Review of the safety, efficacy, and side effect profile of asenapine in the treatment of bipolar 1 disorder

Safety assessment of asenapine in the FAERS database: real adverse event analysis and discussion on neurological and psychiatric side effects

PURPOSE

This study aims to comprehensively assess the safety of Asenapine by conducting an comprehensive statistical analysis of adverse event reports in the FAERS database, with a particular focus on potential adverse reactions related to its use in the treatment of psychiatric disorders.

METHODS

Event reports from the first quarter of 2009 to the third quarter of 2023 were collected and analyzed. Detailed examinations of gender, age, reporter identity, and other aspects were conducted to reveal the fundamental characteristics of Asenapine-related adverse events. Signal mining techniques were employed to systematically evaluate various adverse reactions associated with Asenapine.

RESULTS

The study found that adverse event reports involving Asenapine were more common among female patients, with the age group mainly distributed between 18 and 45 years. Physicians were the primary reporters of adverse events, and psychiatric disorders, neurological disorders, and gastrointestinal disorders were the most common areas affected by adverse reactions. In addition to known adverse reactions, potential risks not mentioned in the drug label were identified, such as anosognosia, attentional drift, and psychogenic compensation disorder.

CONCLUSION

Asenapine carries the risk of various adverse reactions alongside its therapeutic effects. In clinical practice, physicians should closely monitor the occurrence of neurological disorders, psychiatric disorders, and gastrointestinal system disorders.

Determination of asenapine in presence of its inactive metabolites in human plasma by LC-MS/MS

A highly selective and sensitive liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) assay has been described for the determination of asenapine (ASE) in presence of its inactive metabolites N-desmethyl asenapine (DMA) and asenapine-N-glucuronide (ASG). ASE, and ASE 13C-d3, used as internal standard (IS), were extracted from 300 µL human plasma by a simple and precise liquid-liquid extraction procedure using methyl tert-butyl ether. Baseline separation of ASE from its inactive metabolites was achieved on Chromolith Performance RP8e (100 mm × 4.6 mm) column using acetonitrile-5.0 mM ammonium acetate-10% formic acid (90:10:0.1, v/v/v) within 4.5 min. Quantitation of ASE was done on a triple quadrupole mass spectrometer equipped with electrospray ionization in the positive mode. The protonated precursor to product ion transitions monitored for ASE and ASE 13C-d3 were m/z 286.1 → 166.0 and m/z 290.0 → 166.1, respectively. The limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantitation (LOQ) of the method were 0.0025 ng/mL and 0.050 ng/mL respectively in a linear concentration range of 0.050-20.0 ng/mL for ASE. The intra-batch and inter-batch precision (% CV) and mean relative recovery across quality control levels were ≤ 5.8% and 87.3%, respectively. Matrix effect, evaluated as IS-normalized matrix factor, ranged from 1.03 to 1.05. The stability of ASE under different storage conditions was ascertained in presence of the metabolites. The developed method is much simpler, matrix free, rapid and economical compared to the existing methods. The method was successfully used for a bioequivalence study of asenapine in healthy Indian subjects for the first time.

Asenapine pharmacokinetics and tolerability in a pediatric population

Purpose

This study aimed to characterize the pharmacokinetic (PK) properties, safety, and tolerability of asenapine, and to develop a population PK model in pediatric patients with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or other psychiatric disorders.

Methods

Two Phase I multiple ascending-dose studies were conducted to evaluate the PK, safety, and tolerability of sublingual asenapine in pediatric patients (age 10–17 years) with schizophrenia or bipolar I disorder. Patients received asenapine 1–10 mg twice daily for up to 12 days. PK parameters (maximum concentration [C_max], area under the curve from 0 to 12 hours [AUC_0–12], time to C_max [T_max], and half-life) were summarized for asenapine with descriptive statistics, and safety parameters were collected. A population PK model, which included the two Phase I studies and two additional Phase III efficacy studies (asenapine 2.5–10 mg twice daily for up to 8 weeks, age 10–17 years), was developed using nonlinear mixed-effect modeling based on a previously developed adult PK model. The final model was used in simulations to obtain asenapine-exposure estimates across pediatric subgroups and to determine if intrinsic covariates warrant dose adjustments.

Results

The PK of asenapine showed rapid absorption (T_max ~1 hour) with an apparent terminal half-life between 16 and 32 hours. Increases in mean C_max and AUC_0–12 appeared to be dose-proportional in one study and near dose-proportional in the second study. Steady state was attained within 8 days. The most frequently occurring treatment-emergent adverse events were dysgeusia, sedation, and oral hypoesthesia. Simulation-based estimates of C_max and AUC_0–12 were similar for pediatric and adult patients; age, body-mass index, race, and sex were not associated with changes in asenapine exposure.

Conclusion

Asenapine was generally safe and well tolerated in pediatric patients aged 10–17 years. PK and safety data were similar to that observed in the adult population. Intrinsic factors had no significant impact on asenapine exposure, indicating there is no need for dose adjustments in the pediatric population.

Asenapine in the management of impulsivity and aggressiveness in bipolar disorder and comorbid borderline personality disorder: an open-label uncontrolled study

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) often co-occurres with bipolar disorder (BD). Impulsivity and aggressiveness represent core shared features and their pharmacological management is mainly based on mood stabilizers and antipsychotics, although scarce evidence is available for this context of comorbidity. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the role of Asenapine as an adjunctive drug for reducing aggressiveness and impulsivity in a sample of Italian BD type I outpatients with or without a comorbid BPD. This was an observational 12-week open-label uncontrolled clinical study carried out from April to October 2014 in two psychiatric clinics in Sicily. Each patient was treated with asenapine at two dose options, 5 mg (twice daily) or 10 mg (twice daily), and concomitant ongoing medications were not discontinued. We measured impulsivity using the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS) and aggressiveness using the Aggressive Questionnaire (AQ). For the analysis of our outcomes, patients were divided into two groups: with or without comorbid BPD. Adjunctive therapy was associated with a significant decrease of BIS and AQ overall scores in the entire bipolar sample. Yet, there was no significant difference in BIS and AQ reductions between subgroups. Using a regression model, we observed that concomitant BPD played a negative role on the Hostility subscale and overall AQ score variations; otherwise, borderline co-diagnosis was related positively to the reduction of physical aggression. According to our post-hoc analysis, global aggressiveness scores are less prone to decrease in patients with a dual diagnosis, whereas physical aggressiveness appears to be more responsive to the add-on therapy in patients with comorbidity.

A Retrospective Cohort Study of Acute Kidney Injury Risk Associated with Antipsychotics

BACKGROUND

A recent large database analysis raised concerns of potential acute kidney injury (AKI) risk associated with antipsychotics. However, whether individual atypical and typical antipsychotics are associated with differential AKI risks has not been investigated.

OBJECTIVE

The current study compared the risks of AKI and known causes of AKI associated with a broad range of atypical and typical antipsychotics.

METHOD

This retrospective cohort analysis used January 2007-June 2013 US nationwide Humana claims data to define episodes of antipsychotic drug therapy for patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Study drugs were aripiprazole, fluphenazine, haloperidol, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone. Study outcomes were hospitalizations with AKI, and known causes of AKI, i.e., hypotension, acute urinary retention, neuroleptic malignant syndrome/rhabdomyolysis, and pneumonia. AKI was the primary outcome of the study. Cox regressions using haloperidol as the baseline comparator were used to estimate the impact of alternative antipsychotics on the risks of study adverse events following the initiation of treatment. The Cox models controlled for treatment history, comorbidities, and concomitant drug use in the prior 6 months. They also controlled for patient demographics and dose of current treatment.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of AKI was 25.0 per 1000 person-years. According to our multivariate regression results, the risk of AKI was significantly increased in patients taking olanzapine [hazard ratio (HR) 1.344, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.057-1.708], quetiapine (HR 1.350, 95% CI 1.082-1.685), and ziprasidone (HR 1.338, 95% CI 1.035-1.729) relative to haloperidol. Aripiprazole (HR 1.152, 95% CI 0.908-1.462) and risperidone (HR 1.147, 95% CI 0.923-1.426) had insignificantly higher risks of AKI compared with haloperidol, whereas fluphenazine (HR 0.729, 95% CI 0.483-1.102) had an insignificantly lower risk of AKI. When compared between drug classes, atypical antipsychotics had a significantly higher risk of AKI (HR 1.313, 95% CI 1.083-1.591) than typical antipsychotics.

CONCLUSIONS

Antipsychotics are associated with differential AKI risks, with several atypical antipsychotics having higher risks than haloperidol. However, the overall incidence of AKI was moderate, and AKI risk should only raise concern for clinicians with elderly patients or patients who are vulnerable to kidney disease.

Does the efficacy of asenapine in bipolar disorder increase in the presence of comorbidity with a substance use disorder? A naturalistic study

BACKGROUND

Asenapine is a second-generation antipsychotic approved in Europe for treating moderate-to-severe manic episodes in adults affected by type I bipolar disorder (BD-I). We aimed to compare its efficacy in psychiatric inpatients with BD-I, with or without substance use disorder (SUD).

METHODS

We administered flexible asenapine doses ranging from 5-20 mg/day to 119 voluntarily hospitalized patients with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) BD-I diagnosis, with or without SUD. Patients were assessed with clinician-rated questionnaires [i.e. Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS), and Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF)]. Assessments were carried out at baseline (T0, prior to treatment), and 3 (T1), 7 (T2), 15 (T3), and 30 days (T4) after starting treatment for all clinical scales and at T0 and T4 for the GAF.

RESULTS

Patients improved on all scales (p < 0.001) across all timepoints, as shown both by paired-sample comparisons and by applying a repeated-measures, generalized linear model (GLM). Patients without comorbid SUD showed greater reductions in BPRS scores at T2 and T3, greater reduction in YMRS scores at T3, and lower HARS scores at all timepoints. HDRS scores did not differ between the two groups at any timepoint. However, the reduction in HARS scores in the comorbid group was stronger than in the BD-I only group, albeit not significantly. Side effects were few and mild-to-moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

The open-label design and the relatively short observation period may expose to both type I and type II statistical errors (false positive and false negatives). Asenapine showed effectiveness and safety in hospitalized BD-I patients. Its effect was stronger in patients without comorbid SUD.

Animal models of bipolar mania: The past, present and future

Bipolar disorder (BD) is the sixth leading cause of disability in the world according to the World Health Organization and affects nearly six million (∼2.5% of the population) adults in the United State alone each year. BD is primarily characterized by mood cycling of depressive (e.g., helplessness, reduced energy and activity, and anhedonia) and manic (e.g., increased energy and hyperactivity, reduced need for sleep, impulsivity, reduced anxiety and depression), episodes. The following review describes several animal models of bipolar mania with a focus on more recent findings using genetically modified mice, including several with the potential of investigating the mechanisms underlying 'mood' cycling (or behavioral switching in rodents). We discuss whether each of these models satisfy criteria of validity (i.e., face, predictive, and construct), while highlighting their strengths and limitations. Animal models are helping to address critical questions related to pathophysiology of bipolar mania, in an effort to more clearly define necessary targets of first-line medications, lithium and valproic acid, and to discover novel mechanisms with the hope of developing more effective therapeutics. Future studies will leverage new technologies and strategies for integrating animal and human data to reveal important insights into the etiology, pathophysiology, and treatment of BD.

Use of asenapine as add-on therapy in the treatment of bipolar disorder: a comprehensive review and case series

INTRODUCTION

Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs), conducted in schizophrenic and bipolar patients, have documented the efficacy and tolerability of asenapine as monotherapy both for short- and long-term treatment. However, evidence on its augmentative use is more limited and related to the manic/mixed phase of bipolar disorder (BD).

AREAS COVERED

The present article reviews augmentative asenapine efficacy and safety/tolerability in the treatment of BD. It also includes some original cases of bipolar patients treated with add-on asenapine in the short- and long-term.

EXPERT OPINION

To date, only a single RCT with manic/mixed patients with partial response to mood-stabilizer monotherapy supports the efficacy and safety/tolerability of augmentative asenapine to lithium/valproate, both in acute and long-term treatment. Additionally, two case reports confirm the overall effectiveness of augmentative asenapine to clozapine and valproate. Our case series, consisting of 4 bipolar patients treated with adjunctive asenapine to mood stabilizers and atypical antipsychotics - with treatment duration ranging from 1 to 14 months - provided clinical results that are consistent with literature data. Taken as a whole, available evidence seems to support the efficacy and safety of adjunctive asenapine in bipolar patients, though additional studies with active comparators are requested to confirm the current body of evidence.

The effects of novel and newly approved antipsychotics on serum prolactin levels: a comprehensive review

Since the 1970s, clinicians have increasingly become more familiar with hyperprolactinemia (HPRL) as a common adverse effect of antipsychotic medication, which remains the cornerstone of pharmacological treatment for patients with schizophrenia. Although treatment with second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) as a group is, compared with use of the first-generation antipsychotics, associated with lower prolactin (PRL) plasma levels, the detailed effects on plasma PRL levels for each of these compounds in reports often remain incomplete or inaccurate. Moreover, at this moment, no review has been published about the effect of the newly approved antipsychotics asenapine, iloperidone and lurasidone on PRL levels. The objective of this review is to describe PRL physiology; PRL measurement; diagnosis, causes, consequences and mechanisms of HPRL; incidence figures of (new-onset) HPRL with SGAs and newly approved antipsychotics in adolescent and adult patients; and revisit lingering questions regarding this hormone. A literature search, using the MEDLINE database (1966-December 2013), was conducted to identify relevant publications to report on the state of the art of HPRL and to summarize the available evidence with respect to the propensity of the SGAs and the newly approved antipsychotics to elevate PRL levels. Our review shows that although HPRL usually is defined as a sustained level of PRL above the laboratory upper limit of normal, limit values show some degree of variability in clinical reports, making the interpretation and comparison of data across studies difficult. Moreover, many reports do not provide much or any data detailing the measurement of PRL. Although the highest rates of HPRL are consistently reported in association with amisulpride, risperidone and paliperidone, while aripiprazole and quetiapine have the most favorable profile with respect to this outcome, all SGAs can induce PRL elevations, especially at the beginning of treatment, and have the potential to cause new-onset HPRL. Considering the PRL-elevating propensity of the newly approved antipsychotics, evidence seems to indicate these agents have a PRL profile comparable to that of clozapine (asenapine and iloperidone), ziprasidone and olanzapine (lurasidone). PRL elevations with antipsychotic medication generally are dose dependant. However, antipsychotics having a high potential for PRL elevation (amisulpride, risperidone and paliperidone) can have a profound impact on PRL levels even at relatively low doses, while PRL levels with antipsychotics having a minimal effect on PRL, in most cases, can remain unchanged (quetiapine) or reduce (aripiprazole) over all dosages. Although tolerance and decreases in PRL values after long-term administration of PRL-elevating antipsychotics can occur, the elevations, in most cases, remain above the upper limit of normal. PRL profiles of antipsychotics in children and adolescents seem to be the same as in adults. The hyperprolactinemic effects of antipsychotic medication are mostly correlated with their affinity for dopamine D2 receptors at the level of the anterior pituitary lactotrophs (and probably other neurotransmitter mechanisms) and their blood-brain barrier penetrating capability. Even though antipsychotics are the most common cause of pharmacologically induced HPRL, recent research has shown that HPRL can be pre-existing in a substantial portion of antipsychotic-naïve patients with first-episode psychosis or at-risk mental state.

Second-generation and newly approved antipsychotics, serum prolactin levels and sexual dysfunctions: a critical literature review

INTRODUCTION

Using antipsychotic (AP) medication can increase prolactin (PRL) levels and place the patient at risk of sexual dysfunction (SD).

AREAS COVERED

The aim of this review is to describe the PRL propensity of the different second-generation and newly approved APs. It then considers the prevalence rates of SDs associated with these compounds in patients with schizophrenia and treatment strategies for the management of SDs and/or hyperprolactinemia (HPRL). Furthermore, we address the lingering question regarding the association between SDs and PRL.

EXPERT OPINION

SD (particularly long-term) data remain scarce for several APs. A wide variety of assessment techniques used in SD research make reliable comparisons between APs impossible. The majority of these reports do not equally allow us to distinguish between treatment (AP and co-medication)-emergent SDs and illness-related SDs. This makes it difficult to assess the degree to which these side effects are associated with 'PRL-raising' APs, and what part of this fraction is directly reducible to serum PRL levels. Also, few evidence-based treatment strategies for HPRL and associated side effects are available. Therefore, longer-term randomized controlled trials, using reliable and valid structured interviews or questionnaires, are necessary to establish the precise relationship between APs, PRL levels and SDs rates and develop valuable treatment options.

Asenapine in bipolar I disorder: evidence and place in patient management

Asenapine is a new second-generation antipsychotic approved in September 2010 by the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of bipolar disorder. It demonstrated significant efficacy compared with placebo in acute mania or mixed episodes as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy to mood stabilizers (lithium or valproate). Early improvement was noted at day 2 and was strongly associated with response and remission at week 3. Asenapine also appeared effective in treating acute mania in older patients with bipolar disorder. Post hoc analyses of asenapine showed efficacy in treating depressive symptoms during manic or mixed episodes compared with placebo. The efficacy of asenapine in patients with acute mania appeared to remain constant during maintenance treatment. Asenapine was reasonably well tolerated, especially with regard to metabolic effects. There were minimal signs of glucose elevation or lipid changes and the risk of weight gain appeared limited. The prolactin elevation was smaller than other antipsychotic comparators. Only oral hypoesthesia occurred as a new adverse event compared with other second-generation antipsychotics. Asenapine presents several advantages over other second-generation antipsychotics, such as sublingual formulation, early efficacy and good metabolic tolerability. This tolerability profile confirms the heterogeneity of the second-generation antipsychotic class and supports the view of some authors for the need to re-evaluate the boundaries of this group.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of common antipsychotics

The aim of this review is to provide information for interpreting outcome results from monitoring of antipsychotics in biological samples. A brief overview of the working mechanisms, pharmacological effects, drug interactions, and analytical methods of classical and atypical antipsychotics is given. Nineteen antipsychotics were selected based on their importance in the worldwide market as follows: amisulpride, aripiprazole, asenapine, bromperidol, clozapine, flupenthixol, haloperidol, iloperidone, lurasidone, olanzapine, paliperidone, perphenazine, pimozide, pipamperone, quetiapine, risperidone, sertindole, sulpiride, and zuclopenthixol. A straightforward relationship between administered dose, plasma or serum concentration, clinical outcome, or adverse effects is often lacking. Nowadays, focus lies on therapeutic drug monitoring and individualized therapy to find adequate treatment, to explain treatment failure or nonresponse, and to check patient compliance. However, extensive research in this field is still mandatory.

Clinical Need and Rationale for Multi-Target Drugs in Psychiatry

High attrition in attempts to discover new pharmacological agents for the treatment of psychiatric disorders has triggered a decline in R&D investment in important disease categories such as schizophrenia and mood disorders. Poor knowledge about disease molecular pathology and molecular target validation coupled with notable costly failures involving clinical trials with highly novel and selective single target agents (STAs) have contributed to the development of this trend. One positive development arising from the current situation is the renewed interest in investigating approaches involving multi-target agents (MTAs), which have historically shown a strong track record of success and utility in the treatment of psychiatric disorders. However, it is clear that the traditional serendipity-dependent drug discovery approach for multi-target agents is suboptimal and has to evolve towards a new model of rationally designed and tailored MTAs. It is of course highly challenging to optimise compounds across several therapeutic targets whilst minimising potential broad receptor promiscuity as well as other properties to generate high quality drug candidates. Nevertheless, recent developments in medicinal chemistry approaches and pharmacological evaluation suggest that feasibility for tailored MTAs is not unrealistic. Appropriately designed MTAs, such as hybrids of validated and unprecedented novel molecular targets, offer a multi-functional pharmacology with the potential for multi-symptomatic efficacy and multi-indicational use. If successful this will help to address the compelling unmet medical need and the treatment requirements of schizophrenia and mood disorder patients as well as easing the burden of carers and the societal costs arising from these devastating illnesses.

Interactions between antiepileptics and second-generation antipsychotics

INTRODUCTION

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic drug interactions (DIs) can occur between antiepileptics (AEDs) and second-generation antipsychotics (SGAPs). Some AED and SGAP pharmacodynamic mechanisms are poorly understood. AED-SGAP combinations are used for treating comorbid illnesses or increasing efficacy, particularly in bipolar disorder.

AREAS COVERED

This article provides a comprehensive review of the interactions between antiepileptics and second-generation antipsychotics. The authors cover pharmacokinetic AED-SGAP DI studies, the newest drug pharmacokinetics in addition to the limited pharmacodynamic DI studies.

EXPERT OPINION

Dosing correction factors and measuring SGAP levels can help to compensate for the inductive properties of carbamazepine, phenytoin, phenobarbital and primidone. Further studies are needed to establish the clinical relevance of combining: i) AED strong inducers with amisulpride, asenapine, iloperidone, lurasidone and paliperidone; ii) valproate with aripiprazole, asenapine, clozapine and olanzapine; iii) high doses of oxcarbazepine (≥ 1500 mg/day) or topiramate (≥ 400 mg/day) with aripiprazole, lurasidone, quetiapine, risperidone, asenapine and olanzapine. Two pharmacodynamic DIs are beneficial: i) valproate-SGAP combinations may have additive effects in bipolar disorder, ii) combining topiramate or zonisamide with SGAPs may decrease weight gain. Three pharmacodynamic DIs contributing to decreased safety are common: sedation, weight gain and swallowing disturbances. A few AED-SGAP combinations may increase risk for osteoporosis or nausea. Three potentially lethal but rare pharmacodynamic DIs include pancreatitis, agranulocytosis/leukopenia and heat stroke. The authors believe that collaboration is needed from drug agencies and pharmaceutical companies, the clinicians using these combinations, researchers with expertise in meta-analyses, grant agencies, pharmacoepidemiologists and DI pharmacologists for future progression in this field.

Overlap of genetic influences in phenotypes classically categorized as psychiatric vs medical disorders

Psychiatric disorders have traditionally been segregated from medical disorders in terms of drugs, treatment, insurance coverage and training of clinicians. This segregation is consistent with the long-standing observation that there are inherent differences between psychiatric disorders (diseases relating to thoughts, feelings and behavior) and medical disorders (diseases relating to physical processes). However, these differences are growing less distinct as we improve our understanding of the roles of epistasis and pleiotropy in medical genetics. Both psychiatric and medical disorders are predisposed in part by genetic variation, and psychiatric disorders tend to be comorbid with medical disorders. One hypothesis on this interaction posits that certain combinations of genetic variants (epistasis) influence psychiatric disorders due to their impact on the brain, but the associated genes are also expressed in other tissues so the same groups of variants influence medical disorders (pleiotropy). The observation that psychiatric and medical disorders may interact is not novel. Equally, both epistasis and pleiotropy are fundamental concepts in medical genetics. However, we are just beginning to understand how genetic variation can influence both psychiatric and medical disorders. In our recent work, we have discovered gene networks significantly associated with psychiatric and substance use disorders. Invariably, these networks are also significantly associated with medical disorders. Recognizing how genetic variation can influence both psychiatric and medical disorders will help us to understand the etiology of the individual and comorbid disease phenotypes, predict and minimize side effects in drug and other treatments, and help to reduce stigma associated with psychiatric disorders.