A 3-week, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of asenapine in the treatment of acute mania in bipolar mania and mixed states

Diagnosis and management of bipolar disorders

Bipolar disorders (BDs) are recurrent and sometimes chronic disorders of mood that affect around 2% of the world's population and encompass a spectrum between severe elevated and excitable mood states (mania) to the dysphoria, low energy, and despondency of depressive episodes. The illness commonly starts in young adults and is a leading cause of disability and premature mortality. The clinical manifestations of bipolar disorder can be markedly varied between and within individuals across their lifespan. Early diagnosis is challenging and misdiagnoses are frequent, potentially resulting in missed early intervention and increasing the risk of iatrogenic harm. Over 15 approved treatments exist for the various phases of bipolar disorder, but outcomes are often suboptimal owing to insufficient efficacy, side effects, or lack of availability. Lithium, the first approved treatment for bipolar disorder, continues to be the most effective drug overall, although full remission is only seen in a subset of patients. Newer atypical antipsychotics are increasingly being found to be effective in the treatment of bipolar depression; however, their long term tolerability and safety are uncertain. For many with bipolar disorder, combination therapy and adjunctive psychotherapy might be necessary to treat symptoms across different phases of illness. Several classes of medications exist for treating bipolar disorder but predicting which medication is likely to be most effective or tolerable is not yet possible. As pathophysiological insights into the causes of bipolar disorders are revealed, a new era of targeted treatments aimed at causal mechanisms, be they pharmacological or psychosocial, will hopefully be developed. For the time being, however, clinical judgment, shared decision making, and empirical follow-up remain essential elements of clinical care. This review provides an overview of the clinical features, diagnostic subtypes, and major treatment modalities available to treat people with bipolar disorder, highlighting recent advances and ongoing therapeutic challenges.

Taiwan consensus on biological treatment of bipolar disorder during the acute, maintenance, and mixed phases: The 2022 update

BACKGROUND

Bipolar disorder is a mood dysregulation characterized by recurrent symptoms and episodes of mania, hypomania, depression, and mixed mood. The complexity of treating patients with bipolar disorder prompted the Taiwanese Society of Biological Psychiatry and Neuropsychopharmacology (TSBPN) to publish the first Taiwan consensus on pharmacological treatment of bipolar disorders in 2012. This paper presents the updated consensus, with changes in diagnostic criteria (i.e., mixed features) and emerging pharmacological evidence published up to April 2022.

METHODS

Our working group systemically reviewed the clinical research evidence and international guidelines and determined the levels of evidence for each pharmacological treatment on the basis of the most recent World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry grading system. Four clinical-specific issues were proposed. The current TSBPN Bipolar Taskforce then discussed research evidence and clinical experience related to each treatment option in terms of efficacy and acceptability and then appraised final recommendation grades through anonymous voting.

RESULTS

In the updated consensus, we include the pharmacological recommendations for bipolar disorder with mixed features considering its high prevalence, the severe clinical prognosis, and the absence of approved medications. Cariprazine, lurasidone, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, and ketamine are incorporated as treatment options. In the maintenance phase, the application of long-acting injectable antipsychotics is emphasized, and the hazards of using antidepressants and conventional antipsychotics are proposed.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated Taiwan consensus on pharmacological treatment for bipolar disorder provides concise evidence-based and empirical recommendations for clinical psychiatric practice. It may facilitate treatment outcome improvement in patients with bipolar disorder.

Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) and International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) recommendations for the management of patients with bipolar disorder with mixed presentations

OBJECTIVES

The 2018 Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) and International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) guidelines provided clinicians with pragmatic treatment recommendations for bipolar disorder (BD). While these guidelines included commentary on how mixed features may direct treatment selection, specific recommendations were not provided-a critical gap which the current update aims to address.

METHOD

Overview of research regarding mixed presentations in BD, with treatment recommendations developed using a modified CANMAT/ISBD rating methodology. Limitations are discussed, including the dearth of high-quality data and reliance on expert opinion.

RESULTS

No agents met threshold for first-line treatment of DSM-5 manic or depressive episodes with mixed features. For mania + mixed features second-line treatment options include asenapine, cariprazine, divalproex, and aripiprazole. In depression + mixed features, cariprazine and lurasidone are recommended as second-line options. For DSM-IV defined mixed episodes, with a longer history of research, asenapine and aripiprazole are first-line, and olanzapine (monotherapy or combination), carbamazepine, and divalproex are second-line. Research on maintenance treatments following a DSM-5 mixed presentation is extremely limited, with third-line recommendations based on expert opinion. For maintenance treatment following a DSM-IV mixed episode, quetiapine (monotherapy or combination) is first-line, and lithium and olanzapine identified as second-line options.

CONCLUSION

The CANMAT and ISBD groups hope these guidelines provide valuable support for clinicians providing care to patients experiencing mixed presentations, as well as further influence investment in research to improve diagnosis and treatment of this common and complex clinical state.

Specific Anti-hostility Effects of Atypical Antipsychotics in Persons with Schizophrenia: From Clozapine to Cariprazine

LEARNING OBJECTIVE

After participating in this activity, learners should be better able to:• Evaluate the anti-hostility effects of available atypical antipsychotic agents.

ABSTRACT

In addition to hallucinations and delusions, persons with schizophrenia may exhibit hostility. In clinical trials of antipsychotics, hostility is routinely measured as part of rating scales such as the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale or Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale. The availability of the atypical antipsychotic clozapine in 1989 led to the observation that it is possible to have a treatment effect on hostility that is independent of the treatment effect on hallucinations or delusions, and independent of general sedative effects. The data supporting this notion of a specific anti-hostility effect are the most robust for clozapine as the data include specifically designed randomized, controlled clinical trials. A specific anti-hostility effect is also observable to various degrees with most of the other atypical antipsychotics, as evidenced in post hoc analyses of clinical trials originally conducted for regulatory purposes, supplemented by post hoc analyses of large effectiveness trials. The generalizability of these studies, however, may be limited. Participants in these trials were not selected for aggressive and hostile behavior. Some of the studies also excluded patients with substance use disorders. The latter is particularly important because alcohol and substance use are well known to increase risk for hostility and aggression. Nevertheless, the repeated demonstrations of the specificity of an anti-hostility effect (in terms of statistical independence of effects on other positive symptoms and of sedation) are of potential clinical importance.

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.

Acceptability of Acute and Maintenance Pharmacotherapy of Bipolar Disorder: A Systematic Review of Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trials

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to estimate and rank the risk for the discontinuation due to adverse events (DAEs), 7% or more weight gain (WG), and somnolence during the acute and maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder with a mood stabilizer or an antipsychotic monotherapy.

METHODS/PROCEDURES

The search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and clinicaltrials.gov from the inception to December 31, 2018, provided 32 studies in mania, 16 in bipolar depression, and 13 in maintenance. Data of DAEs, WG, and somnolence from each study were extracted. The risk for these variables of an active treatment relative to placebo was estimated with a number needed to harm (NNH) as a single study and pooled sample.

FINDINGS/RESULTS

For DAEs, pooled NNH ranged from 19 with carbamazepine to -21 with quetiapine-XR in mania, 11 with quetiapine-IR 600 mg/d to -37 with olanzapine/fluoxetine combination in bipolar depression, and 5 with lithium to -8 with asenapine in maintenance. For WG, pooled NNH ranged from 9 with olanzapine to -78 with aripiprazole in mania, 5 with olanzapine to -112 with lithium in bipolar depression, and 4 with olanzapine to 126 with asenapine in maintenance. For somnolence, pooled NNH was from 5 with carbamazepine to 23 with cariprazine in mania, 3 with quetiapine-XR 300 mg/d to 79 with lurasidone in bipolar depression, and 11 with olanzapine to -49 with aripiprazole in maintenance.

IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS

All medications studied in bipolar disorder were relatively well tolerated during different phases of treatment; however, the risk for short- and long-term WG and somnolence varied widely among included psychotropics.

Asenapine prescribing patterns in the treatment of manic in- and outpatients: Results from the MANACOR study

Background:

Asenapine is the most recent compound that has been FDA- and EMA-approved for treatment of mania. Its efficacy and safety have been assessed in placebo-controlled trials, but little is known about its performance in routine clinical conditions. In this study, we compared features of patients treated with adjunctive asenapine or other adjunctive antipsychotics and the costs of the treatment.

Methods:

A combined prospective and retrospective data collection and analysis was conducted from January 2011 to December 2013 following a clinical interview and assessment of manic and depressive symptoms (YMRS, HDRS-17), clinical state (CGI-BP-M), psychosocial functioning (FAST), sexual dysfunction (PRSexDQ) and health resource costs associated with treatment with adjunctive asenapine versus other adjunctive antipsychotics.

Results:

Hundred and fifty-two patients from different university hospitals were included. Fifty-three patients received adjunctive asenapine and 99 received other adjunctive antipsychotics concomitantly to mood stabilizers. Considering inpatients, those treated with adjunctive asenapine presented a significantly less severe manic episode (P = 0.001), less psychotic symptoms (P = 0.030) and more comorbid personality disorder (P = 0.002). Regarding outpatients, those treated with adjunctive asenapine showed significantly less severe manic episode (P = 0.046), more previous mixed episodes (P = 0.013) and more sexual dysfunction at baseline (P = 0.036). No significant differences were found in mean total costs per day.

Conclusion:

Clinicians tended to use adjunctive asenapine in patients with less severe manic symptoms but more complex clinical profile, including more mixed episodes in the past, concomitant personality disorder, and sexual problems. Treatment with adjunctive asenapine was not associated with higher costs when compared to other options.

Pharmacologic Treatment of Mixed States

Despite the relatively high prevalence of mixed symptoms and features among patients with mood disorders, the current literature supporting the specific efficacy of second-generation antipsychotics and mood stabilizers for the treatment of mixed symptoms is limited. Several studies have demonstrated that acute affective episodes with mixed symptoms or features tend to respond unsatisfactory to treatments that are usually more effective for the management of other affective phases. There is clearly a need for clinical trials in order to determine the more adequate pharmacologic option for the treatment of individuals suffering from affective episodes with mixed features.

Efficacy and Safety of Asenapine Versus Olanzapine in Combination With Divalproex for Acute Mania: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Atypical antipsychotics are used for the treatment of acute mania, either as monotherapy or in combination with lithium or divalproex, which have a better tolerability profile as compared with typical antipsychotics. Asenapine, a newer atypical antipsychotic, has been found to be effective for the treatment of mania, with efficacy similar to olanzapine. The objective of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of asenapine and olanzapine when used in combination with divalproex in patients with acute mania.

METHODS

One hundred twenty patients aged 18 to 55 years, diagnosed with manic episode, were randomized to receive either flexible dose of sublingual asenapine (10-20 mg/d) or tablet olanzapine (10-20 mg/d), in combination with valproate 20 mg/kg per day for a period of 6 weeks. Efficacy was measured as change in Young Mania Rating Scale and Clinical Global Impression-Bipolar using intention-to-treat analysis with last observation carried forward, and safety was measured using Udvalg for Kliniske Undersøgelser scale and Modified Simpson-Angus Extrapyramidal Side Effects Scale.

RESULTS

There was a significant reduction in Young Mania Rating Scale and Clinical Global Impression-Bipolar scores over time in both groups, with a significantly higher reduction in the olanzapine group as shown by the group × time interaction effect. Higher weight gain, increased sleep and appetite, and tremors were seen in the olanzapine-treated patients as compared with asenapine-treated patients; however, tongue hypesthesia was seen in the asenapine group only.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that asenapine was an effective and well-tolerated atypical antipsychotic alternative to olanzapine in combination with divalproex for the short-term management of acute mania.

Treatment of Mixed Features in Bipolar Disorder: an Updated View

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Mixed presentations in bipolar disorder have long posed clinical and nosological challenges. The DSM-5 mixed features specifier was developed to provide a more flexible and clinically relevant definition of mixed presentations compared with narrowly defined DSM-IV mixed episodes. However, there is little guidance on treating such presentations. Here, we summarize the evidence for biological treatments of DSM-5 and similarly defined mixed features (MFs).

RECENT FINDINGS

The literature on treating MFs is almost exclusively based on post hoc analyses. Within this limited evidence base is preliminary positive data for aripiprazole, asenapine, cariprazine, olanzapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone in treating acute mania with MFs, and cariprazine, lurasidone, olanzapine, and ziprasidone for depressive symptoms in depression with MFs. Divalproex may also be efficacious for acute mania with MFs. The few extant maintenance studies suggest that divalproex and olanzapine may have long-term efficacy in those with index MFs or for the prevention of MFs, respectively. The existing evidence suggests that clinicians consider atypical antipsychotics and divalproex for treating acute mixed presentations. However, adequately powered treatment trials-and studies of maintenance and neurostimulation therapies-are needed. Additionally, data-driven techniques to identify relevant symptom clusters may help improve our conceptualization of mixed presentations.

Transdermal Asenapine in Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Asenapine is a novel antipsychotic that has demonstrated efficacy in controlling psychosis in schizophrenia and mania in bipolar illness. It must be administered as a sublingual formulation because it is nearly completely metabolized in the first pass through the liver. Recently, a transdermal formulation of asenapine has been approved for schizophrenia by the Food and Drug Administration.

METHODS

A systematic review of transdermal asenapine was done utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) model.

DISCUSSION

There are several formulations of transdermal asenapine but only Secuado^® has been approved for clinical use. Total bioavailability is 35%. Peak plasma concentration (Cmax) is 4 ng/mL and occurs within 1 hr (Tmax); elimination half-life (t_1/2) is 24 hrs (range 13.4 to 39.2 h). Asenapine is highly bound (95%) to albumin and α₁-acid glycoprotein. It has a unique receptor profile in which it functions as an antagonist at multiple receptors with affinity that is higher than D₂ (K_i = 1.3) including D₃, D₄, 5HT_2A, 5HT_2C, 5HT_2B, 5HT₇, 5HT₆, H₁, and α2. This profile suggests that asenapine may be of particular value off label for bipolar depression, anxiety, and aggression. Transdermal asenapine was only tested in one randomized, placebo-controlled study of acute psychosis in schizophrenia. It was superior to placebo at week 6 with nearly one-third of patients experiencing >30% improvement in total PANSS score which translates in a number needed to treat (NNT) of 9.

Comparison of common side effects from mood stabilizers and antipsychotics between pediatric and adult patients with bipolar disorder: a systematic review of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

To compare common side effects of mood stabilizers (MSs) and antipsychotics in pediatric and adult bipolar disorder (BD).

AREAS COVERED

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO was searched for randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) in the treatment of pediatric and adult BD. Twelve RCTs for pediatric patients and 30 for adult patients were included. The risk for the discontinuation due to adverse events, ≥7% weight gain, somnolence, akathisia, nausea and vomiting from a medication relative to placebo was estimated with absolute risk increase and the number needed to harm. The relative risk of these measures in pediatric and adult patients was compared.

EXPERT OPINION

Overall, the relative risk for ≥7% weight gain, somnolence, nausea, or vomiting was higher, and akathisia was lower in pediatric patients than in adults. The magnitude of difference among MSs and antipsychotics and between pediatrics and adults varied widely. The risk for pediatric patients could be underestimated because in most pediatric studies, doses of studied medications were lower and flexibly dosed, and titration speeds were slower than in adult studies. Clinicians should pay attention to differences in study designs to understand the risk for common side effects when prescribing a medication for BD.

Medication-Induced Akathisia with Newly Approved Antipsychotics in Patients with a Severe Mental Illness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Akathisia is a common and distressing movement disorder that can be associated with the use of antipsychotics. It is characterized by a subjective (inner restlessness) and an objective (excessive movements) component. Akathisia can have a negative impact on clinical outcome and even lead to treatment discontinuation. Although medication-induced akathisia is more commonly associated with the use of first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs), it also occurs with second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs), including the newly approved antipsychotics (NAPs) asenapine, lurasidone, iloperidone, cariprazine, and brexpiprazole. Until now, no meta-analysis has been published on the risk of akathisia for all NAPs, as monotherapy or adjunctive treatment, in patients with a severe mental illness.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to (i) compare akathisia incidence rates of the NAPs, as monotherapy or adjunctive treatment, in adult patients with a severe mental illness (i.e., schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depressive disorder), using data from published and unpublished randomized controlled trials; and (ii) examine the role of several study characteristics explaining differences in akathisia incidence rates between studies.

METHODS

A systematic literature search, using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases (until October 2018), was conducted for English-language placebo- as well as active-controlled clinical trials, including subjective (percentage of patients reporting akathisia) and/or scale-defined medication-induced akathisia incidence rates with NAPs (as monotherapy or as adjunctive treatment) in adult patients with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depressive disorder. Additional unpublished clinical trials were identified through the ClinicalTrials.gov electronic database. Two meta-analyses (incidence rates and odds ratio [OR] [placebo vs. active] of medication-induced akathisia with NAPs) were performed to obtain an optimal estimation of akathisia risks of adult patients with a severe mental illness under these treatment conditions and to assess the role of study characteristics.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirteen reports were selected as potentially eligible for our meta-analysis. Of these, 48 met the inclusion criteria. Eight records, identified through the ClinicalTrials.gov database and cross-referencing, and which fulfilled the inclusion criteria, were added, resulting in a total of 56 records (iloperidone = 5, asenapine = 11, lurasidone = 15, brexpiprazole = 13, cariprazine = 12). The estimated weighted mean incidence rate of akathisia was 7.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.5-9.1), with estimates being 3.9% (95% CI 2.4-6.3) for iloperidone, 6.8% (95% CI 5.1-9.0) for asenapine, 10.0% (95% CI 7.4-13.5) for brexpiprazole, 12.7% (95% CI 10.1-16.1) for lurasidone, and 17.2% (95% CI 13.4-22.1) for cariprazine. After Tukey-adjustment for multiple testing, the incidence rate of akathisia was significantly (p < 0.05) lower for iloperidone than for brexpiprazole, lurasidone, and cariprazine. In addition, the incidence rate of akathisia was significantly (p < 0.05) lower for asenapine than for lurasidone and cariprazine. Finally, the incidence rate of akathisia was significantly (p < 0.05) lower for brexpiprazole than for cariprazine. Type of medication (p < 0.0001), diagnosis (p = 0.02), and race (p = 0.0003) significantly explained part of the heterogeneity of the incidence estimates of akathisia between studies. The estimated weighted OR of akathisia under medication, compared with placebo, was 2.43 (95% CI 1.91-3.10). The OR was smallest for iloperidone (OR 1.20; 95% CI 0.42-3.45) and increased for brexpiprazole (OR 2.04; 95% CI 1.09-3.83), asenapine (OR 2.37; 95% CI 1.32-4.27), lurasidone (OR 3.74; 95% CI 2.32-6.02), and cariprazine (OR 4.35; 95% CI 2.80-6.75). Only type of medication (p = 0.03) explained systematic differences in the OR for akathisia between placebo versus active treatment across studies. After Tukey-adjustment for multiple testing, no significant differences between these ORs were found. The severity of akathisia with NAPs generally is mild to moderate, only leading to treatment discontinuation in a minority of cases (< 5%).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a NAP raises the akathisia risk more than two-fold when compared with patients receiving placebo. Although distinctions between the different NAPs were not clear in placebo-controlled trials, the results of our meta-analyses and systematic review generally indicate that these differences more than likely reflect real differences, with iloperidone showing the most and cariprazine showing the least benign akathisia profile. Moreover, due to patient characteristics and methodological issues, incidence rates of akathisia with NAPs found in this meta-analysis may even be an underestimation of true incidence rates.

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.

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.

Mixed states in bipolar and major depressive disorders: systematic review and quality appraisal of guidelines

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review provided a critical synthesis and a comprehensive overview of guidelines on the treatment of mixed states.

METHOD

The MEDLINE/PubMed and EMBASE databases were systematically searched from inception to March 21st, 2018. International guidelines covering the treatment of mixed episodes, manic/hypomanic, or depressive episodes with mixed features were considered for inclusion. A methodological quality assessment was conducted with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-AGREE II.

RESULTS

The final selection yielded six articles. Despite their heterogeneity, all guidelines agreed in interrupting an antidepressant monotherapy or adding mood-stabilizing medications. Olanzapine seemed to have the best evidence for acute mixed hypo/manic/depressive states and maintenance treatment. Aripiprazole and paliperidone were possible alternatives for acute hypo/manic mixed states. Lurasidone and ziprasidone were useful in acute mixed depression. Valproate was recommended for the prevention of new mixed episodes while lithium and quetiapine in preventing affective episodes of all polarities. Clozapine and electroconvulsive therapy were effective in refractory mixed episodes. The AGREE II overall assessment rate ranged between 42% and 92%, indicating different quality level of included guidelines.

CONCLUSION

The unmet needs for the mixed symptoms treatment were associated with diagnostic issues and limitations of previous research, particularly for maintenance treatment.

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.

Management of asenapine treatment in clinical practice: Recommendations from a panel of experts

INTRODUCTION

The choice of an antipsychotic should be based on bipolar disorder (BD) symptoms and the particular needs of each patient, as well as the adverse events potentially associated with treatment. Asenapine is an atypical antipsychotic indicated for the management of type-I BD, with distinct pharmacokinetic and receptor affinity profiles.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Recommendations document developed by a panel of experts with extensive experience in the use of asenapine in psychiatric care, including emergency department, hospital, and outpatient care. Recommendations were discussed in a single meeting and were based on both the clinical experience of the panel of experts and the empirical evidence provided in the scientific literature.

RESULTS

The present document describes the patient profile that best suits the pharmacodynamic characteristics of asenapine, as well as the advantages and limitations of the pharmacokinetics associated with the sublingual route. The document also addresses the main safety issues of asenapine and suggests interventions aimed at mitigating the most frequent adverse reactions associated with asenapine treatment. Finally, the article provides advice on dosing and overall management of asenapine treatment, including the combination with other treatments and the switch from other antipsychotics to asenapine.

CONCLUSIONS

In this recommendations document, we provide clinicians with guidance on the use of asenapine in real-life practice, including the identification of patients who best suit the characteristics of this antipsychotic.

The World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) Guidelines for the Biological Treatment of Bipolar Disorders: Acute and long-term treatment of mixed states in bipolar disorder

OBJECTIVES

Although clinically highly relevant, the recognition and treatment of bipolar mixed states has played only an underpart in recent guidelines. This WFSBP guideline has been developed to supply a systematic overview of all scientific evidence pertaining to the acute and long-term treatment of bipolar mixed states in adults.

METHODS

Material used for these guidelines is based on a systematic literature search using various data bases. Their scientific rigour was categorised into six levels of evidence (A-F), and different grades of recommendation to ensure practicability were assigned. We examined data pertaining to the acute treatment of manic and depressive symptoms in bipolar mixed patients, as well as data pertaining to the prevention of mixed recurrences after an index episode of any type, or recurrence of any type after a mixed index episode.

RESULTS

Manic symptoms in bipolar mixed states appeared responsive to treatment with several atypical antipsychotics, the best evidence resting with olanzapine. For depressive symptoms, addition of ziprasidone to treatment as usual may be beneficial; however, the evidence base is much more limited than for the treatment of manic symptoms. Besides olanzapine and quetiapine, valproate and lithium should also be considered for recurrence prevention.

LIMITATIONS

The concept of mixed states changed over time, and recently became much more comprehensive with the release of DSM-5. As a consequence, studies in bipolar mixed patients targeted slightly different bipolar subpopulations. In addition, trial designs in acute and maintenance treatment also advanced in recent years in response to regulatory demands.

CONCLUSIONS

Current treatment recommendations are still based on limited evidence, and there is a clear demand for confirmative studies adopting the DSM-5 specifier with mixed features concept.

An overview of pharmacotherapy for bipolar I disorder

INTRODUCTION

Bipolar I disorder (BD I) is complex with a chronic course that significantly impacts a sufferer's quality of life. As of right now, there are many available treatments that aim to rapidly treat manic or depressive episodes and stabilize mood. The purpose of this report is to provide an up-to-date comprehensive review of the available evidence-based trials of pharmacotherapy for the treatment of BD I.

AREAS COVERED

This paper reviews randomized active comparator-controlled or placebo-controlled trials evaluating the use of current pharmacotherapy in adults with BD I from phase III to clinical practice. Monotherapy and combination therapy for acute and long-term treatment were reviewed for this purpose.

EXPERT OPINION

There are many treatments available for BD mania; however, the depressive and stabilization phases of the illness remain a clinical challenge. Unfortunately, randomized controlled trials do not represent 'real world' patients, as their strict inclusion and exclusion criteria do not allow for different features sometimes present in patients to be considered. Research efforts must also focus on treating cognitive deficits, which adds to lower functional outcome. The authors believe that there is dire need for new, more targeted treatments in BD I, with a critical view of the side effects.

Asenapine Treatment in Pediatric Patients with Bipolar I Disorder or Schizophrenia: A Review

Asenapine, administered as a twice-daily (BID) sublingual tablet, is approved in the US as monotherapy for the acute treatment of manic and mixed episodes of bipolar I disorder in children and adolescents aged 10-17 years based on the positive results of one 3-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study; the recommended dose is 2.5-10 mg BID. Although asenapine has been studied in pediatric patients with schizophrenia, it is not approved for this indication. Asenapine is not approved for pediatric use in bipolar I disorder or schizophrenia in other major markets. To inform clinicians treating psychiatric disorders in pediatric patients, we have summarized the neuropharmacology, pharmacokinetics, clinical trial experience, and clinical use of asenapine in pediatric patients. After rapid absorption through the oral mucosa, the pharmacokinetic profile of asenapine in pediatric patients is similar to that which is observed in adult patients, indicating that the recommended adult dosage does not need to be adjusted for pediatric use. Intake of food and water should be avoided for 10 min after administration. In clinical trials, asenapine was generally safe and well tolerated in pediatric patients with bipolar I disorder and schizophrenia. Serious adverse effects were generally related to worsening of the underlying psychiatric disorder. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in both indications were sedation and somnolence. Like some other second-generation antipsychotic agents, weight gain and changes in some metabolic parameters were noted; oral effects (e.g., oral hypoesthesia, dysgeusia, paresthesia) related to sublingual administration did not typically result in treatment discontinuation and were generally transient. Extrapyramidal symptom TEAEs occurred in ≥5% of asenapine-treated patients in the acute and long-term studies in bipolar I disorder and schizophrenia.

Anxiety, irritability, and agitation as indicators of bipolar mania with depressive symptoms: a post hoc analysis of two clinical trials

Background

Symptoms of anxiety, irritability, and agitation (AIA) are prevalent among patients with bipolar I disorder (BD-I) mania with depressive symptoms, and could potentially be used to aid physicians in the identification of this more severe form of BD-I. Using data from two clinical trials, the aims of this post hoc analysis were to describe the phenomenology of bipolar mania in terms of AIA and depressive symptoms, and to evaluate the influence of these symptoms on the likelihood of remission during treatment.

Methods

Patients with a BD-I manic or mixed episode (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV criteria) were randomised to 3 weeks of double-blind treatment with asenapine, placebo, or olanzapine (active comparator). Anxiety was defined as a score of ≥3 on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale ‘anxiety’ item, irritability as a score of ≥4 on the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) ‘irritability’ item, and agitation as a score of ≥3 on the YMRS ‘increased motor activity–energy’ item. Depressive symptoms were defined as a score of ≥1 on three or more individual Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) items, or a MADRS Total score of ≥20.

Results

A total of 960 patients with BD-I were analysed, 665 with a manic episode and 295 with a mixed episode. At baseline, 61.4% had anxiety, 62.4% had irritability, 76.4% had agitation, and 34.0% had all three AIA symptoms (‘severe AIA’); 47.3% had three or more depressive symptoms, and 13.5% had a MADRS total score of ≥20. Anxiety, irritability, and severe AIA (but not agitation) were statistically significantly more common in patients with depressive symptoms. Patients with anxiety or severe AIA at baseline were statistically significantly less likely to achieve remission (YMRS total <12). In general, remission rates were higher with asenapine and olanzapine than with placebo, irrespective of baseline AIA or depressive symptoms.

Conclusions

Assessment of AIA symptoms in bipolar mania could enable physicians to identify patients with more severe depressive symptoms, allowing for appropriate intervention. Assessment and monitoring of AIA may help physicians to predict which patients may be harder to treat and at risk for self-harm.

Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00159744, NCT00159796. Registered 8 September 2005 (retrospectively registered)

Mixed states in bipolar disorder - changes in DSM-5 and current treatment recommendations

OBJECTIVE

Mixed states in affective disorders represent a particular challenge in clinical routine, characterized by a complicated course of treatment and a worse treatment response.

METHODS

Clinical features of mixed states and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) criteria are presented and critical discussed. We then performed a systematic review using the terms 'bipolar', 'mixed' and 'randomized' to evaluate current treatment options.

RESULTS

For pharmacological treatment of mixed states in total, there is still insufficient data from RCTs. However, there is some evidence for efficacy in mixed states from RCTs for atypical antipsychotics, especially olanzapine, aripiprazole and asenapine as well as mood stabilizers as valproate and carbamazepine.

CONCLUSIONS

Mixed states are of a high clinical relevance and the DSM-5 criteria substantially reduced the diagnostic threshold. Besides advantages of a better characterization of patients with former DSM-IV-defined mixed episodes, disadvantages arise for example differential diagnoses with a substantial overlap in symptoms such as borderline personality disorders. Atypical antipsychotics, valproate and carbamazepine demonstrated efficacy in a limited sample of RCTs.

LIMITATIONS

The number of RCTs in the treatment of mixed states is highly limited. Furthermore, nearly all studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies which may lead to an underestimation of classical mood stabilizers such as lithium.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Asenapine Compared with Olanzapine in Borderline Personality Disorder: An Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Asenapine is a new second-generation antipsychotic that is understudied in borderline personality disorder (BPD). Only one study investigating the use of the drug in this indication (an open-label pilot study) has been conducted to date.

OBJECTIVE

The present open-label, randomized, controlled trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of asenapine in comparison with olanzapine, the most broadly studied antipsychotic in BPD.

METHODS

A total of 51 outpatients aged between 18 and 50 years with a diagnosis of BPD based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) criteria were assigned for 12 weeks to asenapine (5-10 mg/day) or olanzapine (5-10 mg/day). Participants were assessed at baseline and after 12 weeks with the following instruments: the Clinical Global Impression Scale, Severity item (CGI-S), Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A), Social Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS), Borderline Personality Disorder Severity Index (BPDSI), Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, version 11 (BIS-11), Modified Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS), Self-Harm Inventory (SHI), and Dosage Record and Treatment Emergent Symptom Scale (DOTES). Analysis of variance repeated measures was performed. Intention-to-treat analysis with last observation carried forward was conducted.

RESULTS

There were 11 drop-outs (21.57%): six patients taking asenapine and five patients receiving olanzapine. Two patients who received asenapine stopped the drug, one due to oral hypoesthesia and the other due to moderate anxiety. Two patients receiving olanzapine discontinued the treatment because of significant weight gain (≥3 kg). The remaining seven drop-outs resulted from the lack of compliance with the trial prescription. Forty out of the 51 patients (78%) completed the trial: 19 patients received asenapine, while 21 patients received olanzapine. We found a significant within-subject effect (trial duration) for all rating scales, except from the HAM-D, the MOAS, and two items of the BPDSI, namely, "identity disturbance" and "parasuicidal behaviors." A significant effect between subjects was found for the two items of the BPDSI "affective instability" and "dissociation/paranoid ideation." Asenapine was found superior to olanzapine in reducing the affective instability score (P = 0.001), whereas olanzapine was found superior to asenapine in reducing dissociation/paranoid ideation (P = 0.012). However, the study was found to be underpowered to detect a difference between the drugs on the dissociation/paranoid ideation item of the BPDSI. Two patients receiving asenapine experienced akathisia and another two restlessness/anxiety, while three patients receiving olanzapine reported somnolence and two fatigue.

CONCLUSIONS

Asenapine and olanzapine were demonstrated to have a similar efficacy. While asenapine was found to be more efficacious than olanzapine in treating affective instability, olanzapine was superior to asenapine in treating paranoid ideation and dissociation. However, the study was underpowered to detect a difference between groups on the dissociation/paranoid ideation item. Both medications were well tolerated, with asenapine being related to a higher frequency of oral hypoesthesia and akathisia, and olanzapine being prone to induce weight gain. The open-label study design, lack of a placebo group, and small sample size constitute major limitations of this trial. Our findings need to be replicated in further studies. Clinical Trials Registry code: ACTRN12614000551695.

Treating mixed mania/hypomania: a review and synthesis of the evidence

The DSM-5 incorporates a broad concept of mixed states and captured ≥3 nonoverlapping symptoms of the opposite polarity using a "with mixed features" specifier to be applied to manic/hypomanic and major depressive episodes. Pharmacotherapy of mixed states is challenging because of the necessity to treat both manic/hypomanic and depressive symptoms concurrently. High-potency antipsychotics used to treat manic symptoms and antidepressants can potentially deteriorate symptoms of the opposite polarity. This review aimed to provide a synthesis of the current evidence for pharmacotherapy of mixed states with an emphasis on mixed mania/hypomania. A PubMed search was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that were at least moderately sized, included a placebo arm, and contained information on acute-phase and maintenance treatments of adult patients with mixed episodes or mania/hypomania with significant depressive symptoms. Most studies were post-hoc subgroup and pooled analyses of the data from RCTs for acute manic and mixed episodes of bipolar I disorder; only two prospectively examined efficacy for mixed mania/hypomania specifically. Aripiprazole, asenapine, carbamazepine, olanzapine, and ziprasidone showed the strongest evidence of efficacy in acute-phase treatment. Quetiapine and divalproex/valproate were also efficacious. Combination therapies with these atypical antipsychotics and mood stabilizers can be considered in severe cases. Olanzapine and quetiapine (alone or in combination with lithium/divalproex) showed the strongest evidence of efficacy in maintenance treatment. Lithium and lamotrigine may be beneficial given their preventive effects on suicide and depressive relapse. Further prospective studies primarily focusing on mixed states are needed.

Pharmacological treatment of mixed states

Mixed states in bipolar disorder have been neglected, and the data concerning treatment of these conditions have been relatively obscure. To address this, we systematically reviewed published pharmacological treatment data for "mixed states/episodes" in mood disorders, including "with mixed features" in DSM-5. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, clinicaltrials.gov, and controlled-trials.com (with different combinations of the following keywords: "mixed states/features," "bipolar," "depressive symptoms/bipolar depression," "manic symptoms," "treatment," "DSM-5") through to October 2016. We applied a quality-of-evidence approach: first-degree evidence=randomized placebo-controlled studies of pharmacological interventions used as monotherapy; second-degree evidence=a similar design in the absence of a placebo or of a combination therapy as a comparative group; third-degree evidence=case reports, case series, and reviews of published studies. We found very few primary double-blind, placebo-controlled studies on the treatment of mixed states: the preponderance of available data derives from subgroup analysis performed on studies that originally involved manic patients. Future research should study the effects of treatments in mixed states defined using current criteria.

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 asenapine on agitation and hostility in adults with acute manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder

BACKGROUND

Bipolar disorder is associated with an increased risk of aggression. However, effective management of hostility and/or agitation symptoms may prevent patients from becoming violent. This analysis investigated the efficacy of the antipsychotic asenapine on hostility and agitation in patients with bipolar I disorder.

METHODS

Data were pooled from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase III trials of asenapine in adults with manic or mixed episodes of bipolar I disorder (NCT00159744, NCT00159796, and NCT00764478). Post hoc analyses assessed the changes from baseline to day 21 on the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) hostility-related item scores in asenapine- or placebo-treated patients with at least minimal or mild symptom severity and on the PANSS-excited component (PANSS-EC) total score in agitated patients. Changes were adjusted for improvements in overall mania symptoms to investigate direct effects on hostility.

RESULTS

Significantly greater changes in favor of asenapine versus placebo were observed in YMRS hostility-related item scores (irritability: least squares mean difference [95% confidence interval] =-0.5 [-0.87, -0.22], P=0.001; disruptive-aggressive behavior: -0.7 [-0.99, -0.37], P<0.0001), PANSS hostility item score (-0.2 [-0.44, -0.04]; P=0.0181), and PANSS-EC total score (-1.4 [-2.4, -0.4]; P=0.0055). Changes in the YMRS disruptive-aggressive behavior score and the sum of the hostility-related items remained significant after adjusting for improvements in other YMRS item scores.

CONCLUSION

Asenapine significantly reduced hostility and agitation in patients with bipolar I disorder; improvement was at least partially independent of overall improvement on mania symptoms.

Mechanisms underlying the benefits of anticonvulsants over lithium in the treatment of bipolar disorder

Close to 3% of the world's population suffers from bipolar disease (I and II). Of this 3%, bipolar disease affects largely women (∼ 3 : 2 compared with men). The median age of diagnosis is 25 in women and even lower in men. A diagnosis of bipolar disease is an expensive psychiatric diagnosis, costing patients more than twice as much money as a diagnosis of unipolar depression. Bipolar I is characterized by one or more manic or mixed episodes, with both mania and depression occurring each day for at least 1 week, whereas bipolar II is characterized by one or more major depressive episode and at least one episode of hypomania. Bipolar I is the more severe diagnosis. A wide range of medications are available to help patients maintain a healthy lifestyle, including lithium, antidepressants, and anticonvulsants. Improved methods for identifying bipolar disease, including a more structured approach and a more complete use of medical records, have increased the rate of diagnosis, especially in children, which underscores the need for innovation in development and in practice of new treatment options for treating bipolar disease. Although lithium has been the 'gold standard' for treating bipolar disorder for decades, new research into other forms of treatment has shown anticonvulsants to be a particularly useful therapy for treating bipolar disease. Anticonvulsants have remarkable mood-stabilization abilities and they do not lead to serious side effects, which increases the tolerability, and consequently, patient adherence to this form of treatment. Recent studies have shown that anticonvulsants improve behavior in bipolar disease by modulating the balance of excitatory and inhibitory synapses through a number of complementary molecular cascades that affect gene expression and cell survival.

Antipsychotic Drug-Induced Somnolence: Incidence, Mechanisms, and Management

Somnolence is a common side effect of antipsychotics. To assess the incidence of this side effect, we performed a MEDLINE search for randomized, double-blinded, placebo- or active-controlled studies of adult patients treated with antipsychotics for schizophrenia, mania, bipolar depression, or bipolar disorder. We extracted rates of somnolence from original publications and pooled them based on the dose of each antipsychotic in the same psychiatric condition, then estimated the absolute risk increase (ARI) and the number needed to harm (NNH) of an antipsychotic relative to placebo or an active comparator in the same psychiatric condition. According to the ARI in acute schizophrenia, bipolar mania, and bipolar depression, antipsychotics can be classified as high somnolence (clozapine), moderate somnolence (olanzapine, perphenazine, quetiapine, risperidone, ziprasidone), and low somnolence (aripiprazole, asenapine, haloperidol, lurasidone, paliperidone, cariprazine). The risk of somnolence with blonanserin, brexpiprazole, chlorpromazine, iloperidone, sertindole, and zotepine needs further investigation. The rates of somnolence were positively correlated to dose and duration for some antipsychotics, but not for others. Many factors, including antipsychotic per se, the method used to measure somnolence, patient population, study design, and dosing schedule, might affect the incidence of antipsychotic-induced somnolence. The mechanisms of antipsychotic-induced somnolence are likely multifactorial, although the blockade of histamine 1 receptors and α1 receptors may play a major role. The management of antipsychotic-induced somnolence should include sleep hygiene education, choosing an antipsychotic with a lower risk for somnolence, starting at a lower dose with a slower titration based on psychiatric diagnoses, adjusting doses when necessary, and minimizing concurrent somnolence-prone agents. Since most cases of somnolence were mild to moderate, allowing tolerance to develop over at least 4 weeks is reasonable before discontinuing an antipsychotic.

Asenapine augmentation in bipolar disorders: a case series

Asenapine, a novel second‐generation antipsychotic is effective in acute treatment of bipolar I disorder patients in combination with mood stabilizers even in resistant cases. Although there is no evidence for asenapine's efficacy to be superior to currently available agents, asenapine's favorable weight and metabolic profile are of clinical interest.

The geriatric mania asenapine study (GeMS)

RATIONALE

Population aging results in growing numbers of psychiatric disorders among older patients. Yet, there is a paucity of studies on elderly mania.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of asenapine on older manic inpatients.

METHODS

Thirty-four elderly patients suffering from a manic episode, mean age 67.2 years were enrolled in an open-label 3-weeks study of asenapine treatment.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

(1) DSM-IV criteria for manic episode (2) age above 60 years, (3) episode severity necessitating inpatient treatment, (4) Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score at baseline >20, and (5) no prior asenapine treatment. Participants were prescribed asenapine 5 mg BID for 3 days and then dose increased to 10 mg BID till day 21 (study completion).

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients completed the study. YMRS score decreased from a baseline mean of 27.0±8.8 to 13.3±12.0 at the end of the study (p<0.001). Fourteen patients (56% of completers) achieved remission (YMRS score<12). MADRS score decreased from a baseline mean of 7.6±5.6 to 4.4+5.1 at the end of the study (p<0.05); low baseline score should be noted. Sleep duration increased from a baseline median of 5.7 hours to 7.0 h at the end of the study (p<0.05). Seven patients discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Two patients passed-away after study completion.

CONCLUSION

We tentatively conclude that the efficacy of asenapine in reducing acute manic symptoms and achieving remission in the elderly is supported in this study. Caution is needed in patients with co-morbid physical conditions.

Asenapine: Efficacy and safety of 5 and 10mg bid in a 3-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in adults with a manic or mixed episode associated with bipolar I disorder

BACKGROUND

Asenapine is an atypical antipsychotic for acute treatment of manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder in adults. The recommended asenapine starting dose is 10mg bid with the option to reduce the dose to 5mg bid if needed due to adverse effects/tolerability.

METHODS

Phase IIIb, international, double-blind, fixed-dose, parallel-group, 3-week placebo-controlled trial of asenapine 5 and 10mg bid in adults with an acute bipolar I disorder manic or mixed episode. Primary outcome was difference in asenapine versus placebo in mean change from baseline to day 21 in the Young-Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score. Others included difference in asenapine versus placebo in the Clinical Global Impression Scale for Bipolar Severity (CGI-BP-S) and rate of YMRS responders.

RESULTS

Both asenapine doses were statistically superior to placebo in mean change from baseline to day 21 in YMRS total score (-10.9, -14.4, and -14.9 for placebo, asenapine 5mg bid, 10mg bid, respectively). Both asenapine doses had statistically superior improvement in mean change in CGI-BP-S score at day 21. Neither asenapine dose had significantly more YMRS responders at day 21 than placebo.

LIMITATIONS

Results may not be generalizable to the entire population with bipolar I disorder owing to strict inclusion criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

This study evaluated, by a fixed-dose design, the efficacy and safety of asenapine versus placebo in patients with bipolar I disorder. Both asenapine 5 and 10mg bid were efficacious in treating mania associated with bipolar I disorder and were generally well tolerated.

Asenapine for the Acute Treatment of Pediatric Manic or Mixed Episode of Bipolar I Disorder

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate asenapine versus placebo in 403 patients aged 10 to 17 years with bipolar I disorder currently in manic or mixed episodes.

METHOD

In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, international trial, patients were randomized 1:1:1:1 to placebo, asenapine 2.5, 5, or 10 mg b.i.d. (twice daily). Primary efficacy measure was change from baseline in Young-Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score at day 21. Analyses of patients with/without attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and with/without stimulant use were performed.

RESULTS

The mean difference in asenapine versus placebo in YMRS was -3.2 (p = .0008), -5.3 (p < .001), and -6.2 (p < .001) for asenapine 2.5, 5, and 10 mg b.i.d., respectively. Treatment-emergent adverse events with an incidence ≥5% and at least twice placebo were somnolence, sedation, hypoesthesia oral, paresthesia oral, and increased appetite. The asenapine groups had a higher incidence of ≥7% weight gain (range, 8.0%-12.0%) versus placebo (1.1%; p < .05). The mean change from baseline in fasting insulin was larger for patients treated with asenapine than those with placebo (asenapine 2.5 mg b.i.d.: 73.375 pmol/L; asenapine 5 mg b.i.d.: 114.042 pmol/L; asenapine 10 mg b.i.d.: 59.846 pmol/L; placebo: 3.690 pmol/L). The mean changes from baseline for lipid parameters and glucose were also larger in asenapine groups than in the placebo group. No safety differences were observed with respect to ADHD and stimulant use.

CONCLUSION

All asenapine doses versus placebo were superior based on change in YMRS at day 21. Asenapine was generally well tolerated in patients aged 10 to 17 years with bipolar I disorder in manic or mixed states. Increases in weight and fasting insulin were associated with asenapine. Clinical trial registration information-Efficacy and Safety of Asenapine Treatment for Pediatric Bipolar Disorder; http://clinicaltrials.gov; NCT01244815.

Replication and contradiction of highly cited research papers in psychiatry: 10-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

Contradictions and initial overestimates are not unusual among highly cited studies. However, this issue has not been researched in psychiatry. Aims: To assess how highly cited studies in psychiatry are replicated by subsequent studies.

METHOD

We selected highly cited studies claiming effective psychiatric treatments in the years 2000 through 2002. For each of these studies we searched for subsequent studies with a better-controlled design, or with a similar design but a larger sample.

RESULTS

Among 83 articles recommending effective interventions, 40 had not been subject to any attempt at replication, 16 were contradicted, 11 were found to have substantially smaller effects and only 16 were replicated. The standardised mean differences of the initial studies were overestimated by 132%. Studies with a total sample size of 100 or more tended to produce replicable results.

CONCLUSIONS

Caution is needed when a study with a small sample size reports a large effect.

Asenapine in the Treatment of Acute Mania: A Real-World Observational Study With 6 Months Follow-Up

Asenapine is a second-generation antipsychotic with a unique pharmacological profile that was recently approved for the treatment of moderate/severe manic episodes. Real-world data on rapidity of action in inpatient settings are lacking.The aims of the current real-world observational study were to evaluate: (i) short-term efficacy of asenapine after 7 days (T0-T1) in patients hospitalized for a manic episode in the course of bipolar I disorder or schizoaffective disorder (group A), (ii) differences in length of stay (LoS), and (iii) rehospitalization compared to a control population (group B) with a 6-month follow-up.Twenty patients were included in each group. The mean total Young Mania Rating Scale score decreased by 12.6 (SD ±10.3; t(17) = 5.2, P < 0.005), implying a mean 37.8% improvement. A statistically significant reduction was observed for all Young Mania Rating Scale items, except for "sexual interest." The mean total BPRS score decreased by 17.2 (SD ±14.9; t(17) = 4.9, P < 0.005). A statistically significant reduction was observed for several items, including "conceptual disorganization," "grandiosity," "unusual thought content," and "excitement". Length of stay was 17.9 (SD ±9.0) days for group A and 14.7 (SD ±12.7) days for group B; the result of the Kruskal-Wallis test showed no significant differences (χ = 2.199, P = 0.138). Despite a high discontinuation rate, only 17.7% of patients in group A were rehospitalized in the following 6 months compared to 41.2% of those in group B (relative risk = 0.43, 95% confidence interval, 0.13-1.39).Findings from this small, preliminary study at least partially support the results of previous trials, confirming effectiveness and tolerability in the context of comorbidity and polypsychopharmacology.

Diagnosis, Epidemiology and Management of Mixed States in Bipolar Disorder

Approximately 40% of patients with bipolar disorder experience mixed episodes, defined as a manic state with depressive features, or manic symptoms in a patient with bipolar depression. Compared with bipolar patients without mixed features, patients with bipolar mixed states generally have more severe symptomatology, more lifetime episodes of illness, worse clinical outcomes and higher rates of comorbidities, and thus present a significant clinical challenge. Most clinical trials have investigated second-generation neuroleptic monotherapy, monotherapy with anticonvulsants or lithium, combination therapy, and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). Neuroleptic drugs are often used alone or in combination with anticonvulsants or lithium for preventive treatment, and ECT is an effective treatment for mixed manic episodes in situations where medication fails or cannot be used. Common antidepressants have been shown to worsen mania symptoms during mixed episodes without necessarily improving depressive symptoms; thus, they are not recommended during mixed episodes. A greater understanding of pathophysiological processes in bipolar disorder is now required to provide a more accurate diagnosis and new personalised treatment approaches. Targeted, specific treatments developed through a greater understanding of bipolar disorder pathophysiology, capable of affecting the underlying disease processes, could well prove to be more effective, faster acting, and better tolerated than existing therapies, therefore providing better outcomes for individuals affected by bipolar disorder. Until such time as targeted agents are available, second-generation neuroleptics are emerging as the treatment of choice in the management of mixed states in bipolar disorder.

Hyperprolactinemia and medications for bipolar disorder: systematic review of a neglected issue in clinical practice

Drug-induced changes in serum prolactin (sPrl) levels constitute a relevant issue due to the potentially severe consequences on physical health of psychiatric patients such as sexual dysfunctions, osteoporosis and Prl-sensitive tumors. Several drugs have been associated to sPrl changes. Only antipsychotics have been extensively studied as sPrl-elevating agents in schizophrenia, but the extent to which bipolar disorder (BD) treatments affect sPrl levels is much less known. The objective of this systematic review is to summarize the evidence of the effects of drugs used in BD on Prl. This review followed the PRISMA statement. The MEDLINE/PubMed/Index Medicus, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched for articles in English appearing from any time to May 30, 2014. Twenty-six studies were included. These suggest that treatments for BD are less likely to be associated with Prl elevations, with valproate, quetiapine, lurasidone, mirtazapine, and bupropion reported not to change PRL levels significantly and lithium and aripiprazole to lower them in some studies. Taking into account the effects of the different classes of drugs on Prl may improve the care of BD patients requiring long-term pharmacotherapy. Based on the results of this review, lithium and valproate appear to be safer due to their low potential to elevate sPrL; among antipsychotics, quetiapine, lurasidone and aripiprazole appear to be similarly safe.

Asenapine in the treatment of older adults with bipolar disorder

OBJECTIVE

In spite of growing numbers of older people, there are few treatment studies on late-life bipolar disorder (BD). This was a 12-week prospective, open-label trial to assess efficacy and tolerability of adjunct asenapine in non-demented older adults (≥ 60 years) with sub-optimal previous response to BD treatments.

METHODS

Asenapine was initiated at 5 mg/day and titrated as tolerated. Effects on global psychopathology were measured with Clinical Global Impression, bipolar version (CGI-BP), and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS). Mood polarity severity was measured with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale, and Young Mania Rating Scale. Other outcomes included the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II.

RESULTS

Fifteen individuals were enrolled (mean age 68.6, SD 6.12; 53% female; 73% Caucasian, 13% African American, and 7% Asian). There were 4/15 (27%) individuals who prematurely terminated the study, whereas 11/15 (73%) completed the study. There were significant improvements from baseline on the BPRS (p < 0.05), on CGI-BP overall (p < 0.01), and on CGI-BP mania (p < 0.05) and depression (p < 0.01) subscales. The mean dose of asenapine was 11.2 (SD 6.2) mg/day. The most common reported side effects were gastrointestinal discomfort (n = 5, 33%), restlessness (n = 2, 13%), tremors (n = 2, 13%), cognitive difficulties (n = 2, 13%), and sluggishness (n = 2, 13%).

CONCLUSIONS

Older people with BD had global improvements on asenapine. Most reported adverse effects were mild and transient, but adverse effects prompted drug discontinuation in just over one quarter of patients. Although risks versus benefits in older people must always be carefully considered, asenapine may be a treatment consideration for some non-demented geriatric BD patients.

Toward stratified treatments for bipolar disorders

In bipolar disorders, there are unclear diagnostic boundaries with unipolar depression and schizophrenia, inconsistency of treatment guidelines, relatively long trial-and-error phases of treatment optimization, and increasing use of complex combination therapies lacking empirical evidence. These suggest that the current definition of bipolar disorders based on clinical symptoms reflects a clinically and etiologically heterogeneous entity. Stratification of treatments for bipolar disorders based on biomarkers and improved clinical markers are greatly needed to increase the efficacy of currently available treatments and improve the chances of developing novel therapeutic approaches. This review provides a theoretical framework to identify biomarkers and summarizes the most promising markers for stratification regarding beneficial and adverse treatment effects. State and stage specifiers, neuropsychological tests, neuroimaging, and genetic and epigenetic biomarkers will be discussed with respect to their ability to predict the response to specific pharmacological and psychosocial psychotherapies for bipolar disorders. To date, the most reliable markers are derived from psychopathology and history-taking, while no biomarker has been found that reliably predicts individual treatment responses. This review underlines both the importance of clinical diagnostic skills and the need for biological research to identify markers that will allow the targeting of treatment specifically to sub-populations of bipolar patients who are more likely to benefit from a specific treatment and less likely to develop adverse reactions.

Adjunctive treatment with asenapine augments the escitalopram-induced effects on monoaminergic outflow and glutamatergic neurotransmission in the medial prefrontal cortex of the rat

BACKGROUND

Substantial clinical data support the addition of low doses of atypical antipsychotic drugs to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) to rapidly enhance the antidepressant effect in treatment-resistant depression. Preclinical studies suggest that this effect is at least partly explained by an increased catecholamine outflow in the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC).

METHODS

In the present study we used in vivo microdialysis in freely moving rats and in vitro intracellular recordings of pyramidal cells of the rat mPFC to investigate the effects of adding the novel atypical antipsychotic drug asenapine to the SSRI escitalopram with regards to monoamine outflow in the mPFC and dopamine outflow in nucleus accumbens as well as glutamatergic transmission in the mPFC.

RESULTS

The present study shows that addition of low doses (0.05 and 0.1 mg/kg) of asenapine to escitalopram (5 mg/kg) markedly enhances dopamine, noradrenaline, and serotonin release in the rat mPFC as well as dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens. Moreover, this drug combination facilitated both N-methyl-d-Aspartate (NMDA)- and α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA)-induced currents as well as electrically evoked excitatory postsynaptic potentials in pyramidal cells of the rat mPFC.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results support the notion that the augmentation of SSRIs by atypical antipsychotic drugs in treatment-resistant depression may, at least in part, be related to enhanced catecholamine output in the prefrontal cortex and that asenapine may be clinically used to achieve this end. In particular, the subsequent activation of the D1 receptor may be of importance for the augmented antidepressant effect, as this mechanism facilitated both NMDA and AMPA receptor-mediated transmission in the mPFC. Our novel observation that the drug combination, like ketamine, facilitates glutamatergic transmission in the mPFC may contribute to explain the rapid and potent antidepressant effect obtained when atypical antipsychotic drugs are added to SSRIs.

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 psychopharmacology algorithm project at the Harvard South Shore Program: an algorithm for acute mania

This new algorithm for the pharmacotherapy of acute mania was developed by the Psychopharmacology Algorithm Project at the Harvard South Shore Program. The authors conducted a literature search in PubMed and reviewed key studies, other algorithms and guidelines, and their references. Treatments were prioritized considering three main considerations: (1) effectiveness in treating the current episode, (2) preventing potential relapses to depression, and (3) minimizing side effects over the short and long term. The algorithm presupposes that clinicians have made an accurate diagnosis, decided how to manage contributing medical causes (including substance misuse), discontinued antidepressants, and considered the patient's childbearing potential. We propose different algorithms for mixed and nonmixed mania. Patients with mixed mania may be treated first with a second-generation antipsychotic, of which the first choice is quetiapine because of its greater efficacy for depressive symptoms and episodes in bipolar disorder. Valproate and then either lithium or carbamazepine may be added. For nonmixed mania, lithium is the first-line recommendation. A second-generation antipsychotic can be added. Again, quetiapine is favored, but if quetiapine is unacceptable, risperidone is the next choice. Olanzapine is not considered a first-line treatment due to its long-term side effects, but it could be second-line. If the patient, whether mixed or nonmixed, is still refractory to the above medications, then depending on what has already been tried, consider carbamazepine, haloperidol, olanzapine, risperidone, and valproate first tier; aripiprazole, asenapine, and ziprasidone second tier; and clozapine third tier (because of its weaker evidence base and greater side effects). Electroconvulsive therapy may be considered at any point in the algorithm if the patient has a history of positive response or is intolerant of medications.

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 patients with bipolar I disorder with mixed episodes in an Italian context

INTRODUCTION

Bipolar disorder is a chronic disease characterized by periods of mania or hypomania, depression, or a combination of both (mixed state). Because bipolar disorder is one of the leading causes of disability, it represents an important economic burden on society. Asenapine (ASE) is a new second-generation antipsychotic developed and approved for the treatment of manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar disorder. The objective of the present study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of ASE compared to olanzapine (OLA) in the treatment of patients experiencing mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder in the context of the Italian National Health Service (NHS).

METHODS

A pharmacoeconomic model was developed to simulate the management of Italian bipolar I patients with mixed episodes over a 5-year time horizon by combining clinical parameters with resource utilization. An expert panel of Italian psychiatrists and health economists was responsible for adapting a UK model to the Italian context. The primary outcome measure of the economic evaluation was the incremental cost effectiveness ratio, where effectiveness is measured in terms of quality adjusted life-years gained. Scenario analyses, sensitivity analyses, and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to test the robustness of the model.

RESULTS

This pharmacoeconomic model showed that ASE resulted to be dominant over OLA; in fact, ASE was associated with lower direct costs (derived largely by the savings from hospitalizations avoided) and also generated a better quality of life. Results were robust to changes in key parameters; both scenario analyses and sensitivity analyses demonstrated model reliability.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this study suggest that the management of bipolar I patients with mixed episodes using ASE as alternative to OLA can lead to cost saving for the Italian NHS and improve patients quality of life.

Clinical decision making in the treatment of mixed states

OBJECTIVES

We reviewed the treatment of bipolar mixed states using efficacy data of licensed and non-licensed physical or pharmacological treatments.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search to identify published studies reporting data on mixed states. Grading was done using an in-house level of evidence and we compared the efficacy with treatment recommendations of mixed states in current bipolar disorder guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 133 studies reported data on mixed states, and seven guidelines differentiate the acute treatment of mixed states from pure states. The strongest evidence in treating co-occurring manic and depressive symptoms was for monotherapy with aripiprazole, asenapine, extended release carbamazepine, valproate, olanzapine, and ziprasidone. Aripiprazole was recommended in three guidelines, asenapine in one, and carbamazepine and ziprasidone in two. As adjunctive treatment, the strongest evidence of efficacy was for olanzapine plus lithium or valproate. For maintenance, there is evidence for the efficacy of monotherapy with valproate, olanzapine, and quetiapine. In the six guidelines valproate or olanzapine are first line monotherapy options; one recommends quetiapine. Recommended add-on treatments are lithium or valproate plus quetiapine.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of studies designed to address the efficacy of medications in mixed affective symptoms. Guidelines do not fully reflect the current evidences.

Asenapine review, part I: chemistry, receptor affinity profile, pharmacokinetics and metabolism

INTRODUCTION

Asenapine is a second-generation (atypical) antipsychotic currently marketed for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar mania/mixed episodes.

AREAS COVERED

The purpose of this review is to describe the chemistry, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetics of asenapine.

EXPERT OPINION

Asenapine has a complex pharmacodynamic profile with affinities at multiple dopamine, serotonin, histamine, and α-adrenergic receptors, all at which asenapine functions as an antagonist. Sublingual asenapine tablets are absorbed in the oral mucosa, with a Tmax occurring between 30 and 90 min. Terminal half-life is approximately 24 h. Asenapine has multiple inactive metabolites, produced via direct glucuronidation (primarily via UGT1A4), demethylation, and oxidative metabolism (primarily via CYP1A2). Hepatic and renal routes contribute approximately equally to the elimination of asenapine and its metabolites. Two notable drug-drug interactions are evident: asenapine (an inhibitor of CYP2D6) can increase plasma levels of paroxetine, and fluvoxamine (a CYP1A2 inhibitor) can increase plasma levels of asenapine. Caution is required when coadministering asenapine with drugs that are both substrates and inhibitors of CYP2D6.