Lurasidone for schizophrenia: a review of the efficacy and safety profile for this newly approved second-generation antipsychotic

Lurasidone for the treatment of bipolar depression: an evidence-based review

Bipolar disorder (BD) is a debilitating and difficult-to-treat psychiatric disease that presents a serious burden to patients' lives as well as health care systems around the world. The essential diagnostic criterion for BD is episodes of mania or hypomania; however, the patients report that the majority of their time is spent in a depressive phase. Current treatment options for this component of BD have yet to achieve satisfactory remission rates. Lurasidone is a drug in the benzisothiazole class approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in June 2013 for the acute treatment of bipolar depression. Its pharmacological profile features high-affinity antagonism at D2, 5-HT2A, and 5-HT7 receptors; moderate-affinity antagonism at α2C-adrenergic receptors; low- to very low-affinity antagonism at α1A-adrenergic, α2A-adrenergic, H1, M1, and 5-HT2C receptors; and high-affinity partial agonism at 5-HT1A. Preliminary findings from two recent double-blinded clinical trials suggest that lurasidone is efficacious in treating bipolar I depression, with clinical effects manifesting as early as the first 2-3 weeks of treatment (as measured by the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale and Clinical Global Impressions Scale for use in bipolar illness). Its therapeutic benefit appears to be comparable to the current US Food and Drug Administration-indicated treatments: quetiapine and olanzapine-fluoxetine, according to a measure of effect size known as number needed to treat. These studies reported relatively limited extrapyramidal and metabolic side effects as a result of treatment with lurasidone, with the most common side effect being nausea. Safety data drawn from these studies, as well as a more extensive body of schizophrenia research, indicate that in comparison with other atypical antipsychotics, treatment with lurasidone is less likely to result in metabolic side effects such as weight gain or disturbances of serum glucose or lipid levels. Lurasidone holds clinical potential as a novel, efficacious pharmacological treatment for bipolar depression. However, current data on its use for the treatment of BD are limited, and more extensive research, both longer in duration as well as independently conducted, is needed.

Effectiveness of lurasidone in schizophrenia or schizoaffective patients switched from other antipsychotics: a 6-month, open-label, extension study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the long-term safety and tolerability of lurasidone in schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder patients switched to lurasidone.

METHOD

Patients in this multicenter, 6-month open-label, flexible-dose, extension study had completed a core 6-week randomized trial in which clinically stable, but symptomatic, outpatients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder were switched to lurasidone. Patients started the extension study on treatment with the same dose of lurasidone taken at study endpoint of the 6-week core study; following this, lurasidone was flexibly dosed (40-120 mg/day), if clinically indicated, starting on Day 7 of the extension study. The primary safety endpoints were the proportion of patients with treatment emergent adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, or who discontinued due to AEs. Secondary endpoints included metabolic variables and measures of extrapyramidal symptoms and akathisia, as well as the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S), and the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS). The study was conducted from August 2010 to November 2011.

RESULTS

Of the 198 patients who completed the 6-week core study, 149 (75.3%) entered the extension study and 148 received study medication. A total of 98 patients (65.8%) completed the 6-month extension study. Lurasidone 40, 80, and 120 mg were the modal daily doses for 19 (12.8%), 65 (43.9%), and 64 (43.2%) of patients, respectively. Overall mean (SD) daily lurasidone dose was 102.0 mg (77.1). The most commonly reported AEs were insomnia (13 patients [8.8%]), nausea (13 patients [8.8%]), akathisia (12 patients [8.1%]), and anxiety (9 patients [6.1%]). A total of 16 patients (10.8%) had at least one AE leading to discontinuation from the study. Consistent with prior studies of lurasidone, there was no signal for clinically relevant adverse changes in body weight, lipids, glucose, insulin, or prolactin. Movement disorder rating scales did not demonstrate meaningful changes. Treatment failure (defined as any occurrence of discontinuation due to insufficient clinical response, exacerbation of underlying disease, or AE) was observed for 19 patients (12.8% of patients entering) and median time to treatment failure was 58 days (95% CI 22-86). The discontinuation rate due to any cause was 50/148 (33.8%), and median time to discontinuation was 62 days (95% CI 30-75). The mean PANSS total score, mean CGI-S score, and mean CDSS score decreased consistently from core study baseline across extension visits, indicating an improvement in overall condition.

CONCLUSIONS

In this 6-month, open-label extension study, treatment with lurasidone was generally well-tolerated with sustained improvement in efficacy measures observed in outpatients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder who had switched to lurasidone from a broad range of antipsychotic agents.

Asenapine, blonanserin, iloperidone, lurasidone, and sertindole: distinctive clinical characteristics of 5 novel atypical antipsychotics

Schizophrenia is a serious, chronic, and devastating mental illness with a substantial impact on psychological, physical, social, and economical areas of an individual and society. To treat such critical mental illness, a number of first-generation (typical) and second-generation (atypical) antipsychotics are currently available in the market. Despite such treatment options, most of patients with schizophrenia have a poor treatment outcome and become treatment resistant, causing continual deterioration on positive, negative, and cognitive symptoms, resulting in impairment of socio-occupational functioning. Hence, additional novel antipsychotics with better efficacy, safety, and tolerability profiles are needed to enable clinicians to diversify treatment options to improve treatment of schizophrenia. Recently, the 3 antipsychotics, including iloperidone (2009), asenapine (2009), and lurasidone (2010), have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. Two other atypical antipsychotics, including sertindole and blonanserin, are approved and used outside the United States for treatment of schizophrenia. Sertindole, after it has been voluntarily suspended by the manufacturer in 1998 due to its potential risk in causing cardiovascular-related death, was relaunched to the European market in 2005. More recently, blonanserin was approved in Japan (2008) and in Korea (2009) for the management of schizophrenia. Individual antipsychotic may have differential pros and cons compared with other antipsychotic in terms of efficacy, safety, tolerability, restoration of functional capacity, and economic aspect reflecting relapse prevention. The purpose of this review was to provide distinctive clinical characteristics and up-to-date of clinical trial data of the 5 novel atypical antipsychotics for the management of schizophrenia, which may deliver clinicians better understanding in the use of such atypical antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia in clinical practice.

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.

QTc prolongation with antipsychotics: is routine ECG monitoring recommended?

Whether or not QTc interval should be routinely monitored in patients receiving antipsychotics is a controversial issue, given logistic and fiscal dilemmas. There is a link between antipsychotic medications and prolongation of QTc interval, which is associated with an increased risk of torsade de pointes (TdP). Our goal is to provide clinically practical guidelines for monitoring QTc intervals in patients being treated with antipsychotics. We provide an overview of the pathophysiology of the QT interval, its relationship to TdP, and a discussion of the QT prolonging effects of antipsychotics. A literature search for articles relevant to the QTc prolonging effects of antipsychotics and TdP was conducted utilizing the databases PubMed and Embase with various combinations of search words. The overall risk of TdP and sudden death associated with antipsychotics has been observed to be low. Medications, genetics, gender, cardiovascular status, pathological conditions, and electrolyte disturbances have been found to be related to prolongation of the QTc interval. We conclude that, while electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring is useful when administering antipsychotic medications in the presence of co-existing risk factors, it is not mandatory to perform ECG monitoring as a prerequisite in the absence of cardiac risk factors. An ECG should be performed if the initial evaluation suggests increased cardiac risk or if the antipsychotic to be prescribed has been established to have an increased risk of TdP and sudden death.

D2 receptor occupancy following lurasidone treatment in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder

OBJECTIVE/INTRODUCTION: Lurasidone is an atypical antipsychotic medication approved for the treatment of schizophrenia over a dose range of 40-160 mg/day. This study examined D2 receptor occupancy and its association with clinical improvement and side effects in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder following repeated doses of 80, 120, or 160 mg/day of lurasidone.

METHODS

Twenty-five patients with The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. (DSM-IV) diagnoses of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder were washed out of their antipsychotic medications (5 half-lives) and randomly assigned to 80, 120, or 160 mg/day of lurasidone. Subjects were imaged with 18F-fallypride at baseline and at steady-state lurasidone treatment to determine D2 receptor occupancy.

RESULTS

Blood lurasidone concentration (plus major metabolite), but not dose, significantly correlated with D2 receptor occupancy. D2 receptor occupancy in several subcortical structures is associated with positive but not negative symptom improvement or the presence of movement symptoms.

DISCUSSION

Blood concentrations greater than 70 ng/mL may be required to achieve a 65% occupancy level in subcortical areas. Intersubject blood concentrations at fixed dose were highly variable and may account for the lack of dose correlations.

CONCLUSIONS

Positron emission tomography (PET) occupancy data suggest that greater than 65% occupancy can be achieved across the dose range of 80-160 mg/day and that some patients require higher doses to achieve antipsychotic efficacy; this finding supports prior randomized clinical trial results.

Clinical assessment of lurasidone benefit and risk in the treatment of bipolar I depression using number needed to treat, number needed to harm, and likelihood to be helped or harmed

BACKGROUND

Prior to recent FDA approval of lurasidone for treatment of bipolar depression there were only two approved treatments for this condition (quetiapine and olanzapine-fluoxetine combination), and these were as likely to provide therapeutic benefit as adverse effects. We assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of lurasidone for major depressive episodes associated with bipolar I disorder, using number needed to treat (NNT, for benefits), number needed to harm (NNH, for harms), and likelihood of being helped or harmed (LHH, ratio of NNH to NNT, for trade-offs between benefits vs. harms).

METHODS

Data was collected from two 6-week multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, flexibly-dosed acute bipolar I depression studies, one using lurasidone monotherapy at 20-60mg/d or 80-120mg/d, and the other using lurasidone 20-120mg/d adjunctive to lithium or valproate. The NNT or NNH was calculated for lurasidone vs. placebo for the following dichotomous outcomes: response (≥50% reduction from baseline on Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score); remission (final MADRS total score ≤12); discontinuation due to an adverse event (AE); weight gain ≥7% from baseline; incidence of spontaneously reported AEs; and incidence of total cholesterol ≥240mg/dl, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥160mg/dl, fasting triglycerides ≥200mg/dl and glucose ≥126mg/dl post-baseline.

RESULTS

NNT vs. placebo for response was 5 for lurasidone monotherapy (both dose ranges) and 7 for adjunctive therapy. NNT vs. placebo for remission for lurasidone monotherapy was 6 for 20-60mg/d and 7 for 80-120mg/d and 7 for adjunctive lurasidone. NNH vs. placebo for discontinuation due to an AE for lurasidone monotherapy was 642 for 20-60mg/d and -181 for 80-120mg/d, and for adjunctive lurasidone was -54 (negative NNH denotes an advantage for lurasidone). Lurasidone was not associated with any clinically meaningful mean weight or metabolic changes compared to placebo; NNH vs. placebo for weight gain ≥7% was 29 for 20-60mg/d and 5550 for 80-120mg/d and 42 for adjunctive lurasidone. The three most frequently occurring AEs with the largest difference in incidence for lurasidone vs. placebo were nausea, akathisia, and somnolence, with NNH values for lurasidone vs. placebo ranging from 11 (nausea with lurasidone monotherapy 80-120mg/d) to 130 (somnolence with lurasidone monotherapy 20-60mg/d). LHH was substantially and consistently >1 (indicating benefit being more likely than harm) when contrasting response or remission vs. AEs or weight gain.

LIMITATIONS

Additional studies, including longer-term and open-label, "real world" data is needed to confirm the results reported here.

CONCLUSIONS

NNT, NNH, and LHH help quantify relative benefits (efficacy) and harms (side effects), thus placing lurasidone findings in research studies into clinical perspective. Lurasidone, compared to other treatments approved for bipolar depression, yielded comparable benefits (all had single-digit NNT vs. placebo for response or remission), and less risk of harm (double-digit or greater NNHs with lurasidone compared to single-digit NNHs for sedation with quetiapine and for ≥7% weight gain with olanzapine-fluoxetine combination), and thus a substantially more favorable LHH (> or >>1) with lurasidone monotherapy and adjunctive therapy, compared to quetiapine and olanzapine-fluoxetine combination (LHH<or ~1).

Clinically significant drug interactions with atypical antipsychotics

Atypical antipsychotics [also known as second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs)] have become a mainstay therapeutic treatment intervention for patients with schizophrenia, bipolar disorders and other psychotic conditions. These agents are commonly used with other medications--most notably, antidepressants and antiepileptic drugs. Drug interactions can take place by various pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and pharmaceutical mechanisms. The pharmacokinetic profile of each SGA, especially with phase I and phase II metabolism, can allow for potentially significant drug interactions. Pharmacodynamic interactions arise when agents have comparable receptor site activity, which can lead to additive or competitive effects without alterations in measured plasma drug concentrations. Additionally, the role of drug transporters in drug interactions continues to evolve and may effect both pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions. Pharmaceutical interactions occur when physical incompatibilities take place between agents prior to drug absorption. Approximate therapeutic plasma concentration ranges have been suggested for a number of SGAs. Drug interactions that markedly increase or decrease the concentrations of these agents beyond their ranges can lead to adverse events or diminished clinical efficacy. Most clinically significant drug interactions with SGAs occur via the cytochrome P450 (CYP) system. Many but not all drug interactions with SGAs are identified during drug discovery and pre-clinical development by employing a series of standardized in vitro and in vivo studies with known CYP inducers and inhibitors. Later therapeutic drug monitoring programmes, clinical studies and case reports offer methods to identify additional clinically significant drug interactions. Some commonly co-administered drugs with a significant potential for drug-drug interactions with selected SGAs include some SSRIs. Antiepileptic mood stabilizers such as carbamazepine and valproate, as well as other antiepileptic drugs such as phenobarbital and phenytoin, may decrease plasma SGA concentrations. Some anti-infective agents such as protease inhibitors and fluoroquinolones are of concern as well. Two additional important factors that influence drug interactions with SGAs are dose and time dependence. Smoking is very common among psychiatric patients and can induce CYP1A2 enzymes, thereby lowering expected plasma levels of certain SGAs. It is recommended that ziprasidone and lurasidone are taken with food to promote drug absorption, otherwise their bioavailability can be reduced. Clinicians must be aware of the variety of factors that can increase the likelihood of clinically significant drug interactions with SGAs, and must carefully monitor patients to maximize treatment efficacy while minimizing adverse events.

A review of the pharmacology, efficacy and tolerability of recently approved and upcoming oral antipsychotics: an evidence-based medicine approach

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is a broad concept, but the key elements include the incorporation of clinical judgment (which requires clinical experience) together with relevant scientific evidence while remaining mindful of the individual patient's values and preferences. Using the framework and philosophy of EBM, this systematic review summarizes the pharmacology, efficacy, and tolerability of newly approved oral antipsychotics, including iloperidone, asenapine, and lurasidone, and outlines what is known about agents that are in late-stage clinical development, such as cariprazine, brexpiprazole, zicronapine, bitopertin, and EVP-6124. Potential advantages and disadvantages of these agents over existing antipsychotics are outlined, centered on clinically relevant issues such as the potential for weight gain and metabolic abnormalities, potential association with somnolence/sedation, extra-pyramidal side effects, akathisia, and prolongation of the electrocardiogram (ECG) QT interval, as well as practical issues regarding dosing instructions, titration requirements, and drug-drug interactions. Lurasidone appears to be best in class in terms of minimizing untoward alterations in body weight and metabolic variables. However, iloperidone, asenapine, lurasidone, and cariprazine differ among themselves in terms of on-label dosing frequency (once daily for lurasidone and, presumably, cariprazine versus twice daily for iloperidone and asenapine), the need for initial titration to a therapeutic dose for iloperidone and possibly cariprazine, requirement to be taken sublingually for asenapine, requirement for administration with food for lurasidone, lengthening of the ECG QT interval (greater for iloperidone than for asenapine and no effect observed with lurasidone), and adverse effects such as akathisia (seen with cariprazine, lurasidone, and asenapine but not with iloperidone) and sedation (most notable with asenapine).

Long-term cost-effectiveness of atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of adults with schizophrenia in the US

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness (including hospitalizations and cardiometabolic consequences) of atypical antipsychotics among adults with schizophrenia.

METHODS

A 5-year Markov cohort cost-effectiveness model, from a US payer perspective, was developed to compare lurasidone, generic risperidone, generic olanzapine, generic ziprasidone, aripiprazole, and quetiapine extended-release. Health states included in the model were patients: on an initial atypical antipsychotic; switched to a second atypical antipsychotic; and on clozapine after failing a second atypical antipsychotic. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) assessed incremental cost/hospitalization avoided. Effectiveness inputs included discontinuations, hospitalizations, weight change, and cholesterol change from comparative clinical trials for lurasidone and for aripiprazole, and the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness for other comparators. Atypical antipsychotic-specific relative risk of diabetes obtained from a retrospective analysis was used to predict cardiometabolic events per Framingham body mass index risk equation. Mental health costs (relapsing versus nonrelapsing patients) and medical costs associated with cardiometabolic consequences (cardiovascular events and diabetes management) were obtained from published sources. Atypical antipsychotic costs were estimated from Red Book® prices at dose(s) reported in clinical data sources used in the model (weighted average dose of lurasidone and average dose for all other comparators). Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3%, and model robustness was tested using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Ziprasidone, olanzapine, quetiapine extended-release, and aripiprazole were dominated by other comparators and removed from the comparative analysis. ICER for lurasidone versus risperidone was $25,884/relapse-related hospitalization avoided. At a $50,000 willingness-to-pay threshold, lurasidone has an 86.5% probability of being cost-effective, followed by a 7.2% probability for olanzapine, and 6.3% for risperidone. One-way sensitivity analysis showed the model is sensitive to lurasidone and generic risperidone hospitalization rates.

CONCLUSION

Generic risperidone is the least costly atypical antipsychotic. Lurasidone is more costly and more effective than risperidone and is cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds of greater than $25,844 per hospitalization avoided. The favorable cost-effectiveness of lurasidone is driven by its clinical benefits (eg, efficacy in preventing hospitalizations in patients with schizophrenia) and its minimal cardiometabolic adverse effect profile.

Current approaches to treatments for schizophrenia spectrum disorders, part I: an overview and medical treatments

During the last three decades, an increasing understanding of the etiology, psychopathology, and clinical manifestations of schizophrenia spectrum disorders, in addition to the introduction of second-generation antipsychotics, has optimized the potential for recovery from the illness. Continued development of various models of psychosocial intervention promotes the goal of schizophrenia treatment from one of symptom control and social adaptation to an optimal restoration of functioning and/or recovery. However, it is still questionable whether these new treatment approaches can address the patients' needs for treatment and services and contribute to better patient outcomes. This article provides an overview of different treatment approaches currently used in schizophrenia spectrum disorders to address complex health problems and a wide range of abnormalities and impairments resulting from the illness. There are different treatment strategies and targets for patients at different stages of the illness, ranging from prophylactic antipsychotics and cognitive-behavioral therapy in the premorbid stage to various psychosocial interventions in addition to antipsychotics for relapse prevention and rehabilitation in the later stages of the illness. The use of antipsychotics alone as the main treatment modality may be limited not only in being unable to tackle the frequently occurring negative symptoms and cognitive impairments but also in producing a wide variety of adverse effects to the body or organ functioning. Because of varied pharmacokinetics and treatment responsiveness across agents, the medication regimen should be determined on an individual basis to ensure an optimal effect in its long-term use. This review also highlights that the recent practice guidelines and standards have recommended that a combination of treatment modalities be adopted to meet the complex health needs of people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. In view of the heterogeneity of the risk factors and the illness progression of individual patients, the use of multifaceted illness management programs consisting of different combinations of physical, psychological, and social interventions might be efficient and effective in improving recovery.

Effect of food on the pharmacokinetics of lurasidone: results of two randomized, open-label, crossover studies

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the effect of prandial status and caloric and fat composition of meals on the pharmacokinetics of lurasidone.

METHODS

Two randomized, open-label, crossover studies were conducted in clinically stable adults with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Study 1 (n = 16) evaluated the effect of fasting and three meal types (100 kcal/medium fat, 200 kcal/medium fat, and 800-1000 kcal/high fat), and Study 2 (n = 26) evaluated the effect of fasting and five meal types (350 kcal/high fat, 500 kcal/low fat, 500 kcal/high fat, 800-1000 kcal/low fat, and 800-1000 kcal/high fat) on the bioavailability of lurasidone. Subjects received lurasidone 120 mg once daily. Maximum serum concentration (Cmax ) and area under the serum concentration-time curve over the dosing interval (AUC0-tau ) were determined on Day 5 for each meal type.

RESULTS

In Study 1, the geometric mean Cmax in the fasted state was 56.7 ng/mL compared with 123.0 ng/mL for the 800- to 1000-kcal meal; mean AUC0-tau was 360.0 versus 752.4 ng·h/mL (both p < 0.001). Lurasidone exposure following meals containing 100 and 200 kcal was substantially lower than with meals containing 800-1000 kcal. In Study 2, the geometric mean Cmax was 52.9 ng/mL in the fasted state, 161 ng/mL for the 350-kcal/high-fat meal, 135 ng/mL for the 500-kcal/high-fat meal, and 131 ng/mL for the 800- to 1000-kcal/high-fat meal; mean AUC0-tau was 390, 743, 727, and 769 ng·h/mL, respectively. For all comparisons, the 90% confidence interval of the fed to fasted ratios indicated nonequivalence. Lurasidone exposure was similar following meals containing 350-1000 kcal and was independent of fat content.

CONCLUSION

Lurasidone should be administered with food-at least 350 kcal-to ensure maximum exposure.

Drug treatments for schizophrenia: pragmatism in trial design shows lack of progress in drug design

Aims. The introduction of second generation antipsychotic (SGA) medication over a decade ago led to changes in prescribing practices; these drugs have eclipsed their predecessors as treatments for schizophrenia. However, the metabolic side effects of these newer antipsychotics have been marked and there are increasing concerns as to whether these novel drugs really are superior to their predecessors in terms of the balance between risks and benefits. In this article, we review the literature regarding comparisons between first generation antipsychotic (FGA) and SGA in terms of clinical effectiveness. Methods. Large (n > 150) randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness (efficacy and side effects) of FGA and SGA medications other than clozapine were reviewed, as were meta-analyses that included smaller studies. Results. The superiority in efficacy and reduced extrapyramidal side effects (EPSE) of SGAs is modest, especially when compared with low-dose FGAs. However, the high risk of weight gain and other metabolic disturbances associated with certain SGAs such as olanzapine is markedly higher than the risk with FGAs at the doses used in the trials. Conclusions. The efficacy profiles of various FGAs and SGAs are relatively similar, but their side effects vary between and within classes. Overall, large pragmatic trials of clinical effectiveness indicate that the care used in prescribing and managing drug treatments to ensure tolerability may be more important than the class of drug used.

Determination of dopamine D₂ receptor occupancy by lurasidone using positron emission tomography in healthy male subjects

RATIONALE

A positron emission tomography (PET) study of dopamine D₂ receptor occupancy was conducted to support a rational dose selection for clinical efficacy studies with lurasidone, an atypical antipsychotic that was approved for the treatment of schizophrenia by the FDA in late 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the dopamine D₂ receptor occupancy of lurasidone in the ventral striatum, putamen and caudate nucleus, and to characterize the relationship between lurasidone serum concentration and D₂ receptor occupancy.

METHODS

A single oral dose of lurasidone (10, 20, 40, 60, or 80 mg) was administered sequentially to healthy male subjects (n = 4 in each cohort). Two PET scans were performed. For each scan, 20 mCi of [¹¹C]raclopride was administered intravenously as a bolus injection, followed immediately by 90 min of PET scan acquisitions.

RESULTS

The D₂ receptor occupancy levels were 41-43% for 10 mg, 51-55% for 20 mg, 63-67% for 40 mg, 77-84% for 60 mg, and 73-79% for 80 mg of lurasidone. The relationship between D₂ receptor occupancy and the mean serum lurasidone concentration during the PET scan (C PET) was similar for the putamen, caudate nucleus, and ventral striatum regions. Mean D₂ receptor occupancy levels correlated well with average peak serum concentration of lurasidone.

CONCLUSIONS

In healthy volunteers, single doses of lurasidone 40-80 mg resulted in D₂ receptor occupancy levels of >60%, a level of receptor occupancy previously associated with clinical response for atypical antipsychotics.

Pharmacological and clinical profile of recently approved second-generation antipsychotics: implications for treatment of schizophrenia in older patients

Antipsychotics are frequently used in elderly patients to treat a variety of conditions, including schizophrenia. While extensively studied for their impact in younger populations, there is comparatively limited evidence about the effectiveness of these agents in older patients. Further complicating this situation are the high comorbidity rates (both psychiatric and medical) in the elderly; age-related changes in pharmacokinetics that lead to a heightened proclivity for adverse effects; and the potential for multiple, clinically relevant drug interactions. With this background in mind, we review diagnostic and treatment-related issues specific to elderly patients suffering from schizophrenia. We then focus on the potential role of the most recently approved second-generation antipsychotics, paliperidone (both the extended-release oral formulation and the long-acting injectable formulation), iloperidone, asenapine and lurasidone, given the limited clinical experience with these agents in the elderly. While there is limited data to support their safety, tolerability and efficacy in older patients with schizophrenia, each has unique characteristics that should be considered when used in this population.

Haloperidol dose for the acute phase of schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Haloperidol is a benchmark, accessible antipsychotic drug against which the effects of newer treatments are gauged.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the best range of doses for haloperidol for the treatment of people acutely ill with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (February 2010), which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected studies if they involved people being treated for acute schizophrenia, randomised to two or more dose ranges of non-depot haloperidol, and if they reported clinically meaningful outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For this update, we inspected all citations and independently re-inspected a sample of citations in order to ensure reliable selection. We resolved any disagreement by discussion, and where doubt remained, we acquired the full-text article for further inspection. We then ordered papers, and reliably re-inspected and quality assessed the full reports, and extracted data. For homogeneous dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. We assumed that people who left the study early or were lost to follow-up had a negative outcome. We calculated mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes that reported ITT, last observation carried forward (LOCF) data. We excluded data if loss to follow-up was greater than 50%.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 trials with 19 different randomised dose comparisons. No studies reported data on relapse rates or quality of life and only one compared low dose (> 1.5 to 3 mg/day) haloperidol to higher dose ranges. Using standard lower dose (> 3 to 7.5 mg/day) did not result in loss of efficacy (no clinically important improvement in global state, versus standard higher dose (> 7.5 to 15 mg/day, n = 48, 1 RCT, RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.7 to 1.8, very-low-quality evidence); versus high dose (> 15 to 35 mg/day, n = 81, 2 RCTs, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.2, very-low-quality evidence). Doses of haloperidol in the range of > 3 to 7.5 mg/day had a lower rate of development of clinically significant extrapyramidal adverse effects than higher doses (clinically significant extrapyramidal adverse effects, versus standard higher dose, n = 64, 2 RCTs, RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.1, very-low-quality evidence); versus high dose, n = 144, 3 RCTs, RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.5 to 0.8, very-low-quality evidence; versus very high dose (> 35 mg/day, n = 86, 2 RCTs, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.5 to 1.1, very-low-quality evidence). None of the other comparisons between dose ranges yielded statistically significant differences, but several, particularly with lower dose ranges, were underpowered to detect clinically meaningful differences.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Noresults were conclusive and all were based on small, short studies of limited quality. However, it would be understandable if clinicians were cautious in prescribing doses in excess of 7.5 mg/day of haloperidol to a person with uncomplicated acute schizophrenia, and if people with schizophrenia were equally reticent to take greater doses. Further research is needed regarding the efficacy and tolerability of the lower dose ranges, especially > 1.5 to 3 mg/day.

Annual cost of relapses and relapse-related hospitalizations in adults with schizophrenia: results from a 12-month, double-blind, comparative study of lurasidone vs quetiapine extended-release

PURPOSE

To model the economic impact of annual relapses/relapse-related hospitalizations among adults with schizophrenia treated with lurasidone or quetiapine extended-release (XR).

METHODS

A probabilistic model estimating per-patient-per-year (PPPY) direct mental healthcare (MH) cost differences due to relapses/relapse-related hospitalizations was developed using relapse and relapse-related hospitalization rates from a 12-month, double-blind, parallel-group, global comparison study of lurasidone vs quetiapine XR (all patients previously treated with lurasidone or quetiapine XR for 6 weeks). Analyses were conducted for both all subjects and clinical responders. Direct costs associated with inpatient and outpatient mental healthcare-related services were obtained from a large, prospective, observational study of schizophrenia treatment in usual-care settings for relapsing and non-relapsing patients, including psychiatric hospitalizations, emergency services, medication management, and outpatient individual therapy. Model robustness was tested using univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Model-estimated PPPY MH cost savings associated with relapse-related hospitalization rates in all subjects were $3276 for lurasidone vs quetiapine XR. Lurasidone resulted in PPPY MH cost savings of $2702 vs quetiapine XR in all subjects, using relapse rates. Sensitivity analyses indicated lurasidone had lower 1-year MH costs than quetiapine XR in 100% and 99.7% of simulations, using relapse-related hospitalization rates and relapse rates, respectively, in all subjects. Similar results were seen in clinical responders.

LIMITATIONS

The model represents a simplification of treatment patterns and response to treatment. Cost of treatment with lurasidone and quetiapine XR was not included in the model. Estimates of cost savings are likely conservative, as the model did not assess the impact of long-term cardiometabolic consequences. Indirect costs associated with relapses and non-mental health-related costs were also excluded from the model.

CONCLUSION

Adults treated for schizophrenia with lurasidone are predicted to have lower 12-month MH costs compared to those treated with quetiapine XR due to fewer relapses and relapse-related hospitalizations.

Withdrawal symptoms and rebound syndromes associated with switching and discontinuing atypical antipsychotics: theoretical background and practical recommendations

With the widespread use of atypical or second-generation antipsychotics, switching treatment has become current practice and more complicated, as the pharmacological profiles of these agents differ substantially despite their similarity in being 'atypical'. All share the ability to block dopamine D₂ receptors, and most of them also block serotonin 5-HT2A receptors. Apart from these common features, some atypical antipsychotics are also able to block or stimulate other dopamine or serotonin receptors, as well as histaminergic, muscarinergic or adrenergic receptors. As a result of the varying receptor affinities, in switching or discontinuing compounds several possible pitfalls have to be considered, including the occurrence of withdrawal and rebound syndromes. This article reviews the pharmacological background of functional blockade or stimulation of receptors of interest in regard to atypical antipsychotics and the implicated potential withdrawal and rebound phenomena. A MEDLINE search was carried out to identify information on withdrawal or rebound syndromes occurring after discontinuation of atypical antipsychotics. Using the resulting literature, we first discuss the theoretical background to the functional consequences of atypical antipsychotic-induced blockade or stimulation of neurotransmitter receptors and, secondly, we highlight the clinical consequences of this. We then review the available clinical literature on switching between atypical antipsychotics, with respect to the occurrence of withdrawal or rebound symptoms. Finally, we offer practical recommendations based on the reviewed findings. The systematic evaluation of withdrawal or rebound phenomena using randomized controlled trials is still understudied. Knowledge of pharmacological receptor-binding profiles may help clinicians in choosing adequate switching or discontinuation strategies for each agent. Results from large switching trials indicate that switching atypical antipsychotics can be performed in a safe manner. Treatment-emergent adverse events during or after switching are not always considered to be, at least in part, associated with the pre-switch antipsychotic. Further studies are needed to substantiate the evidence gained so far on different switching strategies. The use of concomitant medication, e.g., benzodiazepines or anticholinergic drugs, may help to minimize symptoms arising from the discontinuation or switching of antipsychotic treatment.

Toxicological assessment of drugs that affect the endocrine system in puberty-related disorders

INTRODUCTION

Toxicologists must ensure that clinical risk-to-benefit analysis should be made both for genders and age groups, with any treatment. Puberty concerns physiological changes leading to organism's maturation. Pubertal growth disorders are increasing in last decades: besides causing physical and psychological distress, they may signal underlying endocrine-metabolic abnormalities with serious health consequences later on. Therapeutic approaches for some health conditions in childhood and adolescence are considered.

AREAS COVERED

The authors discuss how some diseases and treatments can impact pubertal growth. The authors look at particular immunological disorders such as asthma and how both the disease and treatment affects pubertal growth. They also discuss how the provision of available data can help to assess the dose-response of the drug, in these cases, and minimize the chance of side effects. The authors also discuss pediatric inflammatory bowel disease and how both the disease and treatment can mitigate the growth delay. Last, but not least, the authors discuss how the effects of the drugs used in the treatment of psychiatric disorders may accentuate endocrine issues in juvenile patients. Hyperprolactinemia induction by some antipsychotics is highlighted as an example.

EXPERT OPINION

Appropriate risk-benefit analysis of drugs prescribed during childhood and adolescence and intended to be used in the long term is required. Furthermore, future treatment strategies and safer compounds development should be supported by the knowledge of mechanisms underlying adverse side effects in pubertal growth and development.

Effectiveness of lurasidone vs. quetiapine XR for relapse prevention in schizophrenia: a 12-month, double-blind, noninferiority study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the relapse prevention efficacy of lurasidone compared with quetiapine XR (QXR) in adults patients with schizophrenia.

METHOD

This double-blind study evaluated the relapse prevention efficacy of 12 months of flexible-dose treatment with lurasidone (40-160 mg/day) compared with QXR (200-800 mg/day), in outpatients with an acute exacerbation of chronic schizophrenia who had recently completed a 6-week placebo-controlled trial of treatment with either lurasidone or QXR. The primary endpoint, time-to-relapse, was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards model in this noninferiority trial.

RESULTS

The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the probability of relapse over 12 months was 23.7% for subjects receiving lurasidone vs. 33.6% for QXR. The hazard ratio [95% CI] for probability of relapse was 0.728 [0.410, 1.295] (log-rank p=0.280). Since the upper limit of the hazard ratio (1.295) was smaller than the prespecified noninferiority margin (1.93), noninferiority of lurasidone compared with QXR was demonstrated in this study. The probability of hospitalization at 12 months was lower for the lurasidone group compared with the QXR group (9.8% vs. 23.1%; log-rank p=0.049). A significantly higher proportion of lurasidone subjects achieved remission at study endpoint compared with the QXR group (61.9% vs. 46.3%; p=0.043). Discontinuation rates due to AEs were similar for lurasidone and QXR (7% vs. 5%). Treatment with lurasidone was not associated with clinically significant changes in weight or metabolic parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Twelve months of treatment with lurasidone met noninferiority criteria, and was associated with higher rates of remission, and reduced risk of hospitalization compared with QXR. No clinically significant effects on weight or metabolic parameters were observed during maintenance treatment with lurasidone.

Asenapine, iloperidone and lurasidone: critical appraisal of the most recently approved pharmacotherapies for schizophrenia in adults

This article reviews the pharmacological profile and published efficacy and tolerability/safety data of iloperidone, asenapine and lurasidone, the most recent atypical antipsychotics to be approved in the USA for the treatment of schizophrenia. All three agents are similar in terms of overall efficacy and low propensity for clinically significant weight gain or adverse changes in glycemic or lipid profile. However, these agents differ from one another in terms of formulations, pharmacokinetics, and dosing and nonmetabolic adverse effect profile. For each drug, comparative and real-world effectiveness studies are lacking, as are effectiveness and safety data in elderly, young and pregnant/nursing patients. As such, the exact place of iloperidone, asenapine and lurasidone within the broader antipsychotic armamentarium is currently difficult to establish.

Newer antipsychotics and upcoming molecules for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

The management of schizophrenia has seen significant strides over the last few decades, due to the increasing availability of a number of antipsychotics. Yet, the diminished efficacy in relation to the negative and cognitive symptoms of schizophrenia, and the disturbing adverse reactions associated with the current antipsychotics, reflect the need for better molecules targeting unexplored pathways.

PURPOSE

To review the salient features of the recently approved antipsychotics; namely, iloperidone, asenapine, lurasidone and blonanserin.

METHODS

We discuss the advantages, limitations and place in modern pharmacotherapy of each of these drugs. In addition, we briefly highlight the new targets that are being explored.

RESULTS

Promising strategies include modulation of the glutamatergic and GABAergic pathways, as well as cholinergic systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Although regulatory bodies have approved only a handful of antipsychotics in recent years, the wide spectrum of targets that are being explored could eventually bring out antipsychotics with improved efficacy and acceptability, as well as the potential to revolutionize psychiatric practice.

Efficacy and safety of lurasidone 80 mg/day and 160 mg/day in the treatment of schizophrenia: a randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to evaluate the short-term efficacy and safety of once-daily lurasidone (80 mg/day and 160 mg/day) in the treatment of an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia.

METHODS

Participants, who were recently admitted inpatients with schizophrenia with an acute exacerbation of psychotic symptoms, were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of fixed-dose, double-blind treatment with lurasidone 80 mg (n=125), lurasidone 160 mg (n=121), quetiapine XR 600 mg (QXR-600 mg; n=119; active control included to test for assay sensitivity), or placebo (n=121), all dosed once daily in the evening. Efficacy was evaluated using a mixed-model repeated-measures analysis of the change from Baseline to Week 6 in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score (the primary efficacy measure) and Clinical Global Impressions severity (CGI-S) score (the key secondary efficacy measure).

RESULTS

Treatment with both doses of lurasidone or with QXR-600 mg was associated with significantly greater improvement at Week 6 on PANSS total score, PANSS positive and negative subscale scores, and CGI-S score compared with placebo. The endpoint responder rate (≥ 20% improvement in PANSS total score) was higher in subjects treated with lurasidone 80 mg (65%; p<0.001), lurasidone 160 mg (79%; p<0.001), and QXR-600 mg (79%; p<0.001) compared with placebo (41%). The proportion of patients experiencing ≥ 7% weight gain was 4% for each lurasidone group, 15% for the QXR-600 mg group, and 3% for the placebo group. Endpoint changes in levels of cholesterol, triglycerides, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol were comparable for both lurasidone groups and placebo, while the QXR-600 mg group showed a significant median increase compared with the placebo group in levels of cholesterol (p<0.001), LDL cholesterol (p<0.01), and triglycerides (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Lurasidone 80 mg and 160 mg doses administered once-daily in the evening, were safe and effective treatments for subjects with acute schizophrenia, with increased response rates observed at the higher dose. Dose-related adverse effects were limited, and both doses were generally well-tolerated.

Lurasidone as a potential therapy for bipolar disorder

Lurasidone is a benzisothiazol derivative and an atypical antipsychotic approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the acute treatment of adults with schizophrenia (October 2010) and bipolar 1 depression (June 2013). Lurasidone has a strong antagonistic property at the D2, serotonin (5-HT)2A, and 5-HT7 receptors, and partial agonistic property at the 5-HT1A receptor. Lurasidone also has lower binding affinity for the α2C and 5-HT2C receptor. Lurasidone is rapidly absorbed (time to maximum plasma concentration: 1-3 hours), metabolized mainly by CYP3A4 and eliminated by hepatic metabolism. In two large, well-designed, 6-week trials in adult patients with bipolar 1 depression, lurasidone monotherapy and adjunctive therapy with mood stabilizers were significantly more effective than placebo at improving depressive symptoms assessed using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score. In both trials, lurasidone also reduced the Clinical Global Impression-Bipolar Severity depression score to a greater extent than placebo. In these two trials, discontinuation rates due to adverse events in the lurasidone group were small (<7%) and were not different from those of the placebo group. The most common adverse events in the lurasidone group were headache, nausea, somnolence, and akathisia. The changes in lipid profiles, weight, and parameters of glycemic control were minimal, and these findings were in line with those observed in schizophrenia trials. Further active comparator trials and long-term tolerability and safety data in bipolar patients are required. Lurasidone may be an option for the management of depressive symptoms in patients with bipolar 1 disorder, and it may be considered as a treatment alternative for patients who are at high risk for metabolic abnormalities.

Latuda®- New dose, new do's and don'ts?

Similar to other second-generation antipsychotics, lurasidone is an antagonist at dopamine D2 and serotonin 5HT2A receptors, and also has a high binding affinity (antagonist) for the serotonin 5HT7 receptor. Over the past several years, the dosing of this agent has changed. This article will discuss such changes and compare the efficacy, side effect rates, and cost of lurasidone dosing regimens.

New serotonin/dopamine antagonists for the treatment of schizophrenia: are we making real progress?

The introduction of second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs), heralded by clozapine in 1990, represented an important advance in the pharmacologic treatment of schizophrenia. However, several recent comparative effectiveness trials found that non-clozapine SGAs provided little or no advantage in efficacy over first-generation antipsychotics, and all agents had substantial safety and tolerability concerns. Clearly, there remains a great unmet need for more effective and better-tolerated antipsychotics. Relatively potent antagonism of serotonin 5-HT2A receptors coupled with relatively weaker antagonism of dopamine D2 receptors is the central pharmacological characteristic shared by most SGAs. This profile continues to be a favored model for developing new SGAs, commonly defined as serotonin/dopamine antagonists. In the past ten years, aripiprazole, paliperidone, asenapine, iloperidone, and lurasidone have been introduced. Studies suggest that the newer agents have similar short-term efficacy to earlier serotonin/dopamine antagonists, and several demonstrate at least modest improvements in safety and tolerability profiles, particularly metabolic measures. However, as a group, the newer serotonin/dopamine antagonists are pharmacologically heterogeneous, and their side-effect burden can still be considerable. Moreover, their putative clinical advantages have not yet been well demonstrated via direct comparative studies. The absence of such evidence adds to the challenges in defining their place among more established treatment choices, or in providing clinicians with clear indications to guide treatment choices for individual patients. Long-term, head-to-head comparative studies are required to clarify the risk/benefit profiles of the newer antipsychotics and their roles in the treatment of schizophrenia.

Oral antipsychotic update: a brief review of new and investigational agents for the treatment of schizophrenia

Antipsychotics are the mainstay of treatment for patients with schizophrenia. However, these medications only work if they are taken and perhaps work best if they are taken for longer periods of time than seen in typical research trials. Here we explore the idea of "time as drug" by reviewing the data showing the potential benefits of long-term antipsychotic use. We also discuss the utility of depot antipsychotic formulations for improving the chances of attaining long-term therapeutic results.

Lurasidone in schizophrenia: new information about dosage and place in therapy

Lurasidone is a newer "atypical" or "secondgeneration" antipsychotic that has received regulatory approval in the US and Canada for the treatment of schizophrenia. Recent changes in lurasidone product labeling include an expansion of the recommended dose range from 40-80 mg/day to 40-160 mg/day, administered once-daily with food. The recommended starting dose is 40 mg/day. Initial dose titration is not required. Efficacy for the treatment of acute episodes of schizophrenia was established in five, 6-week, fixed-dose, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Additional short-term studies in patients with schizophrenia include a 3-week, randomized, double-blind trial comparing lurasidone with ziprasidone on safety and tolerability outcomes, and a 6-week, randomized, open-label switch study. Available long-term data includes a 12-month, doubleblind safety and tolerability study comparing lurasidone with risperidone; a 6-month, openlabel extension study for one of the shortterm registration studies where patients were initially randomized to receive lurasidone, olanzapine, or placebo; and a 12-month, doubleblind extension study comparing lurasidone with quetiapine extended-release after having received lurasidone, quetiapine extendedrelease, or placebo for 6 weeks. The totality of the evidence supports the overall tolerability of lurasidone, with minimal weight gain and no clinically-meaningful alterations in glucose, lipids, or the electrocardiogram corrected QT (ECG QTc) interval. The most commonly encountered adverse events that can be observed with lurasidone are somnolence, akathisia, nausea, and parkinsonism. Additional clinical trials are underway for the use of lurasidone in patients with bipolar disorder, including major depressive episodes in patients with bipolar I disorder, and in bipolar and schizophrenia maintenance. Principal advantages over some other second-generation antipsychotics are lurasidone's highly favorable metabolic profile and once-daily dosing regimen. Additional studies are desirable to directly compare and contrast lurasidone's efficacy with other antipsychotic agents.

Body weight and metabolic adverse effects of asenapine, iloperidone, lurasidone and paliperidone in the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder: a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The introduction of second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) over the past 2 decades generated considerable optimism that better antipsychotic treatments for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder were possible. SGAs offer several tolerability benefits over first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs), particularly with respect to extrapyramidal symptoms. However, SGAs can induce serious metabolic dysregulations, especially in drug-naive, first-episode, and child and adolescent populations, with olanzapine and clozapine having the highest propensity to cause these abnormalities. In this context, newer SGAs were developed to further improve the adverse effect burden of available agents. However, until now, the metabolic risk profile of the newly approved SGAs - asenapine, iloperidone, lurasidone and paliperidone (paliperidone extended release and paliperidone palmitate) - has not been compared.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis was to assess the effects of asenapine, iloperidone, lurasidone and paliperidone on body weight and other metabolic parameters (cholesterol, triglycerides and glucose), as this information is relevant to guide clinical decision making.

METHOD

A systematic literature search (1966-March 2012), using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE databases, was conducted for randomized, placebo-controlled and head-to-head clinical trials of asenapine, iloperidone, lurasidone and paliperidone. Published and unpublished data on changes in body weight and glucose and lipid metabolism parameters were extracted. For placebo-controlled, short-term (≤12 weeks) and longer-term (>12 weeks) trials with available data on ≥7% weight increase compared with pre-treatment weight, or mean weight change with standard deviation, a formal meta-analysis was performed, estimating the pooled effect size (represented as relative risk [RR], numbers-needed-to-harm [NNH] and weighted mean difference [WMD]). An exploratory meta-analysis was also performed for the other metabolic variables (cholesterol, triglycerides and glucose). Data from active- and placebo-controlled studies were used for a pooled comparison of simple mean changes in weight, cholesterol, triglyceride and glucose levels.

RESULTS

Fifty-six trials (n = 21 691) in schizophrenia (N = 49, n = 19 299) or bipolar disorder (N = 7, n = 2392) were identified (asenapine: N = 9, iloperidone: N = 11, lurasidone: N = 8, paliperidone: N = 28). Most of the trials (64.3%) were of ≤12 weeks' duration. In the short-term trials, compared with placebo, a ≥7% weight increase was statistically significantly (p < 0.05) most prevalent for asenapine (5 trials, n = 1360, RR = 4.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.25, 7.43, NNH = 17), followed by iloperidone (4 trials, n = 1931, RR = 3.13, 95% CI 2.08, 4.70, NNH = 11) and paliperidone (12 trials, n = 4087, RR = 2.17, 95% CI 1.64, 2.86, NNH = 20). The effect of lurasidone on body weight (6 trials, n = 1793, RR = 1.42, 95% CI 0.87, 2.29) was not statistically significant. Short-term weight gain was statistically significantly (p < 0.001) greater than placebo with iloperidone (1 trial, n = 300, +2.50 kg, 95% CI 1.92, 3.08), paliperidone (15 trials, n = 3552, +1.24 kg, 95% CI 0.91, 1.57), asenapine (3 trials, n = 751, +1.16 kg, 95% CI 0.83, 1.49), as well as with lurasidone (5 trials, n = 999, +0.49 kg, 95% CI 0.17, 0.81, p < 0.01). Sufficient meta-analysable, longer-term, weight change data were only available for asenapine and paliperidone, showing statistically significantly (p < 0.001) greater weight gain versus placebo for both drugs (asenapine, 3 trials, n = 311, +1.30 kg, 95% CI 0.62, 1.98; paliperidone, 6 trials, n = 1174, +0.50 kg, 95% CI 0.22, 0.78). Although statistically significant, in general, no clinically meaningful differences were observed between the four newly approved SGAs and placebo regarding the mean change from baseline to endpoint in cholesterol levels in short-term trials, with the exception of iloperidone for total cholesterol (1 trial, n = 300, +11.60 mg/dL, 95% CI 4.98, 18.22, p ≤ 0.001), high-density cholesterol (1 trial, n = 300, +3.6 mg/dL, 95% CI 1.58, 5.62, p < 0.001) and low-density cholesterol (1 trial, n = 300, +10.30 mg/dL, 95% CI 4.94, 15.66, p < 0.001) and with the exception of lurasidone for high-density cholesterol (5 trials, n = 1004, +1.50 mg/dL, 95% CI 0.56, 2.44, p < 0.01). Asenapine increased total cholesterol statistically significantly (p < 0.05) during longer-term treatment (1 trial, n = 194, +6.53 mg/dL, 95% CI 1.17, 11.89). Regarding triglycerides, only short-term (3 trials, n = 1152, +1.78 mg/dL, 95% CI 0.40, 3.17, p < 0.01) and longer-term treatment with paliperidone (4 trials, n = 791, -0.20 mg/dL, 95% CI -0.40, -0.01, p < 0.05) had a statistically, but not clinically, significant effect. Statistically significant changes in glucose levels were noticed during short-term treatment with asenapine (2 trials, n = 379, -3.95 mg/dL, 95% CI -7.37, -0.53, p < 0.05) and iloperidone (1 trial, n = 300, +6.90 mg/dL, 95% CI 2.48, 11.32, p < 0.01), and during long-term treatment with paliperidone (6 trials, n = 1022, +3.39 mg/dL, 95% CI 0.42, 6.36, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

While preliminary data suggest the lowest weight gain potential with lurasidone and potentially relevant short-term metabolic effects for asenapine and iloperidone, data are still too sparse to comprehensively evaluate the metabolic safety of the newly approved SGAs. Therefore, there is a clear need for further controlled studies to evaluate whether these agents are less problematic regarding treatment-emergent weight gain and metabolic disturbances than other currently available antipsychotics.

Iloperidone, asenapine and lurasidone: a primer on their current status

INTRODUCTION

Three newer atypical antipsychotic drugs were FDA-approved in 2009 and 2010 in the following order: iloperidone, asenapine and lurasidone. The three drugs are indicated for the treatment of acute schizophrenia. Asenapine is also approved for treatment of manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder, for the maintenance treatment of schizophrenia and as an adjunctive therapy with lithium or valproate for the acute treatment of manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder in adults.

AREAS COVERED

This review compares and contrasts the current preclinical, clinical, safety and tolerability profiles of the three newer drugs, as reported in published preclinical and clinical studies, product labels, poster presentations and press releases.

EXPERT OPINION

Preclinical studies have reported that the three drugs have variable affinities for a wide range of neurotransmitter receptors, and are active in animal models predictive of antipsychotic activity. Asenapine is the first antipsychotic to be administered sublingually, whereas iloperidone requires titration to minimize orthostatic hypotension. Asenapine and lurasidone are associated with dose-related akathisia, whereas iloperidone is not. The three drugs appear to have relatively benign metabolic profiles. The availability of the three novel antipsychotics should provide additional options for improved treatment of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders.

Overdose of atypical antipsychotics: clinical presentation, mechanisms of toxicity and management

Historically, treatment for schizophrenia focused on sedation. The advent of the typical antipsychotics resulted in treatment aimed specifically at the underlying disease, but these agents were associated with numerous adverse effects, and were not particularly effective at treatment of the negative symptoms of schizophrenia. As a result, numerous atypical agents have been developed over the past 2 decades, including several agents within the past 5 years. Overdose of antipsychotics remains quite common in Western society. In 2010, poison control centres in the US received nearly 43,000 calls related to atypical antipsychotics alone. Due to underreporting, the true incidence of overdose with atypical antipsychotics is likely much greater. Following overdose of an atypical antipsychotic, the clinical effects observed, such as CNS depression, tachycardia and orthostasis are largely predictable based on the unique receptor binding profile of the agent. This article, which focuses on the atypical antipsychotics commonly used in the treatment of schizophrenia, discusses the features commonly encountered in overdose. Specifically, agents that result in QT prolongation and the corresponding potential for torsades de pointes, as well as unique features encountered with the various medications are discussed. The diagnosis of this overdose is largely based on history. Routine use of drug screens is unlikely to be beneficial. The primary goal of management is aggressive supportive care. Patients with significant CNS depression with associated loss of airway reflexes and respiratory failure need advanced airway management. Hypotension should be treated first with intravenous fluids, with the use of direct acting vasopressors reserved for persistent hypotension. Benzodiazepines should be used for seizures, with barbiturates used for refractory seizures. Intravenous magnesium can be administered for patients with a corrected QT interval exceeding 500 milliseconds.

Lurasidone: An Atypical Antipsychotic for Schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE:

To provide a clinical overview of the antipsychotic lurasidone.

DATA SOURCES:

Articles were identified by searching the MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EBSCO databases (through February 2012) using the key word lurasidone. The manufacturer provided information on unpublished Phase 2 and 3 trials. The Clinicaltrials.gov database was reviewed for the status of ongoing and upcoming trials.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION:

All clinical trials lasting longer than 3 weeks and published in the English language were selected for review. Additional documentation, including the product dossier, package insert, and poster presentations supplied by the publisher, was also evaluated.

DATA SYNTHESIS:

Lurasidone hydrochloride is an atypical antipsychotic that is approved for the treatment of schizophrenia. It is under investigation for treatment of bipolar I disorder. It should be administered with food, is pregnancy category B, is contraindicated for coadministration with strong CYP3A4 inducers and inhibitors, and requires dose adjustments with certain medications and in renal and hepatic impairment. Like other atypical antipsychotics, lurasidone possesses dopamine D2 and serotonin 5-HT2A antagonism but exhibits little affinity for histamine H1, α1-adrenergic, or cholinergic M1 receptors. Additionally, it is a potent 5-HT7 antagonist, which may impact depression and cognition. Phase 3 trial results revealed that 40-80 mg administered once daily resulted in statistically significant improvements in schizophrenia symptomatology compared with placebo. Lurasidone's rate of metabolic adverse events is low relative to other atypical antipsychotics; however, this is offset by dose-dependent increases in somnolence, akathisia, and parkinsonism.

CONCLUSIONS:

Lurasidone has shown efficacy when compared to placebo in acute schizophrenia. Full characterization of the adverse effect profile and cognitive and affective benefits requires publication of trials with longer durations.

Lurasidone for schizophrenia: what's different?

Lurasidone is one of several antipsychotics approved in the recent past by the US FDA for the treatment of schizophrenia. Several Phase II and III studies have established that lurasidone is more efficacious than placebo. There are no available adequately powered head-to-head comparisons of efficacy of lurasidone with other antipsychotics. However, in contrast to some other antipsychotics, lurasidone is associated with minimal weight gain and no clinically meaningful alterations in glucose, lipids, or the ECG QT interval. As per the product label, the recommended starting dose is 40 mg/day and the maximum recommended dose is 80 mg/day. Higher doses do not appear to be more efficacious, and may be associated with increases in adverse effects, such as somnolence and akathisia; however, this tolerability issue was not observed in one recently conducted 6-week study when lurasidone was administered at a dose of 160 mg/day. It is recommended that lurasidone be administered once daily with at least 350 calories of food. Additional studies are desirable to directly compare and contrast lurasidone with other antipsychotic agents.

Update on the development of lurasidone as a treatment for patients with acute schizophrenia

Lurasidone is a novel benzisothiazole antipsychotic drug for the treatment of schizophrenia. Of the antipsychotic drugs, lurasidone has the highest affinity for the 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)₇ receptor. Lurasidone also has high affinities for the dopamine D₂, 5HT_2A, 5-HT_1A and α_2C adrenergic receptors. Moreover, lurasidone has low affinities for the α₁ adrenergic, histamine H₁ and muscarinic M₁ receptors. The involvement of 5-HT₇ receptors in cognitive processes has been suggested by both pharmacological and molecular investigations. Chronic treatment with lurasidone increases neurotrophin BDNF mRNA levels in both the hippocampus (ventral and dorsal) and prefrontal cortex under basal conditions or in response to an acute swim stress. Lurasidone may potentiate N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) function through antagonistic action on 5-HT₇ receptors without a direct affinity for NMDARs. These results suggest that lurasidone treatment may be a novel approach for the prevention of the development of cognitive impairment in individuals who are at risk for schizophrenia or related disorders involving cognitive impairment. In clinical trials, treatment with lurasidone was associated with significantly greater endpoint improvement versus placebo on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score after 6 weeks among subjects receiving 80 or 160 mg. The most frequent side effects of lurasidone were akathisia, nausea, parkinsonism, dizziness and somnolence. Once-daily treatment with lurasidone at 160 mg was superior to placebo based on the composite cognitive functioning measure. Lurasidone treatment produced improvements in Montgomery–Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores at 6 weeks that were significantly greater than placebo. A limitation of this review is that the majority of the data were obtained from abstracts and posters. These sources have not been subjected to the peer review processes of medical journals; thus, the results presented in these forums may require further quality review and subsequent revision prior to final publication.

A review of published evidence reporting on the efficacy and pharmacology of lurasidone

INTRODUCTION

Lurasidone is a benzisothiazol derivative, approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the acute treatment of adults with schizophrenia. Lurasidone's binding affinities are highest for the 5-HT(2A), 5-HT(7), and D(2) receptors; with lower and similar binding affinities for the norepinephrine α(2C) and 5-HT(2C) receptor subtypes. It has demonstrated efficacy in fixed-dose studies across a variable dose range (i.e., 40 - 160 mg), with a recommended starting dose of 40 mg and a maximum recommended dose of 80 mg. Lurasidone's preclinical profile is predictive not only of efficacy against psychotic and negative symptoms but also of affective symptomatology and cognitive deficits. Controlled trials are currently underway to evaluate lurasidone's efficacy in bipolar depression as well as its procognitive effects in individuals with schizophrenia. Lurasidone is administered once a day with ≥ 350 calories of food, regardless of fat content. Lurasidone is not known to adversely affect body composition, anthropometrics, metabolic and/or electrocardiographic parameters. Although prolactin elevation might be observed, prolactin-related adverse events are rarely reported.

AREAS COVERED

This paper presents the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of lurasidone, and discusses its efficacy, safety and tolerability data.

EXPERT OPINION

Lurasidone's simplicity of use and favorable metabolic profile are distinct advantages relative to several other agents (e.g., olanzapine). Outcomes in cognitive data analyses are awaited to determine if there is a key differentiator between lurasidone and other atypical agents with respect to efficacy. Moreover, lurasidone's efficacy in bipolar depression is awaited to determine whether this agent can be considered as a treatment alternative for depressive symptoms in adults with bipolar disorder.

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.

Critical appraisal of lurasidone in the management of schizophrenia

Lurasidone is a new atypical antipsychotic in the benzoisothiazoles class of chemicals. Like most second-generation antipsychotics it is a full antagonist at dopamine D(2) and serotonin 5-HT(2A) receptors, and is a partial agonist at 5-HT(1A) receptors, a property shared by some but not all older agents. It has much greater affinity for 5-HT(7) subtype receptors than other atypical antipsychotics. Pharmacokinetic studies showed that lurasidone is reasonably rapidly absorbed, with bioavailability appearing to be increased by food. Lurasidone undergoes extensive metabolism to a number of metabolites, some of which retain pharmacological activities. Metabolism is mainly by CYP3A4, resulting in steady-state concentrations that vary between individuals and are potentially affected by strong inducers and inhibitors of this enzyme. Short-term clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of lurasidone in acute schizophrenia, with doses of 40 and 80 mg/day giving significant improvements from baseline in the PANSS and BPRS scores. The most common adverse events are nausea, vomiting, akathisia, dizziness, and sedation, with minimal increases in the risk of developing metabolic syndrome. Lurasidone did not raise the risk of QTc interval prolongation, although additional studies are required. Long-term trials are also needed to assess the risk of new-onset diabetes. Ongoing trials in patients with bipolar disorder are being completed but, again, efficacy and safety have been investigated only in a few short-term clinical trials.

New Drug Review: Lurasidone (Latuda®) - The new antipsychotic on the block

Lurasidone was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2011. This article reviews clinically significant aspects of this new drug including: the FDA-approved indications, mechanism of action, administration, drug interactions, adverse effects, clinical trial evidence, innovative properties and place in therapy.

Clinical potential of lurasidone in the management of schizophrenia

Lurasidone is a new second-generation antipsychotic approved in October 2010 by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of schizophrenia. Like other second-generation antipsychotics, lurasidone is a powerful antagonist of D₂ dopamine and 5HT_2A serotonin receptors, but differs from the other second-generation antipsychotics in its action profile for certain receptors. Lurasidone is the second-generation antipsychotic with the greatest affinity for 5HT₇ receptors and has a high affinity for 5HT_1A serotonin receptors, compatible with favorable effects on cognitive function and an antidepressant action. By contrast, lurasidone has a low affinity for and α₁ α_2C-adrenergic and 5HT_2C serotonin receptors, and no affinity for histaminergic H₁ or muscarinic M₁ receptors, suggesting a better tolerability profile than the other second-generation antipsychotics. Lurasidone has demonstrated its efficacy in several short-term trials in acute schizophrenia, promptly and significantly reducing total Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale scores compared with placebo. Several long-term studies are in progress to assess its efficacy in the maintenance treatment of schizophrenic patients. The efficacy of lurasidone with regard to cognitive functions and depressive symptoms seems good, but requires further work. Lurasidone differs from the other second-generation antipsychotics by having a good tolerability profile, in particular for cardiometabolic tolerability. However, it seems to have a significant although moderate link with the occurrence of akathisia, extrapyramidal symptoms, and hyperprolactinemia at the start of treatment. This tolerance profile greatly broadens the scope of second-generation antipsychotics and so supports the view of some authors that the term “second-generation antipsychotic” is now outdated. Other therapeutic perspectives of lurasidone are assessed here, in particular bipolar depression.

Iloperidone, asenapine, and lurasidone: a brief overview of 3 new second-generation antipsychotics

Three new second-generation antipsychotics were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2009 and 2010: iloperidone, asenapine, and lurasidone. All 3 agents are approved for the treatment of acute schizophrenia in adults, and asenapine is also approved for the maintenance treatment of schizophrenia and as a monotherapy or as an adjunct to lithium or valproate for the treatment of bipolar manic or mixed episodes. The expectation is that these new agents will be less problematic regarding treatment-emergent weight gain and metabolic disturbances, which unfortunately can occur with several other second-generation antipsychotics. Asenapine is a sublingual preparation, in contrast to iloperidone and lurasidone, which are swallowed. Iloperidone and asenapine are dosed twice daily, in contrast to lurasidone, which is dosed once daily with food. Both asenapine and lurasidone can be initiated at a dose that is possibly therapeutic, but iloperidone requires 4 days of titration to reach its recommended target dose range. Although both asenapine and lurasidone can be associated with dose-related treatment-emergent akathisia, iloperidone is essentially free of extrapyramidal adverse effects or akathisia throughout its recommended dose range. Sedation and/or somnolence have been reported with each medication. They are the most common adverse events associated with asenapine treatment, and are clearly dose-related for lurasidone. In contrast, no therapeutic dose response for iloperidone, asenapine, or lurasidone is clearly evident from short-term clinical trials. Longer-term and naturalistic studies will be helpful in evaluating these agents and their role in the psychiatric armamentarium.

Update on newer antipsychotic drugs

This article briefly reviews the novel atypical second-generation antipsychotic drugs iloperidone (Fanapt®), asenapine (Saphris®), and lurasidone (Latuda®), all of which have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration since 2009. Each is indicated for the treatment of schizophrenia, and asenapine has an additional indication for bipolar disorder. Very little information is available on their use in other disorders, pediatric and geriatric patients, and during pregnancy and breastfeeding. Their overall efficacy is no different than other antipsychotic drugs, but they do have different side effect profiles. Because of their unique pharmacologies and different tolerability profiles, they may be a more effective alternative for patients who do not respond to or cannot tolerate other antipsychotic drugs.

Drug safety evaluation of ziprasidone

INTRODUCTION

Ziprasidone is a second-generation antipsychotic approved for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. The purpose of this review is to assess the overall safety profile of ziprasidone, including its risk for prolonging the electrocardiogram (ECG) QT interval.

AREAS COVERED

This paper is a review of product labeling and English language reports located through PubMed and information available on regulatory agency websites, with a focus on the safety and tolerability of ziprasidone.

EXPERT OPINION

Although ziprasidone can prolong the ECG QT interval, this has not resulted in increases in sudden death or cardiac sudden death as noted in a large, simple trial and supported by almost a decade of real-world use in the US. Ziprasidone's principal advantage over some other second-generation antipsychotics has been its overall favorable weight and metabolic profile. Similar to most second-generation antipsychotics, ziprasidone has a lower propensity for extrapyramidal side effects and hyperprolactinemia compared to first-generation antipsychotics.