Signal Detection and Methodological Limitations in a Real-World Registry: Learnings from the Evaluation of Long-Term Safety Analyses in PSOLAR.

INTRODUCTION: Psoriasis Longitudinal Assessment and Registry (PSOLAR) was designed in 2007 as the first disease-based registry for patients with psoriasis. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to discuss methodological limitations and post hoc analyses in long-term safety registries using learnings from analyses of a potential safety risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in PSOLAR. METHODS: PSOLAR is an international observational study of over 12,000 psoriasis patients that was conducted to meet postmarketing safety commitments for infliximab and ustekinumab. A recent annual review of registry data indicated a potential MACE risk for ustekinumab vs. non-biologics based on prespecified COX model regression analyses, which yielded an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 1.533 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.103-2.131). Therefore, we conducted a comprehensive review of key statistical methodology and implemented post hoc analytical methods to address specific limitations. RESULTS: The following limiting factors were identified: (1) inclusion of both prevalent and incident (new) users of biologics; (2) unanticipated imbalances in patient characteristics between treatment cohorts at baseline; (3) limited availability of relevant clinical data after enrollment; and (4) divergence of characteristics associated with outcomes among comparator groups over time. The analysis was modified to include only incident users, propensity scores were used to weight HRs, and adalimumab was deemed a more clinically appropriate comparator. The revised HR was 0.820 (95% CI 0.532-1.265), indicating no meaningful increase in MACE risk for ustekinumab. CONCLUSION: Our results, which do not support a causal association between ustekinumab exposure and MACE risk, underscore the need for ongoing assessment of analytical methods in long-term observational studies.

Antihistamines and itch.

Histamine is one of the best-characterized pruritogens in humans. It is known to play a role in pruritus associated with urticaria as well as ocular and nasal allergic reactions. Histamine mediates its effect via four receptors. Antihistamines that block the activation of the histamine H1receptor, H1R, have been shown to be effective therapeutics for the treatment of pruritus associated with urticaria, allergic rhinitis, and allergic conjunctivitis. However, their efficacy in other pruritic diseases such as atopic dermatitis and psoriasis is limited. The other histamine receptors may also play a role in pruritus, with the exception of the histamine H2receptor, H2R. Preclinical evidence indicates that local antagonism of the histamine H3receptor, H3R, can induce scratching perhaps via blocking inhibitory neuronal signals. The histamine H4receptor, H4R, has received a significant amount of attention as to its role in mediating pruritic signals. Indeed, it has now been shown that a selective H4R antagonist can inhibit histamine-induced itch in humans. This clinical result, in conjunction with efficacy in various preclinical pruritus models, points to the therapeutic potential of H4R antagonists for the treatment of pruritus not controlled by antihistamines that target the H1R.

The histamine H4 receptor antagonist, JNJ 39758979, is effective in reducing histamine-induced pruritus in a randomized clinical study in healthy subjects.

The histamine H4 receptor (H4R) is a promising target for the treatment of pruritus. A clinical study was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the H4R antagonist, JNJ 39758979 [(R)-4-(3-amino-pyrrolidin-1-yl)-6-isopropyl-pyrimidin-2-ylamine], on histamine-induced pruritus in healthy subjects. A single oral dose of 600 mg JNJ 39758979, 10 mg cetirizine, or placebo was administered in a randomized, three-period, double-blind, crossover study. Treatment periods were separated by 22-day washout periods. A histamine challenge was administered on day -1 and at 2 and 6 hours postdose on day 1 of each treatment period. The primary efficacy endpoint was the area under the curve (AUC) of pruritus score 0-10 minutes after the histamine challenge. Secondary efficacy endpoints included wheal and flare areas assessed 10 minutes after the histamine challenge. Safety was assessed for all subjects. Of the 24 enrolled subjects, 23 individuals completed the study. One subject withdrew after completing two treatment periods. Due to a carryover effect of JNJ 39758979, only treatment period 1 was used for pruritus-related evaluations. Compared with placebo, the reduction of the AUC of pruritus score was significant for JNJ 39758979 at 2 hours (P = 0.0248) and 6 hours (P = 0.0060), and for cetirizine at 6 hours (P = 0.0417). In all treatment periods, JNJ 39758979 did not demonstrate a significant decrease in wheal or flare at either time point, although a significant reduction was achieved with cetirizine at 2 and 6 hours (P < 0.0001). Adverse eventss reported in >1 patient with JNJ 39758979 were headache (9%) and nausea (13%). In conclusion, JNJ 39758979 was effective in inhibiting histamine-induced pruritus in healthy subjects.

Clinical and preclinical characterization of the histamine H(4) receptor antagonist JNJ-39758979.

The histamine H4 receptor (H(4)R) has been shown to have preclinical involvement in both inflammatory and pruritic responses. JNJ-39758979 [(R)-4-(3-amino-pyrrolidin-1-yl)-6-isopropyl-pyrimidin-2-ylamine] is a potent and selective H(4)R antagonist with a Ki at the human receptor of 12.5 ± 2.6 nM and greater than 80-fold selectivity over other histamine receptors. The compound also exhibited excellent selectivity versus other targets. JNJ-39758979 showed dose-dependent activity in models of asthma and dermatitis consistent with other H(4)R antagonists. Preclinical toxicity studies of up to 6 months in rats and 9 months in monkeys indicated an excellent safety profile, supporting the clinical testing of the compound. An oral formulation of JNJ-39758979 was studied in a phase 1 human volunteer study to assess safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics. The compound was well tolerated, with the exception of dose-dependent nausea, and no safety issues were noted in the phase 1 study. JNJ-39758979 exhibited good pharmacokinetics upon oral dosing with a plasma half-life of 124-157 hours after a single oral dose. In addition, dose-dependent inhibition of histamine-induced eosinophil shape change was detected, suggesting that the H4R was inhibited in vivo. In conclusion, JNJ-39758979 is a potent and selective H(4)R antagonist that exhibited good preclinical and phase 1 safety in healthy volunteers with evidence of a pharmacodynamics effect in humans.

Comparative efficacy of risperidone versus haloperidol on behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia.

BACKGROUND: Behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) cannot be regarded as a single clinical syndrome, but rather as a heterogeneous group of symptoms, each of which can be considered as possible targets for therapy. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of risperidone and haloperidol on specific manifestations of BPSD. METHODS: A post-hoc analysis was conducted using data from an 18-week, randomized, double-blind, crossover head-to-head trial of risperidone vs haloperidol in treating 114 nursing-home residents with BPSD. Dependent variables were item scores of the Korean versions of the Behavioural Pathology in Alzheimer's Disease Rating Scale (BEHAVE-AD-K) and Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI-K). RESULTS: On the BEHAVE-AD-K, risperidone was significantly more effective than haloperidol in treating wandering (p = 0.0496), agitation (p = 0.0091), diurnal rhythm disturbances (p = 0.0137), anxiety regarding upcoming events (p = 0.0002), and other anxieties (p = 0.0088). On the CMAI-K, risperidone was significantly more effective in treating physical sexual advances (p = 0.0202), pacing and aimless wandering (p = 0.0123), intentional falling (p = 0.0398), hoarding things (p = 0.0499), performing repetitious mannerisms (p = 0.0048), repetitive sentence or questions (p = 0.0025), complaining (p = 0.0101), and negativism (p = 0.0027). Haloperidol was not significantly superior to risperidone on any individual item in either scale. CONCLUSIONS: When comparing treatment effects on individual symptoms frequently occurring in patients with dementia, risperidone significantly improved symptoms of agitation, wandering, diurnal rhythm disturbance and anxieties, among other symptoms, compared with haloperidol.

A double-blind comparison of risperidone, quetiapine and placebo in patients with schizophrenia experiencing an acute exacerbation requiring hospitalization.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the effects of atypical antipsychotics (risperidone or quetiapine) with placebo and with each other in recently exacerbated patients with schizophrenia requiring hospitalization. METHODS: This international, randomized, double-blind study included a 2-week monotherapy phase followed by a 4-week additive therapy phase. Recently exacerbated patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder (DSM-IV) were randomized (2:2:1) to risperidone (n = 153), quetiapine (n = 156), or placebo (n = 73). Target doses were 4 or 6 mg/day of risperidone and 400 or 600 mg/day of quetiapine by day 5, with the ability to increase to 600 or 800 mg/day of quetiapine on day 8. The main outcome measures were the total Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and need for additional psychotropic medications. RESULTS: Monotherapy Phase: The combined atypical antipsychotic group (n = 308) reached borderline superiority to placebo (n = 71) at the 2-week endpoint on mean change in total PANSS score (-24.1 +/- 1.2 and -20.2 +/- 2.0, respectively; p = 0.067). The change in the atypical group was driven by the improvement with risperidone (-27.7 +/- 1.5 vs. -20.2 +/- 2.0 with placebo, p < 0.01; and vs. -20.5 +/- 1.5 with quetiapine, p < 0.01); the improvement with quetiapine was similar to placebo, p = 0.879. Results were similar on other efficacy endpoints. Additive Therapy Phase: Additional psychotropics were prescribed to fewer (p < 0.01) risperidone (36%) than quetiapine (53%) or placebo patients (59%). The overall discontinuation rate was 18%, 26%, and 38%, respectively. Risperidone, compared with placebo, was associated with more parkinsonism, akathisia, plasma prolactin changes, and weight gain; while quetiapine was associated with more somnolence, sedation, dizziness, constipation, tachycardia, thyroid dysregulation, and weight gain. CONCLUSION: While the combined atypical antipsychotic group did not experience greater improvements than the placebo group, risperidone, but not quetiapine, was significantly superior in all measured domains to placebo in the management of recently exacerbated hospitalized patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, with no unexpected tolerability findings.

Psychometric evaluation of the Readiness for Discharge Questionnaire.

OBJECTIVE: The Readiness for Discharge Questionnaire (RDQ) was developed as an easy to use tool for assessing readiness for discharge, independent of socio-economic factors, for inpatients with schizophrenia. The psychometric properties of the RDQ are described. METHODS: The RDQ consists of 6 items assessing suicidality/homicidality, control of aggression/impulsivity, activities of daily living, medication-taking, delusions/hallucinations interfering with functioning and global status. A final yes/no question assesses readiness for discharge. Data derived from 3 studies (500 patients in 3 countries) were used in analyzing inter-rater and test-retest reliability, content and construct validity, and sensitivity to change. RESULTS: The inter-rater reliability was high for all items of the RDQ (reliability coefficients >0.9) and moderate to high for the readiness for discharge status (Session I: 84% agreement, kappa 0.39, polychoric correlation r=0.81; Session II: 89% agreement, kappa 0.63, polychoric correlation r=0.81. Test-retest reliability was also high for all items of the RDQ (reliability coefficients >0.9) and the readiness for discharge status (kappa=0.743; tetrachoric correlation r=0.819). Overall, 84% of the raters agreed (mean score=5.0 of possible 6.0) that the RDQ was useful in assessing a patient's readiness for discharge from the hospital. Evidence of good construct validity included significant correlations with PANSS total and factor scores, and a significant relationship with actual discharge. Significantly more patients with symptom improvement were judged ready for discharge (compared to those without symptom improvement), indicating that the RDQ was sensitive to change over time. CONCLUSIONS: The RDQ has favorable reliability and validity properties, and is an easy to use instrument in research studies for assessing readiness for discharge of inpatients with schizophrenia. Additional work in naturalistic settings is required to further validate the instrument for routine clinical use.

Correlates of anticholinergic activity in patients with dementia and psychosis treated with risperidone or olanzapine.

BACKGROUND: Older individuals with dementia are highly sensitive to the effects of muscarinic receptor blockade. STUDY DESIGN: This was a 6-week multisite, randomized clinical trial. SUBJECTS: Eighty-six patients with probable Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia, or mixed-etiology dementia (DSM-IV criteria) were randomly assigned to treatment with olanzapine or risperidone. ASSESSMENTS: Anticholinergic activity was measured with a radioreceptor assay, and plasma levels of antipsychotic medications were determined. Primary outcomes were assessed with the Udvalg for Kliniske Undersogelser (UKU) scale and somnolence adverse events; secondary outcome measures included scores on the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) and other scales. RESULTS: There were no between-treatment differences in the UKU scale or in somnolence adverse events. Statistically significant improvements (p < .001) from baseline were found for the NPI measures, with no between-treatment group differences. Olanzapine was associated with significant increases from baseline in anticholinergic activity, while risperidone was not; the between-treatment group differences were not statistically significant. Increase in anticholinergic activity was associated with an increase in anticholinergic side effects and slower performance on the Trail Making Test Part A. Higher endpoint anticholinergic activity was associated with higher endpoint scores on several items from the NPI, including delusions, anxiety, and aberrant motor behavior. IMPLICATIONS: Efficacious doses of olanzapine increased anticholinergic activity in older patients with dementia, while similarly efficacious doses of risperidone did not. Patients whose anticholinergic activity increased were more likely to experience anticholinergic side effects and to have worsening in certain cognitive domains. These data suggest that certain patients may be vulnerable to the anticholinergic activity associated with antipsychotic treatment.