A tolerability burden index in schizophrenia: incorporating patient perspective in clinical trial adverse event reporting.

Background: Adverse event (AE) reporting in clinical trials does not fully capture the patient-level perspective and comparing tolerability across treatments or among studies is difficult. Objective: This study was designed to develop a treatment tolerability index algorithm that combines AE reporting with physician- and patient-level AE information into a global burden score to allow comparison of the overall tolerability of antipsychotic medications used in treating schizophrenia. Study design: Data from a 4-arm, placebo-controlled clinical trial were used in the proposed tolerability index algorithm. For each patient, AEs were adjusted by frequency, severity, duration, and patient-experienced importance, and average tolerability-related burden scores were calculated. Setting: Algorithm development analyses. Patients: This study analyzed data from a previously completed clinical trial that evaluated a potential antipsychotic medication; no patients were involved in the current study. Intervention: No interventions were administered in this study; the analyses described used data derived from a previously completed clinical trial in which patients received bifeprunox, risperidone, or placebo. Main outcome measure: Burden scores and tolerability index scores were compared for patients who did or did not discontinue treatment because of AEs. Results: The number of AEs varied widely among patients. Burden scores were significantly worse for patients who discontinued treatment because of AEs. Mean tolerability index scores, adjusted based on AE frequency, severity-adjusted duration, and patient-experienced impact, were poorer for active medications than placebo, and increased with dose. Conclusion: The treatment tolerability index will allow comparison of AE burden and tolerability between treatments using existing clinical trial information. This suggests that scoring is possible, is clinically relevant, and allows standardized comparison of antipsychotic tolerability.

Clobazam and clonazepam use in epilepsy: Results from a UK database incident user cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare patient characteristics and treatment patterns among clobazam (CLB) and clonazepam (CZP)-treated patients with epilepsy in a longitudinal primary care database. METHODS: In this pharmacoepidemiological study, real-life usage data from the Clinical Practice Research Database (CPRD) were evaluated. The CPRD collects data from approximately 690 primary care practices throughout the UK. Data included were from patients with ≥1 incident CLB or CZP prescription from 1995 to 2011 and were present in the database for ≥182 days prior to the index date (date patient was first prescribed CLB or CZP within the study period). RESULTS: Of 21,099 patients who met inclusion criteria, 18.4% were receiving CLB and 81.6% were receiving CZP. More patients used CLB for epilepsy than CZP (76.1% vs 8.7%). CLB-treated adults (≤18years) were younger than those treated with CZP (41.0 vs 48.2 years; p<0.001), while CLB-treated children (≤18 years) were older than those treated with CZP (8.8 vs 7.3 years, p<0.001). The median CLB dosage did not change from baseline to last follow-up, while median CZP dosage increased 25% in adults and 50% in children. Median treatment duration, as well as retention rate up to 10 years, was similar between CLB and CZP in each age group. CONCLUSIONS: Among adult and pediatric patients in the UK, CLB is more often prescribed for epilepsy than CZP. The median CLB dosage used by both adults and children remained stable over the 16-year study period, while the median CZP dosage increased in both adults and children.

Lack of tolerable treatment options for patients with schizophrenia.

PURPOSE: Atypical antipsychotics (AAs), an effective treatment for schizophrenia, have a range of pharmacologic properties leading to differences in tolerability as well as heterogeneity in treatment response. Individual patient characteristics must be considered when making treatment choices, especially from an adverse event (AE) or tolerability perspective. Despite the availability of numerous AAs, after appraising patient characteristics at the time of treatment selection, physicians may quickly run out of tolerable treatment options. PATIENTS AND METHODS: AE risk factors, defined as having either a prior history of an AE or a risk factor for that AE, were determined for Medicaid-insured and Commercially insured patients using database analysis. Patients receiving AA treatment between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2012 defined the index date of first observed AA prescription during this period. Nine AAs were evaluated for association with AE risk factors as informed by drug prescribing information from the different manufacturers and published meta-analyses. The proportion of patients with pre-index AE risk factors prescribed an AA associated with that risk factor was then determined. RESULTS: A high proportion of patients (>80%) were prescribed an AA associated with extrapyramidal symptoms or akathisia despite experiencing extrapyramidal symptoms or akathisia prior to AA treatment initiation. Similar trends were observed among patients with diabetes (>60%) and obesity (>40%). From the nine treatment options available, the number of optimal choices for individual patient segments were limited based on their prior history, including those with cardiometabolic and cardiovascular comorbidities (four); experiencing prolactin elevation-related problems (seven); needing to avoid excessive sedation (four); or at risk of extrapyramidal symptoms or akathisia (two). Options were then further restricted among patients in more than one segment when multiple pre-index AE risk factors were combined. CONCLUSION: When combining patient risk profile with antipsychotic AE profile, physicians may quickly run out of tolerable treatment options for individual patients, despite the availability of many AAs, suggesting a need for additional treatment options with better tolerability and without compromising efficacy.

Cost-effectiveness of asenapine in the treatment of bipolar I disorder patients with mixed episodes.

OBJECTIVE: Around one-third of patients with bipolar I disorder (BD-I) experience mixed episodes, characterized by both mania and depression, which tend to be more difficult and costly to treat. Atypical antipsychotics are recommended for the treatment of mixed episodes, although evidence of their efficacy, tolerability, and cost in these patients is limited. This study evaluates, from a UK National Health Service perspective, the cost-effectiveness of asenapine vs olanzapine in BD-I patients with mixed episodes. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness was assessed using a Markov model. Efficacy was informed by a post-hoc analysis of two short-term clinical trials, with response measured as a composite Young Mania Rating Score and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale end-point. Probabilities of discontinuation and relapse to manic, mixed, and depressive episodes were sourced from published meta-analyses. Direct costs (2012-2013 values) included drug acquisition, monitoring, and resource use related to bipolar disorder as well as selected adverse events. Benefits were measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: For treating mixed episodes, asenapine generated 0.0187 more QALYs for an additional cost of £24 compared to olanzapine over a 5-year period, corresponding to a £1302 incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The higher acquisition cost of asenapine was roughly offset by the healthcare savings conferred through its greater efficacy in treating these patients. The model shows that benefits were driven by earlier response to asenapine during acute treatment and were maintained during longer-term follow-up. RESULTS were sensitive to changes in key parameters including short and longer-term efficacy, unit cost, and utilities, but conclusions remained relatively robust. CONCLUSIONS: RESULTS suggest that asenapine is a cost-effective alternative to olanzapine in mixed episode BD-I patients, and may have specific advantages in this population, potentially leading to healthcare sector savings and improved outcomes. Limitations of the analysis stem from gaps in clinical and economic evidence for these patients and should be addressed by future clinical trials.