Search

ObjectiveTo evaluate the relationship between clinical improvement in Myasthenia Gravis-Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) scores and the pharmacodynamic effects of IgG autoantibody lowering induced by nipocalimab in the Vivacity MG Phase 2 study.BackgroundNipocalimab is a fully human, aglycosylated, effectorless IgG1 anti-FcRn monoclonal antibody that targets the neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn) with high affinity, thereby lowering IgG pathogenic antibodies in autoimmune disease.Design/MethodsThe relationship between the reduction in acetylcholine-receptor (AChR)- and Muscle-Specific-Tyrosine-Kinase (MuSK)- autoantibodies with improvement in MG-ADL scores were explored across the four nipocalimab dose arms in the Vivacity MG Phase 2 Study in generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG) patients.ResultsOf the 68 patients enrolled, 54 were randomized to one of the four nipocalimab dosing arms. 51 (94%) were seropositive for anti-AChR, 3 (6%) for anti-MuSK. Nipocalimab was well-tolerated and achieved substantial, dose-dependent and rapid reductions in serum total IgG, including all IgG subtypes and anti-AChR autoantibodies. These reductions were associated with dose-dependent, durable and rapid MG-ADL responses in all nipocalimab-treated groups. A similar trend in IgG4 reduction was noted, though the sample size of MuSK positive patients was small.ConclusionsThe results support the rapid, dose-dependent and predictable effect of nipocalimab in lowering pathogenic autoantibodies and inducing clinical improvement in patients with gMG. In addition, the close correlation between serum IgG, anti-AChR and clinical response suggest the potential of using serial serum IgG levels as a biomarker in management of gMG patients treated with nipocalimab; this will be tested in the ongoing Phase 3 gMG trial.

This randomized clinical trial evaluates the short-term effects of atabecestat in preclinical Alzheimer disease. Question What are the short-term effects of atabecestat in preclinical Alzheimer disease (AD), and are adverse effects reversible after stopping treatment? Findings In this truncated randomized clinical trial of 557 participants with preclinical AD, atabecestat treatment was associated with statistically significant greater, dose-related cognitive worsening and neuropsychiatric adverse events (AEs) vs placebo. Baseline to last off-treatment cognitive assessment suggested return to baseline cognitive status, and frequency of neuropsychiatric AEs returned to placebo levels after stopping atabecestat. Meaning This study's findings confirm dose-related worsening of cognition and neuropsychiatric AEs in atabecestat-treated participants, with recovery after up to 6 months off treatment. Importance Atabecestat, a nonselective oral beta-secretase inhibitor, was evaluated in the EARLY trial for slowing cognitive decline in participants with preclinical Alzheimer disease. Preliminary analyses suggested dose-related cognitive worsening and neuropsychiatric adverse events (AEs). Objective To report efficacy, safety, and biomarker findings in the EARLY trial, both on and off atabecestat treatment, with focus on potential recovery of effects on cognition and behavior. Design, Setting, and Participants Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b/3 study conducted from November 2015 to December 2018 after being stopped prematurely. The study was conducted at 143 centers across 14 countries. Participants were permitted to be followed off-treatment by the original protocol, collecting safety and efficacy data. From 4464 screened participants, 557 amyloid-positive, cognitively normal (Clinical Dementia Rating of 0; aged 60-85 years) participants (approximately 34% of originally planned 1650) were randomized before the trial sponsor stopped enrollment. Interventions Participants were randomized (1:1:1) to atabecestat, 5 mg (n = 189), 25 mg (n = 183), or placebo (n = 185). Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcome: change from baseline in Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite score. Secondary outcomes: change from baseline in the Cognitive Function Index and the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status total scale score. Safety was monitored throughout the study. Results Of 557 participants, 341 were women (61.2%); mean (SD) age was 70.4 (5.56) years. In May 2018, study medication was stopped early owing to hepatic-related AEs; participants were followed up off-treatment for 6 months. Atabecestat, 25 mg, showed significant cognitive worsening vs placebo for Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite at month 6 (least-square mean difference, -1.09; 95% CI, -1.66 to -0.53; P < .001) and month 12 (least-square mean, -1.62; 95% CI, -2.49 to -0.76; P < .001), and at month 3 for Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (least-square mean, -3.70; 95% CI, -5.76 to -1.63; P < .001). Cognitive Function Index participant report showed nonsignificant worsening at month 12. Systemic and neuropsychiatric-related treatment-emergent AEs were greater in atabecestat groups vs placebo. After stopping treatment, follow-up cognitive testing and AE assessment provided evidence of reversibility of drug-induced cognitive worsening and AEs in atabecestat groups. Conclusions and Relevance Atabecestat treatment was associated with dose-related cognitive worsening as early as 3 months and presence of neuropsychiatric treatment-emergent AEs, with evidence of reversibility after 6 months off treatment.

Background A recent randomized-withdrawal, active- and placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 3 study showed that tapentadol prolonged release (PR) was effective and well tolerated for managing moderate to severe, chronic malignant tumour-related pain in patients who were opioid naive or dissatisfied with current treatment (Pain Physician, 2014, 17, 329–343). This post hoc, subgroup analysis evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of tapentadol PR in patients who previously received and were dissatisfied with tramadol for any reason and who had a pain intensity ≥5 (11-point numerical rating scale) before converting directly to tapentadol PR. Methods In the original study, eligible patients had been randomized (2:1) and titrated to their optimal dose of tapentadol PR (100–250 mg bid) or morphine sulphate-controlled release (40–100 mg bid) over 2 weeks. The present report focuses on results during the titration period for a subgroup of patients randomized to tapentadol PR after having been on tramadol treatment prior to randomization in the study (n = 129). Results for this subgroup are compared with results for all 338 patients who received tapentadol PR during titration (overall tapentadol PR group). Results Responder rates (responders: completed titration, mean pain intensity

To broaden the ethnic groups in which tapentadol IR is evaluated for treating acute postoperative pain to include Asians.In this phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized study, 352 Korean adults with moderate-to-severe pain following hallux valgus surgery received tapentadol IR 50 or 75 mg or placebo orally every 4-6 hours for 72 hours. Patients requesting other (rescue) analgesics during this period were discontinued for lack of efficacy. The primary endpoint, sum of pain intensity difference (SPID) over 48 hours, was evaluated based on the difference between tapentadol IR and placebo in least squares (LS) mean change from baseline using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Secondary endpoints included the time to first rescue medication use and the distribution of responder rates.A treatment effect, favoring tapentadol IR, was observed for SPID48 (p0.001 for both doses vs. placebo, ANCOVA). The between-group difference (vs. placebo) in LS means of SPID48 was 76.4 (95% CI: 51.0, 101.7) for tapentadol IR 50 mg and 90.6 (95% CI: 65.1, 116.1) for tapentadol IR 75 mg. Time to first rescue medication use was delayed for tapentadol IR (p0.001 for both doses vs. placebo; log-rank test). The distribution of responders at 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours favored tapentadol IR (p ≤ 0.001 for both doses vs. placebo; Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test). Dizziness, nausea, and vomiting were each reported in ≥ 10% tapentadol-treated patients and at an incidence ≥ 2-fold higher vs. placebo. The study findings may be limited by study drug dosing every 4 to 6 hours and frequent monitoring during treatment, neither of which mimic pain treatment in clinical practice. However, any potential bias based on this systematic monitoring of patients would be mitigated by the randomized, double-blind nature of the study, with all treatment groups similarly affected by such biases, if any.Tapentadol IR reduced acute pain intensity, significantly more than placebo, after orthopedic surgery in Korean patients.NCT01516008.

OBJECTIVE This study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of tapentadol extended release (ER) for the management of chronic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Adults with moderate to severe DPN pain were titrated to tapentadol ER 100–250 mg bid during a 3-week open-label period; patients with ≥1-point reduction in pain intensity (11-point numerical rating scale) at end of titration were randomized to receive placebo or tapentadol ER (optimal dose from titration) for 12 weeks (double-blind, fixed-dose maintenance phase). The primary end point was mean change in average pain intensity from the start to week 12 (last observation carried forward [LOCF]) of the double-blind maintenance phase. RESULTS A total of 358 patients completed the titration period; 318 patients (placebo, n = 152; tapentadol ER, n = 166) were randomized and received one or more doses of double-blind study medication. Mean (SD) pain intensity (observed case) was 7.33 (1.30) at the start and 4.16 (2.12) at week 3 of the open-label titration period (mean [SD] change, –3.22 [1.97]). The mean (SD) change in pain intensity (LOCF) from start of double-blind treatment to week 12 was as follows: placebo, 1.30 (2.43); tapentadol ER, 0.28 (2.04; least squares mean difference, –0.95 [95% CI –1.42 to –0.49]; P < 0.001). Treatment-emergent adverse events (≥10%) in the tapentadol ER group during the double-blind maintenance phase were nausea (21.1%) and vomiting (12.7%). CONCLUSIONS Tapentadol ER (100–250 mg bid) was effective and well tolerated for the management of moderate to severe chronic pain associated with DPN.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of risperidone in treating irritability and related behaviors in children and adolescents with autistic disorders.In this 6 month (26 week) open-label extension (OLE) study, patients (5-17 years of age, who completed the previous fixed-dose, 6 week, double-blind [DB] phase) were flexibly dosed with risperidone based on body weight. The maximum allowed dose was 1.25 mg/day for those weighing 20 to45 kg, and 1.75 mg/day for those weighing ≥ 45 kg. The study primarily assessed risperidone's safety; efficacy was assessed as a secondary end-point.Fifty-six (71%) out of 79 enrolled patients completed the OLE; the most common discontinuations were for insufficient response (7 [9%]) or adverse events (AE) (5 [6%]). The most common (≥ 5% frequency in the total group) AEs were increased appetite (11% [n=9]); increased weight and vomiting (9% [n=7] each); sedation, pyrexia, and upper respiratory tract infection (8% [n=6] each); nasopharyngitis (6% [n=5]); and somnolence and fatigue (5% [n=4] each). Extrapyramidal AEs were reported in 6 (8%) patients. Increase in mean weight (11-15%) and body mass index (5-10%) occurred; one patient discontinued because of weight increase. One potentially prolactin-related AE (irregular menstruation) was reported. The risperidone high-dose group had the greatest mean improvement in sleep visual analog scale (24.6). All groups showed additional improvement in efficacy scale scores during the OLE.During this OLE, safety findings with risperidone treatment (maximum weight-based dose of 1.25 mg/day or 1.75 mg/day) were consistent with those observed in the DB phase, and with the current safety information for risperidone in autistic, psychiatric, and behavioral disorders. Patients experienced some additional improvement in irritability and related behaviors.This phase-4 study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00576732).

A post hoc analysis of the risperidone (RIS)/paliperidone (Pali) clinical trials database comprising 64 studies was conducted. Risk of sudden death, cardiovascular (CV), and cerebrovascular events during RIS or Pali treatment was estimated. Treatment emergent CV adverse events were identified using 7 prespecified Standardised MedDRA Queries as follows: embolic/thrombotic events, cerebrovascular disorders, ischemic heart disease, cardiac arrhythmias, cardiac failure, torsades/QT prolongation, and convulsions. Risk in the RIS/Pali pooled group was significantly increased compared to placebo for the following adverse events: syncope, tachycardia, palpitations, edema peripheral, dysarthria, and transient ischemic attack. Incidence of death related to CV events was low and similar across groups. Consistent with the known pharmacologic profile and product information, this analysis of treatment emergent adverse event data from a large, randomized, controlled clinical trials database described increased risk versus placebo for several specific CV events. Apart from events described in existing product labeling, no new safety findings emerged.

Efficacy and safety of 2 risperidone doses were evaluated in children and adolescents with autism. Patients (N = 96; 5-17 years), received risperidone (low-dose: 0.125 mg/day [20 to45 kg], 0.175 mg/day [45 kg] or high-dose: 1.25 mg/day [20 to45 kg], 1.75 mg/day [45 kg]) or placebo. Mean baseline (range 27-29) to endpoint change in Aberrant Behavior Checklist-Irritability (primary endpoint) was significantly greater in the high-dose-(-12.4 [6.5]; p 0.001), but not low-dose (-7.4 [8.1]; p = 0.164) group, versus placebo (-3.5 [10.7]). Clinical Global Impressions-Severity and Children's Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale scores improved significantly only in the high-dose group, consistent with ABC-I results. Somnolence, sedation and increased appetite occurred more frequently in high-versus low-dose groups. Overall, increased appetite occurred most frequently.

Treatment adherence is a significant problem in patients with bipolar disorder. This study was designed to determine the efficacy of risperidone long-acting injectable (LAI) in the maintenance treatment of bipolar I disorder.Eligible patients with current or recent manic or mixed episodes (n = 559, aged 18-65 years) were treated with open-label oral risperidone for 3 weeks (period II) and open-label risperidone LAI for 26 weeks (n = 501; period III). Patients who maintained response (n = 303) were randomly allocated 1:1 to placebo injections (n = 149) or to continue risperidone LAI (n = 154) for up to 24 months (period IV).Most (77%) patients on risperidone LAI received a dose of 25 mg every 2 weeks during period IV. Time to recurrence for any mood episode (primary outcome variable) was significantly longer in the risperidone LAI group versus placebo (p.001); the difference was significant for time to recurrence of elevated-mood episode (p.001) but not time to recurrence of depressive episode (p = .805). Weight gainsor = 7% (compared with the period's baseline) occurred in 15% of patients in period III; in 12% of patients on risperidone LAI and 3% of patients on placebo in period IV.Risperidone LAI monotherapy significantly delayed the time to recurrence of mood episodes, versus placebo, in this controlled, randomized study in patients with bipolar I disorder. Risperidone LAI was tolerable and no new safety concerns emerged compared with previous studies of risperidone LAI.

BackgroundThe efficacy and safety of long-acting injectable risperidone have not been compared with those of an oral atypical antipsychotic.AimsTo compare long-acting risperidone and oral olanzapine in 377 patients with DSM–IV schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.MethodPatients were randomised to receive long-acting risperidone (25 mg or 50 mg every 14 days) or olanzapine (5–20 mg/day).ResultsIn the 13-week phase, long-acting risperidone was at least as effective as (not inferior to) oral olanzapine. In the 12-month phase, significant improvements in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total and factor scores from baseline to month 12 and end-point were seen in both groups of patients. Few patients discontinued treatment because of an adverse event.ConclusionsBoth treatments were efficacious and well tolerated.

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of tapentadol immediate-release (IR) for treating acute pain following orthopedic bunionectomy surgery in a Taiwanese population.This was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group bridging study in which Taiwanese patients (N = 60) with moderate-to-severe pain following bunionectomy were randomized (1:1:1) to receive tapentadol IR 50 or 75 mg or placebo orally every 4-6 hours over a 72 hour period. The primary endpoint was the sum of pain intensity difference over 48 hours (SPID48), analyzed using analysis of variance.Out of 60 patients randomized (mainly women [96.7%]; median age 44 years), 41 (68.3%) completed the treatment. Mean SPID48 values were significantly higher for tapentadol IR (p ≤ 0.006: 50 mg, p ≤ 0.004: 75 mg) compared with placebo. Between-group differences in LS means of SPID48 (vs. placebo) were tapentadol IR 50 mg: 105.6 (95% CI: 32.0; 179.2); tapentadol IR 75 mg: 126.6 (95% CI: 49.5; 203.7). Secondary endpoints including SPID at 12, 24, and 72 hours, time to first use of rescue medication, cumulative distribution of responder rates, total pain relief and sum of total pain relief and sum of pain intensity difference at 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours, and patient global impression of change showed numerically better results supporting that tapentadol IR (50 and 75 mg) was more efficacious than placebo in relieving acute pain. The most frequent treatment emergent adverse events reported in ≥ 10% patients in either group were dizziness, nausea, and vomiting. A limitation of this study may possibly include more controlled patient monitoring through 4-6 hour dosing intervals, which reflects optimal conditions and thus may not approximate real-world clinical practice. However, all treatment groups would be equally affected by such bias of frequent monitoring, if any, since it was a randomized and double-blind study.Tapentadol IR treatment significantly relieved acute postoperative pain and was well tolerated in a Taiwanese population. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01813890.

This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of risperidone monotherapy in the treatment of acute bipolar mania.Patients with DSM-IV bipolar I disorder experiencing an acute manic episode (baseline Young Mania Rating Scale score/==" BORDER="0"20) were randomly assigned to 3 weeks of treatment with risperidone (flexible dose: 1-6 mg/day) or placebo. The primary efficacy measure was the mean baseline-to-endpoint change in total score on the Young Mania Rating Scale. Secondary efficacy measures included the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) severity rating and scores on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, and Global Assessment Scale (GAS). Safety assessments consisted of monitoring adverse events, vital signs, electrocardiogram and laboratory results, and scores on the Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale.Subjects (N=259) received treatment with either risperidone (N=134) or placebo (N=125). The mean modal dose of risperidone was 4.1 mg/day. Improvement in mean Young Mania Rating Scale total score (adjusted for covariates) was significantly greater in the risperidone than in the placebo group at endpoint (mean change=-10.6 [SD=9.5] versus -4.8 [SD=9.5], respectively), with significant between-group differences seen as early as 3 days after start of treatment (change with risperidone: mean=-6.8 [SD=5.8]; change with placebo: mean=-4.0 [SD=5.8]) and continuing throughout all time points. Improvements in CGI severity ratings and scores on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, and GAS were also significantly greater among patients receiving risperidone than those given placebo. The most common adverse event reported among risperidone patients was somnolence. While Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale scores were significantly greater in patients receiving risperidone, mean total and subscale scores were low.Risperidone monotherapy was significantly more efficacious than placebo in the treatment of acute mania and demonstrated a rapid onset of action. Risperidone was well tolerated by patients in this study.

Background: The long-term safety and efficacy of long-acting injectable risperidone, the first long-acting second-generation antipsychotic, were evaluated in stable patients with schizophrenia. Method: After a 2-week run-in period during which patients with DSM-IV schizophrenia received flexible doses of 1 to 6 mg of oral risperidone, patients received injections of 25 mg, 50 mg, or 75 mg of long-acting risperidone every 2 weeks for 12 months. Severity of extrapyramidal symptoms was assessed with the Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale (ESRS), and efficacy was assessed with the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). This study was conducted from March 29, 1999 to July 19, 2000. Results: The subjects were 615 patients with schizophrenia who received at least 1 injection of long-acting risperidone. The 12-month trial was completed by 65% of patients. Treatment was discontinued because of adverse events in 5% of patients. Extrapyramidal symptoms as adverse events were reported by 25% of the patients. Severity of extrapyramidal symptoms (according to ESRS scores) was low at baseline and decreased in each of the groups during the 12 months. The other most common adverse events were anxiety in 24%, insomnia in 21%, psychosis in 17%, and depression in 14% of the patients. Little pain was associated with the injections. Severity of symptoms of schizophrenia was improved in each group, with significant reductions in PANSS total scores (p

The authors assessed the efficacy and safety of the first long-acting atypical antipsychotic (long-acting injectable risperidone) in patients with schizophrenia.In a 12-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized study, patients received intramuscular injections every 2 weeks of placebo or long-acting risperidone (25 mg, 50 mg, or 75 mg). The primary measure of efficacy was the change in total score on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale.Of the 554 patients who were enrolled, 400 entered the double-blind study, and 370 received at least one postbaseline assessment. Mean changes in score of -6.2, -8.5, and -7.4 on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale were seen at endpoint for the 25-, 50-, and 75-mg risperidone groups, respectively; all three change scores were significantly different from that seen with placebo (+2.6). Improvements in positive and negative symptoms were also significantly greater in patients receiving risperidone. Long-acting risperidone was well tolerated. Adverse events related to extrapyramidal symptoms were spontaneously reported by 13% of patients receiving placebo and 10% of patients in the 25-mg risperidone group, with higher rates in the 50-mg and 75-mg groups. Severity of extrapyramidal symptoms was mild at baseline and throughout the trial in each treatment group. Mean weight changes were small in the 25-, 50-, and 75-mg risperidone groups (0.5 kg, 1.2 kg, and 1.9 kg, respectively). Injection site pain was rated as low by the patients, consistent with the investigators' pain ratings.Long-acting injectable risperidone was efficacious and well tolerated and provides both clinicians and patients with a new mode of treatment that can improve the outcome of long-term therapy.

Tapentadol prolonged release (PR) is effective and well tolerated for chronic osteoarthritis, low back, and diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain.To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of tapentadol PR compared with placebo and morphine controlled release (CR) for managing moderate to severe chronic malignant tumor-related pain.Randomized-withdrawal, parallel group, active- and placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 3 study (NCT00472303).Primary, secondary, and tertiary care settings in 16 countries.Eligible patients (pain intensity ≥ 5 [11-point numerical rating scale] on prior analgesics) were randomized (2:1) and titrated to their optimal dose of tapentadol PR (100-250 mg bid) or morphine sulfate CR (40-100 mg bid) over 2 weeks. Morphine sulfate immediate release 10 mg was permitted as needed for rescue medication (no maximum dose). Patients who completed titration and, during the last 3 days of titration, had mean pain intensity5 (based on twice-daily ratings) and mean rescue medication use = 20 mg/day continued into a 4-week maintenance period; patients who received morphine CR during titration continued taking morphine CR, and those who received tapentadol PR were re-randomized (1:1) to tapentadol PR or placebo bid. Response during maintenance (primary efficacy endpoint) was defined as having: (1) completed the maintenance period, (2) a mean pain intensity5 during maintenance, and (3) used an average of = 20 mg/day of rescue medication during maintenance. Response at the end of titration was defined similarly, with pain intensity and rescue medication averages based on the last 3 days of titration.Of 622 patients screened, 496 were randomized, treated during titration, and evaluable for safety; 327 were re-randomized, treated during maintenance, and evaluable for safety; and 325 were evaluable for efficacy. The adjusted responder rate estimate during maintenance (logistic regression adjusting for treatment group, pooled center, and pain intensity at start of maintenance) was significantly higher with tapentadol PR (64.3%) than with placebo (47.1%; odds ratio (OR), 2.02 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.12 - 3.65]; P = 0.02). Based on responder rates at the end of titration, tapentadol PR (76.0% [174/229]) was non-inferior to morphine CR (83.0% [83/100]). The lower limit of the 95% CI for the between-groups difference (-15.5%) was within the pre-specified 20% non-inferiority margin. During titration, incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were 50.0% (169/338) with tapentadol PR and 63.9% (101/158) with morphine CR; incidences of nausea, vomiting, and dry mouth were lower with tapentadol PR than with morphine CR. During maintenance, incidences of TEAEs were 56.3% (63/112), 62.3% (66/106), and 62.4% (68/109) with placebo, tapentadol PR, and morphine CR, respectively.Statistical comparisons between tapentadol PR and morphine CR were limited to descriptive statistics during the maintenance period because of the pre-selection of responders to tapentadol PR or morphine CR during titration.Results obtained during maintenance indicate that tapentadol PR (100-250 mg bid) is effective compared with placebo for managing moderate to severe chronic malignant tumor-related pain. Based on results obtained during titration, tapentadol PR provides comparable efficacy to that of morphine sulfate CR (40-100 mg bid), but is associated with better gastrointestinal tolerability.

Although prior studies have documented the rapid onset of action of topical intranasal levocabastine (LEV), little is known about its duration of action under nasal challenge conditions.We sought to assess the onset and duration of action of escalating doses of LEV nasal spray by using a nasal allergen challenge (NAC) model.Eighteen asymptomatic subjects with histories of seasonal allergic rhinitis were enrolled into a randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging crossover study. Each patient was randomly assigned to receive single doses of placebo and intranasal LEV 0.1, 0.2, and 0.4 mg during 2 parts of the study. In part 1 (onset of action), NAC consisted of a single dose of allergen administered 5 minutes after study drug treatment. In part 2 (duration of action), NAC consisted of increasing doses of allergen administered 0.5, 6, 12, and 24 hours on separate days after study drug treatment. Nasal symptom scores (NSSs) and nasal peak expiratory flow rates were measured after NAC in both phases of the study. Blood samples for plasma LEV concentrations were drawn after each NAC.In part 1, NSSs were significantly lower after the administration of LEV 0.1, 0.2, and 0.4 mg compared with placebo (P.05). In part 2, NSSs were significantly lower after LEV doses of 0.2 and 0.4 mg compared with placebo at 0.5, 6, 12, and 24 hours after treatment (P.05). The mean provocative dose of allergen required to elicit a positive nasal reaction was increased after LEV doses of 0.2 and 0.4 mg at 0.5, 6, and 12 hours after treatment. Nasal peak expiratory flow rates demonstrated no significant differences between LEV and placebo for any doses at any time points. Mean plasma LEV concentrations were low (range, 0 to 3. 7 ng/mL) after all doses and did not correlate with drug efficacy.Single intranasal LEV doses of 0.1, 0.2, and 0.4 mg significantly reduced the severity of the immediate nasal response to allergen when administered 5 minutes before NAC. This protective effect against NAC continued to be present 24 hours after administration of LEV doses of 0.2 and 0.4 mg. Efficacy in blocking the reaction to NAC did not correlate with plasma LEV levels, suggesting that the inhibitory effect was due largely to topical rather than systemic effects.

This multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of levocabastine nasal spray, a potent and selective H1-receptor antagonist, in the control of histamine-mediated symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis. Adults with ≥2 year history of allergic rhinitis due to Mountain Cedar were randomized to treatment with levocabastine nasal spray (0.2 mg twice daily) or placebo for 28 days during the 1994–1995 Mountain Cedar allergy season. Patients assessed the severity of their rhinitis symptoms on a four-point scale twice daily. At the end of the trial, patients also performed a global evaluation of treatment efficacy on a five-point scale. Overall for the 4-week treatment period, levocabastine nasal spray significantly reduced major nasal (runny nose and sneezing) and primary rhinitis (runny nose, sneezing, and itchy/gritty eyes) symptoms compared with placebo on both repeated measures (p = 0.023; p = 0.01) and ANOVA (p = 0.003; p < 0.001) analyses. Global evaluations of treatment efficacy at the end of the trial significantly favored levocabastine over placebo (p = 0.002). Overall, the incidence of adverse events was similar for both treatment groups. In general, most adverse events were mild in intensity, with sinusitis (17% each group), headache (17% placebo, 14% levocabastine), and rhinitis (8% placebo, 2% levocabastine) most commonly reported. Levocabastine nasal spray 0.2 mg twice daily was significantly more effective than placebo in the relief of histamine-mediated symptoms in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis and was well tolerated over the 28-day treatment period.

Long-acting injectable (LAI) formulations of antipsychotics are valuable treatment alternatives for patients with psychotic disorders, and understanding their safe use is critical. Post-injection delirium/sedation syndrome (PDSS) has been reported following treatment with one atypical antipsychotic LAI. Clinical databases of risperidone LAI and paliperidone palmitate were explored to identify if cases of PDSS had been observed. No cases of PDSS were identified in 15 completed trials of 3,164 subjects (approximately 115,000 injections) or the postmarketing safety database of risperidone LAI. Only one case of PDSS was identified among 10 completed trials (3,817 subjects, 33,906 injections) of paliperidone palmitate-that case having been reported in a patient randomized to treatment with placebo. Examination of these prospective databases finds no evidence that risperidone LAI and paliperidone palmitate are associated with PDSS and suggest that findings seen with another antipsychotic LAI are not generalizable.

The aim of this study was to determine the long-term safety of risperidone as maintenance therapy in children and adolescents with disruptive behavior disorders (DBDs) and normal intelligence.An open-label, 1-year extension study was conducted from January, 2002, to July, 2004, in 232 subjects with DBDs (5-17 years) previously randomized to risperidone (RIS) (n = 115, RIS/RIS) or placebo (PLA) (n = 117, PLA/RIS) in a double-blind, 6-month withdrawal study. Adverse events (AEs) and clinical laboratory test results were recorded. Efficacy was assessed using Nisonger Child Behavior Rating Form. Safety and efficacy were evaluated in the intent-to-treat population.A total of 169/232 (73%) subjects completed the study. Subjects were predominantly male, with a diagnosis of oppositional defiant disorder. Risperidone was generally well tolerated. Weight gain and extrapyramidal symptoms were each reported as AEs by 10 subjects (4.3%). Mean weight z-scores decreased for RIS/RIS subjects (-0.04 +/- 0.28) and increased for PLA/RIS subjects (0.11 +/- 0.43). No subject developed tardive dyskinesia. Prolactin tended to increase with risperidone, although this effect diminished with prolonged use and was infrequently associated with AEs. There were no clinically relevant changes in glucose or lipid metabolism. Clinical improvement in DBD symptoms was observed with flexible risperidone doses, regardless of previous treatment and whether subjects had experienced symptom recurrence.Risperidone reinitiated for DBD in children with normal intelligence quotients (IQ) was safe and well tolerated over an additional year of treatment. Patients demonstrated clinical benefits, including those who previously experienced symptom recurrence.

In a randomized, double-blind trial, patients with acute bipolar mania received 1-6 mg/day of risperidone, 2-12 mg/day of haloperidol, or placebo for 3 weeks, followed by double-blind risperidone or haloperidol for 9 weeks. Of 438 patients, 154 were randomized to risperidone, 144 to haloperidol, and 140 to placebo. The mean+/-S.D. modal doses were 4.2+/-1.7 mg/day of risperidone and 8.0+/-3.6 mg/day of haloperidol during the initial 3-week phase and 4.1+/-1.8 and 7.4+/-3.7 mg/day during the 12-week period. At week 3, mean Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score reductions from baseline were significantly greater in patients receiving risperidone than placebo (p

Background Data on the long-term efficacy, safety, and tolerability of risperidone in adolescents with schizophrenia are limited. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of maintenance risperidone treatment in adolescents with schizophrenia. Methods This open-label study of adolescents aged 13 to 17 years with schizophrenia was a single extension study of two short-term double-blind risperidone studies and also enrolled subjects directly in open-label risperidone treatment. The risperidone dose was flexible and ranged from 2 to 6 mg/day. Most subjects enrolled for 6 months; a subset enrolled for 12 months. Assessment tools included the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total and factor scores, Clinical Global Impressions, Children’s Global Assessment Scale, adverse event (AE) monitoring, vital signs, laboratory testing, and extrapyramidal symptom rating scales. Results A total of 390 subjects were enrolled; 48 subjects had received placebo in a previous double-blind study; 292 subjects had received risperidone as part of their participation in one of two previous controlled studies; and 50 subjects were enrolled directly for this study. A total of 279 subjects enrolled for 6 months of treatment, and 111 subjects enrolled for 12 months of treatment. Overall, 264 (67.7%) subjects completed this study: 209 of the 279 subjects (75%) in the 6-month group and 55 of the 111 subjects (50%) in the 12-month group. The median mode dose was 3.8 mg/day. At 6 months, all three groups experienced improvement from open-label baseline in symptoms of schizophrenia as well as general assessments of global functioning. Improvements were generally maintained for the duration of treatment. The most common AEs (≥10% of subjects) were somnolence, headache, weight increase, hypertonia, insomnia, tremor, and psychosis. Potentially prolactin-related AEs (PPAEs) were reported by 36 (9%) subjects. The AE profile in this study was qualitatively similar to those of other studies in adult subjects with schizophrenia and in other psychiatric studies of risperidone in pediatric populations. Conclusions Risperidone maintenance treatment in adolescents over 6 to 12 months was well tolerated, consistent with related studies in this clinical population, and associated with continued efficacy. Clinical trials ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00246285 http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00246285?term=NCT00246285&rank=1