An AE was defined as any new medical problem, or exacerbation of an existing problem, experienced by a participant while enrolled in the trial, whether or not it was considered drug related by the study physician. A serious adverse event (SAE) was any untoward medical occurrence that resulted in death or was life-threatening or required inpatient hospitalization or prolonged hospitalization. TEAE stands for treatment emergent adverse events.

The safety analyses dataset consisted of data from all enrolled participants who received one dose of trial medication, regardless of any protocol deviation. All observed data for these participants were included.

The PANSS consisted of three subscales: a total of 30 symptom constructs. For each symptom construct, severity was rated on a 7-point scale, with a score of 1 (absence of symptoms) and a score of 7 (extremely severe symptoms). The PANSS total score was the sum of the rating scores for 7 positive scale items, 7 negative scale items, and 16 general psychopathology scale items from the PANSS panel. The PANSS total score ranged from 30 (best possible outcome) to 210 (worst possible outcome).

The efficacy analyses dataset consisted of enrolled participants who had at least one efficacy measurement. The OC dataset are participants who were evaluated at that visit on the efficacy variable under analysis (i.e. participants who had missing data due to drop out or other reasons were not included in the OC dataset).

The PANSS consisted of three subscales: a total of 30 symptom constructs. For each symptom construct, severity was rated on a 7-point scale, with a score of 1 (absence of symptoms) and a score of 7 (extremely severe symptoms). The PANSS total score was the sum of the rating scores for 7 positive scale items, 7 negative scale items, and 16 general psychopathology scale items from the PANSS panel. The PANSS total score ranged from 30 (best possible outcome) to 210 (worst possible outcome).

The efficacy analyses dataset consisted of enrolled participants who have at least one efficacy measurement. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data at visits after Baseline for the efficacy analysis and for the safety extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) assessment scales.

The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) consisted of three subscales: a total of 30 symptom constructs. For each symptom construct, severity was rated on a 7-point scale, with a score of 1 (absence of symptoms) and a score of 7 (extremely severe symptoms). The PANSS positive subscale score was the sum of the rating scores for the 7 positive scale items from the PANSS panel. The 7 positive symptom constructs are delusions, conceptual disorganization, hallucinatory behavior, excitement, grandiosity, suspiciousness/persecution, and hostility. The PANSS total score ranged from 30 (best possible outcome) to 210 (worst possible outcome).

The efficacy analyses dataset consisted of enrolled participants who had at least one efficacy measurement. The OC dataset are participants who were evaluated at that visit on the efficacy variable under analysis (i.e. participants who had missing data due to drop out or other reasons were not included in the OC dataset).

The PANSS consisted of three subscales: a total of 30 symptom constructs. For each symptom construct, severity was rated on a 7-point scale, with a score of 1 (absence of symptoms) and a score of 7 (extremely severe symptoms). The PANSS positive subscale score was the sum of the rating scores for the 7 positive scale items from the PANSS panel. The 7 positive symptom constructs are delusions, conceptual disorganization, hallucinatory behavior, excitement, grandiosity, suspiciousness/persecution, and hostility. The PANSS total score ranged from 30 (best possible outcome) to 210 (worst possible outcome).

The efficacy analyses dataset consisted of enrolled participants who have at least one efficacy measurement. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data at visits after Baseline for the efficacy analysis and for the safety EPS assessment scales.

The PANSS consisted of three subscales: a total of 30 symptom constructs. For each symptom construct, severity was rated on a 7-point scale, with a score of 1 (absence of symptoms) and a score of 7 (extremely severe symptoms). The PANSS negative subscale score was the sum of the rating scores for the 7 negative scale items from the PANSS panel. The 7 negative symptom constructs: blunted affect, emotional withdrawal, poor rapport, passive apathetic withdrawal, difficulty in abstract thinking, lack of spontaneity and flow of conversation, stereotyped thinking. The PANSS total score ranged from 30 (best possible outcome) to 210 (worst possible outcome).

The efficacy analyses dataset consisted of enrolled participants who had at least one efficacy measurement. The OC dataset are participants who were evaluated at that visit on the efficacy variable under analysis (i.e. participants who had missing data due to drop out or other reasons were not included in the OC dataset).

The PANSS consisted of three subscales: a total of 30 symptom constructs. For each symptom construct, severity was rated on a 7-point scale, with a score of 1 (absence of symptoms) and a score of 7 (extremely severe symptoms). The PANSS negative subscale score was the sum of the rating scores for the 7 negative scale items from the PANSS panel. The 7 negative symptom constructs: blunted affect, emotional withdrawal, poor rapport, passive apathetic withdrawal, difficulty in abstract thinking, lack of spontaneity and flow of conversation, stereotyped thinking. The PANSS total score ranged from 30 (best possible outcome) to 210 (worst possible outcome).

The efficacy analyses dataset consisted of enrolled participants who have at least one efficacy measurement. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data at visits after Baseline for the efficacy analysis and for the safety EPS assessment scales.

The severity of illness for each participant was rated using the CGI-S scale. To assess CGI-S, the study physician answered the following question: "Considering your total clinical experience with this particular population, how mentally ill is the participant at this time?" Response choices included: 0 = not assessed; 1 = normal, not ill at all; 2 = borderline mentally ill; 3 = mildly ill; 4 = moderately ill; 5 = markedly ill; 6 = severely ill; and 7 = among the most extremely ill participants.

The efficacy analyses dataset consisted of enrolled participants who had at least one efficacy measurement. The OC dataset are participants who were evaluated at that visit on the efficacy variable under analysis (i.e. participants who had missing data due to drop out or other reasons were not included in the OC dataset).

The severity of illness for each participant was rated using the CGI-S scale. To assess CGI-S, the rater or investigator answered the following question: "Considering your total clinical experience with this particular population, how mentally ill is the participant at this time?" Response choices included: 0 = not assessed; 1 = normal, not ill at all; 2 = borderline mentally ill; 3 = mildly ill; 4 = moderately ill; 5 = markedly ill; 6 = severely ill; and 7 = among the most extremely ill participants.

The efficacy analyses dataset consisted of enrolled participants who have at least one efficacy measurement. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data at visits after Baseline for the efficacy analysis and for the safety EPS assessment scales.

The efficacy of trial medication were rated for each participant using the CGI-I scale. The study physician must rate the participant's total improvement whether or not it is due entirely to drug treatment. All responses were compared to the participant's condition a baseline. Response choices include: 0 = not assessed; 1 =very much improved; 2 = much improved; 3 = minimally improved; 4 = no change; 5 =minimally worse; 6 = much worse; and 7 = very much worse.

The efficacy analyses dataset consisted of enrolled participants who had at least one efficacy measurement. The OC dataset are participants who were evaluated at that visit on the efficacy variable under analysis (i.e. participants who had missing data due to drop out or other reasons were not included in the OC dataset).

The efficacy of trial medication were rated for each participant using the Clinical Global Impression Improvement (CGI-I) scale. The study physician must rate the participant's total improvement whether or not it is due entirely to drug treatment. All responses were compared to the participant's condition a baseline. Response choices include: 0 = not assessed; 1 =very much improved; 2 = much improved; 3 = minimally improved; 4 = no change; 5 =minimally worse; 6 = much worse; and 7 = very much worse.

The efficacy analyses dataset consisted of enrolled participants who have at least one efficacy measurement. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data at visits after Baseline for the efficacy analysis and for the safety EPS assessment scales.