classification
Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classification of the parent compound amisulpride
| ATC level | Quoted record |
|---|---|
| N05A | “ANTIPSYCHOTICS” |
| N05AL | “Benzamides” |
| N05AL05 | “amisulpride” |
AHFS Pharmacologic-Therapeutic Classification and ATC code assigned to LB-102
No evidence found.
Indication
Indication under development
Population studied in the phase 3 NOVA-2 trial
Population studied in the phase 2 NOVA-1 trial
Proposed labeled indication submitted to a regulator
No evidence found.
Pharmacology
Mechanism of action
Receptor target profile
Receptor binding affinities of LB-102, amisulpride, and their enantiomers
| Antagonist | D2 KI (nM) | 5-HT7 KI (nM) |
|---|---|---|
| Amisulpride, S enantiomer | “n.d.” | “900 ± 1300” |
| Amisulpride, racemate | “1.1 ± 0.12” | “44 ± 3” |
| Amisulpride, R enantiomer | “n.d.” | “22 ± 1.5” |
| LB-102 (racemate) | “0.82 ± 0.02” | “31 ± 1” |
| LB-103 (S enantiomer of LB-102) | “0.4 ± 0.04” | “>1000” |
| LB-104 (R enantiomer of LB-102) | “14.4 ± 2.2” | “15.6 ± 0.9” |
Enantiomer pharmacology: S enantiomer at D2 and D3, R enantiomer at 5-HT7
Limits of the in vitro 5-HT7 data
D3 receptor affinity and comparison with amisulpride
Rationale for N-methylation of amisulpride
Lipophilicity of LB-102 and amisulpride
Characterization in an independent narrative review
Dose-dependent presynaptic and postsynaptic dopamine receptor effects
Class context: limbic selectivity of amisulpride
Class context: 5-HT7 antagonism and the antidepressant activity of amisulpride
Limbic versus striatal selectivity measured for LB-102
No evidence found.
In vivo 5-HT7 receptor occupancy of LB-102
No evidence found.
Pharmacodynamics
PET dopamine receptor occupancy study in healthy volunteers: design
Striatal D2/D3 receptor occupancy at steady state by dose
Time course of receptor occupancy relative to plasma concentration
Target occupancy window of 60% to 80%
Occupancy compared with published amisulpride doses
PET study limitations
Prolactin elevation in healthy volunteers
QTc interval in healthy volunteers
QTc interval in NOVA-1
| Parameter | LB-102 50 mg (n = 107) | LB-102 75 mg (n = 108) | LB-102 100 mg (n = 36) | Placebo (n = 108) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| QTc, mean (SD) change from baseline to day 28, millisecond | “4.9 (13.39)” | “4.3 (12.55)” | “5.4 (9.44)” | “1.2 (12.56)” |
| Mean change ≥30 millisecond, No. participants (%) | “5 (4.7)” | “1 (0.9)” | “1 (2.8)” | “1 (0.9)” |
| Mean change ≥60 millisecond, No. participants (%) | “0” | “0” | “0” | “0” |
Concentration-QTc modeling and a thorough QT study
No evidence found.
Preclinical behavioral models
Preclinical receptor occupancy in mice
Preclinical pharmacokinetic, receptor occupancy, and efficacy model
Pharmacokinetics
Single ascending dose in healthy volunteers: parameters by dose
| Parameter | 10 mg (N = 6) | 50 mg (N = 6) | 100 mg (N = 6) | 150 mg (N = 6) | 200 mg (N = 6) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cmax, mean (SD), ng/mL | “24.1 (10.728)” | “176 (52.786)” | “348.167 (141.832)” | “596.5 (117.527)” | “975.667 (253.995)” |
| Tmax, median (min, max), h | “3 (3, 3)” | “3 (2, 4)” | “3.01 (1, 4)” | “3 (3, 4)” | “1.75 (1.5, 3)” |
| t½, mean (SD), h | “13.75 (3.9375)” | “11.933 (1.7797)” | “14.146 (3.9617)” | “11.969 (1.8897)” | “12.997 (3.5854)” |
| AUC0-24, mean (SD), ng•h/mL | “198.807 (66.9513)” | “1336.105 (167.6764)” | “2303.664 (533.1684)” | “4067.23 (685.9163)” | “5983.093 (833.9816)” |
| AUC0-inf, mean (SD), ng•h/mL | “252.637 (69.857)” | “1595.938 (189.1599)” | “2809.785 (477.7622)” | “4363.577 (745.7299)” | “7002.109 (820.7252)” |
| CL/F, mean (SD), L/h | “42.44 (12.598)” | “31.7 (3.794)” | “36.56 (6.935)” | “33.05 (5.25)” | “28.89 (3.381)” |
Absorption and half-life
Dose proportionality
Steady state and accumulation with twice-daily dosing
Metabolism to amisulpride in humans
Metabolism in rodents
Plasma exposure compared with published amisulpride values
Membrane permeability and brain penetration
Food effect: company expectation
Class context: pharmacokinetics of oral amisulpride
Class context: excretion of intravenous amisulpride
Food effect study results for LB-102
No evidence found.
Absolute bioavailability, plasma protein binding, volume of distribution, mass balance, and routes of excretion of LB-102
No evidence found.
Pharmacokinetics of LB-102 in participants with schizophrenia
No evidence found.
Contraindications/Warnings/Precautions/Adverse effects
Warnings and precautions
FDA-approved prescribing information, contraindications, boxed warning, and REMS
Risks described to NOVA-1 investigators
NOVA-1: adverse events by dose
| Outcome, No. (%) | LB-102 50 mg (n = 107) | LB-102 75 mg (n = 108) | LB-102 100 mg (n = 36) | Placebo (n = 108) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Any TEAE | “74 (69.2)” | “62 (57.4)” | “27 (75.0)” | “60 (55.6)” |
| Any treatment-related TEAE | “49 (45.8)” | “34 (31.5)” | “17 (47.2)” | “23 (21.3)” |
| Any serious TEAE | “1 (0.9)” | “1 (0.9)” | “1 (2.8)” | “2 (1.9)” |
| TEAE leading to early withdrawal | “2 (1.9)” | “3 (2.8)” | “3 (8.3)” | “2 (1.9)” |
| Insomnia | “27 (25.2)” | “23 (21.3)” | “14 (38.9)” | “24 (22.2)” |
| Weight (increase) | “13 (12.1)” | “8 (7.4)” | “3 (8.3)” | “4 (3.7)” |
| Blood prolactin (increase) | “7 (6.5)” | “6 (5.6)” | “3 (8.3)” | “0” |
| Hyperprolactinemia | “4 (3.7)” | “2 (1.9)” | “3 (8.3)” | “0” |
| Somnolence | “1 (0.9)” | “4 (3.7)” | “2 (5.6)” | “0” |
| Blood creatine phosphokinase (increase) | “4 (3.7)” | “1 (0.9)” | “2 (5.6)” | “3 (2.8)” |
| Alanine aminotransferase (increase) | “3 (2.8)” | “1 (0.9)” | “2 (5.6)” | “1 (0.9)” |
| Constipation | “4 (3.7)” | “1 (0.9)” | “2 (5.6)” | “0” |
NOVA-1: extrapyramidal symptoms, dystonia, and akathisia
| Preferred term | LB-102 50 mg (N=107) | LB-102 75 mg (N=108) | LB-102 100 mg (N=36) | Placebo (N=108) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dystonia | “0” | “3 (2.8%)” | “1 (2.8%)” | “1 (0.9%)” |
| Akathisia | “1 (0.9%)” | “2 (1.8%)” | “0” | “1 (0.9%)” |
| Extrapyramidal disorder | “0” | “1 (0.9%)” | “1 (2.8%)” | “2 (1.9%)” |
| Total EPS | “1 (1.0%)” | “6 (5.6%)” | “2 (5.6%)” | “4 (3.7%)” |
NOVA-1: hyperprolactinemia and prolactin-related adverse events
| Parameter | LB-102 50 mg (n = 107) | LB-102 75 mg (n = 108) | LB-102 100 mg (n = 36) | Placebo (n = 108) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prolactin, mean (SD) change from baseline to day 28, ng/mL | “59.9 (55.11)” | “51.4 (52.02)” | “51.2 (48.07)” | “1.3 (6.03)” |
| Adverse event | LB-102 50 mg (N=107) | LB-102 75 mg (N=108) | LB-102 100 mg (N=36) | Placebo (N=108) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hyperprolactinemia | “11 (10.3%)” | “8 (7.4%)” | “6 (16.7%)” | “0” |
| Galactorrhea | “2 (1.9%)” | “1 (0.9%)” | “0” | “0” |
| Breast enlargement | “0” | “0” | “1 (2.8%)” | “0” |
| Erectile dysfunction | “0” | “0” | “1 (2.8%)” | “0” |
| Total related to prolactin | “2 (1.9%)” | “1 (0.9%)” | “2 (5.6%)” | “0” |
NOVA-1: weight gain and metabolic parameters
| Parameter, mean (SD) change from baseline to day 28 | LB-102 50 mg (n = 107) | LB-102 75 mg (n = 108) | LB-102 100 mg (n = 36) | Placebo (n = 108) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weight, kg | “4.3 (3.2)” | “3.3 (2.8)” | “2.9 (2.5)” | “2.0 (2.9)” |
| Fasting glucose, mg/dL | “2.3 (24.52)” | “2.0 (13.62)” | “7.0 (19.39)” | “0.2 (12.07)” |
| Total cholesterol, mg/dL | “7.7 (24.75)” | “5.4 (23.98)” | “5.8 (25.52)” | “0.8 (25.06)” |
NOVA-1: sedation, somnolence, and insomnia
NOVA-1: orthostasis, suicidal ideation, and discontinuations
Phase 1: dose-limiting acute dystonia and maximum tolerated dose
Class context: U.S. boxed warning on antipsychotic use in elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis
Class context: amisulpride labeling on QT prolongation
Class context: amisulpride labeling on hyperprolactinemia
Class context: contraindications in oral amisulpride labeling
| Contraindication | Quoted text |
|---|---|
| Hypersensitivity | “Hypersensitivity to the active substance or to other ingredients of the medicinal product.” |
| Prolactin-dependent tumours | “Concomitant prolactin-dependent tumours e.g. pituitary gland prolactinomas or breast cancer (see sections 4.4 and 4.8)” |
| Phaeochromocytoma | “Phaeochromocytoma” |
| Children | “Children up to puberty” |
| Levodopa | “Combination with levodopa (see section 4.5)” |
Class context: other warnings in oral amisulpride labeling
Safety beyond 4 weeks of treatment, tardive dyskinesia, and neuroleptic malignant syndrome with LB-102
No evidence found.
Special populations
Age range studied
Sex and race of NOVA-1 participants
Hepatic impairment: NOVA-1 exclusion criteria
Cardiac conduction and cardiovascular disease: NOVA-1 exclusion criteria
Cardiac conduction: PET study exclusion criteria
Medical exclusions in NOVA-2
Pregnancy, lactation, and contraception
Suicidality: exclusion criteria
Substance use: exclusion criteria and restrictions
Other excluded groups in NOVA-1
Planned study in elderly healthy volunteers
Class context: amisulpride in renal impairment
Class context: amisulpride in hepatic impairment, elderly patients, children, and lactation
QTc and laboratory exclusion thresholds in NOVA-2 and NOVA-3
No evidence found.
Renal impairment study, hepatic impairment study, pediatric data, and data in adults older than 65 years for LB-102
No evidence found.
Drug/Drug, drug/disease interactions
Effects of other drugs on LB-102
Company statement on expected drug interactions
NOVA-1 protocol: prohibited CYP2D6 inhibitors and CYP3A4 inhibitors and inducers
NOVA-1 protocol: prohibited antipsychotics and other psychotropic medications
Class context: metabolism and transport of amisulpride
Class context: QT-prolonging drugs in amisulpride labeling
Clinical drug interaction studies with LB-102
No evidence found.
In vitro CYP and transporter substrate findings for LB-102
No evidence found.
Restrictions on QT-prolonging medications in the LB-102 trial protocols
No evidence found.
Effects of LB-102 on other drugs
Class context: CYP and transporter inhibition by amisulpride
Class context: pharmacodynamic interactions in amisulpride labeling
Class context: drug and disease interactions in amisulpride labeling
Clinical drug interaction studies with LB-102
No evidence found.
In vitro CYP inhibition, CYP induction, and transporter inhibition by LB-102
No evidence found.
Dosing and administration
Dosage
Phase 1 single and multiple ascending dose study
NOVA-1: fixed doses of 50 mg, 75 mg, and 100 mg once daily
NOVA-1: dose rationale
NOVA-2: fixed doses of 50 mg and 100 mg once daily
NOVA-3: flexible dosing
Comparison with the amisulpride dose
Context: doses in the bipolar depression trial
Proposed labeled dose, maximum dose, and dose adjustment in renal or hepatic impairment
No evidence found.
Administration
Route and frequency
NOVA-1: tablets administered per dose
Phase 1 PET study: capsule formulation, dosing time, and food
Setting: inpatient dosing in NOVA-1 and NOVA-2
Fasted or fed dosing conditions in NOVA-1, NOVA-2, and NOVA-3
No evidence found.
Missed dose instructions and administration with other medications
No evidence found.
Access and distribution
Current access through clinical trials only
Expanded access policy
Continued access for NOVA-2 completers through the open-label trial
Commercial preparation
Manufacturing and supply
Planned commercial territories and partnering
Distribution channel, specialty pharmacy requirement, and risk evaluation and mitigation strategy
No evidence found.
Co-prescribed/Concomitant therapies
NOVA-1: discontinuation and washout of prior antipsychotics
NOVA-1: prohibited psychotropic medications
NOVA-1: permitted rescue medications
NOVA-1: dose limits for permitted rescue medications
| Medication | Study period | Dose permitted |
|---|---|---|
| Lorazepam | Screening phase through day 7 | “Maximum of 6 mg/day” |
| Lorazepam | Day 8 through day 14 | “Maximum of 4 mg/day” |
| Lorazepam | Day 15 through day 28 | “Maximum of 2 mg/day” |
| Benztropine | Screening phase through day 28 | “Maximum 4 mg/day” |
| Propranolol | Screening phase through day 28 | “Maximum of 40 mg/day” |
NOVA-1: prohibited CYP2D6 inhibitors and CYP3A4 inhibitors and inducers
NOVA-1: electroconvulsive therapy and transcranial magnetic stimulation
NOVA-1: unauthorized concomitant medications
Phase 1: treatment of acute dystonia
NOVA-3: prior oral antipsychotic treatment
Reported use of rescue and concomitant medications in NOVA-1
No evidence found.
Permitted and prohibited concomitant medications in NOVA-2 and NOVA-3
No evidence found.
Use of LB-102 in combination with another antipsychotic
No evidence found.
Effect of LB-102 on quality measures
HEDIS Adherence to Antipsychotic Medications for Individuals With Schizophrenia (SAA): definition and rationale
HEDIS Diabetes Screening for People With Schizophrenia or Bipolar Disorder Who Are Using Antipsychotic Medications (SSD): definition and rationale
HEDIS Diabetes Monitoring for People With Diabetes and Schizophrenia (SMD): definition and rationale
HEDIS Cardiovascular Monitoring for People With Cardiovascular Disease and Schizophrenia (SMC): definition and rationale
HEDIS Follow-Up After Hospitalization for Mental Illness (FUH): definition and rationale
HEDIS Follow-Up After Emergency Department Visit for Mental Illness (FUM): definition and rationale
HEDIS Metabolic Monitoring for Children and Adolescents on Antipsychotics (APM): pediatric measure, for context
NCQA 2027 Health Plan Ratings: SAA, FUH, and FUM scored for commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid plans, and SSD for Medicaid plans
CMS 2027 Medicaid Adult Core Set: mandatory behavioral health measures that apply to schizophrenia
National performance: state Medicaid medians on SAA-AD and SSD-AD, 2023 Adult Core Set
National performance: state Medicaid medians on FUH-AD and FUM-AD, 2023 Adult Core Set
Quality metrics among Medicaid beneficiaries with schizophrenia: national claims, 2018
Quality metrics among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries with schizophrenia: national claims, 2019
Attainment of the HEDIS antipsychotic continuity measure in Medicaid claims and associated factors
Adherence and outcomes: gaps in antipsychotic coverage and rehospitalization in California Medicaid
Adherence and outcomes: Medicaid inpatient admissions and costs attributable to gaps in antipsychotic treatment
Follow-up after hospitalization and outcomes: outpatient visit within 30 days and readmission risk
Follow-up after hospitalization: rates and antipsychotic-related predictors in national Medicaid claims
LB-102-specific effect on quality measures
No evidence found.
Product comparison
Summary
No trial has compared LB-102 with an active drug. NOVA-1 had no active comparator arm, the company states that it has not conducted a head-to-head clinical trial against amisulpride, and the phase 3 NOVA-2 trial compares LB-102 50 mg and 100 mg with placebo over 6 weeks. Every comparison in this section is therefore indirect, across trials that differ in duration, baseline severity, and placebo response.
In NOVA-1 (4 weeks, 359 participants randomized, mean baseline PANSS total score about 94), the least-squares mean difference from placebo in PANSS total score at week 4 was -5.0 points with 50 mg (95% CI -8.0 to -2.1), -4.7 points with 75 mg (95% CI -7.7 to -1.7), and -6.8 points with the exploratory 100 mg dose (95% CI -11.1 to -2.6; 36 participants). The placebo group improved by 9.3 points. Post hoc Hedges g was 0.61, 0.41, and 0.83.
Amisulpride, the parent compound, is approved in Europe for acute and chronic schizophrenia at 400 to 800 mg per day for acute episodes (up to 1200 mg per day in individual cases), with doses above 400 mg divided in two. In the United States it is approved only as intravenous BARHEMSYS for postoperative nausea and vomiting. The company states that dopamine receptor occupancy at 50 mg of LB-102 is approximately equivalent to that at 300 to 400 mg of amisulpride. In the 2019 network meta-analysis of 32 oral antipsychotics (402 studies, 53,463 participants), amisulpride had the largest standardized mean difference from placebo for positive symptoms (-0.69, 95% CrI -0.86 to -0.52) and was one of five drugs that reduced overall symptoms significantly more than many other drugs. The NOVA-1 authors cite its overall-symptom estimate as -0.73 (95% CrI -0.89 to -0.58), beside -0.56 for olanzapine and -0.55 for risperidone. The meta-analysis authors note that no placebo-controlled amisulpride study was available for overall symptoms and that confidence in the evidence was often low or very low. In the 2013 multiple-treatments meta-analysis (212 trials, 43,049 participants), the amisulpride estimate was 0.66 (95% CrI 0.53 to 0.78). In BeSt InTro (144 participants, 52 weeks), the PANSS total score fell by 32.7 points with amisulpride, 21.9 points with aripiprazole, and 23.3 points with olanzapine. In predominant negative symptoms, amisulpride was superior to placebo across 4 trials with 590 participants (standardized mean difference 0.47, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.71).
Placebo-subtracted PANSS total score differences in the registration trials of other oral agents were as follows. Xanomeline-trospium: -9.6 points (EMERGENT-2, 5 weeks, 252 participants) and -8.4 points (EMERGENT-3, 5 weeks, 256 participants), with a pooled estimate of -9.9 points across three 5-week trials (640 participants). An independent meta-analysis of the same three trials (690 participants) gave a standardized mean difference of -0.56 (95% CI -0.72 to -0.40); the company presentation states that the LB-102 100 mg effect sizes (0.83 in completers and 0.64 by mixed model) are greater than that value. Lumateperone 42 mg: -4.2 points (4 weeks, 450 participants) and -5.8 points (4 weeks, 335 participants). Cariprazine: -6.0 to -10.4 points across three 6-week trials (711, 604, and 439 participants). Brexpiprazole: -3.1 to -8.7 points across two 6-week trials. Lurasidone: -2.1 to -16.2 points across three 6-week trials (473, 489, and 482 participants). Olanzapine and samidorphan: -6.4 points (4 weeks, 401 participants dosed). Meta-analyses of placebo-controlled antipsychotic trials report that placebo response has increased over time and that the drug-placebo difference decreased with later publication year, lower baseline severity, and longer study duration.
In NOVA-1, mean prolactin rose by 51.2 to 59.9 ng/mL in the LB-102 groups and by 1.3 ng/mL with placebo. Elevated prolactin at day 28 was reported in 87.5% to 94.0% of LB-102 participants and 5.2% of placebo participants, and 5 participants had a prolactin-related clinical adverse event. In the 2019 network meta-analysis, mean differences from placebo in prolactin ranged from -77.05 ng/mL (clozapine) to 48.51 ng/mL (paliperidone), and amisulpride was one of eight drugs with significantly elevated prolactin. Mean weight change over 4 weeks was 2.9 to 4.3 kg with LB-102 and 2.0 kg with placebo; a weight increase of 7% or more occurred in 9% to 26% of LB-102 participants and 10% of placebo participants; the company reports approximately 1.6 kg of placebo-adjusted weight gain. The network meta-analysis range for weight gain against placebo was -0.16 kg (ziprasidone) to 3.21 kg (zotepine), and the NOVA-1 authors place LB-102 between xanomeline-trospium (-0.37 kg) and olanzapine (2.78 kg). Mean QTc change was 4.3 to 5.4 milliseconds with LB-102 and 1.2 milliseconds with placebo; the network meta-analysis range was -2.21 milliseconds (lurasidone) to 23.90 milliseconds (sertindole). Extrapyramidal symptom incidence in the publication was 0% to 2.8% with LB-102 and 1.9% with placebo. The company total, which adds dystonia and akathisia, was 1.0%, 5.6%, and 5.6% at 50 mg, 75 mg, and 100 mg and 3.7% with placebo. In EMERGENT-2, extrapyramidal symptoms were reported in 0% of both groups, nausea in 19% and vomiting in 14% of xanomeline-trospium participants, and weight gain in 0% of xanomeline-trospium participants and 1% of placebo participants.
Among investigational agents, emraclidine did not meet the primary endpoint in two 6-week phase 2 trials reported in November 2024. Brilaroxazine 50 mg differed from placebo by 10.1 points at week 4 in the phase 3 RECOVER trial (412 participants), and the FDA recommended a second phase 3 trial. Ulotaront was not superior to placebo in the 6-week phase 3 DIAMOND 1 trial (435 participants), and in DIAMOND 2 (464 participants) its reductions were numerically larger than with placebo (-16.4 and -18.1 points against -14.3 points). Iclepertin did not meet its primary and key secondary endpoints for cognition in the phase 3 CONNEX program (1,840 participants). NBI-1117568 20 mg once daily differed from placebo by 7.5 points at week 6 in phase 2, and a phase 3 program began in 2025. ML-007C-MA twice daily differed from placebo by 4.5 points in the phase 2 ZEPHYR trial (307 participants) reported in July 2026. Adjunctive xanomeline-trospium differed from placebo by 2.0 points in the phase 3 ARISE trial (P = 0.11). Evenamide added to current antipsychotic therapy differed from placebo by 2.5 points at 4 weeks (291 participants). The FDA approved milsaperidone (BYSANTI) for schizophrenia in February 2026 and a lumateperone relapse-prevention supplement in April 2026, and an application for olanzapine extended-release injection (TEV-749) is under review with a decision expected in the fourth quarter of 2026. SEP-4199, a non-racemic amisulpride, was studied in bipolar I depression, and its phase 3 trial was terminated after 83 participants enrolled.
No editorial accompanying the NOVA-1 publication was identified, and no network meta-analysis or indirect treatment comparison that includes LB-102 was identified. A 2026 review describes LB-102 as a potential first benzamide antipsychotic for the United States market with an effect size of 0.61 at 50 mg. A 2025 review states that hyperprolactinemia “may limit its usability in the future”. A NOVA-1 investigator stated that the full clinical value will depend on phase 3 data, longer-term metabolic and endocrine outcomes, relapse prevention, functioning, adherence, and head-to-head comparisons.
NOVA-1 primary endpoint: PANSS total score change and difference from placebo at week 4
| Measure | LB-102 50 mg | LB-102 75 mg | LB-102 100 mg | Placebo |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline PANSS total score, mean (SD) | “93.9 (7.53)” | “93.6 (7.79)” | “93.9 (9.01)” | “93.8 (8.17)” |
| Least-squares mean change (SE) | “−14.3 (1.10)” | “−14.0 (1.11)” | “−16.1 (1.91)” | “−9.3 (1.08)” |
| Least-squares mean difference from placebo (SE) [95% CI] | “−5.0 (1.51) [−8.0 to −2.1]” | “−4.7 (1.53) [−7.7 to −1.7]” | “−6.8 (2.17) [−11.1 to −2.6]” | “NA” |
| P value | “<.001” | “.002” | “.002” | “NA” |
NOVA-1 effect size placed beside established oral antipsychotics by the trial authors
NOVA-1 effect size beside amisulpride and xanomeline-trospium: company presentation
NOVA-2 phase 3 design: placebo-controlled, with no active comparator arm
LB-102 against amisulpride: no head-to-head clinical trial, company statement
LB-102 against amisulpride: design goals stated by the company
LB-102 against amisulpride: dose and dopamine receptor occupancy
LB-102 against amisulpride: preclinical head-to-head studies and plasma exposure
Amisulpride regulatory status: schizophrenia indication in Europe and intravenous antiemetic indication in the United States
Oral amisulpride dosing: European summary of product characteristics
Amisulpride efficacy standing: network meta-analysis of 32 oral antipsychotics
Amisulpride tolerability standing: network meta-analysis of 32 oral antipsychotics
Weight gain, prolactin, QTc, akathisia, and antiparkinson medication use across oral antipsychotics: network meta-analysis ranges
Amisulpride in the multiple-treatments meta-analysis of 15 antipsychotic drugs
Amisulpride against conventional antipsychotics and placebo: meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled trials
Amisulpride in first-episode schizophrenia: EUFEST open randomised trial
Amisulpride as first-step treatment in first-episode schizophrenia: OPTiMiSE
Amisulpride against aripiprazole and olanzapine over 52 weeks: BeSt InTro
Amisulpride for predominant negative symptoms: systematic review and meta-analysis
Company characterization of the comparative evidence for amisulpride
Xanomeline-trospium: EMERGENT-2 design and primary endpoint
Xanomeline-trospium: EMERGENT-2 adverse events
Xanomeline-trospium: EMERGENT-3 design and primary endpoint
Xanomeline-trospium: EMERGENT-3 adverse events and discontinuation
Xanomeline-trospium: pooled efficacy across the three 5-week EMERGENT trials
Xanomeline-trospium: pooled safety across the three 5-week EMERGENT trials
Xanomeline-trospium: independent meta-analysis of the three 5-week placebo-controlled trials
Xanomeline-trospium: COBENFY prescribing information, primary efficacy results at week 5
| Study | Treatment group | N | Mean baseline PANSS total score (SD) | LS mean change from baseline (SE) | Placebo-subtracted difference (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study 1 (NCT04659161) | COBENFY | “117” | “98.2 (8.9)” | “-21.2 (1.7)” | “-9.6 (-13.9, -5.2)” |
| Study 1 (NCT04659161) | Placebo | “119” | “97.7 (9.4)” | “-11.6 (1.6)” | Not reported |
| Study 2 (NCT04738123) | COBENFY | “114” | “96.9 (8.8)” | “-20.6 (1.6)” | “-8.4 (-12.4, -4.3)” |
| Study 2 (NCT04738123) | Placebo | “120” | “96.5 (8.8)” | “-12.2 (1.6)” | Not reported |
Xanomeline-trospium: COBENFY prescribing information, dosing, titration, and food restriction
Xanomeline-trospium: COBENFY prescribing information, most common adverse reactions (at least 5% and at least twice the placebo rate)
Xanomeline-trospium: COBENFY prescribing information, contraindications
“COBENFY is contraindicated in patients with:” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“urinary retention” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“gastric retention” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
“untreated narrow-angle glaucoma” (opens the source at this quote in a new tab)
Lumateperone: Study 301 design and primary endpoint at day 28
Lumateperone: effect size beside brexpiprazole, cariprazine, and lurasidone as stated by the Study 301 authors
Lumateperone: CAPLYTA prescribing information, primary efficacy results at week 4
| Study | Treatment group | N | Mean baseline PANSS total score (SD) | LS mean change from baseline (SE) | Placebo-subtracted difference (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study 1 | CAPLYTA 42 mg | “84” | “88.1 (11.0)” | “-13.2 (1.7)” | “-5.8 (-10.5, -1.1)” |
| Study 1 | Placebo | “85” | “86.3 (13.1)” | “-7.4 (1.7)” | Not reported |
| Study 2 | CAPLYTA 42 mg | “150” | “90.0 (9.6)” | “-14.5 (1.3)” | “-4.2 (-7.8, -0.6)” |
| Study 2 | Placebo | “150” | “89.0 (10.3)” | “-10.3 (1.3)” | Not reported |
Cariprazine: VRAYLAR prescribing information, primary efficacy results at week 6
| Study | Treatment group | Mean baseline PANSS total score (SD) | LS mean change from baseline (SE) | Placebo-subtracted difference (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study 1 | VRAYLAR 1.5 mg/day | “97.1 (9.1)” | “-19.4 (1.6)” | “-7.6 (-11.8, -3.3)” |
| Study 1 | VRAYLAR 3 mg/day | “97.2 (8.7)” | “-20.7 (1.6)” | “-8.8 (-13.1, -4.6)” |
| Study 1 | VRAYLAR 4.5 mg/day | “96.7 (9.0)” | “-22.3 (1.6)” | “-10.4 (-14.6, -6.2)” |
| Study 1 | Placebo | “97.3 (9.2)” | “-11.8 (1.5)” | Not reported |
| Study 2 | VRAYLAR 3 mg/day | “96.1 (8.7)” | “-20.2 (1.5)” | “-6.0 (-10.1, -1.9)” |
| Study 2 | VRAYLAR 6 mg/day | “95.7 (9.4)” | “-23.0 (1.5)” | “-8.8 (-12.9, -4.7)” |
| Study 2 | Placebo | “96.5 (9.1)” | “-14.3 (1.5)” | Not reported |
| Study 3 | VRAYLAR 3 to 6 mg/day | “96.3 (9.3)” | “-22.8 (1.6)” | “-6.8 (-11.3, -2.4)” |
| Study 3 | VRAYLAR 6 to 9 mg/day | “96.3 (9.0)” | “-25.9 (1.7)” | “-9.9 (-14.5, -5.3)” |
| Study 3 | Placebo | “96.6 (9.3)” | “-16.0 (1.6)” | Not reported |
Brexpiprazole: REXULTI prescribing information, primary efficacy results at week 6
| Study | Treatment group | N | Mean baseline PANSS total score (SD) | LS mean change from baseline (SE) | Placebo-subtracted difference (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study 3 | REXULTI 2 mg/day | “180” | “95.9 (13.8)” | “-20.7 (1.5)” | “-8.7 (-13.1, -4.4)” |
| Study 3 | REXULTI 4 mg/day | “178” | “94.7 (12.1)” | “-19.7 (1.5)” | “-7.6 (-12.0, -3.1)” |
| Study 3 | Placebo | “178” | “95.7 (11.5)” | “-12.0 (1.6)” | Not reported |
| Study 4 | REXULTI 2 mg/day | “179” | “96.3 (12.9)” | “-16.6 (1.5)” | “-3.1 (-7.2, 1.1)” |
| Study 4 | REXULTI 4 mg/day | “181” | “95.0 (12.4)” | “-20.0 (1.5)” | “-6.5 (-10.6, -2.4)” |
| Study 4 | Placebo | “180” | “94.6 (12.8)” | “-13.5 (1.5)” | Not reported |
Lurasidone: LATUDA prescribing information, primary efficacy results at week 6 in the PANSS studies
| Study | Treatment group | Mean baseline PANSS total score (SD) | LS mean change from baseline (SE) | Placebo-subtracted difference (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study 3 | LATUDA 40 mg/day | “96.6 (10.7)” | “-25.7 (2.0)” | “-9.7 (-15.3, -4.1)” |
| Study 3 | LATUDA 120 mg/day | “97.9 (11.3)” | “-23.6 (2.1)” | “-7.5 (-13.4, -1.7)” |
| Study 3 | Olanzapine 15 mg/day | “96.3 (12.2)” | “-28.7 (1.9)” | “-12.6 (-18.2, -7.9)” |
| Study 3 | Placebo | “95.8 (10.8)” | “-16.0 (2.1)” | Not reported |
| Study 4 | LATUDA 40 mg/day | “96.5 (11.5)” | “-19.2 (1.7)” | “-2.1 (-7.0, 2.8)” |
| Study 4 | LATUDA 80 mg/day | “96.0 (10.8)” | “-23.4 (1.8)” | “-6.4 (-11.3, -1.5)” |
| Study 4 | LATUDA 120 mg/day | “96.0 (9.7)” | “-20.5 (1.8)” | “-3.5 (-8.4, 1.4)” |
| Study 4 | Placebo | “96.8 (11.1)” | “-17.0 (1.8)” | Not reported |
| Study 5 | LATUDA 80 mg/day | “97.7 (9.7)” | “-22.2 (1.8)” | “-11.9 (-16.9, -6.9)” |
| Study 5 | LATUDA 160 mg/day | “97.5 (11.8)” | “-26.5 (1.8)” | “-16.2 (-21.2, -11.2)” |
| Study 5 | Quetiapine extended-release 600 mg/day | “97.7 (10.2)” | “-27.8 (1.8)” | “-17.5 (-22.5, -12.4)” |
| Study 5 | Placebo | “96.6 (10.2)” | “-10.3 (1.8)” | Not reported |
Olanzapine and samidorphan: ENLIGHTEN-2 weight gain compared with olanzapine at week 24
Olanzapine and samidorphan: ENLIGHTEN-1 PANSS total score at week 4
Olanzapine and samidorphan: LYBALVI prescribing information, PANSS total score at week 4
| Treatment group | N | Baseline mean PANSS total score (SD) | LS mean change from baseline (SE) | Placebo-subtracted difference (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LYBALVI 10 mg/10 mg or 20 mg/10 mg | “(N=132)” | “101.8 (11.6)” | “-23.9 (1.3)” | “–6.4 (-10.0, -2.8)” |
| Olanzapine 10 mg or 20 mg | “(N=132)” | “100.6 (12.1)” | “-22.8 (1.3)” | “-5.3 (-8.9, -1.7)” |
| Placebo | “(N=133)” | “102.7 (11.9)” | “-17.5 (1.3)” | Not reported |
Olanzapine and samidorphan: LYBALVI prescribing information, weight change at week 24 and opioid contraindication
| Treatment group | N | Baseline mean weight, kg (SD) | LS mean percent change from baseline (SE) | Olanzapine-subtracted difference (95% CI) | Patients with at least 10% weight gain, % | Olanzapine-subtracted risk difference (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LYBALVI 10 mg/10 mg or 20 mg/10 mg | “(N=266)” | “77.0 (13.7)” | “4.2 (0.7)” | “-2.4 (-3.9, -0.9)” | “17.8” | “-13.7 (-22.8, -4.6)” |
| Olanzapine 10 mg or 20 mg | “(N=272)” | “77.5 (13.5)” | “6.6 (0.7)” | Not reported | “29.8” | Not reported |
Branded oral antipsychotics: label-based efficacy comparison presented in the LB Pharmaceuticals annual report
| Drug | Placebo-corrected reduction in PANSS | Recommended dosage | Dosing frequency |
|---|---|---|---|
| Caplyta | “5.8 (Trial 1) 4.2 (Trial 2)” | “42 mg” | “Once-daily” |
| Cobenfy | “9.6 (Trial 1) 8.4 (Trial 2)” | “Up to 125 mg/30 mg” | “Twice-daily, 1 hour before or at least 2 hours after meals” |
| Rexulti | “7.6 (Trial 1) 6.5 (Trial 2)” | “4 mg” | “Once-daily” |
| Vraylar | “7.6 – 10.4 (Trial 1) 6.0 – 8.8 (Trial 2) 6.8 – 9.9 (Trial 3)” | “1.5 - 6 mg” | “Once-daily” |
Cross-trial comparison caveat: variability of PANSS results across trials, as stated by LB Pharmaceuticals
Cross-trial comparison caveat: no active comparator in NOVA-1 and a 9-point placebo reduction
Cross-trial comparison caveat: no active comparator in the EMERGENT trials
Cross-trial comparison caveat: adverse reaction rates across trials, as stated in FDA labeling
Cross-trial comparison caveat: effect sizes in 167 placebo-controlled trials, industry sponsorship, and rising placebo response
Cross-trial comparison caveat: trial characteristics associated with placebo response
Cross-trial comparison caveat: moderators with different effects on drug response and placebo response
Cross-trial comparison caveat: drug-placebo difference by publication year, baseline severity, and study duration
Cross-trial comparison caveat: patient and design factors associated with placebo response, 1970 to 2010
NOVA-1 tolerability: weight, prolactin, glucose, cholesterol, and QTc change from baseline to day 28
| Measure | LB-102 50 mg (n = 107) | LB-102 75 mg (n = 108) | LB-102 100 mg (n = 36) | Placebo (n = 108) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weight, mean (SD) change, kg | “4.3 (3.2)” | “3.3 (2.8)” | “2.9 (2.5)” | “2.0 (2.9)” |
| Weight increase of 7% or more, number of participants (%) | “27 (26%)” | “20 (19%)” | “3 (9%)” | “11 (10%)” |
| Prolactin, mean (SD) change, ng/mL | “59.9 (55.11)” | “51.4 (52.02)” | “51.2 (48.07)” | “1.3 (6.03)” |
| Fasting glucose, mean (SD) change, mg/dL | “2.3 (24.52)” | “2.0 (13.62)” | “7.0 (19.39)” | “0.2 (12.07)” |
| Total cholesterol, mean (SD) change, mg/dL | “7.7 (24.75)” | “5.4 (23.98)” | “5.8 (25.52)” | “0.8 (25.06)” |
| QTc, mean (SD) change, milliseconds | “4.9 (13.39)” | “4.3 (12.55)” | “5.4 (9.44)” | “1.2 (12.56)” |
| QTc mean change of 30 milliseconds or more, number of participants (%) | “5 (4.7)” | “1 (0.9)” | “1 (2.8)” | “1 (0.9)” |
NOVA-1 tolerability: prolactin elevation and prolactin-related adverse events
NOVA-1 tolerability: weight increase
NOVA-1 tolerability: extrapyramidal symptoms, akathisia, and QTc
NOVA-1 adverse events of special interest as reported by the company
| Adverse event | LB-102 50 mg (N=107) | LB-102 75 mg (N=108) | LB-102 100 mg (N=36) | Placebo (N=108) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dystonia | “0” | “3 (2.8%)” | “1 (2.8%)” | “1 (0.9%)” |
| Akathisia | “1 (0.9%)” | “2 (1.8%)” | “0” | “1 (0.9%)” |
| Extrapyramidal disorder | “0” | “1 (0.9%)” | “1 (2.8%)” | “2 (1.9%)” |
| Total extrapyramidal symptoms | “1 (1.0%)” | “6 (5.6%)” | “2 (5.6%)” | “4 (3.7%)” |
| Total adverse events related to prolactin increase | “2 (1.9%)” | “1 (0.9%)” | “2 (5.6%)” | “0” |
| Hyperprolactinemia | “11 (10.3%)” | “8 (7.4%)” | “6 (16.7%)” | “0” |
| Sedation | “0” | “1 (0.9%)” | “0” | “0” |
| QTcF change from baseline at day 28, milliseconds | “4.9” | “4.3” | “5.4” | “1.2” |
NOVA-1 tolerability placed beside amisulpride, xanomeline-trospium, and olanzapine by the trial authors
Extrapyramidal symptom rates beside amisulpride and other dopamine D2 antagonists and partial agonists: company presentation
Amisulpride prolactin, extrapyramidal, weight, and QT statements: European summary of product characteristics
Amisulpride QT prolongation: United States intravenous label and company statements
Metabolic effects of 18 antipsychotics: network meta-analysis
Emraclidine (M4 positive allosteric modulator): EMPOWER-1 and EMPOWER-2 primary endpoint at week 6
| Trial and arm | Participants | Least squares mean change in PANSS total score at week 6 (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|
| EMPOWER-1, placebo | “N= 127” | “-13.5 (-17.0, -10.0)” |
| EMPOWER-1, emraclidine 10 mg once daily | “N = 125” | “-14.7 (-18.1, -11.2)” |
| EMPOWER-1, emraclidine 30 mg once daily | “N = 127” | “-16.5 (-20.0, -13.1)” |
| EMPOWER-2, placebo | “N = 128” | “-16.1 (-19.4, -12.8)” |
| EMPOWER-2, emraclidine 15 mg once daily | “N = 122” | “-18.5 (-22.0, -15.0)” |
| EMPOWER-2, emraclidine 30 mg once daily | “N = 123” | “-14.2 (-17.6, -10.8)” |
Emraclidine: independent review of the placebo response in the EMPOWER trials
Emraclidine: impairment charge and the phase 2 dose-ranging study started in 2025
| Field | Quoted record |
|---|---|
| Phase | “Phase 2” |
| Study start (actual) | “2025-08-04” |
| Primary completion (estimated) | “2028-02” |
Brilaroxazine (serotonin-dopamine modulator): RECOVER phase 3 primary endpoint at week 4
Brilaroxazine: RECOVER tolerability findings at 4 weeks
Brilaroxazine: 1-year open-label extension
Brilaroxazine: FDA recommendation of a second phase 3 trial and RECOVER-2 timing
Ulotaront (TAAR1 agonist): DIAMOND 1 and DIAMOND 2 phase 3 primary endpoint at week 6
Ulotaront: pooled effect size of TAAR1 agonists relative to dopamine-blocking antipsychotics
Ulotaront: registration plan for schizophrenia after the DIAMOND results
No evidence found.
Iclepertin (GlyT1 inhibitor) for cognitive impairment: CONNEX phase 3 program topline results
Iclepertin: CONNEX primary endpoint in the peer-reviewed report
NBI-1117568 (direclidine, M4 selective agonist): phase 2 primary endpoint at week 6
| Arm | Participants | Least squares mean change in PANSS total score at week 6 | Difference from placebo |
|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo | “N=68” | “-10.8” | “-” |
| 20 mg once daily | “N=35” | “-18.2” | “-7.5 (p=0.011)” |
| 40 mg once daily | “N=38” | “-12.6” | “-1.9 (p=0.282)” |
| 60 mg once daily | “N=34” | “-13.7” | “-2.9 (p=0.189)” |
| 30 mg twice daily | “N=26” | “-15.8” | “-5.0 (p=0.090)” |
NBI-1117568: phase 2 tolerability
NBI-1117568: phase 3 program and expected readout
Evenamide (glutamate modulator) as add-on therapy: study 008A primary endpoint at 4 weeks
Evenamide: ENIGMA-TRS phase 3 program status in September 2026
Xanomeline-trospium as adjunctive therapy: ARISE phase 3 primary endpoint at week 6
| Measure | Xanomeline-trospium plus antipsychotic | Placebo plus antipsychotic | Least squares mean difference (95% CI) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Change in PANSS total score at week 6, least squares mean (SE) | “-14.3 (1.01)” | “-12.2 (0.98)” | “-2.0 (-4.5, 0.5)” | “0.11” |
ML-007C-MA (M1/M4 agonist with fesoterodine): ZEPHYR phase 2 primary endpoint at week 5
Milsaperidone (BYSANTI): FDA approval for schizophrenia in February 2026
Lumateperone (CAPLYTA): FDA approval of relapse prevention data in April 2026
Olanzapine extended-release subcutaneous injection (TEV-749): NDA under FDA review
Roluperidone for negative symptoms: confirmatory phase 3 trial started in March 2026
Motivista (CT-155) prescription digital therapeutic: FDA 510(k) clearance for negative symptoms in July 2026
SEP-4199 (non-racemic amisulpride): enantiomer ratio and receptor rationale
SEP-4199: phase 2 trial in bipolar I depression
SEP-4199: phase 3 trial in bipolar I depression terminated
| Field | Quoted record |
|---|---|
| Title | “A Clinical Study of an Investigational Drug for the Treatment of Major Depressive Episode Associated With Bipolar I Disorder.” |
| Sponsor | “Sumitomo Pharma America, Inc.” |
| Phase | “Phase 3” |
| Recruitment status | “Terminated” |
| Reason stopped | “Company decided not to move forward with further accrual.” |
| Enrollment (actual) | “83” |
| Primary completion (actual) | “2023-10-18” |
SEP-4199: clinical trial in schizophrenia
No evidence found.
Independent review of new pharmacological approaches for schizophrenia: LB-102
Independent review of novel antipsychotic drugs: hyperprolactinemia as a possible limit on LB-102 use
Independent reviews: LB-102 among investigational treatments for negative symptoms and among amisulpride analogs
Clinician commentary on the NOVA-1 publication: investigator caveats and an uninvolved clinician
Trade press appraisal of the NOVA-1 publication: evidence payers are expected to require
Trade press comparison of NOVA-1 topline results with xanomeline-trospium and NBI-1117568
Editorial or invited commentary accompanying the JAMA Psychiatry publication of NOVA-1
No evidence found.
Network meta-analysis or indirect treatment comparison that includes LB-102
No evidence found.
Direct head-to-head clinical comparison of LB-102 with amisulpride, xanomeline-trospium, or another antipsychotic
No evidence found.
Place of product in therapy
Disease description
Definition and etiology
Definition: disorder of thought, perception, emotion, and social interaction
Definition: ICD-11 description of schizophrenia (6A20)
Etiology: interaction of genetic and environmental risk factors
Heritability: twin studies
Common genetic variants: genome-wide association study of 76,755 people with schizophrenia
Rare variants: 22q11.2 deletion
Environmental risk factors: cannabis use
Environmental risk factors: obstetric and perinatal complications
Environmental risk factors: urbanicity
Environmental risk factors: migration
Risk and protective factors: umbrella review of 170 putative factors
Epidemiology
Incidence of Schizophrenia
Global incidence: Global Burden of Disease Study 2021
Global incidence: Global Burden of Disease Study 2019
Global incidence: systematic review and meta-analysis, 2002 to 2017
Global incidence: systematic review of 1,458 rates from 33 countries
United States incidence: commercial insurance and New York State Medicaid claims, 2019
United States incidence: Medicaid beneficiaries in six states, 2012 to 2017
United States incidence: weighted national claims estimate, 2022
United States incidence of first-episode psychosis: five health care systems, 2007 to 2013
Age at onset
Prevalence of Schizophrenia
Global prevalence: Global Burden of Disease Study 2021
Global prevalence: Global Burden of Disease Study 2016
Global prevalence: World Health Organization estimate
Point, period, and lifetime prevalence: systematic review of 188 studies
Twelve-month and lifetime prevalence: systematic review of 65 studies, 1990 to 2013
Prevalence of psychotic disorders: systematic review and meta-analysis of 73 studies
Lifetime prevalence cited in the American Psychiatric Association guideline
United States prevalence: National Institute of Mental Health summary
United States prevalence: Mental and Substance Use Disorders Prevalence Study, adults aged 18 to 65 years
United States prevalence: National Comorbidity Survey Replication
United States diagnosed prevalence: multiple claims databases, 2002
United States diagnosed prevalence: weighted national claims estimate, 2022
United States diagnosed prevalence by payer: commercial insurance and Medicaid
Payer mix: health insurance coverage of United States adults with schizophrenia
Diagnosed prevalence and incidence by payer, including Medicare: weighted national claims estimate, 2022
Natural history, survival, and mortality
Prodrome: duration and transition to psychosis from the clinical high-risk state
Course: episodic or progressive pattern after onset
Relapse after response to treatment of a first episode
Relapse after antipsychotic discontinuation
Remission and recovery rates
All-cause mortality relative to the general population
Mortality in United States Medicaid beneficiaries with schizophrenia
Life expectancy and years of potential life lost
Cause-specific mortality
Suicide: lifetime risk and rates
Mortality by antipsychotic exposure: 20-year Finnish cohort
Pathophysiology
Dopamine hypothesis: presynaptic striatal dopamine dysfunction
Dopamine hypothesis: dysregulation as the final common pathway to psychosis
Dopamine D2 receptor blockade as the common mechanism of antipsychotics
D2 receptor occupancy thresholds for response and adverse effects
Dopamine synthesis capacity in treatment-resistant schizophrenia
Dopamine D3 receptor
Serotonin 5-HT7 receptor: antagonism by amisulpride
Role of the 5-HT7 receptor in the pathophysiology of schizophrenia
No evidence found.
Glutamate and NMDA receptor hypofunction
Muscarinic acetylcholine receptor pathways
Diagnosis
DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia
DSM-5-TR and ICD-10 as the diagnostic systems in use
Clinical diagnosis with no confirmatory test
Initial assessment: American Psychiatric Association guideline statements 1 and 2
Assessment in secondary care: NICE guideline
Differential diagnosis
Laboratory and imaging evaluation to exclude other causes
Rating scales used in practice and research
Duration of untreated psychosis in United States community settings
Clinical presentation - signs and symptoms
Positive symptoms: delusions, hallucinations, and disorganized thought
Negative symptoms: blunted affect, alogia, avolition, asociality, and anhedonia
Negative symptoms: prevalence of any and of primary negative symptoms in treated outpatients
Cognitive impairment: magnitude relative to healthy controls
Cognitive impairment: first-episode schizophrenia
Mood symptoms: comorbid depression
Suicidality: suicidal ideation and suicide plans
Acute exacerbation: return of psychotic symptoms at relapse
Agitation: frequency in psychiatric emergency settings
Agitation: episodes reported by people with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder
Psychomotor and behavioral signs on examination
Proportion of people with schizophrenia who experience agitation during an acute exacerbation
No evidence found.
Long-term morbidity
Treatment resistance: consensus criteria
Treatment resistance: proportion of first-episode cohorts
Rehospitalization and readmission
Metabolic syndrome: CATIE baseline and meta-analysis
Substance use comorbidity
Tobacco smoking
Employment
Educational attainment and global functioning: United States adults
Social functioning over 20 years
Homelessness
Incarceration
Violence and comorbid substance abuse
Burden of Schizophrenia
Humanistic burden and health-related quality of life
Health state utilities for stable schizophrenia, relapse, and antipsychotic adverse events: time trade-off in patients and laypersons
| Health state | Patient sample, mean utility (standard error) | Lay sample, mean utility (standard error) |
|---|---|---|
| Stable schizophrenia | “0.919 (0.023)” | “0.865 (0.021)” |
| Weight gain | “0.825 (0.028)” | “0.779 (0.024)” |
| Hyperprolactinemia | “0.815 (0.030)” | “0.783 (0.025)” |
| Diabetes | “0.769 (0.036)” | “0.712 (0.028)” |
| Extrapyramidal symptoms | “0.722 (0.037)” | “0.574 (0.032)” |
| Relapse | “0.604 (0.042)” | “0.479 (0.033)” |
Health state utilities by symptom severity and adverse effect: standard gamble in the United States general public
Health state utility values by symptom severity and instrument: systematic review and meta-analysis
EQ-5D utility decrements for extrapyramidal symptoms, weight gain, sexual dysfunction, and sedation: European Schizophrenia Cohort
Disability weights and years lived with disability: Global Burden of Disease Study 2016
Share of mental disorder disability-adjusted life-years: Global Burden of Disease Study 2019
Functional outcomes: employment at baseline in the CATIE trial
Psychosocial functioning on the Quality of Life Scale during antipsychotic treatment in the CATIE trial
Functional and social outcomes associated with relapse: United States physician and patient survey
Stigma: prevalence of perceived stigma, experienced stigma, and self-stigma
Patient-reported burden of second-generation antipsychotic side effects: seven-country web survey
Side effects, adherence, and resource use: United States nationwide patient survey
Tolerability ranking of antipsychotic side effects: patients and caregiver proxies
Patient preferences: anticipated weight gain and willingness to change antipsychotic medication
Patient preferences: discrete-choice experiment on benefits, risks, and formulation in the United States
Patient preferences: discrete-choice experiment on attributes of oral antipsychotics
Sexual dysfunction: pooled prevalence in a systematic review and meta-analysis
Sexual dysfunction and quality of life in men treated with antipsychotics
Economic burden and healthcare resource utilization
United States economic burden in 2019: total and per-person excess costs
United States economic burden in 2019: direct health care costs by service category and by payer
United States economic burden in 2019: law enforcement, incarceration, homeless shelter, and disability income costs
United States economic burden in 2019: indirect costs and change since 2013
United States economic burden in 2013
Medicaid: national utilization and per-patient costs in 2018
Medicare fee-for-service: national utilization and per-patient costs in 2019
Medicare fee-for-service: costs relative to the general Medicare population, 2003 to 2009
Medicare Part D: out-of-pocket costs for oral and long-acting injectable antipsychotics by low-income subsidy status
Commercial insurance: per-patient costs, cost shares by service category, and utilization
Commercial insurance: adherence and costs in a systematic literature review of privately insured patients
Integrated health system: hospitalization, readmission, and emergency room use
Cost of relapse: Medicaid beneficiaries with recent relapse or with nonadherence and uncontrolled symptoms
Cost of relapse: United States prospective observational study
Cost of relapse: range across studies in a systematic review
Inpatient stays: cost per stay and length of stay, United States, 2016
Readmissions: 30-day all-cause readmissions after Medicaid index admissions for schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders, 2018
Readmissions: incidence and cost in the 2014 Nationwide Readmissions Database
Emergency department visits related to schizophrenia: United States, 2009 to 2011
Treatment-resistant schizophrenia: costs relative to schizophrenia overall
Nonadherence: national rehospitalization costs
Antipsychotic adverse effects: hospitalization and costs associated with extrapyramidal symptoms in Medicaid
Antipsychotic adverse effects: healthcare costs after new-onset metabolic disorders following oral antipsychotic initiation
Negative symptoms: healthcare resource utilization and costs in linked records and claims
Criminal justice system involvement: prevalence and per-patient cost
Share of antipsychotic pharmacy spending attributable to branded oral atypical antipsychotics and long-acting injectables
No evidence found.
Economic impact of Schizophrenia on families
Caregiving costs in the United States economic burden estimate for 2019
Caregiving productivity loss in the United States economic burden estimate for 2013
United States caregiver survey: hours of care and out-of-pocket costs
United States caregiver survey: employment, wage, and career effects
Hours of care by caregivers of people with treatment-resistant schizophrenia
Caregiver psychological distress: United States online survey
Caregiver-reported burdens: United States national survey
Caregiver health utility and health status compared with non-caregivers and other caregivers: five European countries
Financial and health effects of caregiving: review
Economic impact of diagnostic testing
Diagnostic or companion diagnostic testing required for LB-102 eligibility
Not applicable.
Cost of laboratory, prolactin, and electrocardiographic monitoring during antipsychotic treatment
No evidence found.
Approaches to treatment
Current treatment options and standard of care
Second-generation antipsychotics
APA practice guideline: antipsychotic treatment and continuation
APA practice guideline: no ranking of agents and no preference between generations
VA/DoD guideline: acute treatment, maintenance treatment, and switching
VA/DoD guideline: adverse effect profile of second-generation agents
NICE guideline: oral antipsychotic medication with psychological interventions
INTEGRATE international algorithm: development and key recommendations
Australian and New Zealand GRADE guideline: first-line and second-line agents
Acute efficacy against placebo: 167 trials over sixty years
Comparative acute efficacy of 32 oral antipsychotics: network meta-analysis
Comparative adverse effects of 32 oral antipsychotics: network meta-analysis
Metabolic effects of 18 antipsychotics: network meta-analysis
Maintenance treatment: network meta-analysis of 32 oral and long-acting injectable antipsychotics
Long-term head-to-head comparisons of oral second-generation antipsychotics
CATIE: all-cause discontinuation over 18 months by assigned agent
Class labeling: boxed warning and metabolic warning in the olanzapine label
First-generation antipsychotics
APA practice guideline: no preference between first-generation and second-generation agents
VA/DoD guideline: adverse effect profile of first-generation agents
CATIE: perphenazine compared with second-generation agents
CUtLASS: quality of life with first-generation compared with second-generation agents
EUFEST: haloperidol compared with second-generation agents in first-episode schizophrenia
Extrapyramidal adverse effects and weight gain: network meta-analysis
Tardive dyskinesia prevalence by antipsychotic class
Relapse prevention: second-generation compared with first-generation agents as classes
Long-acting injectable antipsychotics
APA practice guideline: long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication
VA/DoD guideline: long-acting injectable antipsychotics for adherence
NICE guideline: initiating depot or long-acting injectable medication
Australian and New Zealand GRADE guideline: long-acting injectables by stage of illness
Long-acting injectable compared with oral antipsychotics: meta-analysis across three study designs
Real-world rehospitalization: Swedish nationwide cohort of 29,823 patients
PRELAPSE: long-acting injectable aripiprazole in early-phase schizophrenia
Relapse during long-acting injectable treatment
Clozapine
APA practice guideline: clozapine for treatment resistance, suicide risk, and aggression
VA/DoD guideline: clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia
NICE guideline: clozapine after two antipsychotic drugs
Australian and New Zealand GRADE guideline: clozapine and electroconvulsive therapy in treatment resistance
FDA-approved indications and restriction of use
Boxed warning
Efficacy in treatment-refractory schizophrenia: meta-analysis of randomized trials
Response rate in treatment-resistant schizophrenia
Real-world rehospitalization and treatment failure
OPTiMiSE: clozapine after non-remission on amisulpride and olanzapine
Muscarinic receptor agonists
FDA approval of xanomeline and trospium chloride
Xanomeline and trospium chloride: indication and dosing
Xanomeline and trospium chloride: warnings and precautions
Xanomeline and trospium chloride: adverse reactions in the pooled 5-week trials
EMERGENT-2: primary endpoint and tolerability
EMERGENT-3: primary endpoint and tolerability
ARISE: adjunctive xanomeline and trospium chloride with an atypical antipsychotic
Emraclidine: phase 1b and phase 2 EMPOWER results
Consensus panel report on clinical use of xanomeline and trospium chloride
NICE technology appraisal of xanomeline tartrate and trospium chloride: status
Recommendations on muscarinic receptor agonists in the APA, VA/DoD, NICE, and Australian and New Zealand guidelines
No evidence found.
Psychosocial interventions
APA practice guideline: recommended psychosocial interventions
APA practice guideline: suggested psychosocial interventions
VA/DoD guideline: psychosocial and service recommendations
NICE guideline: psychological interventions in first-episode psychosis
Australian and New Zealand GRADE guideline: psychological interventions
Psychological interventions for positive symptoms: network meta-analysis
RAISE Early Treatment Program: comprehensive care for first-episode psychosis
Limitations of current therapies
Summary
Treatment discontinuation is frequent. In CATIE, 1,061 of 1,432 participants (74%) stopped the assigned antipsychotic before 18 months, from 64% with olanzapine to 82% with quetiapine. In a Swedish cohort of 29,823 individuals with schizophrenia followed from 2006 to 2013, 43.7% were rehospitalized and 71.7% of 28,189 had treatment failure. A meta-analysis pooled psychotropic medication nonadherence in schizophrenia at 56%, and an earlier review reported mean nonadherence rates of 41.2% and 49.5% under two sets of inclusion criteria.
Response is incomplete. Across 167 placebo-controlled trials with 28,102 participants, at least a minimal response occurred in 51% of participants receiving an antipsychotic and 30% receiving placebo, and a good response in 23% and 14%. Treatment resistance developed in 22.8% of first-episode cohorts (12 studies, 11,958 participants) and in 24.4% of first-episode schizophrenia cohorts. Clozapine, the agent guidelines recommend for treatment resistance, produced response in 40.1% of treated participants, which the authors translate into 12% to 20% of people with schizophrenia being ultra-resistant. Clozapine carries a boxed warning for severe neutropenia, orthostatic hypotension, seizure, and myocarditis.
Negative and cognitive symptoms remain. Up to 60% of people with schizophrenia have prominent, clinically relevant negative symptoms, and a meta-analysis of 168 placebo-controlled trials found that no treatment reached the threshold for clinically significant improvement in negative symptoms. The VA/DoD guideline found insufficient evidence to recommend for or against augmentation with any non-antipsychotic medication for cognitive or negative symptoms.
Adverse effects differ by agent. Metabolic syndrome was present in 32.5% of people with schizophrenia and related disorders. Mean weight gain against placebo ranged up to 3.01 kg for clozapine in one network meta-analysis and up to 3.21 kg for zotepine in another. Rating scale-based tardive dyskinesia prevalence was 25.3% across 41 studies (20.7% with current second-generation and 30.0% with current first-generation treatment), and risk ratios for antiparkinson medication use against placebo ranged from 1.61 for paliperidone to 6.14 for pimozide among the 21 agents with a significant increase. Prolactin change against placebo ranged from a decrease of 77.05 ng/mL with clozapine to an increase of 48.51 ng/mL with paliperidone, and the highest rates of hyperprolactinemia are reported with amisulpride, risperidone, and paliperidone.
Relapse occurs during treatment. Maintenance antipsychotic treatment reduced relapse at 1 year from 64% to 27% in one meta-analysis and from 61% to 24% in a Cochrane review, and pooled relapse incidence during long-acting injectable treatment was 22.97 per 100 participant-years. The median proportion of people meeting recovery criteria was 13.5% across 50 studies. Among agents with a mechanism other than dopamine receptor blockade, adjunctive xanomeline and trospium chloride did not reach statistical significance on its primary endpoint in ARISE (2.0-point PANSS difference, P = 0.11), and emraclidine did not meet the primary endpoint in two phase 2 trials.
Medication nonadherence
Treatment resistance in first-episode cohorts
Definition of treatment resistance
Residual negative symptoms
Cognitive and negative symptoms: no recommended augmentation and no approved therapy
Extrapyramidal symptoms and tardive dyskinesia
Hyperprolactinemia
Relapse despite maintenance treatment
Recovery
Place in treatment, anticipated use, and care setting
Summary
LB-102 is investigational and has no established place in therapy. LB Pharmaceuticals states that LB-102 has the potential to be the first benzamide antipsychotic approved for neuropsychiatric disorders in the United States and describes it as a potential alternative to branded and generic therapeutics for schizophrenia. The parent compound, amisulpride, is approved in more than 50 countries excluding the United States; the company reports that Sanofi announced in 2000 that it would not pursue U.S. approval for schizophrenia. The company expects to commercialize the oral formulation where amisulpride is unavailable as a generic and a long-acting injectable formulation worldwide.
The studied setting is acute inpatient care. NOVA-1 randomized 359 participants at 25 U.S. inpatient sites to 28 days of inpatient treatment, and its authors state that further studies are needed to assess whether the findings generalize to outpatients and that the trial was not designed to evaluate long-term durability. The company describes NOVA-2 as the pivotal phase 3 trial and NOVA-3 as an outpatient open-label trial that accrues the safety population for the NDA. Long-term outpatient maintenance use is therefore anticipated and has no controlled evidence yet.
Guidelines do not rank agents. The APA guideline states that an evidence-based ranking of antipsychotics is not possible and notes no preference between generations, the VA/DoD guideline bases the choice on patient characteristics and side effect profiles, and a 2026 Australian and New Zealand guideline names aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, cariprazine, and lurasidone as first-line agents and lists amisulpride among agents to consider second. Evidence for amisulpride comes from European trials and network meta-analysis: amisulpride had the largest standardized mean difference against placebo for positive symptoms (−0.69) among the 17 agents with a significant reduction, and the authors note that no placebo-controlled amisulpride study was available, which makes that evidence indirect; in EUFEST, 12-month all-cause discontinuation was 40% with amisulpride and 72% with haloperidol; in OPTiMiSE, 250 of 446 participants (56%) achieved remission on open-label amisulpride; and in BeSt InTro, the 52-week PANSS reduction was 32.7 points with amisulpride, 21.9 with aripiprazole, and 23.3 with olanzapine. The company reports at least two million monthly amisulpride prescriptions in 2023 in 16 continental European countries. Amisulpride is among the agents with the highest reported rates of hyperprolactinemia.
Company positioning: first benzamide antipsychotic in the United States
Company positioning in the 2025 initial public offering prospectus
Agents the company describes as first-line treatments in the United States
Company-stated target profile
Amisulpride: approval outside the United States
Amisulpride: company-reported use in Europe
Planned commercialization by formulation
Studied setting: inpatient acute treatment in NOVA-1
Phase 3 and outpatient open-label trials
Amisulpride in European randomized trials
Amisulpride in the network meta-analysis of 32 antipsychotics
Recommendations on benzamide antipsychotics in United States guidelines
No evidence found.
Heterogeneity of treatment effect
Dose-response across antipsychotics, including amisulpride
LB-102 dose groups in NOVA-1
Baseline symptom severity
First-episode compared with multi-episode schizophrenia
Early non-response as a predictor of later non-response
Sex: registration trials of antipsychotics
Sex: individual participant data from fixed-dose trials
Race and ethnicity
Moderators of metabolic adverse effects
Trial-level moderators of drug-placebo differences
NOVA-1 subgroup analyses by sex, race, age, or baseline severity
No evidence found.
Care management intervention strategies
Coordinated specialty care for first-episode psychosis
Assertive community treatment and intensive case management
Long-acting injectable programs in early-phase illness
Clozapine: removal of the risk evaluation and mitigation strategy in 2025
Clozapine: neutrophil monitoring retained in labeling
Metabolic monitoring during antipsychotic treatment
Management of antipsychotic-induced weight gain
Prior authorization of atypical antipsychotics: Maine Medicaid
Formulary restrictions on atypical antipsychotics: 24 state Medicaid programs
Prior authorization and antipsychotic utilization in Medicaid
Step therapy for atypical antipsychotics: Georgia Medicaid
State law limiting step therapy for serious mental illness: Colorado
Other product development or post-marketing obligations required by the FDA
Trials the company expects to support approval
Safety database the company anticipates the FDA will require
Post-marketing requirements or commitments
Not applicable.
Ongoing post-approval monitoring
Post-approval monitoring requirements
Not applicable.
Expected outcomes of therapy
Summary
Guidelines state three aims of treatment planning: to promote and maintain recovery, to maximize quality of life and adaptive functioning, and to reduce or eliminate symptoms. In trials, symptom outcomes are measured on the PANSS (range 30 to 210). A CGI rating of minimally improved corresponds to a PANSS reduction of 19% to 28% and a rating of much improved to 40% to 53%, which is the basis for the 20% and 50% response thresholds; the authors recommend at least a 50% reduction as the response criterion in acute trials and note that a 25% cut-off might be appropriate in treatment-resistant populations. An absolute reduction of about 15 PANSS points corresponds to minimal improvement on the CGI, and an anchor-based analysis of CATIE data estimated the minimum clinically important difference at 15.3 points (34.0%) with the clinician-rated CGI and 11.2 points (24.6%) with the patient-rated CGI.
Against these thresholds, 51% of participants receiving antipsychotics and 30% receiving placebo had at least a minimal response in placebo-controlled trials of mainly chronic participants, and 23% and 14% had a good response. In first-episode trials, 81.3% reached a 20% reduction and 51.9% a 50% reduction. Absence of a 20% reduction at week 2 predicted nonresponse at endpoint with a positive predictive value of 90%. The mean drug-placebo difference in PANSS change rises with baseline severity, from 9.5 points at a baseline score of 58 to 24.0 points at a baseline score of 116. In NOVA-1, the week 4 change in PANSS total score was −14.3 points with LB-102 50 mg, −14.0 with 75 mg, and −9.3 with placebo.
Remission is defined by consensus criteria as no more than mild positive and negative symptoms sustained for at least 6 months. With maintenance treatment, relapse at 1 year occurred in 24% to 27% of participants receiving antipsychotics and 61% to 64% receiving placebo, and hospitalization in 7% and 18%. The median proportion meeting recovery criteria that combine clinical and social outcomes was 13.5%.