A review on the pharmacology of cariprazine and its role in the treatment of negative symptoms of schizophrenia.

Management of negative symptoms is one of the most challenging and important unmet needs of schizophrenia treatment. Negative symptoms together with positive symptoms result in significant psychosocial impairment and poor quality of life. Existing studies on atypical antipsychotics reported limited treatment adherence due to higher prevalence of treatment-emergent adverse events, such as diabetes, weight gain, hyperlipidemia, hyperprolactinemia and hypertension. A compound with greater affinity for dopamine D2/D3 receptors may improve negative symptoms, mood, and cognitive impairment associated with schizophrenia. In 2015, the US FDA has approved cariprazine, a partial D2/D3 agonist for treatment of schizophrenia, mania or mixed episodes. Midlands and Lancashire Commissioning Support Unit, UK (2019) has particularly suggested cariprazine for the treatment of predominant negative symptoms of schizophrenia. India's Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) has approved cariprazine in 2021 for the treatment of schizophrenia, manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder. A ten-fold greater affinity for D3 receptors and partial agonism to serotonin receptors, along with longer half-life make cariprazine distinct when compared with other atypical antipsychotics. Cariprazine is also reported to have fewer incidents of metabolic and hormonal adverse events, and has been shown to provide better relapse prevention. Recent evidence indicates promising effect of cariprazine in ameliorating negative symptoms as well as psychotic symptoms in patients with schizophrenia. In addition, improved adherence to treatment (adjunctive/monotherapy) with cariprazine in patients having inadequate response to an ongoing antipsychotic treatment has also been clinically established. This review presents the evidence-based safety and efficacy of cariprazine for treatment of predominant negative symptoms of schizophrenia.

The Efficacy and Safety of High Dose (10 mg) of Desloratadine (Dazit® 10) in the Treatment of Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria in India: A Phase III, Multicentric, Open-Label, Single-Arm Study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is a debilitating affliction that affects diverse quality of life (QoL) parameters such as sleep, self-esteem, and daily activities. Second-generation antihistamines, such as desloratadine, are more effective and safer in managing CSU. Desloratadine is a nonsedating, potent, and highly selective H1 receptor antagonist. At its daily dose of 5 mg, almost half of CSU patients do not show symptomatic improvement. European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI)/Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA2LEN)/European Dermatology Forum (EDF) (EuroGuiDerm)/Asia Pacific Association of Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology (APAAACI) guidelines recommend increasing the dosage to up to four times in such nonresponsive patients. However, there is insufficient clinical evidence in Indian settings. METHOD: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of 10 mg desloratadine (OD) in 256 nonresponsive patients with moderate to severe CSU. The primary outcome was the change in Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7) from baseline to four weeks. Additionally, change in Chronic Urticaria Quality of Life (CU-Q2oL) scores during the course of treatment was also evaluated. RESULT: The mean UAS7 scores showed a significant reduction from 31.9 ± 4.8 at baseline to 18.2 ± 8.1 at the end of the study (p < 0.0001). The use of a higher dose of desloratadine also decreased the CU-Q2oL scores significantly from 59.8 ± 14.7 at baseline to 35.4 ± 10 at four weeks (p < 0.0001). The incidence of adverse events (AEs) possibly linked to the drug was low (1.6%), and no serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Results indicated improvements in the disease severity as well as its positive impact on participants' QoL. This study confirms the efficacy and safety of daily use of a twofold dose of desloratadine in nonresponsive moderate to severe CSU patients.

Effectiveness of Oral Cephalexin-Clavulanic Acid, Cefuroxime, and Amoxicillin-Clavulanic Acid in the Management of Dental Infections: A Real-World, Retrospective, Electronic Medical Record-Based Study in India.

BACKGROUND: Despite multiple antibiotics being available to manage dental infections (DI), there is lack of data comparing commonly prescribed antibiotics in India. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the real-world effectiveness and tolerability of cephalexin-clavulanic acid fixed-dose combination (cephalexin CV FDC) in contrast with amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (co-amoxiclav FDC) and cefuroxime among patients with dental infections (odontogenic) in India. METHODS: This retrospective, multi-centric, observational, real-world electronic medical record (EMR)-based study was conducted between January 2022 and December 2022. The EMRs of 355 adults with DI receiving oral cephalexin CV, co-amoxiclav, or cefuroxime were categorized into two distinct groups: Group I (Test Group) with patients prescribed cephalexin extended release 375/750 mg along with clavulanic acid 125 mg; and Group II (Comparator Group) with patients prescribed co-amoxiclav 625 mg (500 mg amoxicillin + 125 mg clavulanic acid) or cefuroxime (250 mg/500 mg). RESULTS: Toothache was the most common complaint, reported by 95.5% of patients, followed by swelling (46.8%), tooth sensitivity (35.5%), pus discharge (33.0%), redness and halitosis (30.4% each). Dental caries was observed in 81.1% of patients. Clinical improvement, defined as improvement/partial resolution of infection-related clinical signs and symptoms (composite measure of pain, swelling, fever, requirement of additional antimicrobial therapy) as per dentists' judgment, was recorded in 98.3% of patients with cephalexin CV, 96.8% of patients with co-amoxiclav, and 98.9% of patients treated with cefuroxime within 10 days. Time (days) to clinical improvement was numerically lesser among patients receiving cephalexin CV (4.6 ± 2.0) compared with cefuroxime (4.9 ± 2.1) and co-amoxiclav (5.0 ± 2.6). All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Cephalexin CV was as effective as co-amoxiclav and cefuroxime, with faster clinical improvement and better resolution of certain symptoms.

Efficacy and Safety of Pregabalin Prolonged Release-Etoricoxib Combination Compared to Etoricoxib for Chronic Low Back Pain: Phase 3, Randomized Study.

INTRODUCTION: Currently available treatments for chronic lower back pain (CLBP) do not adequately address both nociceptive and neuropathic components of pain. We evaluated efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combination (FDC) of low-dose pregabalin prolonged release 75 mg-etoricoxib 60 mg to address both pain components. METHODS: This randomized phase 3 trial conducted at 12 centres across India evaluated efficacy (based on mean change in numeric rating scale [NRS], Roland-Morris disability questionnaire [RDQ], visual analogue scale [VAS], patient global impression of improvement [PGI-I], clinical global impression of improvement [CGI-I] and rescue medication consumption) and safety of FDC in comparison to etoricoxib alone in adult patients with CLBP. Treatment duration was 8 weeks. RESULTS: Of the 371 patients screened, 319 were randomized and considered for efficacy and safety analysis. Both treatment groups had no significant difference in terms of demography and baseline disease characteristics. Significantly better outcomes with FDC compared to etoricoxib were observed at week 4 onwards. At week 8, both groups showed significant reduction in mean NRS score from baseline (- 4.00 ± 1.65 in FDC; - 2.92 ± 1.59 in etoricoxib) with mean NRS score being significantly less in the FDC group compared to etoricoxib group (3.26 ± 1.56 vs 4.31 ± 1.56; p < 0.0001). The FDC was more effective than etoricoxib in terms of significantly greater reduction in RDQ score (- 9.28 ± 4.48 vs - 6.78 ± 4.34; p < 0.0001) and VAS score (- 37.66 ± 18.7 vs - 28.50 ± 16.31; p < 0.0001) at week 8. The FDC was also better in terms of significantly more patients reporting their condition as 'very much better' (36.9% vs 5.0%; p < 0.0001) and clinicians reporting patient's condition as 'very much improved' (36.3% vs 5.7%; p < 0.0001). Overall, study medications were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: FDC of pregabalin and etoricoxib provided significant benefits in reducing pain and improving functional status compared with etoricoxib alone in patients with CLBP. Pregabalin prolonged release-etoricoxib FDC could be one of the treatment options for early and sustained pain relief and improvement in quality-of-life in treating CLBP as it addresses both neuropathic and nociceptive components of pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CTRI/2018/10/015886.

Low back pain is one of the most common causes of loss of productivity worldwide. About 60% of Indians suffer from low back pain at some point. Low back pain that persists for more than 3 months is classified as chronic low back pain which mostly includes both nociceptive and neuropathic components. Monotherapies, if prescribed, are not completely effective, as they generally only target either nociceptive or neuropathic components of pain. Multiple drugs are usually needed at multiple times a day, at higher doses for optimal effectiveness, and in most cases they have significant side effects if taken over prolonged periods and also add to the pill burden. To minimize treatment-associated adverse effects, and to increase treatment compliance, while addressing both the components of pain, we developed a fixed-dose combination of low-dose pregabalin prolonged release and etoricoxib. A phase 3 trial was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of the fixed-dose combination in comparison with etoricoxib alone in treating chronic low back pain. The combination demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes­pain, functionality and quality of life­as early as 4 weeks after starting the medication. No severe or serious adverse effects were reported. Thus, the combination of low-dose pregabalin prolonged release and etoricoxib could provide an option for optimal management of chronic low back pain. This would provide multiple benefits, such as addressing both nociceptive and neuropathic components of chronic low back pain, reducing drug-related adverse effects because of low dose, reducing pill burden and thereby increasing drug compliance.

Compelling therapy of LVH: straight (and not-so-straight) inferences from evidence.

We have read with interest the Korean Society of Hypertension guidelines for the management of hypertension and congratulate the Society for an extensive review of literature while drafting the guidelines. The guidelines indicate preferring ACE-I and CCB over diuretics in patients with left ventricle hypertrophy. However, in landmark head-to-head comparison trials, the thiazide-like diuretic chlorthalidone has been shown to be superior to ACE-I and CCB in decreasing left ventricle mass and preventing heart failure in hypertensive patients. Also, we put forth the paradoxical finding that mere regression of LVH may not always translate into reduction in risk of HF; and that the pleiotropic effects of chlorthalidone may be the explanation behind its beneficial action in HF.

Efficacy of Low-Dose Chlorthalidone and Hydrochlorothiazide as Assessed by 24-h Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring.

BACKGROUND: Thiazide and thiazide-like diuretic agents are being increasingly used at lower doses. Hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in the 12.5-mg dose remains the most commonly prescribed antihypertensive agent in the United States. OBJECTIVES: This study compared chlorthalidone, 6.25 mg daily, with HCTZ, 12.5 mg daily, by 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring and evaluated efficacy. Because HCTZ has been perceived as a short-acting drug, a third comparison with an extended-release formulation (HCTZ-controlled release [CR]) was added. METHODS: This 12-week comparative, double-blind, outpatient study randomized 54 patients with stage 1 hypertension to receive either chlorthalidone, 6.25 mg, (n = 16); HCTZ 12.5 mg (n = 18); or HCTZ-CR 12.5 mg (n = 20). ABP monitoring was performed at baseline and after 4 and 12 weeks of therapy. RESULTS: All 3 treatments significantly (p < 0.01) lowered office BP at weeks 4 and 12 from baseline. At weeks 4 and 12, significant reductions in systolic and diastolic 24-h ambulatory and nighttime BP (p < 0.01) were observed with chlorthalidone but not with HCTZ. At weeks 4 (p = 0.015) and 12 (p = 0.020), nighttime systolic ABP was significantly lower in the chlorthalidone group than in the the HCTZ group. With HCTZ therapy, sustained hypertension was converted into masked hypertension. In contrast to the HCTZ group, the HCTZ-CR group also showed a significant (p < 0.01) reduction in 24-h ABP. All 3 treatments were generally safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with low-dose chlorthalidone, 6.25 mg daily, significantly reduced mean 24-h ABP as well as daytime and nighttime BP. Due to its short duration of action, no significant 24-h ABP reduction was seen with HCTZ, 12.5 mg daily, which merely converted sustained hypertension into masked hypertension. Thus, low-dose chlorthalidone, 6.25 mg, could be used as monotherapy for treatment of essential hypertension, whereas low-dose HCTZ monotherapy is not an appropriate antihypertensive drug. (Comparative Evaluation of Safety and Efficacy of Hydrochlorothiazide CR with Hydrochlorothiazide and Chlorthalidone in Patients With Stage I Essential Hypertension; CTRI/2013/07/003793).