Inhaled loxapine and intramuscular lorazepam in healthy volunteers: a randomized placebo-controlled drug-drug interaction study

Dry powder inhalation, part 2: the present and future

INTRODUCTION

The manufacture of modern dry powder inhalers (DPIs), starting with the Spinhaler (Fisons) in 1967, was only possible thanks to a series of technological developments in the 20^th century, of which many started first around 1950. Not until then, it became possible to design and develop effective, cheap and mass-produced DPIs. The link between these technological developments and DPI development has never been presented and discussed before in reviews about the past and present of DPI technology.

AREAS COVERED

The diversity of currently used DPIs with single dose, multiple-unit dose and multi-dose DPIs is discussed, including the benefits and drawbacks of this diversity for correct use and the efficacy of the therapy. No specific databases or search engines otherwise than PubMed and Google have been used.

EXPERT OPINION

Considering the relatively poor efficacy regarding lung deposition of currently used DPIs, the high rates of incorrect inhaler use and inhalation errors and the poor adherence to the therapy with inhalers, much effort must be put in improving these shortcomings for future DPI designs. Delivered fine particle doses must be increased, correct inhaler handling must become more intuitive and simpler to perform, and the use of multiple inhalers must be avoided.

Recent advances in drug delivery to the central nervous system by inhalation

INTRODUCTION

Drugs need to enter the systemic circulation efficiently before they can cross the blood-brain barrier and reach the central nervous system. Although the respiratory tract is not a common route of administration for delivering drugs to the central nervous system, it has attracted increasing interest in recent years for this purpose.

AREAS COVERED

In this article, we compare pulmonary delivery to three other common routes (parenteral, oral, and intranasal) for delivering drugs to the central nervous system, followed by summarising the devices used to aerosolise neurological drugs. Recent studies delivering drugs for different neurological disorders via inhalation are then discussed to illustrate the strengths of pulmonary delivery.

EXPERT OPINION

Recent studies provide strong evidence and rationale to support inhaling neurological drugs. Since inhalation can achieve improved pharmacokinetics and rapid onset of action for multiple drugs, it is a non-invasive and efficient method to deliver drugs to the central nervous system. Future research should focus on delivering other small and macro-molecules via the lungs for different neurological conditions.

New Antipsychotic Medications in the Last Decade

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Over the last ten years, the treatment of psychosis has seen a near explosion of creative development in both novel agents and new delivery modalities. The current review summarizes these developments over the past decade (2011-2020). We performed a systematic review utilizing PubMed and PsychInfo with the aim of identifying all the RCT and related analyses in adults with psychosis (schizophrenia and mania).

RECENT FINDINGS

We identified 11 significant developments: the introduction of new antipsychotics cariprazine, brexpiprazole, lumateperone, and pimavanserin; introduction of new delivery methods: subcutaneous long-acting risperidone, aripiprazole lauroxil, transdermal asenapine, and inhaled loxapine; and the introduction of new approaches such as olanzapine/samidorphan for olanzapine-associated weight gain, examination of the TAAR1 agonist SEP 363,856 as a test of concept, and the combination of Xanomeline/Trospium, an M₁ and M₄ muscarinic receptor agonist in conjunction with a peripheral anticholinergic. Last decade has seen a tremendous development in second-generation antipsychotics which provides unprecedented treatment options for clinicians in treating psychosis.

Advances in the psychopharmacotherapy of bipolar disorder type I

INTRODUCTION

Research into the pharmacologic management of bipolar type I illness continues to progress.

AREAS COVERED

Randomized clinical trials performed with type I bipolar disorder in the years 2015 to August 2020 are reviewed. There are new indications for the use of cariprazine, for bipolar mania and depression, and a long-acting injectable formulation of aripiprazole has also been approved for relapse prevention in bipolar illness. Most of the randomized clinical trials are effectiveness studies.

EXPERT OPINION

Over the 20 years from 1997 through 2016, the use of lithium and other mood stabilizers has declined by 50%, while the use of both second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) and antidepressants has increased considerably. Over the same time period (1990-2017), disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) increased by 54.4%, from 6.02 million in 1990 to 9.29 million in 2017 which is greater than the 47.74% increase in incidence of the disease, suggesting that the changes in prescribing patterns have not been helpful for our patients. Furthermore, recent effectiveness studies continue to confirm the superiority of lithium and other mood stabilizers in the management of bipolar illness for both psychiatric and medical outcomes, reaffirming their role as foundational treatments in the management of type I bipolar disorder. Clinicians need to reassess their prescribing habits.

The Role of Inhaled Loxapine in the Treatment of Acute Agitation in Patients with Psychiatric Disorders: A Clinical Review

Loxapine is a first generation antipsychotic, belonging to the dibenzoxazepine class. Recently, loxapine has been reformulated at a lower dose, producing an inhaled powder that can be directly administered to the lungs to treat the agitation associated with psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Thus, the aim of this narrative and clinical mini-review was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of inhaled loxapine in the treatment of acute agitation in patients with psychiatric disorders. The efficacy of inhaled loxapine has been evaluated in one Phase II trial on patients with schizophrenia, and in two Phase III trials in patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Moreover, there are two published case series on patients with borderline personality disorder and dual diagnosis patients. Inhaled loxapine has proven to be effective and generally well tolerated when administered to agitated patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Two case series have suggested that inhaled loxapine may also be useful to treat agitation in patients with borderline personality disorder and with dual diagnosis, but further studies are needed to clarify this point. However, the administration of inhaled loxapine requires at least some kind of patient collaboration, and is not recommended in the treatment of severe agitation in totally uncooperative patients. Moreover, the drug-related risk of bronchospasm must always be kept in mind when planning to use inhaled loxapine, leading to a careful patient assessment prior to, and after, administration. Also, the higher costs of inhaled loxapine, when compared to oral and intramuscular medications, should be taken into account when selecting it for the treatment of agitation.

Inhaled loxapine and intramuscular lorazepam in healthy volunteers: a randomized placebo-controlled drug-drug interaction study

Pharmacodynamic effects and safety of single‐dose inhaled loxapine administered via the Staccato^® system and intramuscular (IM) lorazepam in combination versus each agent alone were compared in a randomized, double‐blind, crossover study in healthy volunteers. Subjects received: inhaled loxapine 10 mg + IM lorazepam 1 mg; inhaled loxapine 10 mg + IM placebo; IM lorazepam 1 mg + Staccato placebo in random order, each separated by a 3‐day washout. Primary endpoints were maximum effect (minimum value) and area under the curve (AUC) from baseline to 2 h post treatment for respirations/min and pulse oximetry. Least‐squares means (90% confidence interval [CI]) for concomitant treatment versus each agent alone were derived and equivalence (no difference) confirmed if the 90% CI was within 0.8–1.25. Blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), sedation (100‐mm visual analog scale), and adverse events (AEs) were recorded. All 18 subjects (mean age, 20.4 years; 61% male) completed the study. There was no difference between inhaled loxapine + IM lorazepam and either agent alone on respiration or pulse oximetery during the 12‐h postdose period, confirmed by 90% CIs for AUC and C_min ratios. BP and HR were no different for inhaled loxapine + IM lorazepam and each agent alone over a 12‐h postdose period. Although the central nervous system sedative effects were observed for each treatment in healthy volunteers, the effect was greater following concomitant lorazepam 1 mg IM + inhaled loxapine 10 mg administration. There were no deaths, serious AEs, premature discontinuations due to AEs, or treatment‐related AEs.