Asenapine treatment and health-related quality of life in patients experiencing bipolar I disorder with mixed episodes: post-hoc analyses of pivotal trials

Asenapine for the treatment of bipolar disorder

Introduction: Bipolar I disorder (BDI) is amongst the most debilitating psychiatric conditions with a great impact on both patients and their families. A class of drugs commonly used in this condition is second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) including asenapine, one of the latest to be introduced into the clinical practice worldwide to treat manic episodes in BDI. Areas covered: The aim of this paper is to critically review the literature on the pharmacological characteristics, tolerability, and safety data of asenapine, as well as on its short- and long-term clinical trials in manic episodes as both a monotherapy and as an add-on treatment. Expert opinion: The available data indicate that asenapine is an effective antimanic agent in both adult and pediatric patients and that it might also improve depressive symptoms and recurrences in BDI patients. Its tolerability profile is good, and its most common side effects are somnolence, light extrapyramidal symptoms, dizziness, weight gain, and oral (but reversible) hypoesthesia. Taken together, the published studies indicate that asenapine might be an effective therapeutic agent in BDI with a broad spectrum of clinical activities. Further double-blind, short- and long-term studies are, however, necessary to clarify its precise role in the treatment of BD.

A Review of Asenapine in the Treatment of Bipolar Disorder

Bipolar disorder places a significant burden on the affected individuals, their family, healthcare systems and the overall economy. More treatment options are needed, especially those with better efficacy and tolerability. Asenapine is a second-generation antipsychotic approved in Europe (brand name Sycrest^®) for the treatment of moderate-to-severe manic episodes associated with bipolar I disorder in adults, and in the US (brand name Saphris^®) for the treatment of manic or mixed episodes of bipolar I disorder in adults and children aged 10-17 years. It is the antagonistic activity at the D₂ receptor that is likely responsible for the antimanic properties of asenapine. Clinical trials have demonstrated that asenapine mono- and add-on therapy is effective in the short- and long-term treatment of mania associated with bipolar I disorder in adult and paediatric patients. In addition, post hoc and pooled data analyses have shown that asenapine is effective in reducing clinically significant depressive symptoms in patients with bipolar I disorder. The most common adverse events associated with asenapine are somnolence, dizziness, extrapyramidal symptoms, increased bodyweight and oral hypoesthesia. However, the incidence of these events, particularly weight gain, is generally lower than with olanzapine. In one study, asenapine has been shown to improve health-related quality of life. Economic analyses indicate that the use of asenapine can, over time, lead to a reduction in the costs of treatment.

Quality of life in bipolar disorder: towards a dynamic understanding

BACKGROUND

Although quality of life (QoL) is receiving increasing attention in bipolar disorder (BD) research and practice, little is known about its naturalistic trajectory. The dual aims of this study were to prospectively investigate: (a) the trajectory of QoL under guideline-driven treatment and (b) the dynamic relationship between mood symptoms and QoL.

METHODS

In total, 362 patients with BD receiving guideline-driven treatment were prospectively followed at 3-month intervals for up to 5 years. Mental (Mental Component Score - MCS) and physical (Physical Component Score - PCS) QoL were measured using the self-report SF-36. Clinician-rated symptom data were recorded for mania and depression. Multilevel modelling was used to analyse MCS and PCS over time, QoL trajectories predicted by time-lagged symptoms, and symptom trajectories predicted by time-lagged QoL.

RESULTS

MCS exhibited a positive trajectory, while PCS worsened over time. Investigation of temporal relationships between QoL and symptoms suggested bidirectional effects: earlier depressive symptoms were negatively associated with mental QoL, and earlier manic symptoms were negatively associated with physical QoL. Importantly, earlier MCS and PCS were both negatively associated with downstream symptoms of mania and depression.

CONCLUSIONS

The present investigation illustrates real-world outcomes for QoL under guideline-driven BD treatment: improvements in mental QoL and decrements in physical QoL were observed. The data permitted investigation of dynamic interactions between QoL and symptoms, generating novel evidence for bidirectional effects and encouraging further research into this important interplay. Investigation of relevant time-varying covariates (e.g. medications) was beyond scope. Future research should investigate possible determinants of QoL and the interplay between symptoms and wellbeing/satisfaction-centric measures of QoL.

Does the efficacy of asenapine in bipolar disorder increase in the presence of comorbidity with a substance use disorder? A naturalistic study

BACKGROUND

Asenapine is a second-generation antipsychotic approved in Europe for treating moderate-to-severe manic episodes in adults affected by type I bipolar disorder (BD-I). We aimed to compare its efficacy in psychiatric inpatients with BD-I, with or without substance use disorder (SUD).

METHODS

We administered flexible asenapine doses ranging from 5-20 mg/day to 119 voluntarily hospitalized patients with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) BD-I diagnosis, with or without SUD. Patients were assessed with clinician-rated questionnaires [i.e. Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS), and Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF)]. Assessments were carried out at baseline (T0, prior to treatment), and 3 (T1), 7 (T2), 15 (T3), and 30 days (T4) after starting treatment for all clinical scales and at T0 and T4 for the GAF.

RESULTS

Patients improved on all scales (p < 0.001) across all timepoints, as shown both by paired-sample comparisons and by applying a repeated-measures, generalized linear model (GLM). Patients without comorbid SUD showed greater reductions in BPRS scores at T2 and T3, greater reduction in YMRS scores at T3, and lower HARS scores at all timepoints. HDRS scores did not differ between the two groups at any timepoint. However, the reduction in HARS scores in the comorbid group was stronger than in the BD-I only group, albeit not significantly. Side effects were few and mild-to-moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

The open-label design and the relatively short observation period may expose to both type I and type II statistical errors (false positive and false negatives). Asenapine showed effectiveness and safety in hospitalized BD-I patients. Its effect was stronger in patients without comorbid SUD.

The International College of Neuro-Psychopharmacology (CINP) Treatment Guidelines for Bipolar Disorder in Adults (CINP-BD-2017), Part 2: Review, Grading of the Evidence, and a Precise Algorithm

Background

The current paper includes a systematic search of the literature, a detailed presentation of the results, and a grading of treatment options in terms of efficacy and tolerability/safety.

Material and Methods

The PRISMA method was used in the literature search with the combination of the words 'bipolar,' 'manic,' 'mania,' 'manic depression,' and 'manic depressive' with 'randomized,' and 'algorithms' with 'mania,' 'manic,' 'bipolar,' 'manic-depressive,' or 'manic depression.' Relevant web pages and review articles were also reviewed.

Results

The current report is based on the analysis of 57 guideline papers and 531 published papers related to RCTs, reviews, posthoc, or meta-analysis papers to March 25, 2016. The specific treatment options for acute mania, mixed episodes, acute bipolar depression, maintenance phase, psychotic and mixed features, anxiety, and rapid cycling were evaluated with regards to efficacy. Existing treatment guidelines were also reviewed. Finally, Tables reflecting efficacy and recommendation levels were created that led to the development of a precise algorithm that still has to prove its feasibility in everyday clinical practice.

Conclusions

A systematic literature search was conducted on the pharmacological treatment of bipolar disorder to identify all relevant random controlled trials pertaining to all aspects of bipolar disorder and graded the data according to a predetermined method to develop a precise treatment algorithm for management of various phases of bipolar disorder. It is important to note that the some of the recommendations in the treatment algorithm were based on the secondary outcome data from posthoc analyses.

Effects of repeated asenapine in a battery of tests for anxiety-like behaviours in mice

OBJECTIVE

A number of atypical antipsychotic drugs were demonstrated to have anxiolytic effects in patients and in animal models. These effects were mostly suggested to be the consequence of the drugs' affinity to the serotonin system and its receptors. Asenapine is a relatively new atypical antipsychotic that is prescribed for schizophrenia and for bipolar mania. Asenapine has a broad pharmacological profile with significant effects on serotonergic receptors, hence it is reasonable to expect that asenapine may have some anxiolytic effects. The present study was therefore designed to examine possible effects of asenapine on anxiety-like behaviour of mice.

METHOD

Male ICR mice were repeatedly treated with 0.1 or 0.3 mg/kg injections of asenapine and then tested in a battery of behavioural tests related to anxiety including the open-field test, elevated plus-maze (EPM), defensive marble burying and hyponeophagia tests. In an adjunct experiment, we tested the effects of acute diazepam in the same test battery.

RESULTS

The results show that diazepam reduced anxiety-like behaviour in the EPM, the defensive marble burying test and the hyponeophagia test but not in the open field. Asenapine has anxiolytic-like effects in the EPM and the defensive marble burying tests but had no effects in the open-field or the hyponeophagia tests. Asenapine had no effects on locomotor activity.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that asenapine may have anxiolytic-like properties and recommends that clinical trials examining such effects should be performed.

Asenapine for bipolar disorder

Asenapine (Saphris(®)) is an atypical antipsychotic drug which has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of schizophrenia in adults, as well as the treatment of acute manic or mixed episodes of bipolar I in both adult and pediatric populations. Asenapine is a tetracyclic drug with antidopaminergic and antiserotonergic activity with a unique sublingual route of administration. In this review, we examine and summarize the available literature on the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of asenapine in the treatment of bipolar disorder (BD). Data from randomized, double-blind trials comparing asenapine to placebo or olanzapine in the treatment of acute manic or mixed episodes showed asenapine to be an effective monotherapy treatment in clinical settings; asenapine outperformed placebo and showed noninferior performance to olanzapine based on improvement in the Young Mania Rating Scale scores. There are limited data available on the use of asenapine in the treatment of depressive symptoms of BD, or in the maintenance phase of BD. The available data are inconclusive, suggesting the need for more robust data from prospective trials in these clinical domains. The most commonly reported adverse effect associated with use of asenapine is somnolence. However, the somnolence associated with asenapine use did not cause significant rates of discontinuation. While asenapine was associated with weight gain when compared to placebo, it appeared to be modest when compared to other atypical antipsychotics, and its propensity to cause increases in hemoglobin A1c or serum lipid levels appeared to be similarly modest. Asenapine does not appear to cause any clinically significant QTc prolongation. The most commonly reported extra-pyramidal symptom associated with asenapine was akathisia. Overall, asenapine appears to be a relatively well-tolerated atypical antipsychotic, effective in the treatment of acute manic and mixed episodes of BD.

The significance of mixed states in depression and mania

The DSM-5 definition of mixed features "specifier" of manic, hypomanic and major depressive episodes captures sub-syndromal non-overlapping symptoms of the opposite pole, experienced in bipolar (I, II, and not otherwise specified) and major depressive disorders. This combinatory model seems to be more appropriate for less severe forms of mixed state, in which mood symptoms are prominent and clearly identifiable. Sub-syndromal depressive symptoms have been frequently reported to co-occur during mania. Similarly, manic or hypomanic symptoms during depression resulted common, dimensionally distributed, and recurrent. The presence of mixed features has been associated with a worse clinical course and high rates of comorbidities including anxiety, personality, alcohol and substance use disorders and head trauma or other neurological problems. Finally, mixed states represent a major therapeutic challenge, especially when you consider that these forms tend to have a less favorable response to drug treatments and require a more complex approach than non-mixed forms.

Use of asenapine as add-on therapy in the treatment of bipolar disorder: a comprehensive review and case series

INTRODUCTION

Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs), conducted in schizophrenic and bipolar patients, have documented the efficacy and tolerability of asenapine as monotherapy both for short- and long-term treatment. However, evidence on its augmentative use is more limited and related to the manic/mixed phase of bipolar disorder (BD).

AREAS COVERED

The present article reviews augmentative asenapine efficacy and safety/tolerability in the treatment of BD. It also includes some original cases of bipolar patients treated with add-on asenapine in the short- and long-term.

EXPERT OPINION

To date, only a single RCT with manic/mixed patients with partial response to mood-stabilizer monotherapy supports the efficacy and safety/tolerability of augmentative asenapine to lithium/valproate, both in acute and long-term treatment. Additionally, two case reports confirm the overall effectiveness of augmentative asenapine to clozapine and valproate. Our case series, consisting of 4 bipolar patients treated with adjunctive asenapine to mood stabilizers and atypical antipsychotics - with treatment duration ranging from 1 to 14 months - provided clinical results that are consistent with literature data. Taken as a whole, available evidence seems to support the efficacy and safety of adjunctive asenapine in bipolar patients, though additional studies with active comparators are requested to confirm the current body of evidence.

Cost-effectiveness of asenapine in the treatment of bipolar I disorder patients with mixed episodes

OBJECTIVE

Around one-third of patients with bipolar I disorder (BD-I) experience mixed episodes, characterized by both mania and depression, which tend to be more difficult and costly to treat. Atypical antipsychotics are recommended for the treatment of mixed episodes, although evidence of their efficacy, tolerability, and cost in these patients is limited. This study evaluates, from a UK National Health Service perspective, the cost-effectiveness of asenapine vs olanzapine in BD-I patients with mixed episodes.

METHODS

Cost-effectiveness was assessed using a Markov model. Efficacy was informed by a post-hoc analysis of two short-term clinical trials, with response measured as a composite Young Mania Rating Score and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale end-point. Probabilities of discontinuation and relapse to manic, mixed, and depressive episodes were sourced from published meta-analyses. Direct costs (2012-2013 values) included drug acquisition, monitoring, and resource use related to bipolar disorder as well as selected adverse events. Benefits were measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

RESULTS

For treating mixed episodes, asenapine generated 0.0187 more QALYs for an additional cost of £24 compared to olanzapine over a 5-year period, corresponding to a £1302 incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The higher acquisition cost of asenapine was roughly offset by the healthcare savings conferred through its greater efficacy in treating these patients. The model shows that benefits were driven by earlier response to asenapine during acute treatment and were maintained during longer-term follow-up. RESULTS were sensitive to changes in key parameters including short and longer-term efficacy, unit cost, and utilities, but conclusions remained relatively robust.

CONCLUSIONS

RESULTS suggest that asenapine is a cost-effective alternative to olanzapine in mixed episode BD-I patients, and may have specific advantages in this population, potentially leading to healthcare sector savings and improved outcomes. Limitations of the analysis stem from gaps in clinical and economic evidence for these patients and should be addressed by future clinical trials.