Pimavanserin for the treatment of Parkinson's disease psychosis: number needed to treat, number needed to harm, and likelihood to be helped or harmed

Pimavanserin tartrate induces apoptosis and cytoprotective autophagy and synergizes with chemotherapy on triple negative breast cancer

Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) poses a significant clinical challenge due to its lack of targeted therapy options and the frequent development of chemotherapy resistance. Metastasis remains a primary cause of mortality in late-stage TNBC patients, underscoring the urgent need for alternative treatments. Repurposing existing drugs offers a promising strategy for the discovery of novel therapies. In this study, we investigated the potential of pimavanserin tartrate (PVT) as a treatment for TNBC. While previous studies have highlighted PVT's anticancer effects in various cancer types, its activity in TNBC remains unclear. Our investigation aimed to elucidate the anticancer effects and underlying mechanisms of PVT in TNBC. We evaluated the impact of PVT and combination treatments involving PVT on TNBC cell viability, apoptosis, autophagy, and associated signaling pathways. Our findings revealed that PVT may induce mitochondria-dependent intrinsic apoptosis and caused cytoprotective autophagy via the PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway in TNBC cells in vitro. Notably, our study demonstrated strong synergistic anti-TNBC effects when combining PVT with doxorubicin. We also found PVT showed some efficacies to inhibit TNBC tumor growth in vivo. These results provided valuable insights into the potential of PVT as an anti-TNBC therapeutic and a possible option for enhancing the sensitivity of TNBC cells to conventional chemotherapy drugs. Further studies are needed to determine the activity and mechanism of PVT in inhibiting TNBC.

Comparative Efficacy, Safety, and Acceptability of Pimavanserin and Other Atypical Antipsychotics for Parkinson's Disease Psychosis: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The current comparative efficacy, safety, and acceptability of atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) in treating Parkinson's Disease Psychosis (PDP) are not entirely understood.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate comparative efficacy, safety, and acceptability of AAPs in patients with PDP.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy, safety, and acceptability of pimavanserin, quetiapine, olanzapine, clozapine, ziprasidone, and risperidone. We estimated relative standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (OR) for binary outcomes, with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

We included 19 unique studies evaluating AAPs in a total of 1,242 persons with PDP. Based on Clinical Global Impression Scale for Severity, pimavanserin (SMD, -4.81; 95% CI, -5.39, -4.24) and clozapine (SMD, -4.25; 95% CI, -5.24, -3.26) significantly improved symptoms compared with placebo. Also, compared to placebo, pimavanserin (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.07, 1.24) significantly improved psychotic symptoms based on Scale for Assessment of Positive Symptoms for Parkinson's Disease Psychosis/Hallucinations and Delusions scores. In comparison to placebo, clozapine (SMD, -0.69; 95% CI, -1.35, -0.02), pimavanserin (SMD, -0.01; 95% CI, -0.56, 0.53), and quetiapine (SMD, 0.00; 95% CI, -0.68, 0.69) did not impair motor function per Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating scale. Based on Mini-Mental State Examination scale, quetiapine (SMD, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.07, 1.14) significantly impaired cognition compared to placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with PDP, pimavanserin and clozapine demonstrated significant improvement in psychosis without affecting motor function. With quetiapine being associated with a significant decline in cognition and despite not impairing motor function, our findings suggest that it should be avoided in patients with PDP and reduced cognitive abilities.

Nivolumab versus placebo as adjuvant therapy for resected stage III melanoma: a propensity weighted indirect treatment comparison and number needed to treat analysis for recurrence-free survival and overall survival

BACKGROUND

Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) data for adjuvant nivolumab versus placebo (proxy for routine surveillance) in patients with high-risk, resected melanoma are lacking. This post hoc, indirect treatment comparison (ITC) used pooled data from the phase 3 EORTC 18,071 (ipilimumab vs. placebo) and CheckMate 238 (nivolumab vs. ipilimumab) trials to assess RFS and OS with nivolumab versus placebo and the numbers needed to treat (NNT) over 4 years.

METHODS

Patients with resected stage IIIB-C cutaneous melanoma (American Joint Committee on Cancer seventh edition) were included. Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance baseline characteristics. RFS NNTs were calculated for nivolumab versus ipilimumab and placebo. OS NNTs were calculated for nivolumab versus placebo. To adjust for different post-recurrence treatments, the difference in post-recurrence survival between the two ipilimumab arms was added to OS of the placebo arm.

RESULTS

This ITC included 278, 643, and 365 patients treated with nivolumab, ipilimumab, and placebo, respectively. Following IPTW, nivolumab was associated with improved RFS versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-0.61) and ipilimumab (HR: 0.69; 95% CI 0.56-0.85). RFS NNT was 4.2 for nivolumab versus placebo and 8.9 for nivolumab versus ipilimumab. After post-recurrence survival adjustment, weighted 4-year OS rates were 75.8% for nivolumab and 64.1% for placebo; OS NNT for nivolumab versus placebo was 8.5.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with resected stage IIIB-C cutaneous melanoma in this ITC, nivolumab improved RFS versus placebo and ipilimumab, and OS versus placebo after post-recurrence survival adjustment.

Interventions for preventing falls in Parkinson's disease

BACKGROUND

Most people with Parkinson's disease (PD) experience at least one fall during the course of their disease. Several interventions designed to reduce falls have been studied. An up-to-date synthesis of evidence for interventions to reduce falls in people with PD will assist with informed decisions regarding fall-prevention interventions for people with PD.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions designed to reduce falls in people with PD.

SEARCH METHODS

CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases and two trials registers were searched on 16 July 2020, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We also conducted a top-up search on 13 October 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions that aimed to reduce falls in people with PD and reported the effect on falls. We excluded interventions that aimed to reduce falls due to syncope.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane Review procedures. Primary outcomes were rate of falls and number of people who fell at least once. Secondary outcomes were the number of people sustaining one or more fall-related fractures, quality of life, adverse events and economic outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 32 studies with 3370 participants randomised. We included 25 studies of exercise interventions (2700 participants), three studies of medication interventions (242 participants), one study of fall-prevention education (53 participants) and three studies of exercise plus education (375 participants). Overall, participants in the exercise trials and the exercise plus education trials had mild to moderate PD, while participants in the medication trials included those with more advanced disease. All studies had a high or unclear risk of bias in one or more items. Illustrative risks demonstrating the absolute impact of each intervention are presented in the summary of findings tables. Twelve studies compared exercise (all types) with a control intervention (an intervention not thought to reduce falls, such as usual care or sham exercise) in people with mild to moderate PD. Exercise probably reduces the rate of falls by 26% (rate ratio (RaR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 0.87; 1456 participants, 12 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Exercise probably slightly reduces the number of people experiencing one or more falls by 10% (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00; 932 participants, 9 studies; moderate-certainty evidence).  We are uncertain whether exercise makes little or no difference to the number of people experiencing one or more fall-related fractures (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.17; 989 participants, 5 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Exercise may slightly improve health-related quality of life immediately following the intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.17, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.01; 951 participants, 5 studies; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether exercise has an effect on adverse events or whether exercise is a cost-effective intervention for fall prevention. Three studies trialled a cholinesterase inhibitor (rivastigmine or donepezil). Cholinesterase inhibitors may reduce the rate of falls by 50% (RaR 0.50, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.58; 229 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). However, we are uncertain if this medication makes little or no difference to the number of people experiencing one or more falls (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14230 participants, 3 studies) and to health-related quality of life (EQ5D Thermometer mean difference (MD) 3.00, 95% CI -3.06 to 9.06; very low-certainty evidence). Cholinesterase inhibitors may increase the rate of non fall-related adverse events by 60% (RaR 1.60, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.01; 175 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). Most adverse events were mild and transient in nature.  No data was available regarding the cost-effectiveness of medication for fall prevention. We are uncertain of the effect of education compared to a control intervention on the number of people who fell at least once (RR 10.89, 95% CI 1.26 to 94.03; 53 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), and no data were available for the other outcomes of interest for this comparisonWe are also uncertain (very low-certainty evidence) whether exercise combined with education makes little or no difference to the number of falls (RaR 0.46, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.85; 320 participants, 2 studies), the number of people sustaining fall-related fractures (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.40 to 5.32,320 participants, 2 studies), or health-related quality of life (PDQ39 MD 0.05, 95% CI -3.12 to 3.23, 305 participants, 2 studies). Exercise plus education may make little or no difference to the number of people experiencing one or more falls (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.07; 352 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether exercise combined with education has an effect on adverse events or is a cost-effective intervention for fall prevention.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Exercise interventions probably reduce the rate of falls, and probably slightly reduce the number of people falling in people with mild to moderate PD.  Cholinesterase inhibitors may reduce the rate of falls, but we are uncertain if they have an effect on the number of people falling. The decision to use these medications needs to be balanced against the risk of non fall-related adverse events, though these adverse events were predominantly mild or transient in nature. Further research in the form of large, high-quality RCTs are required to determine the relative impact of different types of exercise and different levels of supervision on falls, and how this could be influenced by disease severity. Further work is also needed to increase the certainty of the effects of medication and further explore falls prevention education interventions both delivered alone and in combination with exercise.

Hallucinations and delusions associated with Parkinson's disease psychosis: safety of current treatments and future directions

INTRODUCTION

: Over half of Parkinson's disease (PD) patients develop psychotic symptoms, and PD psychosis (PDP) is associated with significant distress to patients, caregiver burden, and impairs quality of life. Pharmacological therapy is limited to atypical antipsychotics.

AREAS COVERED

: This review will summarize efficacy but will focus on the safety of antipsychotics for treating PDP, and in particular the off-target safety issues including cognitive impairment, sleep disturbance, cardiovascular effects, and motor function.

EXPERT OPINION

: Pimavanserin is the only medication approved in the US for treating PDP, however clozapine is also considered efficacious. Despite lack of substantial evidence for efficacy, quetiapine is commonly used to treat PDP. Despite the effectiveness of pimavanserin and clozapine for treating PDP, a need exists for additional pharmacological agents that are effective for PDP while providing an acceptable safety and tolerability profile. Medications to treat PDP should avoid worsening motor function, and also minimize sleep disturbances, cognitive impairment, cardiovascular effects, and other non-motor safety concerns. A neutral effect or reduction in mortality risk associated with PD and PDP would be ideal, and low rate of discontinuation due to AEs is desirable. Lastly, medications that can be used safely in combination with other pharmacological agents is essential.

Treating hallucinations in Parkinson's disease

Introduction: Hallucinations in Parkinson's disease are common, can complicate medication management and significantly impact upon the quality of life of patients and their carers.Areas covered: This review aims to examine current evidence for the management of hallucinations in Parkinson's disease.Expert opinion: Treatment of hallucinations in Parkinson's disease should be both individualized and multifaceted. Screening, education, medication review and the avoidance of common triggers are important. For well-formed visual hallucinations, acetylcholinesterase inhibitors are recommended first-line. Refractory or severe symptoms may require the cautious use of atypical antipsychotics. Antidepressants may be beneficial in the appropriate setting. Unfortunately, current therapies for hallucinations offer only limited benefits and future research efforts are desperately required to improve the management of these challenging symptoms.

Up-to-date expert opinion on the safety of recently developed antipsychotics

Introduction There are several new and emerging antipsychotic medication strategies recently marketed or under clinical development for the treatment of several mental disorders. There is the need to provide an up-to-date overview on the safety of this new generation of antipsychotic medications, which includes also the third-generation antipsychotics (TGA). Areas covered The authors aimed at providing a synthesis of the most current evidence about the safety profile of the recently developed and/or marketed antipsychotics. Qualitative synthesis followed an electronic search made inquiring of the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library from inception until March 2020, combining free terms and MESH headings for the topics of TGA and recently developed and/or marketed antipsychotics as following: ((safety OR adverse events OR side effects) AND ((brexpiprazole OR cariprazine OR inhaled loxapine OR lumateperone (ITI-007) OR lurasidone OR pimavanserin OR roluperidone (MIN-101) OR transdermal patch asenapine)). Expert opinion Overall, newer antipsychotics display a good safety profile, with a well-demonstrated lower metabolic liability compared to second-generation antipsychotics. Furthermore, TGA appear to specifically target negative symptomatology and improving cognitive domains. Abbreviations Aps=Antipsychotic Drugs; AEs = Adverse Effects; EPS = Extrapyramidal Symptoms; NMS = Neuroleptic malignant syndrome; D = Dopamine; K_i = Inhibitory Constant; 5-HT = Serotonin; ECG = Electrocardiogram; H = Histamine; M = Muscarinic; BMI = Body Mass Index.

Cariprazine for bipolar depression: What is the number needed to treat, number needed to harm and likelihood to be helped or harmed?

OBJECTIVE

Cariprazine is an oral antipsychotic approved in the US for the treatment of schizophrenia, acute bipolar mania, and most recently, bipolar depression. The aim of this systematic review is to describe the efficacy, tolerability and safety of cariprazine for the treatment of depressive episodes associated with bipolar I disorder (bipolar depression) in adults.

DATA SOURCES

The pivotal registration trials were accessed by querying http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ and http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, for the search terms "cariprazine" AND "bipolar" AND "depression," and by also querying the Web of Science commercial database for clinical poster abstracts, and by asking the manufacturer for copies of posters presented at congresses. Product labelling provided additional information.

STUDY SELECTION

Double-blind placebo-controlled studies in adults with bipolar depression.

DATA EXTRACTION

Descriptions of the principal results and calculation of number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH) for relevant dichotomous outcomes were calculated from the available study reports and other sources of information.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Cariprazine differs from other antipsychotics in that it has a 10-fold higher affinity for dopamine D3 receptors than for D2 receptors. Cariprazine's principal active metabolite, didesmethyl-cariprazine (DDCAR), has a half-life of 1-3 weeks and at steady state DDCAR is the predominant circulating moiety. Four double-blind placebo-controlled studies of cariprazine for bipolar depression were found of which three were considered positive and provided data on efficacy; all four studies were used to assess tolerability. Rates of treatment response, defined by a ≥50% reduction from baseline on the Montgomery-Asburg Depression Ratting Scale (MADRS) total score at study endpoint, for the approved doses of 1.5 and 3.0 mg/d (pooled) vs placebo were 46.3% vs 35.9% (NNT 10, 95% CI 7-21). Corresponding rates for remission (defined as MADRS total score ≤10 at endpoint) were 30.2% vs 20.9% (NNT 11, 95% CI 8-22). Discontinuation rates because of an adverse event (AE) were 6.7% for cariprazine (all doses pooled) vs 4.8% for placebo (NNH 51, ns). Product labelling lists the most common AEs as nausea, akathisia, restlessness and extrapyramidal symptoms. Patients receiving cariprazine 3.0 vs 1.5 mg/d were more likely to experience AEs and discontinue the trials because of an AE.

CONCLUSIONS

Cariprazine is the fourth agent approved for bipolar depression in the US. The likelihood to experience a benefit (response or remission) is substantially greater than the likelihood to encounter a discontinuation because of an AE. Direct, head-to-head comparisons with the other approved choices for bipolar depression in the "real world" are needed.

Assessing effectiveness of aripiprazole lauroxil vs placebo for the treatment of schizophrenia using number needed to treat and number needed to harm

OBJECTIVE

Schizophrenia clinical trials commonly measure observed changes in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score. However, it is more intuitive to think of response vs nonresponse, a binary outcome. Assessing binary outcomes enables calculation of number needed to treat (NNT) for therapeutic outcomes, number needed to harm (NNH) for adverse outcomes, and likelihood to be helped or harmed (LHH) to demonstrate benefit/risk tradeoffs. Here, NNT, NNH, and LHH were used to evaluate the clinical usefulness of aripiprazole lauroxil in patients with an acute schizophrenia exacerbation.

METHODS

Categorical efficacy and tolerability data were taken from the pivotal Phase 3 trial evaluating aripiprazole lauroxil for treatment of an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia. NNT and NNH values, with 95% CIs, were calculated in this post hoc analysis.

RESULTS

Using the intent-to-treat population for the pooled doses of aripiprazole lauroxil (441 mg [n=196] and 882 mg [n=204] q4w), responder rates (≥30% improvement from baseline PANSS total score) were 35.3% for aripiprazole lauroxil arms vs 18.4% for placebo (n=196), yielding a NNT of 6 (95% CI: 5-11). Discontinuation rates due to adverse events (AEs) were higher among patients randomized to placebo than to either aripiprazole lauroxil dose. Akathisia was the only AE with an incidence ≥5% in each aripiprazole lauroxil group and at least twice that of placebo (11.6%, 11.5%, and 4.3% of the patients receiving aripiprazole lauroxil 441 mg, 882 mg, and placebo, respectively), producing a NNH of 14 (95% CI: 9-33) for pooled aripiprazole lauroxil doses vs placebo. Calculating LHH for therapeutic response vs akathisia, aripiprazole lauroxil was 2.3 times more likely to result in a therapeutic response than an incident of akathisia.

CONCLUSION

Using metrics of NNT, NNH, and LHH, aripiprazole lauroxil was an efficacious and well-tolerated intervention in a pivotal study in patients with an acute schizophrenia exacerbation.

Guidance for switching from off-label antipsychotics to pimavanserin for Parkinson's disease psychosis: an expert consensus

Patients with Parkinson's disease psychosis (PDP) are often treated with an atypical antipsychotic, especially quetiapine or clozapine, but side effects, lack of sufficient efficacy, or both may motivate a switch to pimavanserin, the first medication approved for management of PDP. How best to implement a switch to pimavanserin has not been clear, as there are no controlled trials or case series in the literature to provide guidance. An abrupt switch may interrupt partially effective treatment or potentially trigger rebound effects from antipsychotic withdrawal, whereas cross-taper involves potential drug interactions. A panel of experts drew from published data, their experience treating PDP, lessons from switching antipsychotic drugs in other populations, and the pharmacology of the relevant drugs, to establish consensus recommendations. The panel concluded that patients with PDP can be safely and effectively switched from atypical antipsychotics used off label in PDP to the recently approved pimavanserin by considering each agent's pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, receptor interactions, and the clinical reason for switching (efficacy or adverse events). Final recommendations are that such a switch should aim to maintain adequate 5-HT2A antagonism during the switch, thus providing a stable transition so that efficacy is maintained. Specifically, the consensus recommendation is to add pimavanserin at the full recommended daily dose (34 mg) for 2-6 weeks in most patients before beginning to taper and discontinue quetiapine or clozapine over several days to weeks. Further details are provided for this recommendation, as well as for special clinical circumstances where switching may need to proceed more rapidly.

Psychiatric commentary addressing the article titled "Guidance for switching from off-label antipsychotics to pimavanserin for Parkinson's disease psychosis: an expert consensus"

Pimavanserin is not curative, but can improve the quality of life remaining for the person with Parkinson's disease who typically has been suffering from this relentless neurodegenerative disease for years. Using pimavanserin effectively requires knowledge not only about the product itself, but also about the treatments pimavanserin is replacing.