Search

Aim: Patients with cancer often experience nausea and vomiting (N/V), but may have difficulty using olanzapine (OLZ), a common antiemetic. Asenapine (ASE) is a multi‐acting receptor‐targeted antipsychotic like OLZ, although there is little evidence that ASE serves as an antiemetic. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of ASE compared to those of OLZ for the treatment of N/V in patients with cancer. Methods: This retrospective study involved patients who received 5 mg ASE, 5 mg OLZ, or 2.5 mg OLZ for 2 days. Daily worst N/V was rated on a scale of 0 (none) to 3 (very much). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who had a response, defined as any reduction in N/V score. A complete response (CR) was defined as a score reduction to 0. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of patients with CR and adverse events. Results: Between April 2017 and March 2023, 212 patients were enrolled to receive treatment: 5 mg ASE (n = 34), 5 mg OLZ (n = 102), or 2.5 mg OLZ (n = 76). No significant differences in response rates (52.9% vs. 58.8% vs. 52.6%, p = 0.671) or secondary endpoints were observed between the groups. Patients receiving ASE were more likely to experience oral hypoesthesia (p = 0.004). Conclusion: This preliminary study suggests that ASE may be effective for N/V. Further studies are required to confirm these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: A meta‐analysis of short‐term studies revealed no significant differences between the doses of asenapine, 10 and 20 mg/day, in the acute treatment of schizophrenia. However, it should be noted that many patients from clinical practice were excluded, and the dose–response to asenapine in a real‐world setting is still unclear. Additionally, the dose–response in the maintenance phase is not clear. This study aimed to evaluate the differences in the efficacy of different asenapine doses in patients with maintenance phase of schizophrenia in a real‐world setting. Methods: This study conducted post‐marketing surveillance of asenapine in clinical settings in Japan. It followed patients diagnosed with schizophrenia who received asenapine for the first time for a maximum of 52 weeks. These patients were divided into two categories based on their average daily asenapine dosage: ≤10 mg/day and >10 mg/day. Asenapine efficacy was assessed by adjusting for patient demographics using multivariate logistic regression analysis, employing the Clinical Global Impression‐Global Improvement (CGI‐I) scale, which has seven categories. Results: A total of 2774 patients were included in the analysis. Of these, 1689 and 1085 patients were treated with asenapine ≤10 mg/day and >10 mg/day, respectively. The CGI‐I improvement rate was significantly higher in the asenapine >10 group (p = 0.012) after adjusting for patient background factors. Conclusion: These results suggest that asenapine doses >10 mg/day may be more effective than 10 mg/day in the treatment of schizophrenia; however, further studies are needed to confirm these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After completion of a 6‐week double‐blind trial of asenapine sublingual tablets (10 or 20 mg/day) versus placebo in Asian patients with acute exacerbation of schizophrenia, including Japanese patients, this open‐label study evaluated the safety and efficacy of a 52‐week treatment with asenapine at flexible doses. In 201 subjects, including 44 who had received placebo (P/A group) and 157 who had received asenapine (A/A group) in the feeder trial, adverse events occurred at rates of 90.9% and 85.4% and serious adverse events at rates of 11.4% and 20.4%, respectively. One patient in the P/A group died. No clinically significant abnormal measurements of body weight, body mass index, or glycated hemoglobin, fasting plasma glucose, insulin, and prolactin levels were observed. The sustained efficacy rate, as evaluated by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score and other measures, remained at approximately 50% between 6 and 12 months of treatment. These results suggest that long‐term treatment with asenapine is well tolerated and provides sustained efficacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The current study sought to compare the treatment continuation rates of asenapine and brexpiprazole while specifically investigating the factors influencing this index and the clinical efficacy of brexpiprazole. Methods: Retrospective study on patients with schizophrenia who were prescribed either asenapine (n = 73) or brexpiprazole (n = 136), as part of their routine medical care. Results: The treatment continuation rates for asenapine and brexpiprazole were 19.0% and 38.6% at 52 weeks, with that of brexpiprazole found to be significantly higher than that of asenapine (p =.002). Moreover, age was found to be a significant factor affecting the treatment continuation rate for brexpiprazole (p =.03). Additionally, patients with a longer continuation duration had significantly lower Clinical Global Impression‐Severity of Illness (CGI‐S) scale scores compared to those who discontinued early (p =.04). The continuation rate was also significantly higher for those who began using the drug as outpatients compared to those first administered the drug as inpatients (p =.04). Furthermore, disease duration, CGI‐S scale, and continuation duration significantly affected the clinical efficacy of brexipiprazole (p <.05 for all). Conclusions: The continuation rate for brexpiprazole increases as the age of the patient increases, as disease severity decreases, and if the patient first uses the drug as an outpatient. Shorter disease duration and longer drug administration may lead to improved clinical efficacy. These results suggest that brexpiprazole is an effective treatment option for maintenance therapy of schizophrenia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: It is well accepted that early improvement with antipsychotics predicts subsequent response in patients with schizophrenia. However, no study has examined the contribution of individual symptoms rather than overall symptom severity as the predictors. Thus, we aimed to detect individual symptoms whose improvements could predict subsequent response in patients with schizophrenia during treatment with asenapine and examine whether a prediction model with individual symptoms would be superior to a model using overall symptom severity. Methods: This study analyzed a dataset including 532 patients with schizophrenia enrolled in a 6‐week double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, randomized trial of asenapine. Response to asenapine was defined as a ≥30% decrease in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score from baseline to week 6. Stepwise logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate the associations among response and PANSS total/individual item score improvements at week 1 or week 2. Results: Response was associated with early improvement in the following PANSS items: disturbance of volition, active social avoidance, poor impulse control at week 1; and active social avoidance, poor attention, lack of judgment and insight at week 2. Prediction accuracy was almost compatible between the model with individual symptoms and the model with PANSS total score both at weeks 1 and 2 (Nagelkerke R2:.51,.42 and.55,.54, respectively). Conclusion: Early improvement in negative symptoms, poor attention and impulse control, and lack of insight, in particular predicted subsequent treatment response in patients with schizophrenia during treatment with asenapine as accurately as prediction based on overall symptom severity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Asenapine is a recent drug approved in the European Union for the treatment of bipolar disorder. An original approach has been developed for asenapine analysis in patients treated with the drug, including miniaturized microsampling procedures, separation and quantitation of drug enantiomers. An original enantioselective method based on high‐performance liquid chromatography with diode array detection was developed and applied to the determination of asenapine enantiomer levels in innovative haematic samples: four micromatrices have been tested, two based on dried matrix spots (dried blood spots and dried plasma spots) and two based on volumetric absorptive microsampling (from blood and plasma). Chiral separation was achieved on a cellulose‐tris(3,5 dimethylphenylcarbamate) column, with a mobile phase containing bicarbonate buffer and acetonitrile. The method was validated with satisfactory results of linearity and precision on all matrices that showed also a significant performance in terms of stability, feasibility and reliability, when compared to fluid plasma sampling, handling and processing. Among micromatrices, both volumetric absorptive microsampling types were superior to dried matrix spots in terms of data reproducibility and correspondence with plasma levels. The bioanalytical approach proposed herein provides for the first time a chiral high‐performance liquid chromatographic method for the determination of asenapine enantiomers, coupled to a very effective microsampling strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim Asenapine is a new atypical antipsychotic prescribed for the treatment of psychosis/bipolar disorders that presents higher affinity for serotonergic than dopaminergic receptors. The objective of this study was to investigate its antidepressant-like and antimanic-like properties on relevant animal models of depression and mania and to assess the acute and chronic effect of Asenapine on dorsal raphe nucleus ( DRN) 5- HT cell firing activity. Methods We assessed the effects of Asenapine using in vivo electrophysiological and behavioral assays in rats. Results Behavioral experiments showed that Asenapine had no significant effect on immobility time in the forced swim test ( FST) in control rats. In the ACTH-treated rats, a model of antidepressant-resistance, Asenapine failed to alter immobility time in the FST. In contrast in the sleep deprivation ( SD) model of mania, acute administration of Asenapine significantly decreased the hyperlocomotion of SD rats. In the DRN, acute administration of Asenapine reduced the suppressant effect of the selective 5- HT7 receptor agonist LP-44 and of the prototypical 5- HT1A receptor agonist 8- OH- DPAT on 5- HT neuronal firing activity. In addition, chronic treatment with Asenapine enhanced DRN 5- HT neuronal firing and this effect was associated with an alteration of the 5- HT7 receptor responsiveness. Conclusion These results confirm that Asenapine displays robust antimanic property and effective in vivo antagonistic activity at 5- HT1A/7 receptors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Objective To assess sublingual asenapine for acute agitation. Method Agitated adults 18-65 years (any diagnosis) presenting for treatment in an emergency department and found to have a score of ≥14 on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Excited Component ( PANSS- EC) were randomized to receive either a single dose of a sublingual 10 mg tablet of asenapine or placebo. Primary outcome measure was change in the PANSS- EC score from baseline to 2 h after medication or placebo administration. Secondary outcomes included the percentage of responders with a ≥ 40% reduction from baseline on the PANSS- EC score at 2 h. Results A total of 120 subjects were randomized, 60 each to sublingual asenapine or placebo. Mean ( SE) baseline PANSS- EC scores for the asenapine-treated and placebo-treated subjects were 19.4 ± 0.66 and 20.1 ± 0.61, respectively. Mean PANSS- EC scores at endpoint ( LOCF) was 7.4 ± 0.65 for the asenapine-treated subjects and 14.7 ± 0.98 for the placebo-treated subjects. Change in PANSS- EC score at 2 h was statistically significantly greater for the asenapine-treated subjects compared with the placebo-treated subjects. NNT for response vs. placebo was 3 (95% CI 2-4). Conclusion Sublingual asenapine was efficacious in the treatment of agitation with an effect size comparable to that observed in prior studies of intramuscular antipsychotics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Asenapine is indicated for treatment of schizophrenia in the United States and acute treatment of manic or mixed episodes, as monotherapy (United States and European Union) or adjunct therapy (United States only), associated with bipolar I disorder. It is extensively metabolized; the 2 main metabolites are asenapine N-glucuronide and N-desmethyl-asenapine. The authors investigated the pharmacokinetic interactions between asenapine and valproate in an open-label, randomized, 2-way crossover study. Twenty-four healthy male volunteers received sublingual doses of asenapine 5 mg alone or under steady-state valproate (500 mg bid for 9 days). Blood samples collected until 72 hours postdosing were analyzed for asenapine, N-desmethyl-asenapine, and asenapine N-glucuronide. Compared with asenapine alone, valproate substantially reduced N-glucuronide formation (area under the curve from 0 to infinity [AUC0−∞] reduced 7.4-fold, maximum concentration [Cmax] reduced 6.6-fold) and moderately reduced N-desmethyl-asenapine formation (AUC0−∞ reduced 30%, Cmax unchanged). Coadministration of valproate did not affect asenapine AUC0−∞ and Cmax (confidence intervals for the ratios of asenapine AUC0−∞ and Cmax were contained within the predefined 0.80-1.25 acceptance range). Low-dose valproate, although almost completely inhibiting glucuronidation of asenapine, did not affect the pharmacokinetics of asenapine itself, the entity primarily responsible for the pharmacologic effects of the drug. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objectives The aim of this study was to assess the short-term tolerability of two titration schedules of sublingual asenapine in older patients with psychosis, not associated with organic brain disease, and to compare asenapine pharmacokinetics in older patients versus younger adults with schizophrenia. Methods Patients ≥65 years with psychosis without dementia were randomized for 6 weeks to two dose-escalation regimens: 2 days at 2 mg twice daily (BID), 2 days at 5 mg BID, and 10 mg BID thereafter (slow escalation); or 4 days at 5 mg BID and 10 mg BID thereafter (rapid escalation). Clinical and pharmacokinetic assessments were performed in each group. Results Of 122 randomized patients, 76 (62.3%) completed the trial. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) was comparable (72.1%) with both regimens. The most frequently reported AEs were hypertension, headache, and somnolence; incidence of extrapyramidal symptom-related AEs was 5.7%. Mean end point weight change was 0.4 kg. For asenapine 5 and 10 mg BID, median times to maximum concentration were 1.00 and 1.06 h, respectively; maximum concentrations ( Cmax) were 4.73 and 7.93 ng/mL; areas under the concentration versus time curve (0-12 h; AUC0−12) were 32.1 and 56.3 ng∙h/mL. Conclusions Despite 12-30% increases in asenapine Cmax and AUC0−12 in older patients compared with previously published findings in younger schizophrenia patients, possibly as a result of slower drug clearance, asenapine was generally well tolerated during both dose-escalation schedules. No dose adjustment appears to be necessary in older patients. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of asenapine versus olanzapine in the extended treatment of bipolar mania. Methods: 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 . Results: 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. Conclusions: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An exposure-response (E-R) analysis using linear mixed effects modeling was conducted on data from a thorough QTc trial for asenapine in 148 patients with schizophrenia. In a parallel design, patients received asenapine 5 mg twice daily (BID) for 10 days (10d) followed by 10 mg BID (6d), asenapine 15 mg BID (10d) followed by 20 mg BID (6d), quetiapine 375 mg BID (for assay sensitivity; 16d) or placebo (16d). Triplicate 12-lead electrocardiograms and concentration measurements were obtained on day -1 (baseline), 1, 10, and 16 at 8 scheduled times on each day. At mean Cmax for all asenapine doses, the E-R model predicted that the mean QTcF increase was less than 5 milliseconds, the International Conference on Harmonisation-established threshold for clinical concern. The model predicted a mean increase of 7 to 8 milliseconds for quetiapine. The corresponding upper bounds of the 95% confidence intervals were 7.5 milliseconds and 11.2 milliseconds for asenapine and quetiapine, respectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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 ≤ 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. Conclusions: These results indicate that asenapine is rapidly acting, efficacious, and well tolerated for patients with bipolar I disorder experiencing an acute manic episode. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT To support the evaluation of the pharmacokinetic parameters of asenapine (ASE) in urine, we developed and validated online solid-phase extraction high-performance liquid chromatography methods with tandem mass spectrometry detection (SPE-LC-MS/MS) for the quantification of ASE and two of its major metabolites, N-desmethylasenapine (DMA) and asenapine-N+-glucuronide (ASG). The linearity in human urine was found acceptable for quantification in a concentration range of 0.500-100 ng/mL for ASE and DMA and 10.0-3000 ng/mL for ASG, respectively. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Asenapine is a new atypical antipsychotic prescribed for the treatment of psychosis/bipolar disorders that presents higher affinity for serotonergic than dopaminergic receptors. The objective of this study was to investigate its antidepressant-like and antimanic-like properties on relevant animal models of depression and mania and to assess the acute and chronic effect of Asenapine on dorsal raphe nucleus (DRN) 5-HT cell firing activity., Methods: We assessed the effects of Asenapine using in vivo electrophysiological and behavioral assays in rats., Results: Behavioral experiments showed that Asenapine had no significant effect on immobility time in the forced swim test (FST) in control rats. In the ACTH-treated rats, a model of antidepressant-resistance, Asenapine failed to alter immobility time in the FST. In contrast in the sleep deprivation (SD) model of mania, acute administration of Asenapine significantly decreased the hyperlocomotion of SD rats. In the DRN, acute administration of Asenapine reduced the suppressant effect of the selective 5-HT 7 receptor agonist LP-44 and of the prototypical 5-HT 1A receptor agonist 8-OH-DPAT on 5-HT neuronal firing activity. In addition, chronic treatment with Asenapine enhanced DRN 5-HT neuronal firing and this effect was associated with an alteration of the 5-HT 7 receptor responsiveness., Conclusion: These results confirm that Asenapine displays robust antimanic property and effective in vivo antagonistic activity at 5-HT 1A/7 receptors., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Although major progress has been achieved in research and development of antipsychotic medications for bipolar disorder (BPD), knowledge of the molecular mechanisms underlying this disorder and the action of atypical antipsychotics remains incomplete. The levels of microRNAs (miRNAs)-small non-coding RNA molecules that regulate gene expression, including genes involved in neuronal function and plasticity-are frequently altered in psychiatric disorders. This study aimed to examine changes in miRNA expression in bipolar mania patients after treatment with asenapine and risperidone. Using a miRNA microarray, we analyzed miRNA expression in the blood of 10 bipolar mania patients following 12 weeks of treatment with asenapine or risperidone. Selected miRNAs were validated by using real-time PCR. A total of 16 miRNAs were differentially expressed after treatment in the asenapine group, 14 of which were significantly upregulated and the other two significantly downregulated. However, all three differentially expressed miRNAs in the risperidone group were downregulated. MiRNA target gene prediction and gene ontology analysis revealed significant enrichment for pathways associated with immune system response and regulation of programmed cell death and transcription. Our results suggest that candidate miRNAs may be involved in the mechanism of action of both antipsychotics in bipolar mania. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., (© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)