Long-term effects of asenapine or olanzapine in patients with persistent negative symptoms of schizophrenia: a pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: A Phase 2 efficacy study suggested that asenapine (ASE) was superior to risperidone in decreasing negative symptoms in schizophrenia at 6 weeks, prompting design of two negative symptom studies. Two 26-week core studies with 26-week extensions compared asenapine (ASE: 5-10mg twice-daily] and olanzapine (OLA: 5-20mg once-daily) as monotherapies in reducing persistent negative symptoms (PNS). While neither study met the primary endpoint of superiority of ASE over OLA, ASE was statistically superior to OLA in one extension study. This prompted a pooled analysis of the treatment effects of both drugs. METHODS: Data were pooled from two 26-week core studies and extensions. Efficacy endpoints: change in Negative Symptom Assessment scale-16 (NSA-16) total score at Week 26 (prespecified primary endpoint) and Week 52. Additional measures: change in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS)-total, Marder factors, negative subscale scores, Clinical Global Impression Severity of Illness score (CGI-S) assessments, NSA-16 factor domains, NSA global score, and individual items. RESULTS: Pooled data from the extension studies (n=502) showed no differences between ASE and OLA at Week 26. At Week 52, ASE showed superiority over OLA in NSA-16 total score, NSA global, PANSS Marder negative and PANSS negative subscales, some NSA-16 items, and four of five factor domains. In addition, pooled data for patients who entered the core trials (n=949) were analyzed over 52weeks (whether or not patients entered the extension). No significant differences between groups were observed in change in NSA-16 total score at 26-weeks. At Week 52, ASE was significantly superior over OLA in this measure, NSA global score and PANSS Marder negative factor. There were more early dropouts due to AEs, including worsening of the disease, in the ASE group. CONCLUSION: In this pooled analysis, ASE and OLA did not differ significantly over 26 weeks, but indicated a signal of superiority for ASE with continued treatment up to 52 weeks.

Sugammadex versus neostigmine reversal of moderate rocuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade in Korean patients.

BACKGROUND: Rapid and complete reversal of neuromuscular blockade (NMB) is desirable at the end of surgery. Sugammadex reverses rocuronium-induced NMB by encapsulation. It is well tolerated in Caucasian patients, providing rapid reversal of moderate (reappearance of T2) rocuronium-induced NMB. We investigated the efficacy and safety of sugammadex versus neostigmine in Korean patients. METHODS: This randomized, safety assessor-blinded trial (NCT01050543) included Korean patients undergoing general anesthesia. Rocuronium 0.6 mg/kg was given prior to intubation with maintenance doses of 0.1-0.2 mg/kg as required. Patients received sugammadex 2.0 mg/kg or neostigmine 50 µg/kg with glycopyrrolate 10 µg/kg to reverse the NMB at the reappearance of T2, after the last rocuronium dose. The primary efficacy endpoint was the time from sugammadex or neostigmine administration to recovery of the train-of-four (TOF) ratio to 0.9. The safety of these medications was also assessed. RESULTS: Of 128 randomized patients, 118 had evaluable data (n = 59 in each group). The geometric mean (95% confidence interval) time to recovery of the TOF ratio to 0.9 was 1.8 (1.6, 2.0) minutes in the sugammadex group and 14.8 (12.4, 17.6) minutes in the neostigmine group (P < 0.0001). Sugammadex was generally well tolerated, with no evidence of residual or recurrence of NMB; four patients in the neostigmine group reported adverse events possibly indicative of inadequate NMB reversal. CONCLUSIONS: Sugammadex was well tolerated and provided rapid reversal of moderate rocuronium-induced NMB in Korean patients, with a recovery time 8.1 times faster than neostigmine. These results are consistent with those reported for Caucasian patients.

Short-term safety and pharmacokinetic profile of asenapine in older patients with psychosis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the short-term tolerability of two titration schedules of sublingual asenapine in older patients with psychosis, not associated with organic brain disease, and to compare asenapine pharmacokinetics in older patients versus younger adults with schizophrenia. METHODS: Patients ≥ 65 years with psychosis without dementia were randomized for 6 weeks to two dose-escalation regimens: 2 days at 2 mg twice daily (BID), 2 days at 5 mg BID, and 10 mg BID thereafter (slow escalation); or 4 days at 5 mg BID and 10 mg BID thereafter (rapid escalation). Clinical and pharmacokinetic assessments were performed in each group. RESULTS: Of 122 randomized patients, 76 (62.3%) completed the trial. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) was comparable (72.1%) with both regimens. The most frequently reported AEs were hypertension, headache, and somnolence; incidence of extrapyramidal symptom-related AEs was 5.7%. Mean end point weight change was 0.4 kg. For asenapine 5 and 10 mg BID, median times to maximum concentration were 1.00 and 1.06 h, respectively; maximum concentrations (C(max) ) were 4.73 and 7.93 ng/mL; areas under the concentration versus time curve (0-12 h; AUC(0-12) ) were 32.1 and 56.3 ng∙h/mL. CONCLUSIONS: Despite 12-30% increases in asenapine C(max) and AUC(0-12) in older patients compared with previously published findings in younger schizophrenia patients, possibly as a result of slower drug clearance, asenapine was generally well tolerated during both dose-escalation schedules. No dose adjustment appears to be necessary in older patients.

Asenapine versus olanzapine in people with persistent negative symptoms of schizophrenia.

Two randomized, double-blind, 26-week core studies (Eastern [EH] and Western Hemisphere [WH]) tested the hypothesis that asenapine is superior to olanzapine for persistent negative symptoms of schizophrenia; 26-week extension studies assessed the comparative long-term efficacy and safety of these agents. In the core studies, 949 people were randomized to asenapine (n = 241 and 244) or olanzapine (n = 240 and 224); 26-week completion rates with asenapine were 64.7% and 49.6% (olanzapine, 80.4% and 63.8%) in the EH and WH, respectively. In the EH and WH extensions, respectively (asenapine, n = 134 and 86; olanzapine, n = 172 and 110), 52-week completion rates were 84.3% and 66.3% with asenapine (olanzapine, 89.0% and 80.9%). Asenapine was not superior to olanzapine in change in the 16-item Negative Symptom Assessment Scale total score in either core study, but asenapine was superior to olanzapine at week 52 in the WH extension study. Olanzapine was associated with modest, but significantly greater, changes in PANSS positive subscale score at various assessment times in both core studies and the WH extension study. Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was comparable between treatments across studies. Weight gain was consistently lower with asenapine. Extrapyramidal symptom-related adverse event incidence was higher with asenapine (EH: 8.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.1%-12.5%; WH: 16.4%; 95% CI, 11.9%-21.6%) than olanzapine (EH: 3.3%; 95% CI, 1.4%-6.4%; WH: 12.1%; 95% CI, 8.1%-17.0%), but Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale-Abbreviated total score changes did not significantly differ between treatments. In conclusion, asenapine superiority over olanzapine was not observed in the core studies. Both treatments improved persistent negative symptoms, but discontinuation rates were higher with asenapine.

Improvement in lipid profiles in antiretroviral-experienced HIV-positive patients with hyperlipidemia after a switch to unboosted atazanavir.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to compare the change in fasting low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol from baseline to week 12 between patients receiving an atazanavir-containing regimen and those receiving comparator protease inhibitor (PI) regimens. DESIGN: AI424-067 was a 48-week, open-label, randomized, prospective study of 246 patients on PI-based regimens with hyperlipidemia [fasting LDL cholesterol >130 mg/dL (>3.4 mmol/L)] and with HIV RNA <50 copies per milliliter. Patients were randomized to switch to atazanavir (400 mg once daily) on day 1 (immediate switch) or maintain current PI regimen for the first 24 weeks, then switch to atazanavir (delayed switch). METHODS: Plasma lipid levels were compared with baseline values at weeks 12, 24, and 48. Safety, viral load, and CD4 profiles were also evaluated. RESULTS: At week 12, the mean percent changes in LDL cholesterol from baseline for the immediate-switch and delayed-switch groups were -15% and +1%, respectively (P < 0.0001). Favorable LDL cholesterol levels in the immediate-switch group were sustained through week 48. Both groups maintained comparable virologic control. Switching to atazanavir did not produce a significant change in safety or tolerability. CONCLUSIONS: A switch-either immediate or delayed-from a boosted or unboosted PI to unboosted atazanavir in patients with hyperlipidemia was associated with improvements in plasma lipid parameters without loss of virological suppression.

Efficacy and safety of entecavir for chronic HBV in HIV/HBV coinfected patients receiving lamivudine as part of antiretroviral therapy.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged use of lamivudine in patients coinfected with HIV and hepatitis B virus (HBV) leads to an increasing risk of lamivudine resistance in both diseases. We investigated the addition of entecavir, a potent inhibitor of HBV polymerase, to lamivudine-containing highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in patients who experienced rebound in HBV viremia while maintaining suppression of plasma HIV RNA less than 400 copies/ml. METHODS: Sixty-eight patients were randomized to entecavir 1 mg (n = 51) or placebo (n = 17) once daily for 24 weeks; 65 patients continued the study with entecavir for an additional 24 weeks. Lamivudine-containing HAART was continued throughout. RESULTS: At week 24, the mean HBV DNA in entecavir-treated patients was 5.52 log10 copies/ml versus 9.27 log10 copies/ml for placebo, and at week 48, it was 4.79 log10 copies/ml versus 5.63 log10 copies/ml, respectively. The mean HBV DNA change from baseline for entecavir was -3.65 log10 copies/ml (versus + 0.11 for placebo, P < 0.0001) and alanine aminotransferase normalization in 34% of patients (versus 8% for placebo, P = 0.08). At 48 weeks, mean change in HBV DNA reached -4.20 log10 copies/ml in patients who received entecavir for the entire 48 weeks. The frequency of adverse events with entecavir and placebo was comparable. Through 48 weeks, no clinically relevant changes in HIV viremia or CD4 cell counts were identified. CONCLUSION: In this study, entecavir was associated with rapid, clinically significant reductions in HBV DNA, with maintenance of HIV viremia suppression, in HIV/HBV coinfected patients with HBV viremia while on lamivudine treatment.