Dataset Information

Pimavanserin for Parkinson's Disease psychosis: Effects stratified by baseline cognition and use of cognitive-enhancing medications.

ABSTRACT:

Background

PD psychosis is often associated with cognitive impairment, including dementia, and involves dopaminergic, serotonergic, and cholinergic mechanisms.

Objective

To evaluate the differential effect of the antipsychotic pimavanserin, a selective serotonin 2A receptor inverse agonist, in PD psychosis patients with versus without cognitive impairment and in those receiving versus not receiving cognitive-enhancing medications.

Methods

Data from the pivotal randomized clinical trial of pimavanserin for PD psychosis were stratified by (1) screening MMSE score as cognitively impaired (21-24) versus unimpaired (≥25) and (2) concomitant use versus nonuse of cognitive-enhancing medications. The primary outcome measure was change in the PD-adapted Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms.

Results

Mean (pimavanserin vs. placebo) change from baseline was larger in the cognitively impaired (n = 50; -6.62 vs. -0.91; P = 0.002) versus the cognitively unimpaired (n = 135; -5.50 vs. -3.23; p = 0.046) group. The comparable change was -6.04 versus -2.18 (P = 0.012) and -5.66 versus -3.15 (P = 0.041) in patients treated (n = 69) and not treated (n = 116) with concomitant cognitive-enhancing medication. Pimavanserin was similarly tolerated across all cognitive groups with no additional safety concerns identified. Overall adverse event rates were comparable across the concomitant cognitive-enhancing medication groups; however, rates of serious adverse events and discontinuations attributed to adverse events were increased in patients taking cholinesterase inhibitors.

Conclusions

The antipsychotic effect of pimavanserin is robust in PD patients with cognitive impairment and may be enhanced by concomitant cognitive-enhancing medication use. Future prospective studies are needed to confirm these preliminary findings. © 2018 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

SUBMITTER: Espay AJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6261678 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundReducing falls and fractures remains an important clinical goal in managing older residents with Parkinson's disease psychosis (PDP) in long-term care/nursing home (LTC/NH) settings.ObjectivesThis analysis examined risk of all-cause falls or fractures among PDP residents on continuous monotherapy with pimavanserin (PIM) versus (i) other atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) [quetiapine (QUE), risperidone (RIS), olanzapine (OLA), aripiprazole (ARI)] and (ii) QUE.MethodsA retrospective analysis of parts A, B, and D claims from a 100% Medicare sample (2013-2019) in LTC/NH settings was conducted. LTC/NH residents in the USA initiating continuous monotherapy (PIM versus other AAPs; PIM versus QUE) for ≥ 6 months between 01 January 2014 and 31 December 2018 were 1:1 propensity score matched (PSM) on 31 variables (age, sex, race, region, and 27 Elixhauser comorbidities). Outcomes included three measures: risks of falls only, fractures only, and falls/fractures during 6-months follow-up. Demographic characteristics were described using chi-square and t-tests. Generalized linear models were used to assess difference in risks of falls/fractures.ResultsOf 7187 residents, 47.59% (n = 3420) were female and mean age was 78.8 (± 7.75) years. In total, 14% (n = 1005) were on PIM and 86% (n = 6182) were on other AAPs. After PSM, falls only among PIM residents (n = 1005) was 4.58% (n = 46) versus 7.66% (n = 77) for other AAPs (n = 1005) [relative risk (RR) = 0.63 (0.46, 0.86), p < 0.05] and 8.26% (n = 83) for QUE (n = 1005) residents (p < 0.05). Fractures only among PIM residents was 1.39% (n = 14) compared with 2.09% (n = 21) for other AAPs (p = 0.31) and 1.89% (n = 19) for QUE (p = 0.49), respectively. Taken together, falls/fractures among PIM residents were 5.67% (n = 57) versus 9.05% (n = 91) for other AAPs [RR = 0.63 (0.46, 0.86), p < 0.05] and 9.55% (n = 96) for QUE (p < 0.05), respectively.ConclusionsIn this analysis of LTC/NH residents with PDP, PIM had a 37% and 41% lower risk of all-cause falls/fractures versus other AAPs and versus QUE, respectively.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough effective treatments are available to address the cognitive deficits experienced by individuals with first-episode psychosis, provision of such treatments within Coordinated Specialty Care (CSC) programs is rare. One factor that may contribute to this is uncertainty about the cost implications of providing cognitive-enhancing treatments within the American mental healthcare system. The aim of this study is to complete a naturalistic evaluation of the cost utility of incorporating two different cognitive-enhancing interventions within an American CSC program.MethodsParticipants included 66, predominately white (75.38%), individuals with first-episode psychosis (19 women and 47 men) with a mean age of 22.71 years. Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and cost of care were tracked among these individuals during their participation in a CSC program. These data were compared among three groups of participants during their first six months of care: (i) individuals who participated in metacognitive remediation therapy (MCR), (ii) individuals who participated in computerized cognitive remediation (CCR), and (iii) individuals who participated in no cognitive-enhancing intervention.ResultsParticipation in MCR, but not CCR, was associated with larger gains in QALYs than participation in no cognitive-enhancing intervention within a CSC program. Moreover, data support the cost utility of MCR as compared to CCR or no-cognitive enhancing intervention within a CSC program. Conversely, CCR did not appear to be a cost-effective addition to CSC services.ConclusionsOur results highlight the potential cost utility of incorporating MCR within CSC programs for individuals with first-episode psychosis. However, given study limitations, these results should be interpreted cautiously until replicated by large, randomized controlled trials. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01570972, registered April 4, 2012, Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01570972?term=breitborde&draw=2&rank=6 .