Search

Antipsychotics are the cornerstone of schizophrenia treatment. Lack of treatment adherence encouraged the development of injectable long-acting antipsychotics. However, second-generation or atypical antipsychotics require a loading dose at the start of treatment and eventually oral supplementation to achieve therapeutic plasma levels. This review discusses the evidence emerging from studies evaluating the pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety of the intramuscular formulation of risperidone based on in situ microparticles (ISM). ISM® technology applied to risperidone allows therapeutic levels of the active moiety to be achieved within 2 h of intramuscular administration without the need for loading doses or oral supplementation, leading to a constant release over the whole dosing period. Risperidone ISM showed significant antipsychotic efficacy versus placebo in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score (p < 0.0001) and on the subscales of positive symptoms after 8 days, negative symptoms in 8 weeks, and general psychopathology during the 12 weeks of treatment. The improvement was also statistically significant (p < 0.0001) against placebo in the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale (CGI-S) score at the end of the treatment. Risperidone ISM was generally well tolerated and the most frequently reported adverse events were similar to those observed with other risperidone formulations. There is clinical evidence that these results are maintained in the long term. In conclusion, four-weekly risperidone ISM (75 mg and 100 mg) is an adequate antipsychotic for treating schizophrenia, both in the short term when an exacerbation has recently occurred and for long-term maintenance, since it provides rapid onset of action and sustained efficacy, as well as being safe and well tolerated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To monitor oncologists’ perspective on cancer pain management.Methods: An anonymized survey was conducted in two waves. First, over a convenience sample of oncologists known to be particularly concerned with the management of pain. Second, using a random sample of oncologists.Results: In total, 73 and 82 oncologists participated in the first and second wave, respectively. Many oncologists reported to have good knowledge of analgesic drugs (95.9%), the mechanism of action of opioids (79.5%), and good skills to manage opioid-related bowel dysfunction (76.7%). Appropriate adjustment of background medication to manage breakthrough pain was reported by 95.5% of oncologists. Additionally, 87.7% (68.3% in the second wave, p = 0.035) of oncologists reported suitable opioid titration practices, and 90.4% reported to use co-adjuvant medications for neuropathic pain confidently. On the other hand, just 9.6% of oncologists participated in multidisciplinary pain management teams, and merely 30.3 and 27.1% reported to routinely collaborate with the Pain Clinics or involve other staff, respectively. Only 26.4% of the oncologists of the second wave gave priority to pain pathophysiology to decide therapies, and up to 75.6% reported difficulties in treating neuropathic pain. Significantly less oncologists of the second wave (82.9 vs. 94.5%, p = 0.001) used opioid rotation routinely.Conclusions: Unlike in previous surveys, medical oncologists reported in general good knowledge and few perceived limitations and barriers for pain management. However, multi-disciplinary management and collaboration with other specialists are still uncommon. Oncologists’ commitment to optimize pain management seems important to improve and maintain good practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]