olanzapine and asenapine

Mania (or manic episodes) is a common symptom of bipolar disorder and is frequently accompanied by hyperactivity and delusions; given the cost and resources available, there is a paucity of evidence for direct comparison of different drugs.. We aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations on the efficacy of overall currently used pharmacological treatments for patients with acute bipolar mania.. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) using a Bayesian network frame. We searched the primary literature databases without language restrictions until Dec 18, 2021, for reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of suspected antimanic drugs used as monotherapy for patients with acute bipolar mania, with the primary outcomes being efficacy (mean difference (MD), standardized mean difference (SMD) in the change of mania score).. Eighty-seven studies were included in which 18,724 manic participants (mean age = 34.6 years, with 50.36% males) were allocated at random to one of 25 active medication drug therapies or placebo, resulting in 87 direct comparisons on 192 data points. Tamoxifen (- 22·00 [- 26·00 to - 18·00]) had the best efficacy over the placebo. Meanwhile, risperidone (- 6·60 [- 8·40 to - 4·90]) was substantially more effective than placebo in treating acute mania. Carbamazepine, haloperidol, ziprasidone, cariprazine, olanzapine, quetiapine, aripiprazole, lithium, paliperidone, asenapine, and divalproex were noticeably more effective than placebo.. Overall, tamoxifen appears to be the most effective of the currently known pharmaceutical therapy available to treat acute mania or manic episodes; however, this conclusion is restricted by the scale of RCTs conducted, and risperidone was found to be the most effective medication among antipsychotics. Carbamazepine, haloperidol, ziprasidone, cariprazine, olanzapine, quetiapine, aripiprazole, lithium, paliperidone, asenapine, and divalproex were noticeably effective in treating acute mania or manic episodes.

Topics: Adult; Antimanic Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Aripiprazole; Benzodiazepines; Carbamazepine; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Haloperidol; Humans; Lithium; Mania; Network Meta-Analysis; Olanzapine; Paliperidone Palmitate; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Piperazines; Quetiapine Fumarate; Risperidone; Tamoxifen; Thiazoles; Valproic Acid

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

Topics: Antimanic Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Bipolar Disorder; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Dizziness; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Humans; Olanzapine; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Weight Gain

The purpose of this study was to assess whether early symptom improvement predicts later treatment outcome in patients with schizophrenia.. Data were pooled from intent-to-treat (ITT) populations of three six-week randomized controlled studies with fixed doses of asenapine (ASE; n=470), olanzapine (OLA; n=95), risperidone (RIS; n=56), haloperidol (HAL; n=112), or placebo (PLA; n=275). Early improvement was defined as a 20% reduction of Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score at week 2, compared to baseline (primary criterion). Treatment outcome at week 6 was defined as response (PANSS: ≥50% score reduction) or remission (PANSS item score ≤3 on selected items at week 6). Odds ratios (ORs) and predictive performance statistics were calculated.. Statistically significant associations between early improvement (at week 2) and treatment outcome (at week 6) were observed for all treatment groups except OLA; as evidenced by increased ORs for response. Analysis of associations between early improvement and remission, as defined by Andreasen et al. (2005), revealed a statistically significant relationship for ASE and PLA-treated patients only. Predictive performance statistics revealed higher negative predictive value (NPV) and sensitivity rates, and comparably lower positive predictive value (PPV) and specificity rates across treatment groups for both response and remission.. It is suggested that absence of improvement within two weeks of treatment may predict the unlikely success of subsequent pharmacological intervention.

Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Haloperidol; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Humans; Olanzapine; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remission Induction; Risperidone; Schizophrenia; Sensitivity and Specificity; Treatment Outcome

To describe weight changes and metabolic effects of asenapine compared with placebo and olanzapine in adults.. Post hoc analyses were performed using data from 17 asenapine trials (13 schizophrenia and 4 bipolar mania trials) with placebo (5-10 mg twice daily; n = 1,748; 1-6 weeks) and/or olanzapine (5-20 mg, once daily; n = 3,430; 3-100 weeks). Data were pooled based on treatment into placebo-controlled and olanzapine-controlled trials. For trials with placebo and olanzapine treatment groups, the asenapine population was included in both pools. Changes from baseline for weight, body mass index, and fasting lipid and glucose levels were determined. The Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities was used to define metabolic adverse events.. Mean (standard error [SE]) weight change was greater with asenapine than with placebo (1.2 [0.2] vs 0.14 [0.2] kg; P < .0001) and similar in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Mean changes differed for asenapine versus placebo in triglycerides (1.8 [6.3] vs -12.2 [5.9] mg/dL; P < .01) and fasting glucose (1.9 [1.7] vs -1.6 [1.5] mg/dL; P < .05). In the olanzapine-controlled trials, weight change was significantly lower with asenapine than with olanzapine (0.9 [0.1] vs 3.1 [0.2] kg; P < .0001). Changes associated with asenapine were lower than those with olanzapine in fasting glucose (2.0 vs 3.3 mg/dL), total cholesterol (-0.4 [1.1] vs 6.2 [1.2] mg/dL; P < .0001), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-0.3 [1.1] vs 3.1 [1.2] mg/dL; P < .01), and triglycerides (-0.9 [5.4] vs 24.3 [5.8] mg/dL; P < .0001).. Asenapine was associated with greater weight gain and glucose changes than placebo and not associated with a meaningful change in triglycerides or cholesterol levels. Asenapine was not significantly different from olanzapine in change in glucose levels and lower than olanzapine with respect to triglycerides, weight gain, and increased cholesterol.

Topics: Adult; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Bipolar Disorder; Blood Glucose; Body Mass Index; Body Weight; Cholesterol; Cholesterol, LDL; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Female; Hematologic Tests; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Olanzapine; Schizophrenia; Treatment Outcome; Triglycerides; Weight Gain

Although common and severe, mixed states are rarely the subject of proper clinical trials. The aim of this paper is to systematically review data published in 2013 on the pharmacological treatment of mixed states.. The Medline database was searched for 2013 publications using the following keywords: 'treatment'; 'mixed'; 'bipolar'.. Medline search returned 118 results. Manual inspection of abstracts allowed selecting six papers for further review. The first meta-analysis of the efficacy of second-generation antipsychotics in mixed episodes, published in 2013, showed the efficacy of these agents. Other papers suggested that asenapine and olanzapine were efficacious for mixed episodes, with olanzapine being equally effective in patients with or without substance abuse. Aripiprazole and ziprasidone were reported to be efficacious and safe in treating manic/mixed episodes in children and adolescents. In another trial, Calcitonin was not found to be superior to placebo in treating manic/mixed episodes.. Although data suggest that most agents efficacious for mania may also be efficacious for mixed episodes, further studies are needed to confirm this assumption.

Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Aripiprazole; Benzodiazepines; Bipolar Disorder; Calcitonin; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Humans; Olanzapine; Piperazines; Quinolones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thiazoles; Treatment Outcome

Insufficient treatment of psychosis often manifests as violent and aggressive behaviors that are dangerous to the patient and others, and that warrant treatment strategies which are not considered first-line, evidence-based practices. Such treatment strategies include both antipsychotic polypharmacy (simultaneous use of 2 antipsychotics) and high-dose antipsychotic monotherapy. Here we discuss the hypothesized neurobiological substrates of various types of violence and aggression, as well as providing arguments for the use of antipsychotic polypharmacy and high-dose monotherapy to target dysfunctional neurocircuitry in the subpopulation of patients that is treatment-resistant, violent, and aggressive. In this review, we focus primarily on the data supporting the use of second-generation, atypical antipsychotics both at high doses and in combination with other antipsychotics.

Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Aripiprazole; Benzodiazepines; Brain; Clozapine; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Drug Therapy, Combination; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Humans; Impulsive Behavior; Isoxazoles; Lurasidone Hydrochloride; Olanzapine; Paliperidone Palmitate; Piperazines; Piperidines; Polypharmacy; Psychotic Disorders; Quetiapine Fumarate; Receptors, Dopamine D2; Risperidone; Thiazoles; Violence

Asenapine is a new second-generation antipsychotic (SGA) approved in September 2010 by the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of bipolar disorder. It was significantly more effective than placebo in acute mania or mixed episodes as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy to mood stabilizers (lithium or valproate). Early improvement was seen at day-2 (significant difference with placebo) and was strongly associated with week-3 response and remission. These suggest that the observation of an early improvement in the first week may be clinically an useful tool for individual treatment adjustment during the early course of treatment. Post-hoc analyses of asenapine studies showed significantly better effects on improving depressive symptoms associated with manic symptoms, and physical health related quality of life dimensions as compared to placebo. Asenapine differs from the other SGAs by a good tolerability profile, in particular in terms of metabolic profile. However, it seems to have a significant though moderate link with the occurrence of sedation. This new tolerance profile greatly broadens the scope of SGAs and supports the view of some authors that the term SGA is now outdated. Other therapeutic perspectives of asenapine are being assessed, in particular in specific population (pediatric and elderly patients).

Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Antimanic Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Bipolar Disorder; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Double-Blind Method; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Humans; Male; Olanzapine; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; Psychometrics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome

Asenapine is an atypical antipsychotic agent available in sublingual formulations (5 or 10 mg) and indicated in the US (Saphris) for the acute treatment, as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy, of manic and mixed episodes and in the EU (Sycrest) for the treatment of moderate to severe manic episodes, in adult patients with bipolar I disorder. In two large (both n = 480), well designed, 3-week trials in adult patients with bipolar I disorder, asenapine monotherapy was significantly more effective than placebo at improving mania symptoms, as assessed using the Young Mania Rating Scale total score (YMRS; primary endpoint), with significant differences between the asenapine and placebo groups occurring after 2 days of treatment. In both trials, Clinical Global Impression for Bipolar Disorder (CGI-BP) scale mania severity scores exceeded those of placebo. In one trial, response and remission rates exceeded those of placebo. In a 9-week extension study that recruited completers from the monotherapy trials, there were no significant differences between asenapine and olanzapine groups in terms in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores, CGI-BP mania severity scores, YMRS response rates or YMRS remission rates during the extension phase. In the extension study, the efficacy of asenapine monotherapy appeared to be maintained over 40 weeks (total treatment duration of 52 weeks). In a 12-week trial of asenapine as adjunctive therapy to lithium or valproate, asenapine was more effective than placebo in improving manic symptoms, based on the difference between groups in the YMRS total score at week 3 (primary endpoint). Most adverse events associated with asenapine were of mild to moderate severity, with <7% of asenapine recipients experiencing serious adverse events (vs 7% with placebo). In a pooled analysis of the monotherapy trials, the most common adverse events (occurring in ≥ 5% of patients and at twice the incidence of placebo) reported during acute phase asenapine monotherapy for bipolar mania were somnolence, dizziness, extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS, other than akathisia) and increased bodyweight, which were similar in nature to those occurring during longer-term monotherapy with asenapine. EPS did not worsen in severity during longer-term asenapine monotherapy. Asenapine had minimal effects on plasma glucose, lipid and prolactin levels over both short- and longer-term treatment periods, and had little pro-arrhythmogenic potential. Further active

Topics: Animals; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Bipolar Disorder; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Humans; Olanzapine; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales

Available antipsychotics show different efficacy on manic symptoms of bipolar patients, but few studies have investigated the speed of action of the various compounds. For this reason, purpose of the present paper was to compare antipsychotic mono-therapies in terms of speed of action in a sample of manic bipolar patients. In total, 155 bipolar patients, treated with antipsychotic mono-therapy and followed-up in Inpatient Psychiatry Clinic of University of Milan, were included in this single-blind comparative study. Clinical response was defined as a reduction of Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) scores ⩾50%, while remission as a YMRS score <10. After 4 days patients who had been treated with asenapine, were more likely to have achieved a clinical response than those in treatment with haloperidol ( p = 0.001). After 7 days, a more frequent clinical response was achieved by patients treated with asenapine than those who had been treated with haloperidol ( p < 0.001) or olanzapine ( p = 0.047). Asenapine appears to be faster in determining treatment response in manic patients compared with haloperidol and less markedly with olanzapine.

Topics: Adult; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Bipolar Disorder; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Female; Haloperidol; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Olanzapine; Single-Blind Method; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome

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.. 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.. 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.. 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.. 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.

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Akathisia, Drug-Induced; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Borderline Personality Disorder; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Female; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Humans; Hypesthesia; Male; Middle Aged; Olanzapine; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome; Weight Gain; Young Adult

Evaluate the efficacy and safety of asenapine 2.5 mg twice daily (bid; n=97) or 5 mg bid (n=113) versus placebo (n=101) in adults with acute exacerbation of schizophrenia.. Adults with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) schizophrenia diagnosis were randomized to asenapine 2.5 mg bid, 5 mg bid, placebo, or olanzapine 15 mg once daily. The primary objective was to test superiority of asenapine versus placebo as measured by the change from baseline to day 42 in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score. The key safety objective was to evaluate weight change in asenapine versus olanzapine at day 42.. The primary efficacy endpoint was met; the difference in least squares mean change from baseline to day 42 in PANSS total score between asenapine 5 mg bid and placebo was -5.5 points (unadjusted 95% CI: -10.1, -1.0; multiplicity adjusted P=0.0356). Neither asenapine 2.5 mg bid nor olanzapine 15mg were superior to placebo. Both asenapine groups demonstrated significantly less weight gain than olanzapine at day 42. Significantly higher incidences of oral hypoesthesia and dysgeusia (combined) for asenapine 2.5 mg bid (5.2% vs 0.0%; P=0.0217) and 5 mg bid (7.1% vs 0.0%; P=0.0033) were observed versus placebo. There were no significant differences between asenapine and placebo for insomnia, extrapyramidal symptoms, akathisia, dizziness, or combination of somnolence/sedation/hypersomnia.. This study supports previous efficacy and safety findings of asenapine; asenapine 5 mg bid is the lowest effective dose in adults with schizophrenia. Asenapine was associated with significantly less weight gain than olanzapine at day 42.

Topics: Adult; Akathisia, Drug-Induced; Antipsychotic Agents; Basal Ganglia Diseases; Benzodiazepines; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Disease Progression; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; Dizziness; Double-Blind Method; Dysgeusia; Europe; Female; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Humans; Hypesthesia; Least-Squares Analysis; Male; Mouth Diseases; Olanzapine; Schizophrenia; Schizophrenic Psychology; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Treatment Outcome; Weight Gain

Although depressive symptoms are a frequently occurring phenomenon in schizophrenia, effective treatments remain an area of clinical need.. To assess the benefit of short-term treatment with the atypical antipsychotic asenapine versus placebo on depressive symptoms in patients with acute schizophrenia in an exacerbated state.. Data were pooled from intent-to-treat (ITT) populations of three 6-week, randomized controlled studies with fixed doses of asenapine (ASE; n=427), olanzapine (OLA; n=82), risperidone (RIS; n=54), haloperidol (HAL; n=97), or placebo (PLA; n=254). Change from baseline Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS) total score and individual item scores were assessed at Day 21 and Day 42 in the total patient population (n=914), and in patients presenting with a CDSS total score of .6 at baseline (n=248). Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analyses were performed on patient data.. The observed change from baseline in CDSS total score was significantly larger with ASE.compared to PLA.at both Day 21 (p<0.05) and Day 42 (p<0.01) for the total patient population group, and at Day 21 (p<0.05) in patients with baseline CDSS total score .6. For both populations, there was a significant change from baseline in the CDSS depression item score with ASE.compared to PLA.at Day 21 (p<0.01, all patient population; p<0.05, patients with baseline CDSS .6), and at Day 42 (p<0.01) in the all patient population. Statistically significant changes from baseline, in favor of ASE versus PLA, were also observed in other individual CDSS item scores including hopelessness (p<0.05, Day 21, patients with baseline CDSS .6), self-depreciation (p<0.05, Day 42, all patient population), guilty ideas of reference (p<0.01, Day 42, all patient population), pathological guilt (p<0.01, Day 21, all patient population; p<0.05, Day 21 and Day 42, patients with baseline CDSS score .6), and observed depression (p<0.05, Day 21, all patient population).. ASE significantly improved a range of depressive symptoms in people with an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia, as measured by the CDSS. ASE may represent a beneficial treatment option for the management of depressive symptoms in patients with schizophrenia.

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Depressive Disorder, Major; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Double-Blind Method; Female; Haloperidol; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Olanzapine; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risperidone; Schizophrenia; Schizophrenic Psychology; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult

To assess whether early symptom improvement predicts later treatment outcome in acute manic/mixed episodes of bipolar I disorder using Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) or Clinical Global Impression scale, bipolar disorders (CGI-BP) assessments.. Data were pooled from two 3-week randomized controlled studies with asenapine (ASE; n=372), olanzapine (OLA; n=391), or placebo (PL; n=197). Early improvement was defined as reduction of YMRS total scores (≥15%, ≥20%, ≥25%) or CGI-BP severity scores (≥1 point change) at days 2, 4, and 7. Treatment outcome at week 3 was defined as response (YMRS: ≥50% score reduction; CGI-BP severity: "minimally ill" or better) or remission (YMRS total score ≤12; CGI-BP severity: "not at all ill"). Odds ratios (ORs) and predictive performance statistics were calculated.. Early improvement occurred in a substantial percentage of patients and was associated with significantly increased ORs for response or remission. For ASE, results were significant as early as day 2 on all measures of YMRS and CGI-severity of mania assessment. For all treatments sensitivity and negative predictive values increased from days 2 to 7 for all YMRS and CGI-BP measures, while specificity values decreased.. In acute manic/mixed episodes, early improvement within 1 week of treatment was associated with significantly increased ORs of endpoint response or remission. While only a subset of early improvers reach the endpoint treatment goals, absence of improvement within week 1 of treatment initiation strongly predicts the unlikely success of subsequent treatment. Further, CGI-based predictors had predictive properties similar to those based on the YMRS scale.

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Bipolar Disorder; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Female; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Olanzapine; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult

A Phase 2 efficacy study suggested that asenapine (ASE) was superior to risperidone in decreasing negative symptoms in schizophrenia at 6 weeks, prompting design of two negative symptom studies. Two 26-week core studies with 26-week extensions compared asenapine (ASE: 5-10mg twice-daily] and olanzapine (OLA: 5-20mg once-daily) as monotherapies in reducing persistent negative symptoms (PNS). While neither study met the primary endpoint of superiority of ASE over OLA, ASE was statistically superior to OLA in one extension study. This prompted a pooled analysis of the treatment effects of both drugs.. Data were pooled from two 26-week core studies and extensions. Efficacy endpoints: change in Negative Symptom Assessment scale-16 (NSA-16) total score at Week 26 (prespecified primary endpoint) and Week 52. Additional measures: change in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS)-total, Marder factors, negative subscale scores, Clinical Global Impression Severity of Illness score (CGI-S) assessments, NSA-16 factor domains, NSA global score, and individual items.. Pooled data from the extension studies (n=502) showed no differences between ASE and OLA at Week 26. At Week 52, ASE showed superiority over OLA in NSA-16 total score, NSA global, PANSS Marder negative and PANSS negative subscales, some NSA-16 items, and four of five factor domains. In addition, pooled data for patients who entered the core trials (n=949) were analyzed over 52weeks (whether or not patients entered the extension). No significant differences between groups were observed in change in NSA-16 total score at 26-weeks. At Week 52, ASE was significantly superior over OLA in this measure, NSA global score and PANSS Marder negative factor. There were more early dropouts due to AEs, including worsening of the disease, in the ASE group.. In this pooled analysis, ASE and OLA did not differ significantly over 26 weeks, but indicated a signal of superiority for ASE with continued treatment up to 52 weeks.

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Databases, Factual; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; Female; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Humans; Longitudinal Studies; Male; Middle Aged; Olanzapine; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; Schizophrenia; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult

Two randomized, double-blind, 26-week core studies (Eastern [EH] and Western Hemisphere [WH]) tested the hypothesis that asenapine is superior to olanzapine for persistent negative symptoms of schizophrenia; 26-week extension studies assessed the comparative long-term efficacy and safety of these agents. In the core studies, 949 people were randomized to asenapine (n = 241 and 244) or olanzapine (n = 240 and 224); 26-week completion rates with asenapine were 64.7% and 49.6% (olanzapine, 80.4% and 63.8%) in the EH and WH, respectively. In the EH and WH extensions, respectively (asenapine, n = 134 and 86; olanzapine, n = 172 and 110), 52-week completion rates were 84.3% and 66.3% with asenapine (olanzapine, 89.0% and 80.9%). Asenapine was not superior to olanzapine in change in the 16-item Negative Symptom Assessment Scale total score in either core study, but asenapine was superior to olanzapine at week 52 in the WH extension study. Olanzapine was associated with modest, but significantly greater, changes in PANSS positive subscale score at various assessment times in both core studies and the WH extension study. Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was comparable between treatments across studies. Weight gain was consistently lower with asenapine. Extrapyramidal symptom-related adverse event incidence was higher with asenapine (EH: 8.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.1%-12.5%; WH: 16.4%; 95% CI, 11.9%-21.6%) than olanzapine (EH: 3.3%; 95% CI, 1.4%-6.4%; WH: 12.1%; 95% CI, 8.1%-17.0%), but Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale-Abbreviated total score changes did not significantly differ between treatments. In conclusion, asenapine superiority over olanzapine was not observed in the core studies. Both treatments improved persistent negative symptoms, but discontinuation rates were higher with asenapine.

Topics: Adult; Affect; Antipsychotic Agents; Basal Ganglia Diseases; Benzodiazepines; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Double-Blind Method; Drug Resistance; Female; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Humans; Interpersonal Relations; Male; Middle Aged; Olanzapine; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; Psychometrics; Psychomotor Performance; Schizophrenia; Schizophrenic Psychology; Social Behavior; Young Adult

Safety and efficacy results, collected in schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder patients treated for up to nearly 3 years, are presented for asenapine and olanzapine.. Patients completing a 52-week randomized double-blind core study on flexible-dose asenapine (5 or 10 mg BID) or olanzapine (10 or 20 mg QD) could continue treatment until study blind was broken.290 patients on asenapine and 150 on olanzapine continued treatment for variable lengths of time [mean ± SD (range) 311.0 ± 146.1 (10 - 653) d and 327.4 ± 139.6 (15 - 631) d, respectively]. Adverse event (AE) incidence was lower during the extension (asenapine, 62%; olanzapine, 55%) than during the core study (78%, 80%). In both groups, body weight increase and incidence of extrapyramidal AEs were negligible during the extension. Mean PANSS total score changes during first year of treatment were - 37.0 for asenapine and - 35.3 for olanzapine, with further changes of 1.6 for asenapine and - 0.8 for olanzapine at the extension study endpoint.. Clinical stability on asenapine as well as olanzapine was maintained, with few recurrent or newly emerging AEs beyond 1 year of treatment.

Topics: Adult; Antipsychotic Agents; Basal Ganglia Diseases; Benzodiazepines; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug Monitoring; Female; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Humans; Longitudinal Studies; Male; Middle Aged; Olanzapine; Pharmacovigilance; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; Psychotic Disorders; Schizophrenia; Time; Treatment Outcome; Weight Gain

Asenapine demonstrated superiority over placebo for mania in bipolar I disorder patients experiencing acute current manic or mixed episodes in 2 randomized, placebo-and olanzapine-controlled trials. We report the results of exploratory pooled post hoc analyses from these trials evaluating asenapine's effects on depressive symptoms in patients from these trials with significant baseline depressive symptoms.. In the original trials (A7501004 [NCT00159744], A7501005 [NCT00159796]), 977 patients were randomized to flexible-dose sublingual asenapine (10 mg twice daily on day 1; 5 or 10 mg twice daily thereafter), placebo, or oral olanzapine 5-20 mg once daily for 3 weeks. Three populations were defined using baseline depressive symptoms: (1) Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score ≥20 (n = 132); (2) Clinical Global Impression for Bipolar Disorder-Depression (CGI-BP-D) scale severity score ≥4 (n = 170); (3) diagnosis of mixed episodes (n = 302) by investigative site screening. For each population, asenapine and olanzapine were independently compared with placebo using least squares mean change from baseline on depressive symptom measures.. Decreases in MADRS total score were statistically greater with asenapine versus placebo at days 7 and 21 in all populations; differences between olanzapine and placebo were not significant. Decreases in CGI-BP-D score were significantly greater with asenapine versus placebo at day 7 in all categories and day 21 in population 1; CGI-BP-D score reductions were significantly greater with olanzapine versus placebo at day 21 in population 1 and day 7 in populations 2 and 3.. These post hoc analyses show that asenapine reduced depressive symptoms in bipolar I disorder patients experiencing acute manic or mixed episodes with clinically relevant depressive symptoms at baseline; olanzapine results appeared to be less consistent. Controlled studies of asenapine in patients with acute bipolar depression are necessary to confirm the generalizability of these findings.

Topics: Adult; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Bipolar Disorder; Depression; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Female; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Humans; Male; Olanzapine; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; Severity of Illness Index

Asenapine is indicated in adults for acute treatment of manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder with or without psychotic features. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of asenapine in bipolar I disorder.. Adults experiencing manic or mixed episodes were randomized to 3 weeks of flexible-dose treatment with sublingual asenapine (day 1: 10mg BID, 5 or 10mg BID thereafter; n=185), placebo (n=98), or oral olanzapine (day 1: 15 mg QD, 5-20mg QD thereafter; n=205). Primary efficacy, YMRS total score change from baseline to day 21, was assessed using ANCOVA with last observation carried forward.. Mean daily doses were 18.4 mg asenapine and 15.9mg olanzapine. Least squares mean changes in YMRS total score on day 21 were significantly greater with asenapine than placebo (-11.5 vs -7.8; P<0.007), with advantage seen as early as day 2 (-3.2 vs -1.7; P=0.022). Changes with olanzapine on days 2 and 21 also exceeded placebo (both P<0.0001). YMRS response and remission rates with olanzapine, but not asenapine, exceeded those of placebo. Incidence of EPS-related adverse events was 10.3%, 3.1%, and 6.8% with asenapine, placebo, and olanzapine, respectively; incidence of clinically significant weight gain (7.2%; 1.2%; 19.0%). Mean weight change (baseline to endpoint) was 0.9, 0.1, and 2.6 kg with asenapine, placebo, and olanzapine, respectively.. As this short-term study was designed for comparisons with placebo, any comparisons between asenapine and olanzapine should be interpreted cautiously.. Asenapine was superior to placebo in reducing YMRS total score and was well tolerated.

Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Sublingual; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Bipolar Disorder; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Olanzapine; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; Psychometrics; Young Adult

We conducted a double-blind 1-year trial of asenapine in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.. Patients were randomized to asenapine (5 or 10 mg BID; n=913) or olanzapine (10-20 mg QD; n=312), and monitored regularly.. Trial completion rates were 38% with asenapine, 57% with olanzapine; main reasons for discontinuation were withdrawal of consent (22%, 16%) and insufficient response (25%, 14%); fewer discontinuations were due to adverse events (6%, 7%). Mean weight gain was 0.9 kg with asenapine, 4.2 kg with olanzapine. Extrapyramidal symptoms reported as adverse events were more common with asenapine. Mean reductions in PANSS total score with asenapine and olanzapine were -21.0 and -27.5 ( P<0.0001); the exclusion of patients who had previous poor experience with olanzapine may have biased the results in favor of olanzapine. Scores on the subjective well-being on neuroleptics scale and functionality measures were similar between groups.. Asenapine was well tolerated over 1 year of treatment, causing less weight gain than olanzapine but more frequent extrapyramidal symptoms. PANSS total score improved with both agents; the improvement was greater with olanzapine than with asenapine using last observations carried forward but not in an observed-case analysis.

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Humans; Longitudinal Studies; Middle Aged; Olanzapine; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; Psychotic Disorders; Schizophrenia; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult

Asenapine is approved in the United States for acute treatment of manic or mixed episodes of bipolar I disorder with or without psychotic features. We report the results of long-term treatment with asenapine in patients with bipolar I disorder.. Patients completing either of two 3-week efficacy trials and a subsequent 9-week double-blind extension were eligible for this 40-week double-blind extension. Patients in the 3-week trials were randomized to flexible-dose asenapine (5 or 10mg BID), placebo, or olanzapine (5-20mg QD; included for assay sensitivity only). Patients entering the extension phase maintained their preestablished treatment; those originally randomized to placebo received flexible-dose asenapine (placebo/asenapine). Safety and tolerability endpoints included adverse events (AEs), extrapyramidal symptoms, laboratory values, and anthropometric measures. Efficacy, a secondary assessment, was measured as change in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score from 3-week trial baseline to week 52 with asenapine or olanzapine; the placebo/asenapine group was assessed for safety only.. Incidence of treatment-emergent AEs was 71.9%, 86.1%, and 79.4% with placebo/asenapine, asenapine, and olanzapine, respectively. The most frequent treatment-emergent AEs were headache and somnolence with placebo/asenapine; insomnia, sedation, and depression with asenapine; and weight gain, somnolence, and sedation with olanzapine. Among observed cases, mean ± SD changes in YMRS total score at week 52 were -28.6 ± 8.1 and -28.2 ± 6.8 for asenapine and olanzapine, respectively.. The study did not have a long-term placebo group.. In this 52-week extension in patients with bipolar mania, asenapine was well tolerated and long-term maintenance of efficacy was supported.

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Bipolar Disorder; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Double-Blind Method; Female; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Humans; Long-Term Care; Male; Middle Aged; Olanzapine; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; Psychometrics; Young Adult

To assess the efficacy and tolerability of asenapine versus olanzapine in the extended treatment of bipolar mania.. Patients with bipolar I disorder experiencing acute manic or mixed episodes who completed either of two 3-week, double-blind trials with asenapine 5 or 10 mg twice daily, olanzapine 5 to 20 mg once daily, or placebo were eligible for this 9-week, double-blind extension study. Patients receiving active medication in the 3-week trials continued the same regimen; those who had received placebo were blindly switched to asenapine but were assessed for safety outcomes only. The primary efficacy measure was the change from baseline to day 84 on the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score in the per-protocol population. Results on the primary efficacy outcome were used to determine the noninferiority of asenapine versus olanzapine.. A total of 504 patients (placebo/asenapine, n = 94; asenapine, n = 181; olanzapine, n = 229) were enrolled in the extension study. At day 84, the mean (SD) change from baseline in YMRS total score was -24.4 (8.7) for asenapine and -23.9 (7.9) for olanzapine. Prespecified statistical analysis for noninferiority indicated no significant difference between asenapine and olanzapine. The overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar across treatment groups (77% placebo/asenapine, 77% asenapine, 78% olanzapine). Clinically significant weight gain occurred in 10%, 19%, and 31% of the placebo/asenapine, asenapine, and olanzapine groups, respectively.. Asenapine was efficacious, showed noninferiority to olanzapine, and was well tolerated in the extended treatment of patients experiencing manic symptoms associated with bipolar I disorder.

Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Aged; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Bipolar Disorder; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Humans; International Cooperation; Male; Middle Aged; Olanzapine; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; Severity of Illness Index; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult

Asenapine is approved for bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. This was a 3-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of asenapine for treating acute bipolar mania.. After a single-blind placebo run-in period, adults (n = 488) experiencing manic or mixed episodes were randomized to flexible-dose sublingual asenapine (10 mg BID on day 1; 5 or 10 mg BID thereafter; n = 194), placebo (n = 104), or oral olanzapine (15 mg BID on day 1; 5-20 mg QD thereafter; n = 191). Primary efficacy, change in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score from baseline to day 21, was assessed using analysis of covariance with last observation carried forward [(LOCF); primary analysis]. A mixed model for repeated measures [(MMRM); prespecified secondary analysis] was also used to assess efficacy. Tolerability and safety assessments included adverse events, physical examinations, extrapyramidal symptom ratings, and laboratory values.. Mean daily dosages were asenapine 18.2 mg and olanzapine 15.8 mg. Significantly greater least squares (LS) mean +/- SE changes in YMRS scores were observed on day 2 with asenapine (-3.0 +/- 0.4) and olanzapine (-3.4 +/- 0.4) versus placebo (-1.5 +/- 0.5, both p < 0.01) and were maintained until day 21 (-10.8 +/- 0.8 with asenapine, -12.6 +/- 0.8 with olanzapine; both p < or = 0.0001 versus placebo, -5.5 +/- 1.1) with LOCF. The results of MMRM analyses were consistent with those of LOCF. Asenapine had a modest impact on weight and metabolic measures.. These results indicate that asenapine is rapidly acting, efficacious, and well tolerated for patients with bipolar I disorder experiencing an acute manic episode.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Bipolar Disorder; Body Weight; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; Electroencephalography; Female; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Models, Statistical; Olanzapine; Patient Compliance; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; Single-Blind Method; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult

Antipsychotic agents modulate key molecules of the postsynaptic density (PSD), including the. In situ hybridization for. All acute treatment regimens were found to induce a consistently higher expression of

Topics: Animals; Antipsychotic Agents; Brain; Brain Mapping; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Duration of Therapy; Haloperidol; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Homer Scaffolding Proteins; Humans; In Situ Hybridization; Models, Animal; Neuronal Plasticity; Olanzapine; Post-Synaptic Density; Rats; Tissue Distribution

The postsynaptic density (PSD) represents a site of dopamine-glutamate integration. Despite multiple evidence of PSD involvement in antipsychotic-induced synaptic changes, there are no direct head-to-head comparisons of the effects at the PSD of antipsychotics with different receptor profile and at different doses after chronic administration.. Molecular imaging of gene expression was used to investigate whether chronic treatment with first and second generation antipsychotics (haloperidol, asenapine and olanzapine) may induce changes in the expression levels of PSD transcripts involved in schizophrenia pathophysiology, i.e. Homers, Shank1, PSD-95 and Arc.. Genes' expression patterns were differentially modulated after chronic administration of typical and atypical antipsychotics as well as by the same compound administered at different doses. Antipsychotic treatment reduced gene expression in cortical regions, while Homer1a was still induced in striatum by haloperidol even after prolonged treatment. Moreover, chronic treatments appeared to cause a "de-recruitment" of brain regions demonstrated to be activated in acute treatments, with a prominent effect in the cortex rather than in striatum.. These results let hypothesize that prolonged antipsychotic treatment may trigger a set of plastic changes involving scaffolding and effector molecules causing a possible re-arrangement of PSD transcripts in brain regions relevant to schizophrenia pathophysiology.

Topics: Animals; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Cerebral Cortex; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Disks Large Homolog 4 Protein; Gene Expression; Haloperidol; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Male; Neostriatum; Nerve Tissue Proteins; Neuronal Plasticity; Olanzapine; Post-Synaptic Density; Rats; Rats, Sprague-Dawley

Asenapine is an atypical antipsychotic that is currently available for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar I disorder. Although the atypical antipsychotics clozapine and olanzapine are effective for depression and anxiety in schizophrenia, as demonstrated by animal model studies, this has not been clarified for asenapine. Therefore, we compared the effects of asenapine in the conditioned fear stress model with those of clozapine and olanzapine.. Rats were individually fear conditioned using electrical foot shock in a Skinner box. Approximately 24 h later, individual animals were returned to the same Skinner box (without electrical shock) and their freezing behaviour was observed for 5 min. Animals were treated with asenapine, clozapine, olanzapine, the 5-HT1A receptor partial agonist buspirone, or the 5-HT2C receptor antagonist SB242084 at 30 min before freezing behaviour assessment. The 5-HT1A receptor antagonist WAY100635 or the 5-HT2C receptor agonist Ro60-0175 was also used concomitantly with asenapine. The effects of asenapine, clozapine, and olanzapine on serotonin release in the rat hippocampus were also measured using in vivo microdialysis.. Asenapine reduced freezing behaviour, while neither clozapine nor olanzapine reduced freezing behaviour. Buspirone and SB242084 also reduced freezing behaviour. The effect of asenapine in reducing freezing behaviour was not altered by the concomitant administration of WAY100635 or Ro60-0175. Both asenapine and clozapine, but not olanzapine, increased serotonin release in the rat hippocampus.. Asenapine may have superior therapeutic effect on anxiety symptoms than other agents, although the underlying mechanism of its anxiolytic activity remains unknown.

Topics: Aminopyridines; Animals; Anti-Anxiety Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Anxiety; Benzodiazepines; Buspirone; Clozapine; Conditioning, Classical; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Disease Models, Animal; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Electroshock; Fear; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Hippocampus; Indoles; Male; Olanzapine; Rats; Rats, Sprague-Dawley; Serotonin; Serotonin Antagonists; Serotonin Receptor Agonists; Stress, Psychological

Depression is the predominant psychosocial and suicide burden in bipolar disorder, yet there is a paucity of evidence-based treatments for bipolar depression.. This post hoc subgroup analysis of data pooled from two 3-week, randomized, placebo- and olanzapine-controlled trials (December 2004-April 2006, N = 489 and November 2004-April 2006, N = 488) examined a subgroup of patients meeting criteria for moderate-to-severe mixed major depressive episodes, defined using DSM-IV-TR criteria for mixed episodes (mania and major depression simultaneously) with a baseline Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score ≥ 20.. Decreases in MADRS scores (least squares mean [SE]), the a priori primary outcome, were significantly greater in the asenapine group than in the placebo group from baseline to day 7 (-11.02 [1.82] vs -4.78 [1.89]; P = .0195), day 21 (-14.03 [2.01] vs -7.43 [2.09]; P = .0264), and endpoint (-10.71 [1.76] vs -5.19 [1.98]; P = .039). Decreases in MADRS scores with asenapine were significantly greater than with olanzapine from baseline to day 7 (-6.26 [1.47]; P = .0436). Decreases in Young Mania Rating Scale mean total score were greater with asenapine than with placebo or olanzapine at all time points assessed. A significantly greater reduction from baseline to day 21 in the Short Form-36 mental component summary score was observed with asenapine, but not olanzapine, compared with placebo (16.57 vs 5.97; P = .0093). Asenapine was generally well tolerated.. These data provide support for the potential efficacy of asenapine in mixed major depressive episodes; however, these data cannot be linearly extrapolated to nonmixed major depression.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Analysis of Variance; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Bipolar Disorder; Depressive Disorder, Major; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Double-Blind Method; Female; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Olanzapine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult

Bipolar disorder (BPD) is prevalent and is associated with a significant economic burden. Asenapine, the first tetracyclic antipsychotic approved in Canada for the treatment of BPD, has shown a comparable efficacy profile to other atypical antipsychotics. In addition, it is associated with a favourable metabolic profile and minimal weight gain potential. This study aimed to assess the economic impact of asenapine compared to olanzapine in the treatment of BPD in Canada.. A decision tree combined with a Markov model was constructed to assess the cost-utility of asenapine compared with olanzapine. The decision tree takes into account the occurrence of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), the probability of switching to a different antipsychotic, and the probability of gaining weight. The Markov model takes into account long-term metabolic complications including diabetes, hypertension, coronary heart diseases (CHDs), and stroke. Analyses were conducted from both a Canadian Ministry of Health (MoH) and a societal perspective over a five-year time horizon with yearly cycles.. In the treatment of BPD, asenapine is a dominant strategy over olanzapine from both a MoH and a societal perspective. In fact, asenapine is associated with lower costs and more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that asenapine remains a dominant strategy in 99.2% of the simulations, in both a MoH and a societal perspective, and this result is robust to the many deterministic sensitivity analyses performed.. This economic evaluation demonstrates that asenapine is a cost-effective strategy compared to olanzapine in the treatment of BPD in Canada.

Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Bipolar Disorder; Canada; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Humans; Olanzapine; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Weight Gain

Around one-third of patients with bipolar I disorder (BD-I) experience mixed episodes, characterized by both mania and depression, which tend to be more difficult and costly to treat. Atypical antipsychotics are recommended for the treatment of mixed episodes, although evidence of their efficacy, tolerability, and cost in these patients is limited. This study evaluates, from a UK National Health Service perspective, the cost-effectiveness of asenapine vs olanzapine in BD-I patients with mixed episodes.. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using a Markov model. Efficacy was informed by a post-hoc analysis of two short-term clinical trials, with response measured as a composite Young Mania Rating Score and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale end-point. Probabilities of discontinuation and relapse to manic, mixed, and depressive episodes were sourced from published meta-analyses. Direct costs (2012-2013 values) included drug acquisition, monitoring, and resource use related to bipolar disorder as well as selected adverse events. Benefits were measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).. For treating mixed episodes, asenapine generated 0.0187 more QALYs for an additional cost of £24 compared to olanzapine over a 5-year period, corresponding to a £1302 incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The higher acquisition cost of asenapine was roughly offset by the healthcare savings conferred through its greater efficacy in treating these patients. The model shows that benefits were driven by earlier response to asenapine during acute treatment and were maintained during longer-term follow-up. RESULTS were sensitive to changes in key parameters including short and longer-term efficacy, unit cost, and utilities, but conclusions remained relatively robust.. RESULTS suggest that asenapine is a cost-effective alternative to olanzapine in mixed episode BD-I patients, and may have specific advantages in this population, potentially leading to healthcare sector savings and improved outcomes. Limitations of the analysis stem from gaps in clinical and economic evidence for these patients and should be addressed by future clinical trials.

Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Bipolar Disorder; Clinical Trials as Topic; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Female; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Humans; Male; Markov Chains; Models, Economic; Olanzapine; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; State Medicine; United Kingdom; Weight Gain

Atypical antipsychotics are the main treatment for a large number of psychiatric illnesses, with fewer extrapyramidal effects than conventional antipsychotics. However, it has been suggested that their use is associated with increased risk of dyslipidemia and type 2 diabetes mellitus.. The risk of metabolic adverse effects associated with asenapine was assessed in comparison with that associated with olanzapine using real-world data.. This study was a retrospective analysis based on data extracted from the Italian and Spanish Cegedim Strategic Data Longitudinal Patient-Data databases. Patients with asenapine or olanzapine prescriptions were retrieved from September 2010 to December 2012 using strict inclusion criteria to guarantee minimization of confounders. Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia were identified by using ICD9 codes and by antidiabetic and dyslipidemic drug prescriptions. The presence or absence of the metabolic condition was compared before and after treatment, and between cohorts.. The retrospective analysis showed a lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes with asenapine than with olanzapine (2.2 vs 3.5%, respectively; p value: 0.0002) and of developing dyslipidemia (2.8 vs 6.8%, respectively; p value: 0.0001).. Asenapine is associated with a lower risk of metabolic adverse effects than olanzapine, demonstrating its improved safety profile.

Topics: Adult; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Cohort Studies; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Dyslipidemias; Female; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Humans; Italy; Male; Mental Disorders; Middle Aged; Olanzapine; Retrospective Studies; Spain

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).. 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.. 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.. 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.

Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Bipolar Disorder; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Health Services; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Humans; Italy; Models, Econometric; Olanzapine; Quality of Life; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Reproducibility of Results

Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Bipolar Disorder; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Dibenzothiazepines; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Olanzapine; Quetiapine Fumarate; Somnambulism

To describe the frequency of mixed specifier as proposed in DSM-5 in bipolar I patients with manic episodes, and to evaluate the effect of mixed specifier on symptom severity and treatment outcome.. This post-hoc analysis used proxies for DSM-5 mixed features specifier by using MADRS or PANSS items.. Of the 960 patients analysed, 34%, 18% and 4.3% of patients, respectively, had ≥3 depressive features with mild (score ≥1 for MADRS items and ≥2 for PANSS item), moderate (score ≥2 MADRS, ≥3 PANSS) and severe (score ≥3 MADRS, ≥4 PANSS) symptoms. In patients with ≥3 depressive features and independent of treatment: MADRS remission (score ≤12) rate decreased with increasing severity (61-43%) and YMRS remission (score ≤12) was similar for mild and moderate patients (36-37%), but higher for severe (54%). In asenapine-treated patients, the MADRS remission rate was stable regardless of baseline depressive symptom severity (range 64-67%), whereas remission decreased with increasing severity with olanzapine (63-38%) and placebo (49-25%). Reduction in YMRS was significantly greater for asenapine compared with placebo at day 2 across the 3 severity cut-offs and continued to decrease throughout the treatment period. The difference between olanzapine and placebo was statistically significant in mild and moderate patients.. Results are from post-hoc analyses.. These analyses support the validity of proposed DSM-5 criteria. They confirm that depressive features are frequent in bipolar patients with manic episodes. With increasing baseline severity of depressive features, treatment outcome was poorer with olanzapine and placebo, but remained stable with asenapine.

Topics: Adult; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Bipolar Disorder; Depression; Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Female; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Humans; Male; Olanzapine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome

Among several commonly used atypical antipsychotic drugs, olanzapine and risperidone cause a sensitization effect in the conditioned avoidance response (CAR) and phencyclidine (PCP)-induced hyperlocomotion paradigms--two well established animal tests of antipsychotic drugs, whereas clozapine causes a tolerance effect. Asenapine is a novel antipsychotic drug recently approved for the treatment of schizophrenia and manic disorders. It shares several receptor binding sites and behavioral features with other atypical antipsychotic drugs. However, it is not clear what type of repeated effect (sensitization or tolerance) asenapine would induce, and whether such an effect is transferrable to other atypicals. In this study, male adult Sprague-Dawley rats were first repeatedly tested with asenapine (0.05, 0.10 or 0.20 mg/kg, sc) for avoidance response or PCP (3.20 mg/kg, sc)-induced hyperlocomotion daily for 5 consecutive days. After 2-3 days of retraining/drug-free recovery, they were then challenged with asenapine (0.10 mg/kg, sc), followed by olanzapine (0.50 mg/kg, sc) and clozapine (2.50 mg/kg, sc). During the 5-day drug test period (the induction phase), repeated asenapine treatment progressively increased its inhibition of avoidance response and PCP-induced hyperlocomotion in a dose-dependent fashion. On the asenapine and olanzapine challenge tests (the expression phase), rats previously treated with asenapine still showed significantly lower avoidance response and lower PCP-induced hyperlocomotion than those previously treated with vehicle. An increased reactivity to clozapine challenge in prior asenapine-treated rats was also found in the PCP-induced hyperlocomotion test. These findings suggest that asenapine is capable of inducing a sensitization effect and a cross-sensitization to olanzapine and clozapine (to a lesser extent). Because the behavioral profile of asenapine in both tests is similar to that of olanzapine, but different from that of clozapine, we suggest that asenapine resembles olanzapine to a greater extent than clozapine in its therapeutic and side effect profiles.

Topics: Analysis of Variance; Animals; Antipsychotic Agents; Avoidance Learning; Benzodiazepines; Clozapine; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug Evaluation, Preclinical; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Hyperkinesis; Male; Motor Activity; Olanzapine; Phencyclidine; Rats; Rats, Sprague-Dawley

The second generation antipsychotic (SGA) drugs are widely used in psychiatry due to their clinical efficacy and low incidence of neurological side-effects. However, many drugs in this class cause deleterious metabolic side-effects. Animal models accurately predict metabolic side-effects for SGAs with known clinical metabolic liability. We therefore used preclinical models to evaluate the metabolic side-effects of glucose intolerance and insulin resistance with the novel SGAs asenapine and iloperidone for the first time. Olanzapine was used as a comparator.. Adults female rats were treated with asenapine (0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.5, 1.0 mg/kg), iloperidone (0.03, 0.5, 1.0, 5.0, 10.0 mg/kg) or olanzapine (0.1, 0.5, 1.5, 5.0, 10.0 mg/kg) and subjected to the glucose tolerance test (GTT). Separate groups of rats were treated with asenapine (0.1 and 1.0 mg/kg), iloperidone (1.0 and 10 mg/kg) or olanzapine (1.5 and 15 mg/kg) and tested for insulin resistance with the hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp (HIEC).. Asenapine showed no metabolic effects at any dose in either test. Iloperidone caused large and significant glucose intolerance with the three highest doses in the GTT, and insulin resistance with both doses in the HIEC. Olanzapine caused significant glucose intolerance with the three highest doses in the GTT, and insulin resistance with the higher dose in the HIEC.. In preclinical models, asenapine shows negligible metabolic liability. By contrast, iloperidone exhibits substantial metabolic liability, comparable to olanzapine. These results emphasize the need for appropriate metabolic testing in patients treated with novel SGAs where current clinical data do not exist.

Topics: Animals; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Blood Glucose; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Fasting; Female; Glucose Clamp Technique; Glucose Tolerance Test; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Hyperinsulinism; Insulin Resistance; Isoxazoles; Metabolism; Olanzapine; Piperidines; Rats; Rats, Sprague-Dawley

Chronic mild stress (CMS)-induced 'anhedonia' is a predictive model of antidepressant activity. We assessed the reversal of CMS-induced behavioral changes by asenapine, the antidepressant imipramine, and the atypical antipsychotics olanzapine and risperidone. Secondarily, the ability of these agents to facilitate intracranial self-stimulation (ICSS) was assessed to ensure that any attenuation of CMS-induced anhedonia was not associated with an overt hedonic profile. After 2 weeks of CMS, male Wistar rats were administered asenapine (0.06-0.6 mg/kg), olanzapine (2 mg/kg), risperidone (0.5 mg/kg), or imipramine (10 mg/kg) by intraperitoneal injection over 5 weeks to examine their ability to reverse CMS-induced reductions in the intake of a sucrose solution. For the ICSS study, rats were trained to deliver an electrical stimulus to the ventral tegmental area. The effects of acute doses of subcutaneous asenapine (0.01-0.3 mg/kg), olanzapine (0.3 and 1 mg/kg), risperidone (0.1 and 0.3 mg/kg), and intraperitoneal imipramine (3-30 mg/kg), cocaine (5.0 mg/kg), or amphetamine (1.0 mg/kg) on ICSS were then examined. CMS significantly reduced sucrose intake (P < 0.001). All active agents (0.6 mg/kg asenapine, 2 mg/kg olanzapine, 0.5 mg/kg risperidone, and 10 mg/kg imipramine) reversed the effect of CMS (all P < 0.001). In the ICSS protocol, asenapine (0.01 and 0.03 mg/kg), olanzapine (1 mg/kg), and risperidone (0.3 mg/kg) impaired ICSS performance, whereas positive controls (5 mg/kg cocaine, 1 mg/kg amphetamine) facilitated ICSS. Asenapine reversed CMS-induced anhedonia without facilitating ICSS, providing support for a role of asenapine in treating bipolar disorder and aspects of negative and/or affective symptoms in schizophrenia.

Topics: Anhedonia; Animals; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Brain; Chronic Disease; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Imipramine; Male; Olanzapine; Rats; Rats, Sprague-Dawley; Rats, Wistar; Risperidone; Self Stimulation; Stress, Psychological

Asenapine is a new pharmacological agent for the acute treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. It has relatively higher affinity for serotonergic and alpha(2)-adrenergic than dopaminergic D(2) receptors. We evaluated the effects of asenapine, risperidone, and olanzapine on acute and subchronic psychotomimetic-induced disruption of cued reversal learning in rats.. After operant training, rats were treated acutely with d-amphetamine (0.75 mg/kg intraperitoneally [i.p.]) or phencyclidine (PCP; 1.5mg/kg i.p.) or subchronically with PCP (2mg/kg i.p. for 7 days). We assessed the effects of acute coadministration of asenapine, risperidone, or olanzapine on acute d-amphetamine- and PCP-induced deficits and the effects of long-term coadministration of these agents (for 28 additional days) on the deficits induced by subchronic PCP.. Deficits in reversal learning induced by acute d-amphetamine were attenuated by risperidone (0.2mg/kg i.p.). Acute PCP-induced impairment of reversal learning was attenuated by acute asenapine (0.025 mg/kg subcutaneously [s.c.]), risperidone (0.2mg/kg i.p.), and olanzapine (1.0mg/kg i.p.). Subchronic PCP administration induced an enduring deficit that was attenuated by acute asenapine (0.075 mg/kg s.c.) and by olanzapine (1.5mg/kg i.p.). Asenapine (0.075 mg/kg s.c.), risperidone (0.2mg/kg i.p.), and olanzapine (1.0mg/kg i.p.) all showed sustained efficacy with chronic (29 days) treatment to improve subchronic PCP-induced impairments.. These data suggest that asenapine may have beneficial effects in the treatment of cognitive symptoms in schizophrenia. However, this remains to be validated by further clinical evaluation.

Topics: Animals; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Dextroamphetamine; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Hallucinogens; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Olanzapine; Phencyclidine; Rats; Rats, Inbred Strains; Reversal Learning; Risperidone

Asenapine is a novel psychopharmacologic agent under development for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. We determined and compared the human receptor binding affinities and functional characteristics of asenapine and several antipsychotic drugs. Compounds were tested under comparable assay conditions using cloned human receptors. In comparison with the antipsychotics, asenapine showed high affinity and a different rank order of binding affinities (pKi) for serotonin receptors (5-HT1A [8.6], 5-HT1B [8.4], 5-HT2A [10.2], 5-HT2B [9.8], 5-HT2C [10.5], 5-HT5 [8.8], 5-HT6 [9.6] and 5-HT7 [9.9]), adrenoceptors (alpha1 [8.9], alpha2A [8.9], alpha2B [9.5] and alpha2C [8.9]), dopamine receptors (D1 [8.9], D2 [8.9], D3 [9.4] and D4 [9.0]) and histamine receptors (H1 [9.0] and H2 [8.2]). It had much lower affinity (pKi

Topics: Benzodiazepines; Bipolar Disorder; Clinical Trials as Topic; Cloning, Molecular; Clozapine; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Histamine Release; Humans; Inhibitory Concentration 50; Molecular Structure; Olanzapine; Psychotropic Drugs; Radioligand Assay; Receptors, Adrenergic; Receptors, Dopamine; Receptors, Dopamine D2; Receptors, Muscarinic; Receptors, Serotonin; Schizophrenia; Substrate Specificity

Asenapine, a novel psychopharmacologic agent in the development for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, has high affinity for serotonergic, alpha-adrenergic, and dopaminergic receptors, suggesting potential for antipsychotic and cognitive-enhancing properties.. The effects of asenapine in rat models of antipsychotic efficacy and cognition were examined and compared with those of olanzapine and risperidone.. Amphetamine-stimulated locomotor activity (Amp-LMA; 1.0 or 3.0 mg/kg s.c.) and apomorphine-disrupted prepulse inhibition (Apo-PPI; 0.5 mg/kg s.c.) were used as tests for antipsychotic activity. Delayed non-match to place (DNMTP) and five-choice serial reaction (5-CSR) tasks were used to assess short-term spatial memory and attention, respectively. Asenapine doses varied across tasks: Amp-LMA (0.01-0.3 mg/kg s.c.), Apo-PPI (0.001-0.3 mg/kg s.c.), DNMTP (0.01-0.1 mg/kg s.c.), and 5-CSR (0.003-0.3 mg/kg s.c.).. Asenapine was highly potent (active at 0.03 mg/kg) in the Amp-LMA and Apo-PPI assays. DNMTP or 5-CSR performance was not improved by asenapine, olanzapine, or risperidone. All agents (P < 0.01) reduced DNMTP accuracy at short delays; post hoc analyses revealed that only 0.1 mg/kg asenapine and 0.3 mg/kg risperidone differed from vehicle. All active agents (asenapine, 0.3 mg/kg; olanzapine, 0.03-0.3 mg/kg; and risperidone, 0.01-0.1 mg/kg) significantly impaired 5-CSR accuracy (P < 0.05).. Asenapine has potent antidopaminergic properties that are predictive of antipsychotic efficacy. Asenapine, like risperidone and olanzapine, did not improve cognition in normal rats. Rather, at doses greater than those required for antipsychotic activity, asenapine impaired cognitive performance due to disturbance of motor function, an effect also observed with olanzapine and risperidone.

Topics: Amphetamine; Animals; Antipsychotic Agents; Apomorphine; Attention; Benzodiazepines; Cognition; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Disease Models, Animal; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Male; Olanzapine; Psychotic Disorders; Rats; Rats, Sprague-Dawley; Risperidone

Although the positive symptoms of schizophrenia are more likely than the negative symptoms to result in a patient's hospitalization, positive symptoms tend to respond more completely to antipsychotic drugs.When positive symptoms are controlled, residual negative symptoms may remain. If these negative symptoms persist, they can have a considerable impact on a patient's ability to function in society. Current therapies have only a limited effect on negative symptoms. Consequently, broad-spectrum agents that effectively treat both positive and negative symptoms are needed. One obstacle to the regulatory approval of an agent for treating negative symptoms is the difficulty of designing a trial to demonstrate efficacy for these symptoms. Agreeing on a definition of negative symptoms, establishing patient inclusion criteria, and determining how to account for confounding factors represent only a few of the challenges to study design. How these challenges can be met is illustrated in the design of a series of clinical trials to assess the efficacy of asenapine, a psychopharmacologic agent being developed for the treatment of schizophrenia and, in particular, the treatment of negative symptoms associated with schizophrenia. These trials, the protocols for which are described in this paper, will not only determine the efficacy of asenapine but will add to our knowledge of patients with predominant, persistent negative symptoms, an understudied and inadequately treated patient population.

Topics: Adult; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Depressive Disorder; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Dyskinesia, Drug-Induced; Endpoint Determination; Female; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Neurologic Examination; Olanzapine; Patient Selection; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Design; Schizophrenia; Schizophrenic Psychology; Treatment Outcome

The paw test was used to detect the preclinical profile (classical versus atypical) of five putative, atypical neuroleptics, namely olanzapine, sertindole, risperidone, prothipendyl and ORG 5222. In the paw test classical neuroleptics increase the hindlimb reaction time (HRT), a parameter with predictive validity for antipsychotic efficacy, at doses comparable to those necessary for increasing forelimb reaction time (FRT), a parameter with predictive validity for extrapyramidal side-effects, whereas atypical neuroleptics increase HRT at doses that are much smaller than those increasing FRT. All tested compounds showed the profile of atypical neuroleptics in the paw test. Using the FRT/HRT ratio of minimum effective doses as overall predictor of a favourable ratio of extrapyramidal and therapeutic effects of these drugs, the following order was found: olanzapine (20) > sertindole = risperidone = prothipendyl (10) > ORG 5222 (3). The ability of compounds to attenuate locomotor activity elicited either from the olfactory tubercle (10 micrograms dopamine: OT test) or from the nucleus accumbens (1 microgram ergometrine: ACC test) was used to establish whether the compounds preferentially act in one of these structures. Previous research has shown that classical neuroleptics are far less potent in the OT test than in the ACC test, whereas atypical neuroleptics are far more potent in the OT test than in the ACC test. All five agents preferentially acted in the olfactory tubercle. The order of potency in the olfactory tubercle was as follows: sertindole > ORG 5222 > risperidone > olanzapine > prothipendyl. It is concluded that risperidone, prothipendyl, ORG 5222, sertindole and olanzapine not only show the profile of atypical neuroleptics in the paw test, but also preferentially act in the olfactory tubercle, but not in the nucleus accumbens, viz. two features that they share with the atypical neuroleptics clozapine and thioridazine and with the putative, atypical neuroleptics raclopride and remoxipride.

Topics: Animals; Anti-Anxiety Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Dibenzocycloheptenes; Dibenzoxepins; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Heterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More Rings; Imidazoles; Indoles; Locomotion; Male; Olanzapine; Olfactory Pathways; Pirenzepine; Rats; Rats, Wistar; Risperidone; Thiazines; Time Factors