Longterm (52-week) results of a phase III randomized, controlled trial of apremilast in patients with psoriatic arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, over 52 weeks in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) despite prior treatment. METHODS: Patients were randomized to placebo (n = 168), apremilast 20 mg BID (n = 168), or apremilast 30 mg BID (n = 168). Patients whose swollen and tender joint counts had not improved by ≥ 20% at Week 16 were considered nonresponders and were required to be re-randomized (1:1) to apremilast 20 mg BID or 30 mg BID if they were initially randomized to placebo, or continued their initial treatment of apremilast dose. At Week 24, all remaining patients treated with placebo were re-randomized to apremilast 20 mg BID or 30 mg BID. RESULTS: An American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) response at Week 16 was attained by significantly more patients receiving apremilast 20 mg BID (30.4%, p = 0.0166) or 30 mg BID (38.1%, p = 0.0001) than placebo (19.0%). Among patients receiving apremilast continuously for 52 weeks (n = 254), ACR20 response at Week 52 was observed in 63.0% (75/119, 20 mg BID) and 54.6% (71/130, 30 mg BID) of patients. Response was also maintained across secondary outcomes, including measures of PsA signs and symptoms, skin psoriasis severity, and physical function. The nature, incidence, and severity of adverse events were comparable over the 24-week and 52-week periods. The most common adverse events, diarrhea and nausea, generally occurred early and were self-limited. CONCLUSION: Continuous apremilast treatment resulted in sustained improvements in PsA for up to 52 weeks. Apremilast had an acceptable safety profile and was generally well tolerated. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01172938.

Treatment of psoriatic arthritis in a phase 3 randomised, placebo-controlled trial with apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor.

OBJECTIVES: Apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, regulates inflammatory mediators. Psoriatic Arthritis Long-term Assessment of Clinical Efficacy 1 (PALACE 1) compared apremilast with placebo in patients with active psoriatic arthritis despite prior traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) and/or biologic therapy. METHODS: In the 24-week, placebo-controlled phase of PALACE 1, patients (N=504) were randomised (1:1:1) to placebo, apremilast 20 mg twice a day (BID) or apremilast 30 mg BID. At week 16, patients without ≥20% reduction in swollen and tender joint counts were required to be re-randomised equally to either apremilast dose if initially randomised to placebo or remained on their initial apremilast dose. Patients on background concurrent DMARDs continued stable doses (methotrexate, leflunomide and/or sulfasalazine). Primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving 20% improvement in modified American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20) at week 16. RESULTS: At week 16, significantly more apremilast 20 mg BID (31%) and 30 mg BID (40%) patients achieved ACR20 versus placebo (19%) (p<0.001). Significant improvements in key secondary measures (physical function, psoriasis) were evident with both apremilast doses versus placebo. Across outcome measures, the 30-mg group generally had higher and more consistent response rates, although statistical comparison was not conducted. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal and generally occurred early, were self-limiting and infrequently led to discontinuation. No imbalance in major adverse cardiac events, serious or opportunistic infections, malignancies or laboratory abnormalities was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Apremilast was effective in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis, improving signs and symptoms and physical function. Apremilast demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and was generally well tolerated. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01172938.

A trial evaluating gradual- or immediate-switch strategies from risperidone, olanzapine, or aripiprazole to iloperidone in patients with schizophrenia.

In a 12-week randomized open-label trial, adults diagnosed with schizophrenia experiencing inadequate efficacy and/or poor tolerability on risperidone, olanzapine, or aripiprazole were randomized to switch to iloperidone either gradually (ie, down-titration of current therapy over the first 2weeks [to 50% on Day 1, 25% by Week 1, 0% by Week 2]) or immediately. All patients were titrated on iloperidone to 6mg BID by Day 4, then flexibly dosing between 6 and 12mg BID, as needed. The primary variable was the Integrated Clinical Global Impression of Change (I-CGI-C) and the primary analysis time point was Week 12. A total of 500 patients were randomized and received iloperidone (gradual switch, 240; immediate switch, 260), with 175, 155, and 170 patients switched from risperidone, olanzapine, and aripiprazole, respectively. I-CGI-C Results confirmed improved outcomes at Week 12, with scores that were similar between the gradual- and immediate-switch groups, respectively, for risperidone, 2.82 and 2.67 (95% CI: -0.229, 0.511); olanzapine, 2.87 and 3.03 (95% CI: -0.548, 0.235); and aripiprazole, 2.79 and 2.81 (95% CI: -0.405, 0.368). Incidence of adverse events (AEs) was similar in both switch groups, with the most frequently reported (≥10%) being dizziness, dry mouth, somnolence, and weight increase. In conclusion, switching to iloperidone by either a gradual or an immediate method did not reveal any clinically significant differences in ratings of overall efficacy and safety/tolerability outcomes, based on the I-CGI-C at 12weeks. Similar overall safety/AE profiles were observed regardless of the specific agent from which patients were switched.

A thorough QTc study of 3 doses of iloperidone including metabolic inhibition via CYP2D6 and/or CYP3A4 and a comparison to quetiapine and ziprasidone.

The potential for iloperidone, a D2/5-HT2A antipsychotic, to affect the heart rate-corrected QT interval (QTc) was assessed in the absence and presence of metabolic inhibitors in a randomized, open-label, multicenter study. QT interval prolongation by medications, including both conventional and atypical antipsychotic drugs, can predispose patients to cardiac arrhythmias and result in sudden death. Adults with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and normal electrocardiograms at baseline (N = 188) were randomized 1:1:1:1:1 to iloperidone, 8 mg twice daily (BID), 12 mg BID, 24 mg once daily (QD); quetiapine, 375 mg BID; or ziprasidone, 80 mg BID during period 1 (no metabolic inhibitors present). Iloperidone BID produced mean changes in QTc Fridericia correction (QTcF) interval (8.5-9.0 milliseconds [ms]) similar to those produced by ziprasidone (9.6 ms) and higher than those produced by quetiapine (1.3 ms). Iloperidone, 24 mg QD, produced a mean QTcF change of 15.4 ms. Coadministration of metabolic inhibitors with iloperidone during periods 2 (paroxetine) and 3 (paroxetine and ketoconazole) resulted in greater increases in the QTc interval. Increased QTc was observed in individuals with specific cytochrome P450 2D6 polymorphisms. Up to 10% of patients on iloperidone experienced QTc intervals of 60 ms or longer in the presence of metabolic inhibition and QD dosing. However, no patients experienced QTc changes of clinical concern (QTc ≥ 500 ms). The most common adverse events with iloperidone were headache, anxiety, and dyspepsia. The only cardiovascular adverse events with iloperidone were non-concentration-dependent tachycardia that was mild in most patients and did not lead to further sequelae. Pharmacogenetics and recommendations are discussed.

A global measure to assess switching antipsychotic medications in the treatment of schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES: It is common practice to switch antipsychotic medications in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia to enhance clinical efficacy and/or reduce drug-related side effects. The conventional Clinical Global Impression (CGI) of severity scale is a well-understood measure to track switching effects but does not differentiate between the severity of clinical symptoms and the impact of side effects.. METHODS: We developed a CGI-switch instrument that contains distinct global severity scales for clinical efficacy, safety and/or tolerability, and a third unified (integrated) CGI severity score to assess these interrelated assessments. An integrated Clinical Global Impression of Change was also created to assess global clinical change relative to the initiation of treatment. RESULTS: Interrater reliability conducted as part of a rater-training program for a clinical study (Novartis protocol CIL0522D; clinitrials.gov identifier: CT01207414) revealed high interrater agreement (Cronbach's alpha = 0.945). Data were collected from 1066 CGI assessments during the course of the trial. CGI raters easily grasped the utility of the instrument. The distinction made between efficacy and safety/tolerability facilitated serial tracking of each condition during the course of treatment. CONCLUSION: The modified CGI-switch instrument is a simple, reliable, and practical metric to assess the benefits, if any of switching antipsychotic medications in patients with schizophrenia.

Efficacy of iloperidone in the short-term treatment of schizophrenia: a post hoc analysis of pooled patient data from four phase III, placebo- and active-controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: The efficacy and tolerability characteristics of an antipsychotic are difficult to determine from a single registration study. We thus conducted an analysis that assessed key efficacy and tolerability outcomes post hoc from four pooled short-term (4-6 weeks) phase III studies that evaluated iloperidone versus placebo in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. METHODS: Patient-level data were pooled from four prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled and active-controlled, multicenter trials of iloperidone in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder aged 18-65 years. Iloperidone 4-8, 10-16, and 20-24 mg/day (all dosed twice daily) were compared with placebo. Active controls used for assay sensitivity included risperidone 4-8 mg/day, haloperidol 15 mg/day, and ziprasidone 160 mg/day. Outcomes of interest were change from baseline to endpoint in the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (derived) (BPRSd), Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS)-total (PANSS-T) score, and PANSS-positive (PANSS-P) and PANSS-negative (PANSS-N) subscale scores. An analysis of covariance (with treatment and study as factors, baseline as a covariate) was performed to compare changes between the iloperidone treatment groups versus placebo, on the basis of a last-observation-carried-forward approach for the intent-to-treat (ITT) populations. Tolerability outcomes were obtained from spontaneously reported adverse events (AEs), and number needed to harm was calculated for each antipsychotic versus placebo for the total population. RESULTS: The ITT population included both schizoaffective and schizophrenia patients (N = 2401): n = 370, n = 494, and n = 424 for iloperidone 4-8, 10-16, and 20-24 mg/day, respectively; n = 294 for risperidone; n = 114 for haloperidol; n = 144 for ziprasidone; and n = 561 for placebo. Treatment with iloperidone 10-16 mg/day or 20-24 mg/day was associated with significantly improved BPRSd, PANSS-T, PANSS-P, and PANSS-N scores versus treatment with placebo. When only patients with schizophrenia were included (n = 1941), the pattern of results was essentially unchanged. The active controls confirmed assay sensitivity. Across all iloperidone dose groups, the incidences of extrapyramidal disorders and akathisia were similar to those observed with placebo. AEs for which the frequency was greater for iloperidone than placebo and for which the 95% confidence interval for number needed to harm did not contain infinity were dizziness, dry mouth, somnolence, nasal congestion, fatigue, sedation, and tachycardia; in general, for these AEs, frequency was higher with higher doses, resulting in a lower number needed to harm. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with product labeling, iloperidone 10-16 mg/day or 20-24 mg/day demonstrated significant improvement over placebo on BPRSd and PANSS-T scores, as well as on PANSS-P and PANSS-N subscale scores over 6 weeks of treatment in patients with schizophrenia and in the ITT population, which includes patients with schizoaffective disorder. Iloperidone did not differ from placebo in terms of extrapyramidal disorders and akathisia.

Efficacy of iloperidone in schizophrenia: a PANSS five-factor analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score is widely used to assess antipsychotic efficacy, however schizophrenia is a multi-dimensional disorder. We conducted a 5-factor analysis for evaluating the efficacy of iloperidone vs. placebo across these different domains in the treatment of schizophrenia. METHOD: The 5-factor model was determined from pooled data from 7 clinical trials (4 placebo- and active-controlled and 3 non-inferiority active-comparator trials of iloperidone) in schizophrenia (N=3580).Five factors were derived (excitement/hostility [P4,P7,G8,G14], depression/anxiety [G1,G2,G3,G4,G6], cognition [P2,N5,N7,G5,G10,G11,G12,G13,G15], positive [P1,P3,P5,P6,G9], and negative [N1,N2,N3,N4,N6,G7,G16]) from a factor analysis on the covariance matrix of 30 baseline PANSS items using a varimax rotation; factors retained had eigenvalues of ≥ 0.5. These newly derived 5 factors differ only slightly from other 5-factor analyses published by others using different datasets. The analysis of covariance model was then applied to assess these efficacy outcomes from the 4-6 week double-blind placebo and active controlled clinical trials of iloperidone. RESULTS: Based on the placebo-controlled trials, iloperidone improvements from baseline (least squared mean change ± standard error) were as follows: excitement/hostility, 0.4 ± 0.21 for 10-16 mg, 0.6 ± 0.43 for 20-24 mg vs. -1.0 ± 0.23 for placebo; P<0.001 for both iloperidone doses vs. placebo; depression/anxiety, 1.9 ± 0.21 for 10-16 mg, 1.9 ± 0.41 for 20-24 mg vs. 1.1 ± 0.22 for placebo; P<0.05 for 10-16 mg dose vs. placebo; cognition, 2.8 ± 0.35 for 10-16 mg, 3.9 ± 0.69 for 20-24 mg vs. 1.6 ± 0.38 for placebo; P<0.05 for both iloperidone doses vs. placebo; positive, 3.7 ± 0.26 for 10-16 mg, 4.1 ± 0.53 for 20-24 mg vs. 2.7 ± 0.29 for placebo; P<0.05 for both iloperidone doses vs. placebo; and negative, 2.2 ± 0.29 for 10-16 mg, 2.5 ± 0.58 for 20-24 mg vs. 1.3 ± 0.32 for placebo; P<0.05 for 10-16 mg vs. placebo. Active controls validated iloperidone efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Iloperidone demonstrated positive treatment effects on these newly derived PANSS factors. The 10-16 mg and 20-24 mg dose groups had similar efficacy on the PANSS factors, with the exception of the depression/anxiety and negative factors, on which the 10-16 mg dose group showed statistical separation from placebo and the 20-24 mg dose group did not. At 6 weeks, the lack of separation from placebo for the higher dose group may have been due to the much smaller sample size in that group.