Is the Capsaicin 179 mg (8% w/w) Cutaneous Patch an Appropriate Treatment Option for Older Patients with Peripheral Neuropathic Pain?

Introduction

Capsaicin 179 mg (8% weight per weight) cutaneous patch ("capsaicin patch") is a recommended topical treatment for peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP). In older patients, topical treatments may be preferred over systemic treatments, but data specific to the older population are scarce.

Methods

We conducted pooled analyses of multiple clinical trials to evaluate efficacy and safety of capsaicin patch in older patients. The analysis of efficacy included four randomized, double-blind, 12-week studies with similar trial design comparing a single treatment of capsaicin 179 mg cutaneous patch vs low-dose control patch in post-herpetic neuralgia. For the safety evaluation, data were pooled from 18 interventional studies in which capsaicin patch was used in PNP with varying etiologies.

Results

Capsaicin patch had similar analgesic efficacy in elderly (n=582) and non-elderly patients (n=545) in terms of change from baseline to 2-12 weeks in the 11-point numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) score for average pain over the previous 24 hours. In both age groups, decrease in NPRS score was significantly greater with capsaicin patch vs control. Older patients treated with capsaicin patch were significantly more likely than those in the control group to achieve responder status (ie mean decrease in NPRS score from baseline to week 2-12 of at least 30% or ≥2 points): 36.1% vs 27.1% (odds ratio [OR] [95% CI] 1.52 [1.06, 2.18]; P=0.0231) and 33.1% vs 20.9% (OR [95% CI] 1.90 [1.30, 2.78]; P=0.0009) for active treatment vs control group, respectively. Similar proportions of non-elderly patients (n=2,311) and elderly patients (n=537) treated with capsaicin patch experienced treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (81.6% and 78.1%, respectively) and serious TEAEs (8.2% and 7.2%), with application-site reactions the most common TEAEs in both groups.

Conclusion

The capsaicin patch was equally efficacious and well tolerated in older patients as in younger patients.

Diagnosis, management and impact of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: A patient survey in four European countries

AIMS

The aim of this study was to assess patient perspectives and experiences of the impact of neuropathic pain, painful diabetic neuropathy (pDPN) diagnosis and treatment, and the patient-healthcare professional (HCP) relationship.

METHODS

We conducted a quantitative online survey in Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and the UK among adults with diabetes who responded "yes" to at least four of ten questions of in the Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions (DN4) questionnaire.

RESULTS

Of 3626 respondents, 576 met the eligibility criteria. Daily pain was rated as moderate or severe by 79 % of respondents. Most participants reported a negative impact of their pain on sleep (74 %), mood (71 %), exercise (69 %), concentration (64 %) and daily activities (62 %), and 75 % of those in employment had missed work because of their pain in the past year. Overall, 22 % of respondents avoided discussing pain with their HCP, 50 % had not received formal pDPN diagnosis, and 56 % had not used prescribed pain medications. Although two-thirds (67 %) of respondents reported feeling satisfied or very satisfied with treatment, 82 % of these patients still experienced daily moderate or severe pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Neuropathic pain in people with diabetes affects daily life and remains underdiagnosed and undertreated in clinical practice.

Diagnosis, management and impact on patients' lives of cancer-related neuropathic pain (CRNP): A European survey

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed the impact of cancer-related neuropathic pain (CRNP) on patients and the importance of the patient-healthcare professional (HCP) relationship in diagnosis and management.

METHODS

A quantitative online survey was conducted involving adult patients from 13 European countries who had been diagnosed with treatable cancer and experienced symptoms of peripheral neuropathy.

RESULTS

Of 24,733 screened respondents, 549 eligible persons met the inclusion criteria and completed the questionnaire. Among individuals still experiencing pain, 75% rated it as 'severe' or 'moderate'. In addition, 61% reported a negative impact on day-to-day activities, and 30% said they had stopped working as a result. A third of respondents had received no diagnosis of CRNP despite reporting painful symptoms to an HCP. HCPs spending enough time discussing pain and understanding the impact on patients' lives were each associated with an increased likelihood of a formal CRNP diagnosis. Compared with individuals currently in active cancer treatment, cancer survivors were less likely to have a diagnosis of CRNP or regular pain conversations with HCPs.

CONCLUSION

CRNP remains under-recognised despite its substantial impact on patients' lives. Clinical practice may be improved by strengthening patient-HCP relationships around pain discussions and increasing the focus on pain management among cancer survivors.

Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: real-world comparison between topical treatment with lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster and oral treatments

INTRODUCTION

Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN), a common complication of diabetes mellitus, is challenging to treat. Efficacy and tolerability of the topical lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster (LMP) and well-established first-line oral medications (OM) were compared in refractory PDPN patients.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This is a subgroup analysis of a non-interventional, retrospective 24-week cohort study using anonymized routine medical care data from the German Pain eRegistry. Propensity score matching provided 732 datasets per treatment group. Primary effectiveness endpoint was the absolute change in average 24-hour Pain Intensity Index (0-100 mm) from baseline after 4, 12 and 24 weeks of treatment and over the entire treatment period.

RESULTS

The majority of this multimorbid and polymedicated study population of patients with PDPN had suffered pain for more than a year and presented with a high pain burden despite a median of seven previous analgesic medications. LMP treatment resulted in significant reductions in pain intensity and improvements in daily functioning already after 4 treatment weeks. Effectiveness was maintained over the treatment period even when concomitant analgesics were reduced or discontinued and quality of life improved. Mean change in the primary effectiveness parameter over the 24-week treatment period was -30.2 mm (SE 0.38) and -17.0 mm (SE 0.51) in the LMP and OM groups, respectively. Improvements in all effectiveness parameters were significantly greater under LMP than under OM treatment (p<0.001). Significantly fewer patients under LMP than OM experienced drug-related adverse events (DRAEs; 9.6% vs 61.6%, p<0.001) and discontinued treatment due to DRAEs (4.4% vs 35.8%, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

LMP was effective and well tolerated in routine clinical care of patients with PDPN. The more favorable benefit/risk profile and greater reduction in intake of concomitant analgesics compared with OM suggest LMP as a useful treatment option for PDPN.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

EUPAS 32826.

Postsurgical neuropathic pain: lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster or oral treatments in clinical practice

Aim: To compare the effectiveness and tolerability of the lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster (LMP) and oral first-line medications (OM) for the treatment of postsurgical neuropathic pain (PSNP) in routine clinical practice. Patients & methods: Data from a noninterventional, retrospective 24-week cohort study in patients with localized peripheral NP refractory to at least one recommended OM using anonymized German Pain eRegistry data were retrieved. A subgroup analysis was conducted on 531 datasets of PSNP patients. Results: Pain relief, improvements in pain-related impairments of daily living and quality of life, and tolerability were significantly greater under LMP than under OM (p < 0.001 for all parameters). Conclusion: These real-world data show the effectiveness and good tolerability of LMP for PSNP treatment in routine clinical practice.

Localized peripheral neuropathic pain: topical treatment with lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster in routine clinical practice

Aim: To provide real-world evidence for the effectiveness and tolerability of lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster (LMP) in localized peripheral neuropathic pain (l-PNP) treatment compared with first-line oral medications (OM). Patients & methods: This was a noninterventional, retrospective 6-month cohort study in patients refractory to at least one recommended OM, using anonymized medical care data from the German Pain eRegistry. Treatment groups were matched by propensity scoring, considering seven predefined confounding factors. The primary effectiveness end point was the absolute change in average pain intensity index from baseline at weeks 4, 12 and 24 of treatment and over the treatment period. Results: A total of 3081 datasets were retained per treatment group. LMP provided superior pain reductions and significantly greater improvements in pain-related impairments of daily living and quality of life with significantly better tolerability (p < 0.001 for all parameters) than OM. Conclusion: These real-world data confirm the effectiveness and good tolerability of LMP for l-PNP treatment under routine medical care.

Comparative Benefit-Risk Assessment for Lidocaine 700 mg Medicated Plaster and Pregabalin in Peripheral Neuropathic Pain Following a Structured Framework Approach

Introduction

Peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) is difficult to treat. Several oral drugs are recommended as first-line treatments. Nevertheless, many patients cannot obtain sufficient pain relief or do not tolerate systemically active treatments. Topical treatments, with a lower risk of systemic side effects such as lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster, are also recommended in treatment guidelines. This analysis compares the benefit–risk balance of topical 700 mg lidocaine medicated plaster with the benefit–risk balance of oral pregabalin administration for the treatment of PNP following current recommendations on benefit–risk assessment (BRA) methodology.

Methods

The Benefit–Risk Action Team (BRAT) framework was used as structured approach. Selection of key benefits and risks was supported by a patient survey. Published randomized controlled clinical trials were the main source to identify data related to key benefits and risks. The outcome of randomized clinical trials was compared with real-world evidence (RWE) data for consistency.

Results

Identified key benefits were pain reduction and improvement in quality of life. Key risks identified were application site reactions, dizziness, confusion, weight gain, peripheral edema, and blurred vision. Overall, there was similarity in key benefits between the comparators; however, a clear advantage regarding key risks in favor of lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster was observed. This observation was consistent across data from a direct comparison trial, randomized placebo-controlled trials, as well as data from RWE studies. The low number of randomized controlled trials for lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster was the main limitation.

Conclusion

Guided by the opinion of patients regarding key benefits and risks deemed important for treatments of peripheral neuropathic pain, our analysis showed that lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster has a more favorable benefit–risk balance compared to pregabalin (300 and 600 mg daily).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40122-021-00340-2.

Lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster for postherpetic neuralgia: real-world data from the German Pain e-Registry

Aim: To provide real-world evidence for the effectiveness and tolerability of lidocaine 700 mg medicated plaster (LMP) compared with oral systemic first-line medications (OSM) in postherpetic neuralgia treatment. Patients & methods: Retrospective cohort study in patients refractory to at least one recommended OSM (single drug or a combination of drugs) using anonymized routine medical care data from the German Pain e-Registry. A matched pair approach using propensity score matching was employed. Results: A total of 1711 data sets of postherpetic neuralgia patients were identified per treatment group. The majority (>60%) had experienced pain for more than a year and reported a high burden of pain and reduced quality of life. Six months of LMP treatment provided significantly greater pain reductions, improvements in pain-related impairments and quality of life than OSM treatment (p < 0.001 for all parameters). Drug-related adverse events and treatment discontinuation due to drug-related adverse events also occurred less frequently under LMP treatment (p < 0.001). Conclusion: These real-world data confirm the effectiveness and good tolerability of LMP under routine medical care. The treatment was significantly more effective when compared with first-line oral systemic medications.

Progressive Response to Repeat Application of Capsaicin 179 mg (8% w/w) Cutaneous Patch in Peripheral Neuropathic Pain: Comprehensive New Analysis and Clinical Implications

Objective

To investigate the efficacy of repeated application of capsaicin 179 mg cutaneous patch in nonresponders to the first application.

Design

Post hoc, as-treated analysis of two prospective trials (STRIDE and PACE) with 52-week follow-up.

Blinding

Open-label.

Setting

Multicenter clinical trial.

Subjects

STRIDE: nondiabetic neuropathic pain; PACE: painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy.

Methods

Patients were divided according to number of applications needed before attainment of a ≥30% reduction in average pain intensity (question 5 of the Brief Pain Inventory [BPI-Q5]). We assessed the change from baseline in average pain intensity (BPI-Q5), mean “interference with sleep” score, Patient Global Impression of Change, quality of life (QOL) via the EuroQol 5-dimension, and Self-Assessment of Treatment.

Results

In STRIDE and PACE, respectively, n = 306 and n = 313 received the capsaicin patch; n = 60 and n = 96 had a response after the first application, n = 33 and n = 68 after the second, and n = 11 and n = 43 after the third. Among patients without a ≥30% reduction in pain intensity at 3 months, in STRIDE and PACE, respectively, 23.3% and 28.1% achieved a ≥30% reduction at 6 months, increasing to 33.9% and 45.7% at 12 months. Similar results were obtained when a decrease of ≥50% was used as the responder definition. Progressive improvements in pain intensity in slower responders reached levels similar to those in early responders at month 12 and were accompanied by improvements in sleep, QOL, and patient satisfaction.

Conclusions

Although some patients with peripheral neuropathic pain experience rapid improvements with a single treatment of capsaicin 179 mg patch, some may require two or three treatments before an initial response is observed. Similar benefits for pain, sleep, and QOL can be achieved in early and late responders.

Outcomes of the Pediatric Development Plan of Tapentadol

The opioid analgesic tapentadol was the first pain medication to be developed for the treatment of pain in children under a formal process established by the regulatory authorities. This article summarizes the outcomes of the pediatric development program for tapentadol across the entire age range from birth (including neonates) to adolescents <18 years of age. In addition, the challenges experienced when designing and conducting the pediatric tapentadol clinical trials as well as the interactions with the regulatory authorities are discussed. As a first outcome, the oral solution of tapentadol was authorized in the EU in 2018 as a new treatment option in the hospital setting for moderate to severe acute pain in children from 2 to <18 years of age.

Tapentadol Prolonged Release for Long-Term Treatment of Pain in Children

Purpose

Investigation of the efficacy and safety of tapentadol prolonged release (PR) compared with morphine PR for long-term treatment of pain in children.

Patients and Methods

Children aged 6 to <18 years requiring long-term treatment with opioids were studied in a 12-month, 2-part, multi-center trial: Part 1, 14-day open-label, randomized, active-controlled, parallel group non-inferiority trial comparing twice daily tapentadol PR with morphine PR; Part 2, open-label treatment with tapentadol PR for up to 12 months or no treatment “safety observation period”. Pain intensity was rated with visual analogue scale or Faces Pain Scale-Revised, and non-inferiority was assessed by comparison of “treatment responders” (those completing the 14-day treatment period and showing pre-defined changes in pain rating) in each group.

Results

Twenty-three of 48 centers enrolled 73 patients. In Part 1, 45 and 24 patients received tapentadol or morphine, respectively, of which 40 and 22 completed 14-day treatment. In Part 2, thirty-six and 58 patients entered the tapentadol PR or observation periods, respectively, with 20/36 completing at least 12 weeks of treatment; 10 of the 36 had received morphine in Part 1. Forty-four of the 58 patients in the safety observation period had received tapentadol. Tapentadol PR was non-inferior to morphine PR (lower limit of confidence interval above negative non-inferiority margin of −0.2) in Part 1. Rates of adverse events were as expected with nausea (22.2%) and constipation (15.6%) in the tapentadol PR group, and with vomiting (33.3%), nausea and constipation (each 16.7%) in the morphine PR group. No new safety issues were identified; the safety profile of tapentadol over the 12 months treatment and observation periods was comparable to that established in subjects >18 years old.

Conclusion

Tapentadol PR was well tolerated and equivalent to morphine PR for both efficacy and safety in children (6 to <18 years old) requiring long-term treatment with opioids.

Population Pharmacokinetics of Tapentadol in Children from Birth to <18 Years Old

OBJECTIVE

The main aim of this analysis was to characterize the pharmacokinetics (PK) of tapentadol in pediatric patients from birth to <18 years old who experience acute pain, requiring treatment with an opioid analgesic.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data from four clinical trials and 148 pediatric patients who received a single dose of tapentadol oral or intravenous solution were included. Population PK analysis was performed to determine the contribution of size-related (bodyweight) and function-related (maturation) factors to the changes in oral bioavailability (F), volume of distribution (V), and clearance (CL) with age. Simulations were carried out to compare pediatric exposures to reference adult values.

RESULTS

A one-compartment model with allometric scaling on disposition parameters (using theoretical or estimated exponents) and maturation functions on CL and F best described tapentadol PK. The estimated allometric exponents for CL (0.603) and V (0.820) differed slightly from the theoretical values of 0.75 for CL and 1 for V. A maximum in CL/F was observed at about 2-3 years when expressed on a bodyweight basis. Results for younger children as well as the F estimate were sensitive to the scaling approach, but CL/F and V/F as a function of age for the two scaling approaches led to similar curves within the bioequivalence range except below 5 weeks of age. Model-based simulations indicated that the doses used in the included clinical trials lead to exposures within the lower half of the targeted adult exposure.

CONCLUSION

The development of tapentadol is one of the first examples following a systematic approach for analgesic drug development for children. Our analysis enabled a full characterization and robust understanding of tapentadol PK in children from birth to <18 years, including preterm infants, and showed the importance of evaluating the sensitivity of the inferences of the PK parameters to the selected scaling approach.

Population pharmacokinetic modeling to facilitate dose selection of tapentadol in the pediatric population

OBJECTIVE

The main aim of this analysis was to characterize the pharmacokinetics (PK) of the strong analgesic tapentadol in 2-year-old to <18-year-old patients with acute pain and to inform the optimal dosing strategy for a confirmatory efficacy trial in this patient population.

METHODS

The analysis dataset included tapentadol concentrations obtained from 92 pediatric patients receiving a single tapentadol oral solution (OS) dose of 1.0 mg/kg bodyweight in two single-dose PK clinical trials. Population PK analysis was performed using nonlinear mixed effects modeling. Simulations were performed to identify tapentadol OS doses in pediatric subjects (2 to <18 years) that would produce exposures similar to those in adults receiving safe and efficacious doses of tapentadol IR (50-100 mg every 4 hrs).

RESULTS

Tapentadol PK in children aged from 2 to <18 years was best described by a one-compartment model. Mean population apparent clearance and apparent volume of distribution for a typical subject weighing 45 kg were 170 L/h and 685 L, respectively. Clearance, expressed in bodyweight units as L/h/kg, decreased with increasing age whereas total clearance (L/h) increased with increasing age. Model-based simulations suggested that a tapentadol OS dose of 1.25 mg/kg to children and adolescents aged 2 to <18 years would result in efficacious tapentadol exposures similar to those in adults receiving tapentadol immediate release 50-100 mg every 4 hrs. The proposed tapentadol OS dose was subsequently applied in a confirmatory efficacy trial in 2 to <18-year-old patients suffering from acute postsurgical pain.

CONCLUSION

This analysis provides an example of a model-based approach for a dose recommendation to be used in an efficacy trial in the pediatric population. Uniform dosing based on bodyweight was proposed for the treatment of acute pain in children aged from 2 to <18 years.

Tapentadol immediate release for moderate to severe acute post-surgery pain

OBJECTIVE

To investigate efficacy and tolerability of tapentadol immediate release (IR) in the treatment of moderate to severe acute pain in three surgical pain models.

DESIGN

Three randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled, multicenter, phase 3 trials were performed in total hip replacement surgery, abdominal hysterectomy, and bunionectomy with trial medications administered every 4-6 hours as needed for up to 72 hours. Tapentadol IR was included in all trials, oxycodone IR in the total hip replacement trial, and morphine IR in the abdominal hysterectomy and bunionectomy trials; active controls ensured assay sensitivity.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary efficacy endpoint was the sum of pain intensity differences over the first 24 hours of treatment (SPID₂₄) in the abdominal hysterectomy trial and SPID₄₈ in the other two trials. Tolerability was assessed by adverse events reporting.

RESULTS

A total of 330, 832, and 285 patients with total hip replacement, abdominal hysterectomy, and bunionectomy, respectively, were assessed for efficacy. All three trials demonstrated statistically significant improvements of tapentadol IR on the primary endpoint versus placebo and similar improvements compared to morphine IR or oxycodone IR. These findings were consistent with results of total pain relief assessments and patients' global impressions of change in their overall health status after 72 hours (abdominal hysterectomy, bunionectomy). The tolerability profile of tapentadol IR was as expected for a centrally acting analgesic in the post-surgery setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Tapentadol IR has strong analgesic efficacy and is well tolerated in multiple post-surgery conditions of moderate to severe pain.

The challenge of developing pain medications for children: therapeutic needs and future perspectives

It is broadly accepted that children of all age groups including (preterm) neonates and young infants can perceive pain and that there is an absolute need to treat their pain safely and effectively. The approved treatment options for children, particularly (preterm) neonates and young infants, are very limited with only a few medications specifically labelled for this population. This article presents the challenges of developing pain medications for children. A short overview gives information on pain in children, including pain perception, prevalence of pain and the long-term consequences of leaving pain untreated in this vulnerable population. Current pain management practices are briefly discussed. The challenges of conducting pediatric clinical trials in general and trials involving analgesic medications in particular within the regulatory framework available to develop these medications for children are presented. Emphasis is given to the operational hurdles faced in conducting a pediatric clinical trial program. Some suggestions to overcome these hurdles are provided based on our experience during the pediatric trial program for the strong analgesic tapentadol used for the treatment of moderate to severe acute pain.

Direct conversion from tramadol to tapentadol prolonged release for moderate to severe, chronic malignant tumour-related pain

Background

A recent randomized‐withdrawal, active‐ and placebo‐controlled, double‐blind phase 3 study showed that tapentadol prolonged release (PR) was effective and well tolerated for managing moderate to severe, chronic malignant tumour‐related pain in patients who were opioid naive or dissatisfied with current treatment (Pain Physician, 2014, 17, 329–343). This post hoc, subgroup analysis evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of tapentadol PR in patients who previously received and were dissatisfied with tramadol for any reason and who had a pain intensity ≥5 (11‐point numerical rating scale) before converting directly to tapentadol PR.

Methods

In the original study, eligible patients had been randomized (2:1) and titrated to their optimal dose of tapentadol PR (100–250 mg bid) or morphine sulphate‐controlled release (40–100 mg bid) over 2 weeks. The present report focuses on results during the titration period for a subgroup of patients randomized to tapentadol PR after having been on tramadol treatment prior to randomization in the study (n = 129). Results for this subgroup are compared with results for all 338 patients who received tapentadol PR during titration (overall tapentadol PR group).

Results

Responder rates (responders: completed titration, mean pain intensity <5 [0–10 scale] and ≤20 mg/day rescue medication during last 3 days) were slightly better for the tramadol/tapentadol PR subgroup (69.8% [90/129]) vs. the overall tapentadol PR group (63.9% [214/335]). Tolerability profiles were comparable for both groups.

Conclusions

Results of this subgroup analysis indicate that patients with cancer pain could safely switch from prior treatment with the weak centrally acting analgesic tramadol directly to the strong centrally acting analgesic tapentadol PR, for an improved analgesic therapy for severe pain.

What does this study add?

Results of this post hoc analysis show that patients who had received prior tramadol therapy could switch directly to tapentadol PR, with the majority (˜70%) experiencing improved efficacy.

A 52-week open-label study of the safety and tolerability of paliperidone palmitate in patients with schizophrenia

The safety and tolerability of paliperidone palmitate, an injectable atypical antipsychotic agent, were assessed in a 1-year open-label extension of a double-blind study in patients with schizophrenia. Patients from the double-blind study who experienced a recurrence, remained recurrence free until study end, or who were in the transition, maintenance or double-blind phases and had received at least one injection of paliperidone palmitate when enrollment was stopped, were eligible for the open-label extension. Patients received gluteal injections of paliperidone palmitate once every 4 weeks: starting dose 50 mg eq. followed by 25, 50, 75, or 100 mg eq. flexible dosing. Of the 388 patients enrolled, 288 completed the open-label extension. During the open-label extension, the median (range) duration of exposure to paliperidone palmitate was 338 days (10; 390), and 74% of patients received all 12 open-label injections of paliperidone palmitate. The most frequent (≥ 5% in total group) adverse events were insomnia (7%); worsening of schizophrenia; nasopharyngitis; headache; and weight increase (6% each). Potentially prolactin-related adverse events occurred in 13 (3%) patients, mostly women, and none resulted in study discontinuation. Extrapyramidal treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 25 (6%) patients; tremor was the most frequently reported (n = 8, 2%). At open-label extension endpoint, investigator-rated redness at the injection site was observed in ≤ 4% of patients in each group. Injection-site pain was rated by investigators as absent in 82-87% of patients. Schizophrenia symptoms measured by Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and personal and social performance changes improved during the open-label extension.

A comparison of serum prolactin concentrations after administration of paliperidone extended-release and risperidone tablets in patients with schizophrenia

Increases in serum prolactin concentrations after administration of risperidone have been attributed, by some, to the availability of paliperidone in plasma. This double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study in patients with schizophrenia compared serum prolactin concentrations following the administration of paliperidone extended-release and risperidone immediate-release tablets. At steady state, the doses administered resulted in a similar exposure to paliperidone and the pharmacologically active fraction of risperidone (i.e. risperidone + paliperidone), respectively. Eligible patients were randomized to either paliperidone extended-release 12 mg on days 1-6 or risperidone immediate-release 2 mg on day 1 and 4 mg on days 2-6. Mean serum prolactin concentrations increased on day 1 (C(max): 71.8 ng/ml and 89.7 ng/ml reached at 6.5 hours and 2.6 hours for paliperidone extended-release and risperidone immediate-release, respectively). On day 6, serum prolactin concentration-time profiles were similar for both treatments, with overall higher serum prolactin concentrations than on day 1 (AUC(0-24 h): 1389 and 842 ng h/ml, and 1306 and 741 ng.h/ml on day 6 and day 1 for paliperidone extended-release and risperidone immediate-release, respectively). These results indicate that paliperidone extended-release 12 mg and risperidone immediate-release 4 mg, administered over a period of 6 days, lead to similar elevations in serum prolactin concentrations.

Paliperidone palmitate maintenance treatment in delaying the time-to-relapse in patients with schizophrenia: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVE

We assessed efficacy and tolerability of the injectable atypical antipsychotic paliperidone palmitate in delaying time-to-relapse in adults with schizophrenia.

METHODS

Eligible patients (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale [PANSS] total score < 120) were transitioned from previous antipsychotics to paliperidone palmitate during a 9-week, open-label phase. Patients received the first 2 intramuscular injections of paliperidone palmitate (50mg eq) one-week apart, then subsequent injections (25, 50, or 100mg eq, flexibly-dosed), once-monthly. Stable patients (PANSS total score < or = 75) continued into the 24-week maintenance phase. At maintenance phase endpoint, stabilized patients were randomized (1:1 ratio) to either continue paliperidone palmitate (at stabilized dose) or begin placebo in the variable-duration, double-blind phase.

RESULTS

The preplanned interim analysis (conducted after 68 relapse events) included 312 patients: mean age = 40 years, 55% men, 66% white, and mean transition baseline PANSS total score (SD): placebo, 69.5 (16.89); paliperidone palmitate, 69.3 (17.39). Time-to-relapse (primary endpoint) favored paliperidone palmitate (p<0.0001, log-rank test) at interim and final analysis (n=408). The hazard ratio (placebo/paliperidone palmitate) at the final analysis was 3.60 (95% CI: 2.45, 5.28). Treatment-emergent adverse event rates (final analysis set) were: 67% for transition and maintenance phases, and 45% (placebo) and 44% (paliperidone palmitate) for the double-blind phase. Across phases, the incidence of glucose-related adverse events was low (< or = 4%), while mean weight increased by 1.9 kg for paliperidone palmitate and remained unchanged for placebo patients. Injection site tolerability was comparable between groups.

CONCLUSION

Paliperidone palmitate significantly delayed time-to-relapse compared with placebo and presented no new safety signals.

Randomized trial of adjunctive topiramate therapy in infants with refractory partial seizures

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adjunctive topiramate (sprinkle capsules or oral liquid) in reducing daily rates of partial-onset seizures (POS) in infants with refractory POS.

METHODS

In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, international study, infants (n = 149) with clinical or EEG evidence of refractory POS were randomly allocated (1:1:1:1) to receive adjunctive topiramate 5, 15, or 25 mg/kg/d or placebo for 20 days. The primary variable was the median percentage reductions in daily POS rate from baseline to final assessment as recorded on a 48-hour video-EEG.

RESULTS

Of the 149 infants (mean age 12 months) included in the intent-to-treat analysis set, 130 completed the study. Median percentage reduction from baseline in daily POS rate was not significantly different (p = 0.97) between topiramate 25 mg/kg (20.4%) and placebo (13.1%). Lower doses were not formally tested, but nominal p values for comparisons with placebo were not significant (15-mg/kg/d dose: p = 0.97; 5-mg/kg/d dose: p = 0.91). Treatment-emergent fever, diarrhea, vomiting, anorexia, weight decrease, somnolence, and viral infection occurred more frequently (> or = 10% difference) with topiramate than with placebo.

CONCLUSION

In infants aged 1-24 months, topiramate 5, 15, or 25 mg/kg/d was not effective as adjunctive treatment for refractory partial-onset seizures. No new safety concerns associated with topiramate use were noted.

CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE

This interventional study provides Class I evidence that topiramate 5, 15, or 25 mg/kg/d compared with placebo does not significantly reduce seizure rates in infants aged 1 month to 2 years with refractory partial-onset seizures.

The effects of paroxetine on the pharmacokinetics of paliperidone extended-release tablets

INTRODUCTION

Co-morbid medical and psychiatric conditions are common in individuals with schizophrenia. As such, selecting antipsychotic medications with a low potential for drug-drug interactions (DDIs) is crucial, as many are extensively metabolized by hepatic cytochrome P450 (CYP) isozymes.

METHODS

This randomized, crossover study examined the effects of paroxetine (a potent CYP2D6 inhibitor) on the pharmacokinetic parameters of a single dose of the novel antipsychotic agent, paliperidone extended-release tablets (paliperidone ER), in healthy subjects.

RESULTS

The mean C (max) and AUC of paliperidone were slightly higher and paliperidone clearance was slightly lower following co-administration of paliperidone ER with paroxetine. There was a ratio of geometric treatment means of 116.48% for AUC (infinity) [90% CI: 104.49-129.84]. However, the increase in total exposure to paliperidone was not considered clinically relevant. The incidence of adverse events was lower when subjects received the combination of paliperidone ER and paroxetine compared with paroxetine alone.

DISCUSSION

Results suggest that no clinically relevant pharmacokinetic interaction occurs when paroxetine and paliperidone ER are co-administered and, therefore, initiation or discontinuation of concomitant treatment with CYP2D6-inhibiting drugs does not appear to warrant an adjustment in paliperidone ER dosage.

Efficacy, safety and tolerability of two dosing regimens in adolescent schizophrenia: double-blind study

BACKGROUND

Effective treatments for adolescent schizophrenia are needed.

AIMS

To compare efficacy and safety of two dosing regimens of risperidone.

METHOD

Double-blind, 8-week study. Patients, 13-17 years, with an acute episode of schizophrenia, randomised 1:1 to risperidone 1.5-6.0 mg/day (regimen A; n=125) or 0.15-0.6 mg/day (regimen B; n=132).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00034749.

RESULTS

Mean total Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) score improved significantly (P<0.001; effect size=0.49) from baseline to end-point for regimen A (mean=96.4 (s.d.=15.39) to mean=72.8 (s.d.=22.52)) compared with regimen B (mean=93.3 (s.d.=14.14) to mean=80.8 (s.d.=24.33)). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 74% (regimen A) and 65% (regimen B) of patients; 4% of patients overall discontinued for adverse events. Mean change in body weight was 3.2 kg (s.d.=3.49) for regimen A and 1.7 kg (s.d.=3.29) for regimen B.

CONCLUSIONS

Adolescent patients in the regimen A group showed greater improvement in total PANSS compared with the regimen B group. Treatment was well tolerated.

Efficacy and safety of paliperidone extended-release tablets: results of a 6-week, randomized, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Paliperidone extended-release tablet (paliperidone ER; Invega, Janssen L.P., Titusville, New Jersey) is an oral psychotropic for schizophrenia treatment.

METHODS

Efficacy and safety of once-daily paliperidone ER (6 and 12 mg) were assessed versus placebo in 444 patients with acute schizophrenia in a 6-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study. An olanzapine (10 mg) treatment arm was included to confirm trial validity.

RESULTS

Both doses of paliperidone ER demonstrated significant improvement in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score (p < or = .006) and certain PANSS Marder factor scores compared with placebo (p < or = .025); PANSS total score also improved in the olanzapine treatment arm. Paliperidone ER 6 mg (p < or = .008), but not 12 mg, was associated with significant improvements in personal and social performance. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) for paliperidone ER 6 mg was comparable with placebo and slightly greater with paliperidone ER 12 mg. Changes in blood glucose and lipid levels with paliperidone ER were comparable with placebo. Two patients treated with paliperidone ER experienced glucose-related AEs. Body-weight increases of 1-2 kg were observed with paliperidone ER. Although there were increases in plasma prolactin levels with paliperidone ER treatment, the incidence of prolactin-related AEs was < or =1%.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, paliperidone ER, particularly the 6-mg dose, was effective and well tolerated, and provides a valuable new treatment option for schizophrenia.

Efficacy, safety and early response of paliperidone extended-release tablets (paliperidone ER): results of a 6-week, randomized, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Paliperidone extended-release tablet (paliperidone ER) is an oral psychotropic agent developed for schizophrenia treatment. Paliperidone (9-OH-risperidone, metabolite of risperidone), when used with OROS technology has a unique pharmacokinetic profile undergoing limited hepatic metabolism.

METHODS

The efficacy and safety of once-daily paliperidone ER (3 mg, 9 mg and 15 mg) were compared with placebo in 618 patients with acute schizophrenia in a 6-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study. An assay sensitivity group with known efficacy was included to confirm trial validity (olanzapine 10 mg).

RESULTS

All doses of paliperidone ER demonstrated significant improvements in PANSS total and PANSS factors scores (p<0.05) and in personal and social functioning (p<0.001) compared with placebo. Symptom improvement has been observed at the first observation assessment (Day 4) (p<0.001) compared with placebo, suggesting a rapid onset of action for paliperidone ER. Paliperidone ER was associated with a low incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events. The incidence of movement disorder-related adverse events and rating scale scores were similar in the paliperidone ER 3 mg and placebo groups and increased with dose. Increases in prolactin plasma levels and dose-related increases in body weight (<2 kg) were observed; there were no significant changes in serum lipid or glucose levels.

CONCLUSION

In this study, all doses of paliperidone ER were effective in significantly improving the symptoms of schizophrenia and personal and social functioning and were generally well tolerated. As such, paliperidone ER may provide a valuable new treatment option for patients with schizophrenia.

Treatment of schizophrenia with paliperidone extended-release tablets: a 6-week placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Paliperidone extended-release tablet (paliperidone ER) is an investigational oral psychotropic developed for schizophrenia treatment. It utilizes OROS technology to provide a unique pharmacokinetic profile, eliminating the need for titration and potentially leading to improved tolerability. Furthermore, paliperidone undergoes limited hepatic metabolism.

METHODS

The efficacy and safety of once-daily paliperidone ER (6 mg, 9 mg and 12 mg) were assessed versus placebo in 628 patients with acute schizophrenia in a 6-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study.

RESULTS

All doses of paliperidone ER demonstrated significant improvement in PANSS score, all PANSS Marder factor scores (p<0.001) and personal and social functioning versus placebo (p<0.001). The PANSS total score also improved significantly in the olanzapine treatment arm. Significantly higher percentages of paliperidone ER patients demonstrated a > or =30% reduction in PANSS total score versus placebo (p<0.001). The incidence of movement disorder-related AEs and rating scales measurements were similar to placebo for the paliperidone ER 6 mg group and higher in the 9 mg and 12 mg groups. In the paliperidone ER groups there were no reports of glucose-related AEs or clinically relevant changes in plasma lipid levels and changes in mean bodyweight<1 kg.

CONCLUSION

In this study, all doses of paliperidone ER were effective in significantly improving the symptoms of schizophrenia and personal and social functioning and were generally well tolerated. Paliperidone ER offers a distinctive treatment profile and may provide a valuable new treatment option for patients with schizophrenia.

Paliperidone extended-release tablets for prevention of symptom recurrence in patients with schizophrenia: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

We evaluated the efficacy of paliperidone extended-release (ER), an investigational psychotropic agent, in delaying symptom recurrence in adult patients with schizophrenia and its safety and tolerability. In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study, patients' symptoms were stabilized during an 8-week run-in and a 6-week stabilization phases using open-label, flexibly dosed paliperidone ER (3-15 mg once daily, starting dose = 9 mg). The primary efficacy variable was the time of first recurrence of schizophrenia symptoms, which included predefined changes in symptom scores, psychiatric hospitalization, self-injury, and suicidal or aggressive behavior during the double-blind phase (paliperidone ER or placebo treatment). Based on positive efficacy, the study was terminated at the preplanned interim analysis (43 recurrence events). The interim analysis (primary analysis) included 113 patients (mean age = 41 years; 51% men, 85% white). In the intent-to-treat group, 14 paliperidone ER-treated patients (25%) experienced a recurrence event versus 29 (53%) for placebo. Time-to-recurrence was significantly different, favoring the paliperidone ER group (P = 0.005, log-rank test): 25% quantile of time-to-recurrence was 83 days (paliperidone ER) versus 23 days (placebo). Final analyses (n = 205) were confirmatory. During initial open-label treatment with paliperidone ER, symptoms improved significantly. This improvement was maintained with continued treatment, as were functioning and quality-of-life measures. Treatment-emergent adverse events rates were similar: 35% for paliperidone ER and 40% for placebo. Paliperidone ER treatment versus placebo significantly delayed time-to-recurrence in patients with schizophrenia, maintained symptom stability and measures of functioning, and was generally well tolerated in this patient population.

Long-term safety and tolerability of long-acting injectable risperidone in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder

Subjects were patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder enrolled in extension studies (Study A and Study B) after participating in 12-week studies of long-acting injectable risperidone [Kane, J.M., Eerdekens, M., Lindenmayer, J.-P., Keith, S.J., Lesem, M., Karcher, K., 2003. Long-acting injectable risperidone: efficacy and safety of the first long-acting atypical antipsychotic. Am. J. Psychiatry 160, 1125-1132; Lindenmayer, J.-P., Eerdekens, L., Berry, S., Eerdekens, M., 2004. Safety and efficacy of long-acting risperidone in schizophrenia: a 12-week, multicenter, open-label study in stable patients switched from typical and atypical oral antipsychotics. J. Clin. Psychiatry 65, 1084-1089]. Twelve months of treatment were completed by 55% of Study A patients and 52% of Study B patients. The median modal dose of long-acting injectable risperidone was 50 mg/14 days in both studies. Most frequent adverse events were psychosis, headache, insomnia, agitation, and rhinitis. EPS-related adverse events were reported in 33% of patients in Study A and 22% in Study B. Patients with Clinical Global Impressions ratings of "not ill" and "mild" increased from 14% at baseline to 54% at endpoint in Study A and from 42% to 65% in Study B. It is concluded that treatment with long-acting injectable risperidone for 1 year or longer appeared to be safe and well tolerated in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.

An open-label extension trial of risperidone monotherapy in the treatment of bipolar I disorder

The primary objective of this 9-week open-label extension trial was to assess the effects of risperidone monotherapy in patients with acute bipolar I disorder who completed treatment in two preceding 3-week double-blind trials. Patients with DSM-IV bipolar I disorder, experiencing an acute manic episode, received a flexible dose of risperidone (1-6 mg/day) or placebo in two independent double-blind, randomized, 3-week monotherapy trials. Completers who required ongoing treatment were eligible to enter this open-label 9-week extension trial during which all patients received risperidone. The primary efficacy measure was the mean change in the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score. Secondary efficacy measures included the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity Scale, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and Global Assessment Scale. Safety assessments included adverse event reports, laboratory tests, and the Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale (ESRS). Of the 283 patients who entered the extension study, 160 had previously received risperidone (RIS/RIS) in the acute treatment trial and 123 had received placebo (PLA/RIS). This study was completed by 71% of these patients. The mean+/-SE modal dose of risperidone was 4.6+/-1.5 mg/day. Patients in both the RIS/RIS and PLA/RIS groups improved significantly at the endpoint of the 9-week open-label study compared to their open-label baseline scores (-5.2+/-0.69, P<0.001 and -9.12+/-1.44, P<0.001, respectively) on the YMRS. Furthermore, changes from double-blind baseline to open-label endpoint were -29.4+/-1.0 in the RIS/RIS group and -23.9+/-1.4 in the PLA/RIS group. Significant improvements from both double-blind and open-label baseline were seen at week 1 of the open-label trial (P<0.001) and at each subsequent timepoint. A similar pattern was observed on the secondary measures of efficacy. Most frequent adverse events were extrapyramidal disorder (18%) and somnolence (12%). Most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. The mean score for the Parkinsonism subscale of the ESRS was 1.1 at open-label baseline, and decreased by 0.1 at endpoint. Mean increase in body weight from open-label baseline was 0.6 kg in patients treated with placebo in the preceding double-blind trial and 1.2 kg in patients previously treated with risperidone. Risperidone treatment was well tolerated and resulted in further improvement during the 9-week extension, beyond the 3 weeks of acute treatment. Patients switched from placebo to risperidone improved markedly. Risperidone treatment did not induce depression.

Risperidone in the treatment of acute mania: double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Severe mania is life-threatening, carries an increased risk of suicide and has a serious impact on patients and their families. Efficient and rapid control of episodes of acute mania is needed.

AIMS

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of risperidone monotherapy for acute mania.

METHOD

In a 3-week, randomised, double-blind trial, 290 in-patients with bipolar I disorder with current manic or mixed episode and a baseline Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score of 20 or more received flexible doses of risperidone (1-6 mg per day) or placebo.

RESULTS

Risperidone was received by 146 patients and placebo by144. Their mean baseline YMRS score was 37.2 (s.e.=0.5). Significantly greater improvements were observed with risperidone than with placebo at weeks 1 and 2 and at end-point (total YMRS: P <0.01). Extrapyramidal symptoms were the most frequently reported adverse events in the risperidone group.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severe manic symptoms, risperidone produced significant improvements in YMRS scores as early as week 1 and substantial changes at end-point. Treatment was well tolerated.

Perceived functioning, well-being and psychiatric symptoms in patients with stable schizophrenia treated with long-acting risperidone for 1 year

BACKGROUND

The extent to which antipsychotics improve patients' well-being is uncertain.

AIMS

To examine psychopathology and patient-rated functioning and well-being in patients treated with risperidone.

METHOD

In a 1-year, open-label, international multicentre trial of long-acting risperidone in 615 stable adult patients with schizophrenia, self-rated functioning and well-being were measured every 3 months using the Short Form 36-item questionnaire (SF-36). Psychopathology was quantified using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS).

RESULTS

Significant improvements were found on the SF-36 mental component summary score and vitality and social functioning scales. PANSS and mental component summary scores were moderately correlated.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-reported functioning and well-being appear to differ from investigator-rated psychotic symptoms. Patient-rated well-being should be assessed with symptoms to help measure treatment outcomes.

Short- and long-term efficacy and safety of risperidone in adults with disruptive behavior disorders

RATIONALE

Function in society can be severely affected by disruptive behaviors in adults.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the efficacy and safety of risperidone in the treatment of disruptive behavior disorders in intellectually disabled adults.

METHODS

Intellectually disabled patients with disruptive behavior disorder were randomly assigned to receive risperidone (n = 39) in a flexible dosage ranging from 1 to 4 mg/day (mean dosage, 1.45+/-0.08 mg/day) or placebo (n = 38) for 4 weeks of double-blind treatment. Efficacy at endpoint was measured primarily by using the Aberrant Behavior Checklist (ABC); secondary efficacy measures included the Behavior Problems Inventory and Clinical Global Impressions scales. After this 4-week period, patients could enter open-label treatment with risperidone for 48 weeks.

RESULTS

Risperidone was well tolerated, and patients treated with risperidone demonstrated significantly greater improvement at endpoint on the ABC than those who received placebo [-27.3 points (52.8% improvement) versus -14.9 points (31.3% improvement); P = 0.036] and also improved on Behavior Problems Inventory and Clinical Global Impressions ratings. Over the 48-week, open-label follow-up period, there was a further decrease of 6.3 points (P < or = 0.05) on the ABC for patients who initially received risperidone and a decrease of 11.3 points (P < or = 0.05) for patients who initially received placebo and were switched to open-label risperidone. These results were achieved with a mean modal dosage of 1.8 mg/day.

CONCLUSION

Risperidone is efficacious and well tolerated in managing disruptive behavior disorders in adults with intellectual disability.

Pharmacokinetics and D2 receptor occupancy of long-acting injectable risperidone (Risperdal Consta) in patients with schizophrenia

Thirteen patients with schizophrenia received injections of 25, 50, or 75 mg of long-acting risperidone every 2 wk. Brain D2 receptor occupancy was assessed with [11C]raclopride 2 wk after the last (fifth) injection (day 71) in seven subjects and 2 wk after the third injection (day 44) in one subject. Stable plasma concentrations were reached after the third injection and steady-state concentrations of the active moiety (risperidone + 9-hydroxyrisperidone) after the fourth injection. Steady-state plasma concentrations were maintained for 4-5 wk after the last injection and then declined rapidly. After injections of 25, 50 and 75 mg on day 44 or day 71, D2 receptor occupancy ranged from 25-48%, 59-83% and 62-72% respectively, while plasma active-moiety levels ranged from 4.4-8.8, 15.0-31.1 and 22.5-26.3 ng/ml respectively. The results indicate that brain D2 receptor occupancy at steady state after injections of long-acting risperidone was in the range found in patients effectively treated with 2-6 mg of oral risperidone.

Acute and continuation risperidone monotherapy in bipolar mania: a 3-week placebo-controlled trial followed by a 9-week double-blind trial of risperidone and haloperidol

In a randomized, double-blind trial, patients with acute bipolar mania received 1-6 mg/day of risperidone, 2-12 mg/day of haloperidol, or placebo for 3 weeks, followed by double-blind risperidone or haloperidol for 9 weeks. Of 438 patients, 154 were randomized to risperidone, 144 to haloperidol, and 140 to placebo. The mean+/-S.D. modal doses were 4.2+/-1.7 mg/day of risperidone and 8.0+/-3.6 mg/day of haloperidol during the initial 3-week phase and 4.1+/-1.8 and 7.4+/-3.7 mg/day during the 12-week period. At week 3, mean Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score reductions from baseline were significantly greater in patients receiving risperidone than placebo (p<0.001). Differences between risperidone and haloperidol on this efficacy measure were not significant. Further reductions in YMRS scores were seen in patients receiving risperidone or haloperidol during the subsequent 9 weeks. No unexpected adverse events were reported. Extrapyramidal disorder and hyperkinesias, the most commonly reported adverse events with antipsychotic use, occurred less frequently with risperidone than haloperidol. We conclude that risperidone monotherapy was an effective and well-tolerated treatment for bipolar mania and that efficacy was maintained over the long term.

Efficacy and safety of long-acting risperidone in elderly patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder

BACKGROUND

Elderly patients are often an underserved population in terms of optimizing treatment outcomes. Long-acting risperidone, the first long-acting injectable atypical antipsychotic, can improve outcomes through continuous medication delivery.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of long-acting injectable risperidone in elderly patients with psychotic disorders.

METHODS

This is a subanalysis of 57 patients aged > or =65 years enrolled in an open-label study of long-acting risperidone that included 725 symptomatically stable patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Patients were assigned to receive 25, 50, or 75 mg of long-acting risperidone every 2 weeks for up to 50 weeks.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven elderly patients (mean +/- SE age, 70.9 +/- 0.7 years) were enrolled. Mean Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total scores improved significantly throughout the study and at endpoint (p < 0.001). The PANSS factor scores (positive symptoms, negative symptoms, disorganized thoughts, uncontrolled hostility/excitement, and anxiety/depression) also significantly improved (p < 0.01). Clinical improvement (> or =20% reduction in PANSS total scores) was achieved by 49% of these stable patients, and 55% improved on the Clinical Global Impressions scale. Severity of movement disorders (Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale scores) was reduced significantly. Adverse events reported in >10% of patients were insomnia (14%), constipation (12%), and bronchitis (12%).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-acting risperidone was associated with significant symptom improvements in stable elderly patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Treatment was well tolerated.

Pharmacokinetics and tolerability of long-acting risperidone in schizophrenia

The pharmacokinetics and tolerability of long-acting risperidone (Risperdal Consta) were evaluated in a multicenter, prospective, open-label, 15-week study of 86 patients with schizophrenia. Subjects stabilized on 2, 4 or 6 mg of oral risperidone once daily for at least 4 weeks were assigned to receive i.m. injections of 25, 50 or 75 mg of risperidone, respectively, every 2 weeks for 10 weeks. The 90% confidence intervals for the i.m./oral ratios of the mean steady-state plasma-AUC, corrected for dosing interval, and of the average plasma concentration of the active moiety (risperidone plus 9-hydroxyrisperidone) were within the range of 80-125%, indicating bioequivalence of the i.m. and oral formulations. However, mean steady-state peak concentrations of the active moiety were 25-32% lower with i.m. than oral dosing (P < 0.05) and fluctuations in plasma active-moiety levels were 32-42% lower with the i.m. than oral regimen. Symptoms of schizophrenia continued to improve after switching from oral to i.m. dosing. Long-acting risperidone was well tolerated locally and systematically. Although overall bioequivalence of the two formulations was established, the differences in pharmacokinetic profiles between the two formulations indicate potential benefits for long-acting risperidone.

Safety and efficacy of long-acting risperidone in schizophrenia: a 12-week, multicenter, open-label study in stable patients switched from typical and atypical oral antipsychotics

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy of the first long-acting injectable atypical antipsychotic, risperidone, were assessed in stable patients with schizophrenia switched from oral antipsychotic medications.

METHOD

Data were collected between July 1, 2001, and October 25, 2002. The study population included patients from clinics, hospitals, and physicians' offices. After a 4-week run-in period, symptomatically stable patients with schizophrenia (DSM-IV) who had been taking haloperidol (N = 46), quetiapine (N = 45), or olanzapine (N = 50) received 25 mg of long-acting risperidone. The oral antipsychotics were continued for 3 weeks after the first injection of long-acting risperidone. Injections were administered every 2 weeks at 25 mg up to a maximum dose of 50 mg for 12 weeks in this multicenter, open-label study.

RESULTS

Long-acting risperidone was well tolerated. Of the 141 patients who participated in the study, the most frequently reported adverse events were insomnia (16%), headache (15%), psychosis (11%), and agitation (11%). The mean increase in body weight was 0.4 kg. No other clinically relevant laboratory abnormalities or significant electrocardiogram changes were observed during the 12-week treatment. Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale total scores were reduced during treatment with long-acting risperidone. Improvements in symptoms of schizophrenia were observed with long-acting risperidone at week 4 and continued through the 12-week treatment with significant reductions in total Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) scores at week 8 (-2.5, p <.01) and week 12 (-3.9, p <.001). At endpoint, 37% (50/135) of these stable patients were rated as clinically improved (> or = 20% decrease in PANSS total scores).

CONCLUSIONS

Switching treatment from oral antipsychotics to long-acting risperidone without an intervening period of oral risperidone was safe and well tolerated. Long-acting risperidone also significantly reduced the severity of symptoms in these stable patients with schizophrenia.

Long-acting injectable risperidone: safety and efficacy in stable patients switched from conventional depot antipsychotics

Long-acting injectable risperidone was assessed in schizophrenia patients who were symptomatically stable on conventional depot antipsychotics and who were then switched to long-acting risperidone. Participants in this open-label, multicentre, 12-week trial had received flupenthixol decanoate, fluphenazine decanoate, haloperidol decanoate, or zuclopenthixol decanoate for 4 months or longer. Each was considered symptomatically stable by investigators. After receiving two cycles of their conventional depot antipsychotic during the run-in period, patients were switched to receive long-acting risperidone every 2 weeks for 12 weeks at an initial dose of 25 mg. This dose could be increased in 12.5-mg increments at 4-week intervals. Ninety-two percent of the patients received all six injections; 62% received the 25-mg dose throughout the treatment period. Adverse events related to movement disorders were reported in 3%. Severity of movement disorders decreased during long-acting risperidone treatment. Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total and factor scores and scores on the Clinical Global Impressions severity scale were significantly reduced during treatment; 48% of these stable patients showed further symptom improvement (> or =20% decrease in PANSS score at endpoint). The results indicate that patients with schizophrenia who are symptomatically stable during treatment with a conventional depot antipsychotic can be safely and effectively switched to long-acting injectable risperidone without a prior transition to oral risperidone.

Health-related quality of life in patients with schizophrenia during treatment with long-acting, injectable risperidone

BACKGROUND

We investigated the impact of treatment with long-acting, injectable risperidone versus placebo on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with schizophrenia. Results are discussed in the context of HRQoL in the general U.S. population.

METHOD

Patients with DSM-IV schizophrenia entered a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. After screening, previous antipsychotics were discontinued, and oral risperidone was titrated up to a dose of 4 mg/day over 1 week. Patients were then randomly assigned to receive placebo [N = 92] or long-acting risperidone (25 [N = 93], 50 [N = 97], or 75 mg [N = 87] every 2 weeks) for 12 weeks. HRQoL was measured using the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36-item questionnaire (SF-36).

RESULTS

At week 12, patients receiving long-acting risperidone had improved significantly (p <.05) in 5 domains of the SF-36 (bodily pain, general health, social functioning, role-emotional, and mental health) compared with patients receiving placebo. The effect was greatest for the 25-mg group, with significant improvement versus placebo in 6 domains (p <.05). At baseline, all SF-36 domain scores except bodily pain were significantly lower (p <.05) than normal values in all groups. With placebo, scores in all 8 domains remained below normal values after 12 weeks, while patients receiving long-acting risperidone showed improvement in HRQoL toward normal levels, with clinically meaningful improvements in all mental-health domains. In the 25-mg group, scores in 7 domains were not statistically different from normal values after 12 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-acting, injectable risperidone improved HRQoL toward normal levels. After 12 weeks, HRQoL of patients receiving 25 mg was not significantly different from normal.

Treatment of schizophrenia with long-acting injectable risperidone: a 12-month open-label trial of the first long-acting second-generation antipsychotic

BACKGROUND

The long-term safety and efficacy of long-acting injectable risperidone, the first long-acting second-generation antipsychotic, were evaluated in stable patients with schizophrenia.

METHOD

After a 2-week run-in period during which patients with DSM-IV schizophrenia received flexible doses of 1 to 6 mg of oral risperidone, patients received injections of 25 mg, 50 mg, or 75 mg of long-acting risperidone every 2 weeks for 12 months. Severity of extrapyramidal symptoms was assessed with the Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale (ESRS), and efficacy was assessed with the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). This study was conducted from March 29, 1999 to July 19, 2000.

RESULTS

The subjects were 615 patients with schizophrenia who received at least 1 injection of long-acting risperidone. The 12-month trial was completed by 65% of patients. Treatment was discontinued because of adverse events in 5% of patients. Extrapyramidal symptoms as adverse events were reported by 25% of the patients. Severity of extrapyramidal symptoms (according to ESRS scores) was low at baseline and decreased in each of the groups during the 12 months. The other most common adverse events were anxiety in 24%, insomnia in 21%, psychosis in 17%, and depression in 14% of the patients. Little pain was associated with the injections. Severity of symptoms of schizophrenia was improved in each group, with significant reductions in PANSS total scores (p <.01) and positive (p <.01) and negative (p <.001) factor scores.

CONCLUSION

In terms of both safety and efficacy, symptomatically stable patients with schizophrenia benefit from being switched to long-acting injectable risperidone.

Long-acting injectable risperidone: efficacy and safety of the first long-acting atypical antipsychotic

OBJECTIVE

The authors assessed the efficacy and safety of the first long-acting atypical antipsychotic (long-acting injectable risperidone) in patients with schizophrenia.

METHOD

In a 12-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized study, patients received intramuscular injections every 2 weeks of placebo or long-acting risperidone (25 mg, 50 mg, or 75 mg). The primary measure of efficacy was the change in total score on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale.

RESULTS

Of the 554 patients who were enrolled, 400 entered the double-blind study, and 370 received at least one postbaseline assessment. Mean changes in score of -6.2, -8.5, and -7.4 on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale were seen at endpoint for the 25-, 50-, and 75-mg risperidone groups, respectively; all three change scores were significantly different from that seen with placebo (+2.6). Improvements in positive and negative symptoms were also significantly greater in patients receiving risperidone. Long-acting risperidone was well tolerated. Adverse events related to extrapyramidal symptoms were spontaneously reported by 13% of patients receiving placebo and 10% of patients in the 25-mg risperidone group, with higher rates in the 50-mg and 75-mg groups. Severity of extrapyramidal symptoms was mild at baseline and throughout the trial in each treatment group. Mean weight changes were small in the 25-, 50-, and 75-mg risperidone groups (0.5 kg, 1.2 kg, and 1.9 kg, respectively). Injection site pain was rated as low by the patients, consistent with the investigators' pain ratings.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-acting injectable risperidone was efficacious and well tolerated and provides both clinicians and patients with a new mode of treatment that can improve the outcome of long-term therapy.