Lack of tolerable treatment options for patients with schizophrenia

Comparative efficacy and safety of olanzapine and risperidone in the treatment of psychiatric and behavioral symptoms of Alzheimer's disease: Systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Olanzapine and risperidone have emerged as the most widely used drugs as short-term prescription in the treatment of behavioral disturbances in dementia. The present systematic review and meta-analysis was hence performed to investigate the effectiveness and safety profile of olanzapine and risperidone in the treatment of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD), aiming to provide updated suggestion for clinical physicians and caregivers.

DESIGN

Prospective controlled clinical studies were included, of which available data was extracted. Outcomes of BEHAVE-AD scores with the variation of grades, specific behaviors variables, as well as safety signals were pooled for the analysis by odds rates and weighted mean differences, respectively.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and WanFang.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Prospective, controlled clinical studies, conducted to compare the effectiveness and safety profile of olanzapine and risperidone in the treatment of BPSD.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Interested data including baseline characteristics and necessary outcomes from the included studies were extracted independently by 2 investigators. BEHAVE-AD scale was adopted to assess the efficacy in the present study. All behaviors were evaluated at the time of the initiation of the treatment, as well as the completion of drugs courses. Adverse events were assessed with the criteria of Treatment Emergent Symptom Scale, or Coding Symbols for a Thesaurus of Adverse Reaction Terms dictionary. Weighted mean difference was used for the pooled analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 2427 participants were included in the present meta-analysis. Comparative OR on response rate, and remarkable response rate between olanzapine and risperidone was 0.65 (95% CI: 0.51-0.84; P = .0008), and 0.62 (95% CI: 0.50-0.78; P < .0001), respectively. There were statistical differences observed by olanzapine on the improvement of variables including delusions (WMD, -1.83, 95% CI, -3.20, -0.47), and nighttime behavior disturbances (WMD, -1.99, 95% CI, -3.60, -0.38) when compared to risperidone.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggested that olanzapine might be statistically superior to risperidone on the reduction of BPSD of Alzheimer's disease, especially in the relief of delusions and nighttime behavior disturbances. In addition, olanzapine was shown statistically lower risks of agitation, sleep disturbance, and extrapyramidal signs.

Tolerability and safety outcomes of first-line oral second-generation antipsychotics in patients with schizophrenia

INTRODUCTION

Antipsychotics are the foundation of pharmacologic treatment for schizophrenia. There are many oral antipsychotics available and given that these medications are generally considered comparably efficacious when titrated to an adequate dose, their varied tolerability, and safety profiles become critically important for medication selection.

AREAS COVERED

This paper reviews tolerability and safety considerations for first-line second-generation oral antipsychotics currently approved for the treatment of schizophrenia in the USA. Excluded from consideration are clozapine and non-oral formulations.

EXPERT OPINION

Among antipsychotics, there are many differences in adverse reactions observed in clinical trials, such as variable likelihood to cause sedation vs insomnia, weight gain and abnormalities in glucose/lipid metabolism, hyperprolactinemia, potential for impact on the QT interval, and motoric adverse effects. Additional safety data that can help with medication selection include safety in pregnancy and lactation, and potential for drug-drug interactions. Ultimately, working with patients to personalize treatment by focusing on safety and individual tolerability considerations for various adverse effects can help in building a therapeutic alliance and improving patients' outcomes.

Comparative Outcomes of Commonly Used Off-Label Atypical Antipsychotics in the Treatment of Dementia-Related Psychosis: A Network Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Dementia-related psychosis (DRP) is characterized by hallucinations and delusions, which may increase the debilitating effects of underlying dementia. This network meta-analysis (NMA) evaluated the comparative efficacy, safety, and acceptability of atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) commonly used off label to treat DRP.

METHODS

We included 22 eligible studies from a systematic literature review of AAPs (quetiapine, risperidone, olanzapine, aripiprazole, and brexpiprazole) used off label to treat DRP. Study outcomes were: (1) efficacy-neuropsychiatric inventory-nursing home (NPI-NH psychosis subscale), (2) safety-mortality, cerebrovascular events (CVAEs), and others (somnolence, falls, fractures, injuries, etc.), and (3) acceptability-discontinuations due to all causes, lack of efficacy, and adverse events (AEs). We used random-effects modeling to estimate pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) for NPI-NH psychosis subscale scores and odds ratios (OR) for other dichotomous outcomes, with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, aripiprazole (SMD - 0.12; 95% CI - 0.31, 0.06), and olanzapine (SMD - 0.17; 95% CI - 0.04; 0.02) demonstrated small, non-significant numerical improvements in NPI-NH psychosis scores (5 studies; n = 1891), while quetiapine (SMD 0.04; 95% CI - 0.23, 0.32) did not improve symptoms. The odds of mortality (15 studies, n = 4989) were higher for aripiprazole (OR 1.58; 95% CI 0.62, 4.04), brexpiprazole (OR 2.22; 95% CI 0.30, 16.56), olanzapine (OR 2.21; 95% CI 0.84, 5.85), quetiapine (OR 1.68; 95% CI 0.70, 4.03), and risperidone (OR 1.63; 95% CI 0.93, 2.85) than for placebo. Risperidone (OR 3.68; 95% CI 1.68, 8.95) and olanzapine (OR 4.47; 95% CI 1.36, 14.69) demonstrated significantly greater odds of CVAEs compared to placebo. Compared with placebo, odds of all-cause discontinuation were significantly lower for aripiprazole (OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.51, 0.98; 20 studies; 5744 patients) and higher for other AAPs. Aripiprazole (OR 0.5; 95% CI 0.31, 0.82) and olanzapine (OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.31, 0.74) had significantly lower odds of discontinuation due to lack of efficacy (OR 12 studies; n = 4382) compared to placebo, while results for quetiapine and risperidone were not significant. Compared with placebo, the odds of discontinuation due to AEs (19 studies, n = 5445) were higher for olanzapine (OR 2.62; 95% CI 1.75, 3.92), brexpiprazole (OR 1.80; 95% CI 0.80, 4.07), quetiapine (OR 1.25; 95% CI 0.82, 1.91), aripiprazole (OR 1.38; 95% CI 0.90, 2.13), and risperidone (OR 1.41; 95% CI 1.02, 1.94).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall results demonstrate that, compared with placebo, quetiapine is not associated with improvement in psychosis in patients with dementia, while olanzapine and aripiprazole have non-significant small numerical improvements. These off-label AAPs (quetiapine, risperidone, olanzapine, aripiprazole, and brexpiprazole) are associated with greater odds of mortality, CVAEs, and discontinuations due to AEs than placebo. These results underscore the ongoing unmet need for newer pharmacological options with a more favorable benefit-risk profile for the treatment of DRP.

An Evidence-Based Review of OLZ/SAM for Treatment of Adults with Schizophrenia or Bipolar I Disorder

Olanzapine effectively treats schizophrenia and bipolar I disorder (BD-I); however, its use is limited by the risk of significant weight gain and metabolic effects. OLZ/SAM, a combination of olanzapine and samidorphan, was recently approved in the United States for the treatment of adults with schizophrenia or BD-I. OLZ/SAM provides the efficacy of olanzapine while mitigating olanzapine-associated weight gain through opioid-receptor blockade. Here, we summarize OLZ/SAM clinical data characterizing pharmacokinetics, antipsychotic efficacy, weight mitigation efficacy, safety, and long-term treatment effects. In an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia, OLZ/SAM and olanzapine provided similar symptom improvements versus placebo at week 4. In stable outpatients with schizophrenia, OLZ/SAM treatment resulted in significantly less weight gain, reducing the risk for clinically significant weight gain and waist circumference increases of ≥5 cm by half, compared with olanzapine at week 24. Based on open-label extension studies, OLZ/SAM is safe and well tolerated for up to 3.5 years of treatment, while maintaining schizophrenia symptom control and stabilizing weight. The olanzapine component of OLZ/SAM was bioequivalent to branded olanzapine (Zyprexa); adjunctive OLZ/SAM had no clinically significant effects on lithium or valproate pharmacokinetics. Additionally, OLZ/SAM had no clinically relevant effect on electrocardiogram parameters in a dedicated thorough QT study. Overall, safety and tolerability findings from clinical studies with OLZ/SAM indicate a similar safety profile to that of olanzapine, with the exception of less weight gain. As OLZ/SAM contains the opioid antagonist samidorphan, it is contraindicated in patients using opioids and in those undergoing acute opioid withdrawal. Clinical trial results from more than 1600 subjects support the use of OLZ/SAM as a new treatment option for patients with schizophrenia or BD-I.

Effects of Olanzapine Combined With Samidorphan on Weight Gain in Schizophrenia: A 24-Week Phase 3 Study

OBJECTIVE

A combination of olanzapine and the opioid receptor antagonist samidorphan is under development for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar I disorder. The single-tablet combination treatment is intended to provide the efficacy of olanzapine while mitigating olanzapine-associated weight gain. In this phase 3 double-blind trial, the authors evaluated the weight profile of combined olanzapine/samidorphan compared with olanzapine in patients with schizophrenia.

METHODS

Adults (ages 18‒55 years) with schizophrenia were randomly assigned to receive either combination treatment with olanzapine and samidorphan or olanzapine treatment for 24 weeks. Primary endpoints were percent change from baseline in body weight and proportion of patients with ≥10% weight gain at week 24. The key secondary endpoint was the proportion of patients with ≥7% weight gain. Waist circumference and fasting metabolic laboratory parameters were also measured.

RESULTS

Of 561 patients who underwent randomization (olanzapine/samidorphan combination, N=280; olanzapine, N=281), 538 had at least one postbaseline weight assessment. At week 24, the least squares mean percent weight change from baseline was 4.21% (SE=0.68) in the olanzapine/samidorphan group and 6.59% (SE=0.67) in the olanzapine group (the difference of -2.38% [SE=0.76] was significant). Significantly fewer patients in the olanzapine/samidorphan combination group compared with the olanzapine group had weight gain ≥10% (17.8% and 29.8%, respectively; number needed to treat [NNT]=7.29; odds ratio=0.50) and weight gain ≥7% (27.5% and 42.7%, respectively; NNT=6.29; odds ratio=0.50). Increases in waist circumference were smaller in the olanzapine/samidorphan combination group compared with the olanzapine group. Schizophrenia symptom improvement was similar between treatment groups. Adverse events (in ≥10% of the groups) in the olanzapine/samidorphan and olanzapine groups included weight gain (24.8% and 36.2%), somnolence (21.2% and 18.1%), dry mouth (12.8% and 8.0%), and increased appetite (10.9% and 12.3%). Metabolic changes were small and similar between treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Olanzapine/samidorphan combination treatment was associated with significantly less weight gain and smaller increases in waist circumference than olanzapine and was well tolerated. The antipsychotic efficacy of the combination treatment was similar to that of olanzapine monotherapy.

Cariprazine for acute and maintenance treatment of adults with schizophrenia: an evidence-based review and place in therapy

Cariprazine is an oral antipsychotic approved in the US and EU for the treatment of schizophrenia. Cariprazine differs from other antipsychotics in that it is a dopamine D3- and D2-receptor partial agonist, with tenfold higher affinity for D3 receptors than for D2 receptors. Cariprazine is metabolized in two steps by CYP3A4 to didesmethyl-cariprazine (DDCAR). DDCAR has a long half-life of 1-3 weeks and is the predominant circulating active moiety. Efficacy and safety in persons with acute schizophrenia were assessed in four similarly designed, short-term, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials in nonelderly adults, with three studies considered positive and yielding a number needed to treat vs placebo for response (change from baseline ≥30% in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score) of ten for the approved dose range of cariprazine 1.5-6 mg/day. The most common adverse reactions were extrapyramidal symptoms (15% and 19% for 1.5-3 and 4.5-6 mg/day, respectively, vs 8% for placebo) and akathisia (9% and 12.5% for 1.5-3 and 4.5-6 mg/day, respectively, vs 4% for placebo). For the approved dose range, rates of discontinuation because of an adverse event were lower overall for patients receiving cariprazine vs placebo (9% vs 12%). Weight and metabolic profile appear favorable. Cariprazine does not increase prolactin levels or prolong the electrocardiographic QT interval. Cariprazine has also been found to be effective for the maintenance treatment of schizophrenia by delaying time to relapse when compared with placebo (HR 0.45). A 26-week randomized clinical trial evidenced superiority of cariprazine over risperidone for the treatment of predominantly negative symptoms in patients with schizophrenia. Cariprazine is also approved in the US for the acute treatment of manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder in adults and is being studied for the treatment of bipolar I depression and major depressive disorder.

Approaches to neuromodulation for schizophrenia

Based on the success of deep brain stimulation (DBS) for treating movement disorders, there is growing interest in using DBS to treat schizophrenia (SZ). We review the unmet needs of patients with SZ and the scientific rationale behind the DBS targets proposed in the literature in order to guide future development of DBS to treat this vulnerable patient population. SZ remains a devastating disorder despite treatment. Relapse, untreated psychosis, intolerable side effects and the lack of effective treatment for negative and cognitive symptoms contribute to poor outcome. Novel therapeutic interventions are needed to treat SZ and DBS is emerging as a potential intervention. Convergent genetic, pharmacological and neuroimaging evidence implicating neuropathology associated with psychosis is consistent with SZ being a circuit disorder amenable to striatal modulation with DBS. Many of the DBS targets proposed in the literature may modulate striatal dysregulation. Additional targets are considered for treating tardive dyskinesia and negative and cognitive symptoms. A need is identified for the concurrent development of neurophysiological biomarkers relevant to SZ pathology in order to inform DBS targeting. Finally, we discuss the current clinical trials of DBS for SZ, and their ethical considerations. We conclude that patients with severe symptoms despite treatment must have the capacity to consent for a DBS clinical trial in which risks can be estimated, but benefit is not known. In addition, psychiatric populations should have access to the potential benefits of neurosurgical advances.

A systematic literature review of the clinical and health economic burden of schizophrenia in privately insured patients in the United States

Purpose

The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic literature review on the burden of schizophrenia in privately insured US patients.

Materials and methods

A systematic literature review of English language peer-reviewed journal articles of observational studies published from 2006 to 2016 was conducted using EMBASE/MEDLINE databases. Abstracts covering substantial numbers of patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder (i.e., N ≥ 100) were included for full-text review. Articles that did not clearly specify private insurance types were excluded.

Results

A total of 25 studies were reviewed; 10 included only privately insured patients; and 15 included a mix of different types of insurance. The review of the clinical burden of schizophrenia revealed the following: compared to patients with no mental disorders, those with schizophrenia had significantly increased odds of systemic disorders and both alcohol and substance abuse. Antipsychotic (AP) adherence was low, ranging from 31.5% to 68.7%. The medication possession ratio for AP adherence ranged from 0.22 to 0.73. The review of the health economic burden of schizophrenia revealed the following: patients with a recent (vs. chronic) diagnosis of schizophrenia had significantly higher frequencies of emergency department visits and hospitalizations and greater length of stay (LOS) and total annual per-capita costs. Mean all-cause hospitalizations and LOS decreased significantly after (vs. before) initiating long-acting injectable APs (LAIs). Patients also had significantly decreased mean all-cause, and schizophrenia-related, hospitalization costs after initiating LAIs. Total direct per-capita costs of care (but not pharmacy costs) for patients who were nonadherent to their oral APs within the first 90 days of their index event were significantly higher (vs. early adherent patients). Despite these potential benefits, only 0.25%–13.1% of patients were treated with LAIs across all studies.

Conclusion

Privately insured US patients with schizophrenia experience a substantial clinical and health economic burden related to comorbidities, acute care needs, nonadherence, and polypharmacy and have relatively low use of LAIs. Further study is warranted to understand prescribing patterns and clinical policies related to this patient population.

Initial Clinical Experience of RP5063 Following Single Doses in Normal Healthy Volunteers and Multiple Doses in Patients with Stable Schizophrenia

RP5063 is a multimodal dopamine (D)‐serotonin (5‐HT) stabilizer with a high affinity for D_2/3/4 and 5‐HT_1A/2A/2B/7 receptors and moderate affinity for the serotonin transporter. Single‐dose (10 and 15 mg fasting, 15 mg fed) safety in healthy volunteers and multiple‐dose (10, 20, 50, and 100 mg fed, 10 days) safety and pharmacodynamics in patients with stable schizophrenia were defined in two phase I studies. In the single‐dose study, 32 treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were observed. Orthostatic hypotension (n = 6), nausea (n = 5), and dizziness (n = 4) were the most common. One serious adverse event (SAE), seen in a patient who should not have been in the study due to a history of seizures, involved brief seizure‐like symptoms. In the multiple‐dose study, 75 TEAEs were reported. Akathisia (n = 20) and somnolence (n = 14) were the most frequent. No clinically significant changes were seen in glucose or prolactin levels, lipid profiles, weight, or electrocardiographic recordings. In both studies, all TEAEs resolved and none led to withdrawal from the study or death. A pharmacodynamic evaluation reflected significant improvements with RP5063 (P < 0.05) over placebo in an analysis of patients with a baseline Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) score ≥50 for positive subscale scores. Improvements of the Trail Making A and Trail Making B test results were observed for patients treated in the 50 mg dose group for days 5, 10, and 16. These findings indicate that RP5063 is well‐tolerated up to 100 mg and displays promising preliminary clinical behavioral and cognition activity signals in patients with stable disease over a 10‐day period.

Emerging pharmacological therapies in schizophrenia: what's new, what's different, what's next?

There are several new and emerging medication interventions for both the acute and maintenance treatment phases of schizophrenia. Recently approved are 2 new dopamine receptor partial agonists, brexpiprazole and cariprazine, as well as 2 new long-acting injectable antipsychotic formulations, aripiprazole lauroxil and 3-month paliperidone palmitate. Although differences in efficacy compared to other available choices are not expected, the new oral options offer different tolerability profiles that may be attractive for individual patients who have had difficulties with older medications. The new long-acting injectable options provide additional flexibility in terms of increasing the time interval between injections. In Phase III of clinical development is a novel antipsychotic, lumateperone (ITI-007), that appears to have little in the way of significant adverse effects. Deutetrabenazine and valbenazine are agents in Phase III for the treatment of tardive dyskinesia, a condition that can be found among persons receiving chronic antipsychotic therapy. On the horizon are additional injectable formulations of familiar antipsychotics, aripiprazole and risperidone, that may be more convenient than what is presently available.

Schizophrenia relapse, patient considerations, and potential role of lurasidone

When treating persons with schizophrenia, delaying time to relapse is a main goal. Antipsychotic medication has been the primary treatment approach, and there are a variety of different choices available. Lurasidone is a second-generation (atypical) antipsychotic agent that is approved for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar depression. Three long-term studies of lurasidone have examined time to relapse in persons with schizophrenia, including a classic placebo-controlled randomized withdrawal study and two 12-month active comparator studies (vs risperidone and vs quetiapine extended-release). Lurasidone 40-80 mg/d evidenced superiority over placebo (number needed to treat [NNT] vs placebo for relapse, 9). Lurasidone 40-160 mg/d was noninferior to quetiapine extended-release 200-800 mg/d on the outcome of relapse, and was superior on the outcome of avoidance of hospitalization (NNT 8) and the outcome of remission (NNT 7). Lurasidone demonstrated a lower risk for long-term weight gain than the active comparators. Demonstrated differences in tolerability profiles among the different choices of antipsychotics make it possible to attempt to match up an individual patient to the best choice for such patient based on past history of tolerability, comorbidities, and personal preferences, potentially improving adherence.