Long-term efficacy and safety of asenapine or olanzapine in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder: an extension study

Second-Generation Antipsychotic Drugs for Patients with Schizophrenia: Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis of Metabolic and Cardiovascular Side Effects

Background and Objectives

Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) for schizophrenia show different risk profiles, whose evidence has been evaluated through comparative reviews on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of weight gains, metabolic and cardiovascular side effects of SGAs, relying on both RCTs and observational studies, by comparing variations between the start of treatment and the end of follow-up. The systematic review refers to papers published from June 2009 to November 2020. PRISMA criteria were followed. No restrictions on heterogeneity level have been considered for meta-analysis. A test for the summary effect measure and heterogeneity (I² metric) was used.

Results

Seventy-nine papers were selected from 3076 studies (61% RCTs, 39% observational studies). Olanzapine and risperidone reported the greatest weight gain and olanzapine the largest BMI increase. Paliperidone showed the highest increase in total cholesterol, but is the only drug reporting an increase in the HDL cholesterol. Quetiapine XR showed the highest decrease in fasting glucose. Lurasidone showed the lowest increase in body weight and a reduction in BMI and was also the only treatment reporting a decrease in total cholesterol and triglycerides. The highest increase in systolic and diastolic blood pressure was reported by quetiapine XR.

Conclusions

Despite some limitations (differences in the mean dosages per patient and other side effects not included) this paper provides the first complete meta-analysis on SGAs in variations on metabolic risk profile between start of treatment and end of follow-up, with useful results for clinical practice and possibly for future economic evaluation studies.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40261-021-01000-1.

Asenapine: an atypical antipsychotic with atypical formulations

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

Blockade of multiple monoamines receptors reduce insulin secretion from pancreatic β-cells

Clinical use of olanzapine frequently causes severe hyperglycemia as an adverse effect. In this study, we elucidated mechanisms by which olanzapine reduced insulin secretion using the hamster pancreatic β-cell line HIT-T15. Reverse transcriptional-PCR analysis revealed expression of dopamine (D₂, D₃ and D₄), serotonin (5-HT_2A, 5-HT_2B, 5-HT_2C, and 5-HT₆), and histamine (H₁ and H₂) receptors in HIT-T15 cells. Olanzapine decreased insulin secretion from HIT-T15 cells at clinically relevant concentrations (64–160 nM). A dopamine D₂ agonist, D₃ antagonist, and D₄ antagonist suppressed insulin secretion, whereas a D₂ antagonist and D₃ agonist increased it. A serotonin 5-HT_2B agonist slightly increased insulin secretion, while a 5-HT_2C antagonist slightly decreased it. Other agonists and antagonists for serotonin receptors did not affect insulin secretion. A histamine H₁ agonist increased insulin secretion, whereas an H₁ antagonist and H₂ agonist suppressed it. Our results suggest that dopamine (D₂, D₃ and D₄), serotonin (5-HT_2B and 5-HT_2C), and histamine (H₁ and H₂) receptors, which are expressed on pancreatic β-cells, directly modulate insulin secretion from pancreatic β-cells. Thus, olanzapine may induce hyperglycemia in clinical settings by suppressing insulin secretion from pancreatic β-cells through inhibition of dopamine D₃, serotonin 5-HT_2B and 5-HT_2C, and histamine H₁ receptors.

Comparative efficacy and tolerability of 32 oral antipsychotics for the acute treatment of adults with multi-episode schizophrenia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders in adults worldwide. Antipsychotic drugs are its treatment of choice, but there is controversy about which agent should be used. We aimed to compare and rank antipsychotics by quantifying information from randomised controlled trials.

METHODS

We did a network meta-analysis of placebo-controlled and head-to-head randomised controlled trials and compared 32 antipsychotics. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, BIOSIS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov from database inception to Jan 8, 2019. Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We included randomised controlled trials in adults with acute symptoms of schizophrenia or related disorders. We excluded studies in patients with treatment resistance, first episode, predominant negative or depressive symptoms, concomitant medical illnesses, and relapse-prevention studies. Our primary outcome was change in overall symptoms measured with standardised rating scales. We also extracted data for eight efficacy and eight safety outcomes. Differences in the findings of the studies were explored in metaregressions and sensitivity analyses. Effect size measures were standardised mean differences, mean differences, or risk ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42014014919.

FINDINGS

We identified 54 417 citations and included 402 studies with data for 53 463 participants. Effect size estimates suggested all antipsychotics reduced overall symptoms more than placebo (although not statistically significant for six drugs), with standardised mean differences ranging from -0·89 (95% CrI -1·08 to -0·71) for clozapine to -0·03 (-0·59 to 0·52) for levomepromazine (40 815 participants). Standardised mean differences compared with placebo for reduction of positive symptoms (31 179 participants) varied from -0·69 (95% CrI -0·86 to -0·52) for amisulpride to -0·17 (-0·31 to -0·04) for brexpiprazole, for negative symptoms (32 015 participants) from -0·62 (-0·84 to -0·39; clozapine) to -0·10 (-0·45 to 0·25; flupentixol), for depressive symptoms (19 683 participants) from -0·90 (-1·36 to -0·44; sulpiride) to 0·04 (-0·39 to 0·47; flupentixol). Risk ratios compared with placebo for all-cause discontinuation (42 672 participants) ranged from 0·52 (0·12 to 0·95; clopenthixol) to 1·15 (0·36 to 1·47; pimozide), for sedation (30 770 participants) from 0·92 (0·17 to 2·03; pimozide) to 10·20 (4·72 to 29·41; zuclopenthixol), for use of antiparkinson medication (24 911 participants) from 0·46 (0·19 to 0·88; clozapine) to 6·14 (4·81 to 6·55; pimozide). Mean differences compared to placebo for weight gain (28 317 participants) ranged from -0·16 kg (-0·73 to 0·40; ziprasidone) to 3·21 kg (2·10 to 4·31; zotepine), for prolactin elevation (21 569 participants) from -77·05 ng/mL (-120·23 to -33·54; clozapine) to 48·51 ng/mL (43·52 to 53·51; paliperidone) and for QTc prolongation (15 467 participants) from -2·21 ms (-4·54 to 0·15; lurasidone) to 23·90 ms (20·56 to 27·33; sertindole). Conclusions for the primary outcome did not substantially change after adjusting for possible effect moderators or in sensitivity analyses (eg, when excluding placebo-controlled studies). The confidence in evidence was often low or very low.

INTERPRETATION

There are some efficacy differences between antipsychotics, but most of them are gradual rather than discrete. Differences in side-effects are more marked. These findings will aid clinicians in balancing risks versus benefits of those drugs available in their countries. They should consider the importance of each outcome, the patients' medical problems, and preferences.

FUNDING

German Ministry of Education and Research and National Institute for Health Research.

Long-term effectiveness of oral second-generation antipsychotics in patients with schizophrenia and related disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis of direct head-to-head comparisons

Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are recommended for maintenance treatment in schizophrenia. However, comparative long-term effectiveness among SGAs is unclear. Here we provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials lasting ≥⃒6 months comparing SGAs head-to-head in schizophrenia and related disorders. The primary outcome was all-cause discontinuation. Secondary outcomes included efficacy and tolerability, i.e., psychopathology, inefficacy-related and intolerability-related discontinuation, relapse, hospitalization, remission, functioning, quality of life, and adverse events. Pooled risk ratio and standardized mean difference were calculated using random-effects models. Across 59 studies (N=45,787), lasting 47.4±32.1 weeks (range 24-186), no consistent superiority of any SGA emerged across efficacy and tolerability outcomes. Regarding all-cause discontinuation, clozapine, olanzapine and risperidone were significantly (p<0.05) superior to several other SGAs, while quetiapine was inferior to several other SGAs. As to psychopathology, clozapine and olanzapine were superior to several other SGAs, while quetiapine and ziprasidone were inferior to several other SGAs. Data for other efficacy outcomes were sparse. Regarding intolerability-related discontinuation, risperidone was superior and clozapine was inferior to several other SGAs. Concerning weight gain, olanzapine was worse than all other compared non-clozapine SGAs, and risperidone was significantly worse than several other SGAs. As to prolactin increase, risperidone and amisulpride were significantly worse than several other SGAs. Regarding parkinsonism, olanzapine was superior to risperidone, without significant differences pertaining to akathisia. Concerning sedation and somnolence, clozapine and quetiapine were significantly worse than some other SGAs. In summary, different long-term SGA efficacy and tolerability patterns emerged. The long-term risk-benefit profiles of specific SGAs need to be tailored to individual patients to optimize maintenance treatment outcomes.

Asenapine pharmacokinetics and tolerability in a pediatric population

Purpose

This study aimed to characterize the pharmacokinetic (PK) properties, safety, and tolerability of asenapine, and to develop a population PK model in pediatric patients with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or other psychiatric disorders.

Methods

Two Phase I multiple ascending-dose studies were conducted to evaluate the PK, safety, and tolerability of sublingual asenapine in pediatric patients (age 10–17 years) with schizophrenia or bipolar I disorder. Patients received asenapine 1–10 mg twice daily for up to 12 days. PK parameters (maximum concentration [C_max], area under the curve from 0 to 12 hours [AUC_0–12], time to C_max [T_max], and half-life) were summarized for asenapine with descriptive statistics, and safety parameters were collected. A population PK model, which included the two Phase I studies and two additional Phase III efficacy studies (asenapine 2.5–10 mg twice daily for up to 8 weeks, age 10–17 years), was developed using nonlinear mixed-effect modeling based on a previously developed adult PK model. The final model was used in simulations to obtain asenapine-exposure estimates across pediatric subgroups and to determine if intrinsic covariates warrant dose adjustments.

Results

The PK of asenapine showed rapid absorption (T_max ~1 hour) with an apparent terminal half-life between 16 and 32 hours. Increases in mean C_max and AUC_0–12 appeared to be dose-proportional in one study and near dose-proportional in the second study. Steady state was attained within 8 days. The most frequently occurring treatment-emergent adverse events were dysgeusia, sedation, and oral hypoesthesia. Simulation-based estimates of C_max and AUC_0–12 were similar for pediatric and adult patients; age, body-mass index, race, and sex were not associated with changes in asenapine exposure.

Conclusion

Asenapine was generally safe and well tolerated in pediatric patients aged 10–17 years. PK and safety data were similar to that observed in the adult population. Intrinsic factors had no significant impact on asenapine exposure, indicating there is no need for dose adjustments in the pediatric population.

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

PURPOSE

The primary objective of this study was to assess long-term safety with sublingual asenapine 2.5 or 5 mg twice daily (BID) in patients with schizophrenia.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Actively treated patients on asenapine 2.5 mg BID, asenapine 5 mg BID, or olanzapine 15 mg once daily (QD) who completed a 6-week randomized, double-blind, placebo- and olanzapine-controlled study continued lead-in treatment in this 26-week, multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, olanzapine-controlled Phase IIIB extension study; placebo patients were assigned to asenapine 2.5 mg BID treatment. Safety analyses were based on the all treated set (patients who received one or more doses of extension trial medication); change from baseline analyses used the acute study baseline. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and changes in laboratory parameters were monitored; weight change for asenapine versus olanzapine was the key secondary objective. Descriptive statistics were used; weight change was analyzed using a mixed-model repeated-measure approach.

RESULTS

Of the 120 patients in the all-treated set, 60% completed treatment (asenapine 2.5 mg BID 66.1% overall, asenapine 5 mg BID 52.4%, olanzapine 15 mg QD 56.3%). The incidence of TEAEs was higher for placebo patients from the lead-in study who switched to asenapine 2.5 mg BID for extension treatment (71.0%) versus patients continuing asenapine 2.5 mg BID (38.7%), asenapine 5 mg BID (38.1%), or olanzapine 15 mg QD (25.0%). The most common TEAE (≥5% in every group) was worsening of schizophrenia. Least squares mean change in body weight from the acute study baseline to week 26 was +0.6 kg for overall asenapine 2.5 mg BID, +0.8 kg for asenapine 5 mg BID, and +1.2 kg for olanzapine 15 mg QD. There were no clinically relevant changes in metabolic parameters; values were generally similar across treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Asenapine 2.5 mg BID and 5 mg BID were generally well tolerated in long-term treatment. Weight gain was less for overall asenapine 2.5 mg BID and 5 mg BID than for olanzapine 15 mg QD.

Reversal of olanzapine-induced weight gain in a patient with schizophrenia by switching to asenapine: a case report

AIMS

Antipsychotics are effective for treating schizophrenia, but atypical antipsychotics can cause several adverse side effects including weight gain, hyperprolactinemia, and extrapyramidal symptoms. Moreover, weight gain increases the risk of metabolic diseases.

METHODS

We treated a case of olanzapine-induced weight gain in a 41-year-old man with schizophrenia by switching his medication from olanzapine to asenapine.

RESULTS

The weight gain improved after switching the medication, from 80.3 to 75.0 kg, a weight loss of 6.6%, and there was no significant worsening of psychological symptoms or other adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Asenapine might be effective for treating patients with schizophrenia who experience olanzapine-induced weight gain.

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.