Pimavanserin for the treatment of Parkinson's disease psychosis: number needed to treat, number needed to harm, and likelihood to be helped or harmed.

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to describe the efficacy and tolerability of pimavanserin, a highly selective serotonin 5-HT2A receptor inverse agonist/antagonist indicated for the treatment of hallucinations and delusions associated with Parkinson's disease psychosis (PDP), using the metrics of number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH). METHODS: Categorical efficacy and tolerability data were extracted from the clinical trial databases of the double-blind placebo-controlled studies of pimavanserin in persons with PDP. NNT and NNH values were calculated with their respective 95% confidence intervals. The likelihood to be helped or harmed (LHH) was then calculated contrasting therapeutic response versus discontinuation because of an adverse event. RESULTS: NNT values for pimavanserin 34 mg/d versus placebo for several definitions of clinical response are 10, and/or are not statistically significant, and/or show an advantage for pimavanserin over placebo (such as for postural hypotension). In terms of LHH, pimavanserin 34 mg/d is about five times more likely to result in clinical response (as measured by a ≥3 point decrease from baseline on the Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms adapted for Parkinson's disease) versus discontinuation due to an adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Using the metrics of NNT, NNH, and LHH, pimavanserin 34 mg/d for the treatment of PDP appears to have a compelling benefit/risk profile.

Pimavanserin for patients with Parkinson's disease psychosis: a randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Parkinson's disease psychosis, which includes hallucinations and delusions, is frequent and debilitating in people with Parkinson's disease. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of pimavanserin, a selective serotonin 5-HT2A inverse agonist, in this population. METHODS: In our 6 week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, we enrolled adults (aged ≥40 years) with Parkinson's disease psychosis. Antipsychotic treatments were not permitted during the study, but controlled antiparkinsonian medication or deep brain stimulation was allowed. Eligible participants entered a 2 week non-pharmacological lead-in phase to limit the placebo response, after which they were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive pimavanserin 40 mg per day or matched placebo. The primary outcome was antipsychotic benefit as assessed by central, independent raters with the Parkinson's disease-adapted scale for assessment of positive symptoms (SAPS-PD) in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug and had a SAPS assessment at baseline and at least one follow-up. We assessed safety and tolerability in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01174004. FINDINGS: Between Aug 11, 2010, and Aug 29, 2012, we randomly allocated 199 patients to treatment groups. For 90 recipients of placebo and 95 recipients of pimavanserin included in the primary analysis, pimavanserin was associated with a -5·79 decrease in SAPS-PD scores compared with -2·73 for placebo (difference -3·06, 95% CI -4·91 to -1·20; p=0·001; Cohen's d 0·50). Ten patients in the pimavanserin group discontinued because of an adverse event (four due to psychotic disorder or hallucination within 10 days of start of the study drug) compared with two in the placebo group. Overall, pimavanserin was well tolerated with no significant safety concerns or worsening of motor function. INTERPRETATION: Pimavanserin may benefit patients with Parkinson's disease psychosis for whom few other treatment options exist. The trial design used in this study to manage placebo response could have applicability to other studies in neuropsychiatric disease. FUNDING: ACADIA Pharmaceuticals.

Mycophenolate mofetil vs. azathioprine is associated with decreased acute rejection, late acute rejection, and risk for cardiovascular death in renal transplant recipients with pre-transplant diabetes.

Outcomes specifically in mycophenolate mofetil (MMF)-treated diabetic renal transplant patients have not been previously reported. This study compared acute rejection (AR), late acute rejection (LAR), patient survival [and specifically death from cardiovascular (CV), infectious and malignant causes], incidence of post-transplant malignancies, and graft loss in MMF- or azathioprine (AZA)-treated renal transplant patients with pre-transplant diabetes. Outcomes were compared between MMF- (n = 14 144) and AZA- (n = 3001) treated diabetic patients using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data on all U.S. adult renal transplants performed between 1995 and 2002. Statistical analyses included Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, Cox multivariable regression and chi-square tests. MMF patients had less AR compared with AZA-treated patients (23.5% vs. 28.3%, p < 0.001) and less risk for LAR over 4 yr [hazard ratio (HR): 0.64, 95% CI 0.44, 0.92; p = 0.02]. While time to any-cause death did not differ between the groups, MMF treatment was associated with a 20% decreased risk of CV death (HR: 0.80, 95% CI 0.67, 0.97; p = 0.020) compared with AZA treatment. MMF patients also had a lower incidence of malignancies than AZA patients (2.2% vs. 3.7%, p < 0.001). These results suggest treatment with MMF compared with treatment with AZA in diabetic transplant patients is associated with less AR, less risk of LAR, a decreased risk of CV death, and a lower incidence of malignancies.

Phase II, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of ruprintrivir nasal spray 2-percent suspension for prevention and treatment of experimentally induced rhinovirus colds in healthy volunteers.

Human rhinovirus (HRV) infections are usually self-limited but may be associated with serious consequences, particularly in those with asthma and chronic respiratory disease. Effective antiviral agents are needed for preventing and treating HRV illnesses. Ruprintrivir (Agouron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., San Diego, Calif.) selectively inhibits HRV 3C protease and shows potent, broad-spectrum anti-HRV activity in vitro. We conducted three double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials in 202 healthy volunteers to assess the activity of ruprintrivir in experimental HRV infection. Subjects were randomized to receive intranasal ruprintrivir (8 mg) or placebo sprays as prophylaxis (two or five times daily [2x/day or 5x/day] for 5 days) starting 6 h before infection or as treatment (5x/day for 4 days) starting 24 h after infection. Ruprintrivir prophylaxis reduced the proportion of subjects with positive viral cultures (for 5x/day dosing groups, 44% for ruprintrivir treatment group versus 70% for placebo treatment group [P=0.03]; for 2x/day dosing groups, 60% for ruprintrivir group versus 92% for placebo group [P=0.004]) and viral titers but did not decrease the frequency of colds. Ruprintrivir treatment reduced the mean total daily symptom score (2.2 for ruprintrivir treatment group and 3.3 for the placebo treatment group [P=0.014]) by 33%. Secondary endpoints, including viral titers, individual symptom scores, and nasal discharge weights, were also reduced by ruprintrivir treatment. Overall, ruprintrivir was well tolerated; blood-tinged mucus and nasal passage irritation were the most common adverse effects reported. Pharmacokinetic analysis of plasma and nasal ruprintrivir concentrations revealed intranasal drug residence with minimal systemic absorption. Results from these studies in experimental rhinoviral infection support continued investigation of intranasal ruprintrivir in the setting of natural HRV infection.