Dataset Information

Exploring the long-term safety of asenapine in adults with schizophrenia in a double-blind, fixed-dose, extension study.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:The primary objective of this study was to assess long-term safety with sublingual asenapine 2.5 or 5 mg twice daily (BID) in patients with schizophrenia. PATIENTS AND METHODS:Actively treated patients on asenapine 2.5 mg BID, asenapine 5 mg BID, or olanzapine 15 mg once daily (QD) who completed a 6-week randomized, double-blind, placebo- and olanzapine-controlled study continued lead-in treatment in this 26-week, multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, olanzapine-controlled Phase IIIB extension study; placebo patients were assigned to asenapine 2.5 mg BID treatment. Safety analyses were based on the all treated set (patients who received one or more doses of extension trial medication); change from baseline analyses used the acute study baseline. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and changes in laboratory parameters were monitored; weight change for asenapine versus olanzapine was the key secondary objective. Descriptive statistics were used; weight change was analyzed using a mixed-model repeated-measure approach. RESULTS:Of the 120 patients in the all-treated set, 60% completed treatment (asenapine 2.5 mg BID 66.1% overall, asenapine 5 mg BID 52.4%, olanzapine 15 mg QD 56.3%). The incidence of TEAEs was higher for placebo patients from the lead-in study who switched to asenapine 2.5 mg BID for extension treatment (71.0%) versus patients continuing asenapine 2.5 mg BID (38.7%), asenapine 5 mg BID (38.1%), or olanzapine 15 mg QD (25.0%). The most common TEAE (?5% in every group) was worsening of schizophrenia. Least squares mean change in body weight from the acute study baseline to week 26 was +0.6 kg for overall asenapine 2.5 mg BID, +0.8 kg for asenapine 5 mg BID, and +1.2 kg for olanzapine 15 mg QD. There were no clinically relevant changes in metabolic parameters; values were generally similar across treatment groups. CONCLUSION:Asenapine 2.5 mg BID and 5 mg BID were generally well tolerated in long-term treatment. Weight gain was less for overall asenapine 2.5 mg BID and 5 mg BID than for olanzapine 15 mg QD.

SUBMITTER: Durgam S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5546824 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Exploring the long-term safety of asenapine in adults with schizophrenia in a double-blind, fixed-dose, extension study.

Durgam Suresh S Landbloom Ronald P RP Mackle Mary M Wu Xiao X Mathews Maju M Nasrallah Henry A HA

Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment 20170731

<h4>Purpose</h4>The primary objective of this study was to assess long-term safety with sublingual asenapine 2.5 or 5 mg twice daily (BID) in patients with schizophrenia.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>Actively treated patients on asenapine 2.5 mg BID, asenapine 5 mg BID, or olanzapine 15 mg once daily (QD) who completed a 6-week randomized, double-blind, placebo- and olanzapine-controlled study continued lead-in treatment in this 26-week, multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, olanzapine-control ...[more]

PMID: 28814871

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of asenapine in adolescents with schizophrenia.MethodsIn 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).ResultsA 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.ConclusionsAlthough 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 registryNCT01190254 and NCT1190267 at ClinicalTrials.gov.

Project description:BackgroundPaliperidone palmitate 6-month (PP6M) demonstrated noninferiority to paliperidone palmitate 3-month in preventing relapse in patients with schizophrenia in a phase 3 double-blind (DB) study (NCT03345342). Here, we report long-term efficacy and safety results from a 2-year single-arm, open-label extension (OLE; NCT04072575) of this DB study.MethodsParticipants who completed the DB study without relapse were enrolled and followed-up every 3 months up to 2 years. Participants received 4 PP6M gluteal injections (700/1000 mg eq.) at baseline, 6-month, 12-month, and 18-month visits. Efficacy endpoints included assessment of relapse, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score, Personal and Social Performance score, and Clinical Global Impression-Severity scale change from baseline. Safety was assessed by treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), physical examinations, and laboratory tests.ResultsOf 178 participants enrolled, 154 (86.5%) completed the OLE (mean age: 40.4 years, men: 70.8%; mean duration of PP6M exposure during OLE: 682.1 days). Overall, 7/178 (3.9%) participants relapsed between 20 and 703 days after enrolment. Mean (SD) changes from baseline to endpoint were as follows: Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score, 0.7 (8.22); Clinical Global Impression-Severity, 0.0 (0.51); and Personal and Social Performance Scale, 0.5 (7.47). Overall, 111/178 participants (62.4%) reported ≥1 TEAE; most common (>5%) TEAEs were headache (13.5%) and increased blood prolactin/hyperprolactinemia (18.0%); 8/178 (4.5%) participants experienced serious TEAEs, and 6/178 (3.4%) participants withdrew due to TEAEs. No deaths were reported.ConclusionsThe relapse rate observed with PP6M during the 2-year OLE was low (3.9%). Clinical and functional improvements demonstrated in the DB study were maintained during OLE, and no new safety concerns were identified.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04072575; EudraCT number: 2018-004532-30.

Project description:BackgroundRasagiline is a monoamine oxidase-B inhibitor used for Parkinson's disease (PD) treatment, but its effectiveness on Chinese patients is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rasagiline monotherapy in Chinese patients with early PD.MethodsA 26-weeks, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study has been performed at 15 sites in China and enrolled outpatients (≥35 years old) with idiopathic PD without a history of using any dopaminergic drugs. Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive rasagiline 1 mg once daily or placebo. The primary endpoint was the change of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) total score from baseline to 26 weeks treatment. Secondary endpoints included changes in UPDRS subscale scores from part I to III. Health status was assessed with the PD Questionnaire (PDQ)-39 and EuroQol-Five-Dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaire. Safety profile was collected until 30 weeks after randomization.ResultsA total of 130 patients (n = 65/group) were recruited, and 127 (rasagiline, n = 64; placebo, n = 63) were included in the full analysis set. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. The decrease in the mean UPDRS total score was greater in the rasagiline group than in the placebo group (- 3.18 ± 0.95 vs. - 0.18 ± 0.98, P = 0.025), and the mean UPDRS part I non-motor symptoms score (- 0.54 ± 0.15 vs. -0.08 ± 0.15, P = 0.003) were significantly decreased in the rasagiline group compared with placebo treated patients. An improvement trend was observed in the active treatment group for the subscales evaluation with parts II and III, while the difference to placebo was not statistically significant. Life quality assessed by the EQ-5D visual analog scale improved in the rasagiline group but worsened in placebo treated patients. The overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) was slightly lower in the rasagiline group (41.5%) than in the placebo group (46.2%).ConclusionsRasagiline is effective, safe, and well tolerated as monotherapy for the treatment of Chinese PD patients.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov: NCT01556165. Registered 13 Mar 2012.

Project description:BackgroundSchizophrenia is a highly prevalent and chronic disorder that comprises a wide range of symptomatology. Asenapine is a recently developed atypical antipsychotic that is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of schizophrenia.ObjectivesTo determine the clinical effects of asenapine for adults with schizophrenia or other schizophrenia-like disorders by comparing it with placebo.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (July 04, 2014) which is based on regular searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, PubMed, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitation for inclusion of records into the register. We inspected references of all included studies for further relevant studies.Selection criteriaOur review includes randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing asenapine with placebo in adults (however defined) with schizophrenia or related disorders, including schizophreniform disorder, schizoaffective disorder and delusional disorder, again, by any means of diagnosis.Data collection and analysisWe inspected citations from the searches and identified relevant abstracts, and extracted data from all included studies. For binary data we calculated risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and for continuous data we calculated mean differences (MD). We used the GRADE approach to produce a 'Summary of findings' table which included our outcomes of interest, where possible. We used a fixed-effect model for our analyses.Main resultsWe obtained and scrutinised 41 potentially relevant records, and from these we could include only six trials (n = 1835). Five of the six trials had high risk of attrition bias and all trials were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. Results showed a clinically important change in global state (1 RCT, n = 336, RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.97, low-quality evidence) and mental state (1 RCT, n = 336, RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.86, very low-quality evidence) at short-term amongst people receiving asenapine. People receiving asenapine demonstrated significant reductions in negative symptoms (1 RCT, n = 336, MD -1.10, 95% CI -2.29 to 0.09, very low-quality evidence) at short-term. Individuals receiving asenapine demonstrated significantly fewer incidents of serious adverse effects (1 RCT, n = 386, RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.63, very low-quality evidence) at medium-term. There was no clear difference in people discontinuing the study for any reason between asenapine and placebo at short-term (5 RCTs, n = 1046, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.04, very low-quality evidence). No trial reported data for extrapyramidal symptoms or costs.Authors' conclusionsThere is some, albeit preliminary, evidence that asenapine provides an improvement in positive, negative, and depressive symptoms, whilst minimising the risk of adverse effects. However due to the low-quality and limited quantity of evidence, it remains difficult to recommend the use of asenapine for people with schizophrenia. We identify a need for large-scale, longer-term, better-designed and conducted randomised controlled trials investigating the clinical effects and safety of asenapine.

Project description:Sublingually administered asenapine was approved in March 2015 by the United States Food and Drug Administration for patients aged 10-17 years with an acute manic or mixed episode associated with bipolar I disorder (BP-1). This is the first long-term safety and tolerability study of asenapine in this population.Following the 3-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of patients aged 10-17 years with an acute manic or mixed episode associated with BP-1, patients could enroll in this flexible-dose (2.5-10 mg twice daily) open-label extension (OLE) study for an additional 50 weeks, conducted from August 2011 to September 2014 in the United States and Russia. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were assessed and predefined TEAEs of interest reported in addition to metabolic and anthropometric parameters. The Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) and Clinical Global Impressions scale in bipolar illness (CGI-BP) were used to assess effectiveness.A total of 321 patients (lead-in study treatment: placebo, n = 80; asenapine, n = 241) were included; 267 (83.2 %) reported one or more TEAE and 181 (56.4 %) discontinued early, 48 (15.0 %) due to TEAEs. Of the predefined TEAEs of interest, combined somnolence/sedation/hypersomnia occurred most frequently (42.4 %) followed by oral hypoesthesia/dysgeusia (7.5 %). In total, 109 (34.8 %) patients experienced clinically significant weight gain (?7 % increase). No clinically meaningful changes were noted for laboratory parameters measured. Eighteen patients met the criteria for new-onset metabolic syndrome (MBS) post-baseline during the extension study, whereas 10 patients who met MBS criteria at baseline did not meet MBS criteria at endpoint. A total of 12 patients met MBS at baseline and endpoint. Mean change in YMRS total score from OLE baseline was -9.2 points at week 50, and change in CGI-BP severity overall score was similar among all treatment groups (those who initially received asenapine and those who initially received placebo). After 26 weeks of treatment in the OLE, 79.2 % of patients were classified as YMRS 50 % responders relative to acute trial baseline.Asenapine was generally well tolerated in pediatric patients with BP-1 during ?50 weeks of open-label treatment; among predefined TEAEs of interest, the combination of somnolence/sedation/hypersomnia was the most common. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01349907.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:The long-term safety, tolerability, and efficacy of paliperidone extended-release (ER) were evaluated in Chinese patients with schizophrenia. METHODS:Patients (aged ?18 years) with schizophrenia (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition criteria) who had completed run-in (8-week), stabilization (6-week), and double-blind (DB) phases (variable) of a phase-3, placebo-controlled study entered this 24-week, open-label extension (OLE) study. These patients, who had either experienced a relapse or remained relapse-free through DB phase of the study, were treated with flexible-dose paliperidone-ER (3-12 mg/day) during the OLE phase. Major safety evaluations included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and extrapyramidal symptoms. Efficacy endpoints included changes in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score, Clinical Global Impression-Severity scale, and Personal and Social Performance scale from OLE baseline to OLE endpoint. RESULTS:Out of 106 patients who entered the OLE phase (placebo: 59, paliperidone-ER: 47), a total of 85 (80%) completed it. Thirty-five (33%) patients experienced at least one TEAE; most common were akathisia, somnolence, nasopharyngitis, and constipation (3.8% each). Serious TEAEs were noted in two patients (completed suicide; schizophrenia worsening). No TEAEs with an onset during the OLE phase led to discontinuation. Extrapyramidal symptoms related-TEAEs were reported in eight (7.5%) patients. Mean (standard deviation) changes in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total scores (-10.4 [13.2]), Clinical Global Impression-Severity scores (-0.6 [0.96]) and Personal and Social Performance scores (7.4 [13.2]) from OLE baseline to OLE endpoint showed patients who had been treated with placebo during the DB phase experienced more pronounced improvements. CONCLUSION:In this OLE study, flexibly dosed paliperidone-ER (3-12 mg/day) was tolerable and efficacious in Chinese patients with schizophrenia.

Project description:IntroductionA post hoc analysis of a double-blind (DB) active control trial and an open-label extension (OLE) study was conducted to evaluate the long-term effects of lurasidone in patients with schizophrenia.MethodsIn the DB trial, patients were randomised to receive lurasidone or risperidone for 12 months. In OLE, all patients received lurasidone for an additional 6 months. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were evaluated. Efficacy assessments included relapse rate (DB trial only), and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, Clinical Global Impression-Severity scale, and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale.ResultsIn the DB trial, patients with schizophrenia were randomised to lurasidone (n = 399) and risperidone (n = 190), of whom 129 and 84 continued into OLE, respectively. During the DB trial, incidence of TEAEs was similar for lurasidone (84.1%) and risperidone (84.2%). Lurasidone was associated with minimal changes in metabolic variables and prolactin levels, whereas risperidone was associated with clinically significant increases in prolactin and fasting glucose levels. The proportion of patients with metabolic syndrome was significantly lower in patients treated with lurasidone versus risperidone at the end of the DB trial (25.5% vs 40.4%; p = 0.0177). During OLE, patients switching from risperidone to lurasidone experienced a reduction in weight and prolactin levels; those continuing treatment with lurasidone experienced minimal changes in metabolic variables and prolactin. At the end of OLE, the proportion of patients with metabolic syndrome was no longer significantly different between groups (23.5% vs 31.5%; p = not significant). Efficacy outcomes were generally similar between groups during the DB trial, and were maintained during OLE.ConclusionLurasidone was generally well tolerated and effective in clinically stable schizophrenia patients over the long term. Lurasidone was also generally well tolerated and maintained effectiveness over 6 months in patients switching from risperidone. Patients switching from risperidone experienced improvements in metabolic parameters and prolactin levels. These findings confirm lurasidone's long-term effectiveness and favourable metabolic profile in patients with schizophrenia.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00641745.

Dataset Information

Exploring the long-term safety of asenapine in adults with schizophrenia in a double-blind, fixed-dose, extension study.

Publications

Exploring the long-term safety of asenapine in adults with schizophrenia in a double-blind, fixed-dose, extension study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets