Asenapine: a synthesis of efficacy data in bipolar mania and schizophrenia

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.

Seventy Years of Antipsychotic Development: A Critical Review

Since the mid-1950s discovery of the first effective antipsychotic medications (APM), we have only been able to improve the tolerability but not the overall efficacy of currently available APMs, as reflected by effectiveness trials in Europe and the United States. This inability to develop more effective APMs is attributable to multiple factors, including failure to create and use assessment tools to assess core symptom domains in schizophrenia, move beyond the dopaminergic hypothesis and to develop "me too" drugs, imposing ill-defined research domain criteria, and lacking federal funding for clinical trials. The classification of APMs is also confusing, including second-generation, partial agonists, and multimodal APMs in the same class of APMs, despite significant differences in their mechanisms of action. Other factors stagnating drug development include inadequate sample sizes to address heterogeneity, lack of statistical measures correlating with clinical significance, using the atheoretical basis of psychiatric diagnoses, failure to control placebo response, and high cost of newer and perhaps more tolerable APMs. Furthermore, there has been a failure to develop early predictors of antipsychotic response and various tools to optimize an APM response. Finally, some mental health providers are also responsible for the suboptimal use of APMs, by using excessive maintenance doses, often with irrational polypharmacy, further compromising effectiveness and medication adherence. However, some bright spots in antipsychotic development include improved tolerability of APMs and long-acting injectables to address the high prevalence of medication nonadherence. This review critically reviews 70 years of antipsychotic development, the reasons behind the failure to develop more effective APMs, and suggestions for future direction.

Asenapine: an atypical antipsychotic with atypical formulations

Asenapine is a second-generation (atypical) antipsychotic medication not available in a pill that can be swallowed; rather, it is commercialized in sublingual and transdermal formulations. This is a consequence of extensive first-pass metabolism if ingested. The sublingual formulation is approved in many jurisdictions for the treatment of schizophrenia and manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder and is available generically. The efficacy profile is well characterized in a number of clinical trials, including an off-label use for the management of agitation. Obstacles to its use include food and drink restrictions, twice-daily dosing and adverse effects such as dysgeusia (distorted, altered, or unpleasant taste) and oral hypoesthesia (numbness). Transdermal asenapine was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2019 for the treatment of schizophrenia in adults. Efficacy was established in a registrational study examining acutely ill inpatients with schizophrenia. The patch needs to changed once daily. Obstacles to its use include the potential for skin reactions such as erythema and pruritis, and being a branded product, it is more costly than other options. This is a narrative review of the chemistry and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of asenapine, as well as summarizing the efficacy and tolerability of both sublingual and transdermal asenapine, and its possible place in treatment.

Psychopharmacologic Treatment of Schizophrenia in Adolescents and Children

An increasing number of antipsychotic medications have demonstrated efficacy in randomized placebo-controlled trials in the treatment of children and adolescents with schizophrenia. This review summarizes and synthesizes relevant antipsychotic medication studies, with particular emphasis on second-generation agents, and discusses other clinical considerations that may influence medication selection. With the exception of clozapine demonstrating superior efficacy in the improvement of psychotic symptoms in treatment-resistant patients, many antipsychotic agents have been shown to be similarly efficacious, including first-generation medications. Consideration of the side-effect profile, which can differ substantially from medication to medication, is essential when choosing treatment options.

A Focused Review on the Treatment of Pediatric Patients with Atypical Antipsychotics

OBJECTIVES

The use of atypical antipsychotic medications in pediatric patients has become more prevalent in recent years. The purpose of this review is to provide a clinically relevant update of recent selected key publications regarding the use of atypical antipsychotics in this population.

METHODS

Studies reviewed included randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled medication trials conducted within the past 5 years. A PubMed search was conducted for each of the 11 second-generation antipsychotic medications currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in the United States: clozapine, risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, aripiprazole, ziprasidone, paliperidone, asenapine, iloperidone, lurasidone, and cariprazine. Trials published in English with subjects 18 years of age and younger were included in this review. Additional studies, chosen for their significance to clinical practice, were also included at the discretion of the authors.

RESULTS

This review demonstrates that more empiric data are available regarding both the acute efficacy and, to a lesser extent, the longer-term efficacy and tolerability for several of the considered antipsychotic medications. The clinical conditions for which these medications have been studied include schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, Tourette's disorder, and autism spectrum disorder. They have also been used as an adjunctive treatment for disruptive behavior disorders with aggression, which have not responded to treatment with stimulants.

CONCLUSION

Evidence regarding the efficacy and tolerability of antipsychotic medications for mental health disorders in children and adolescents has expanded exponentially in recent years. However, more information is needed so that evidence-based comparisons between medications can be made. In the future, data enabling the selection of medications based upon individual patient characteristics could potentially lead to greater efficacy and efficiency in treating what are frequently debilitating medical conditions. Maladaptive aggression in children, often treated with antipsychotics, is one such area in which there is a dearth of actual information available to the clinician. It is to be hoped that additional, longer-term studies of these medications will further inform evidence-based practice in clinical settings.

Management of asenapine treatment in clinical practice: Recommendations from a panel of experts

INTRODUCTION

The choice of an antipsychotic should be based on bipolar disorder (BD) symptoms and the particular needs of each patient, as well as the adverse events potentially associated with treatment. Asenapine is an atypical antipsychotic indicated for the management of type-I BD, with distinct pharmacokinetic and receptor affinity profiles.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Recommendations document developed by a panel of experts with extensive experience in the use of asenapine in psychiatric care, including emergency department, hospital, and outpatient care. Recommendations were discussed in a single meeting and were based on both the clinical experience of the panel of experts and the empirical evidence provided in the scientific literature.

RESULTS

The present document describes the patient profile that best suits the pharmacodynamic characteristics of asenapine, as well as the advantages and limitations of the pharmacokinetics associated with the sublingual route. The document also addresses the main safety issues of asenapine and suggests interventions aimed at mitigating the most frequent adverse reactions associated with asenapine treatment. Finally, the article provides advice on dosing and overall management of asenapine treatment, including the combination with other treatments and the switch from other antipsychotics to asenapine.

CONCLUSIONS

In this recommendations document, we provide clinicians with guidance on the use of asenapine in real-life practice, including the identification of patients who best suit the characteristics of this antipsychotic.

Effects of repeated asenapine in a battery of tests for anxiety-like behaviours in mice

OBJECTIVE

A number of atypical antipsychotic drugs were demonstrated to have anxiolytic effects in patients and in animal models. These effects were mostly suggested to be the consequence of the drugs' affinity to the serotonin system and its receptors. Asenapine is a relatively new atypical antipsychotic that is prescribed for schizophrenia and for bipolar mania. Asenapine has a broad pharmacological profile with significant effects on serotonergic receptors, hence it is reasonable to expect that asenapine may have some anxiolytic effects. The present study was therefore designed to examine possible effects of asenapine on anxiety-like behaviour of mice.

METHOD

Male ICR mice were repeatedly treated with 0.1 or 0.3 mg/kg injections of asenapine and then tested in a battery of behavioural tests related to anxiety including the open-field test, elevated plus-maze (EPM), defensive marble burying and hyponeophagia tests. In an adjunct experiment, we tested the effects of acute diazepam in the same test battery.

RESULTS

The results show that diazepam reduced anxiety-like behaviour in the EPM, the defensive marble burying test and the hyponeophagia test but not in the open field. Asenapine has anxiolytic-like effects in the EPM and the defensive marble burying tests but had no effects in the open-field or the hyponeophagia tests. Asenapine had no effects on locomotor activity.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that asenapine may have anxiolytic-like properties and recommends that clinical trials examining such effects should be performed.

Safety and Efficacy from an 8 Week Double-Blind Trial and a 26 Week Open-Label Extension of Asenapine in Adolescents with Schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of asenapine in adolescents with schizophrenia.

METHODS

In an 8 week, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial, subjects (12-17 years of age) meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed., Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) criteria for schizophrenia were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo, asenapine 2.5 mg b.i.d., or asenapine 5 mg b.i.d. Subjects who completed the 8 week acute study could participate in a 26 week flexible-dose asenapine-only open-label extension (OLE).

RESULTS

A similar percentage of subjects completed treatment on day 56 (2.5 mg b.i.d. (n=98): 83%; 5 mg b.i.d. [n=106]: 79%; placebo [n=102]: 79%). In the mixed model for repeated measures analysis of the primary end-point (with Hochberg correction for multiplicity), least squares (LS) mean differences between asenapine and placebo on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score at day 56 were not significant (-4.8 for 2.5 mg b.i.d., p=0.070; -5.6 for 5 mg b.i.d., p=0.064). Significant improvement in the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity score was observed in the 5 mg b.i.d. group versus placebo on day 56 (LS mean -0.3, p=0.024). In the acute phase, ≥7% weight gain and the composite event of somnolence, sedation, and hypersomnia were more common in both asenapine groups than in the placebo group. Akathisia, fasting glucose elevation, and extrapyramidal syndrome were more common in the 5 mg b.i.d. group than in the placebo group. There were no unexpected adverse events in the OLE, and PANSS total scores decreased by -16.1 points in the group previously treated with placebo (n=62) and by -11.2 points in the continuous asenapine group (n=131) from OLE baseline to week 26.

CONCLUSIONS

Although improvements in PANSS total score at day 56 of the acute phase were numerically greater for both asenapine 2.5 and 5 mg b.i.d. than for placebo and were maintained in the OLE, the primary end-point did not achieve statistical significance in the acute phase. No new or unexpected safety concerns were detected during the acute phase or after an additional 26 weeks of asenapine treatment in the adolescent population with schizophrenia.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY

NCT01190254 and NCT1190267 at ClinicalTrials.gov.

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.

New approaches for the management of bipolar disorder: role of sublingual asenapine in the treatment of mania

Bipolar disorder is a prevalent disorder that tends to become progressive without treatment and with inadequate treatment. Second generation (atypical) antipsychotic drugs have increasingly been used as adjunctive treatment or monotherapy for mania, but they have the potential for significant adverse effects and their role in maintenance treatment remains unclear. Asenapine is a new atypical antipsychotic medication formulated in a sublingual preparation that has been studied for mania but not maintenance therapy. Evidence indicating efficacy, adverse effects, and potential benefits and drawbacks of using asenapine in the treatment of bipolar disorder based on currently available published data are summarized.