DOCSLIB.ORG

A Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Second-Generation Antipsychotics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Second-Generation Antipsychotics ORIGINAL ARTICLE A Meta-analysis of the Efficacy of Second-Generation Antipsychotics John M. Davis, MD; Nancy Chen, MS; Ira D. Glick, MD Background: Consensus panel recommendations re- tracted the sample sizes, means, and standard deviation garding choice of an antipsychotic agent for schizophre- of the efficacy data. nia differ markedly, but most consider second- generation antipsychotics (SGAs) as a homogeneous Results: Using the Hedges-Olkin algorithm, the effect sizes group. It has been suggested that SGAs seem falsely more of clozapine, amisulpride, risperidone, and olanzapine were efficacious than first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) 0.49, 0.29, 0.25, and 0.21 greater than those of FGAs, with as a result of reduced efficacy due to use of a high-dose P values of 2ϫ10 −8,3ϫ10 −7,2ϫ10 −12, and 3ϫ10 −9, re- comparator, haloperidol. We performed (1) a meta- spectively. The remaining 6 SGAs were not significantly analysis of randomized efficacy trials comparing SGAs different from FGAs, although zotepine was marginally dif- and FGAs, (2) comparisons between SGAs, (3) a dose- ferent. No efficacy difference was detected among amisul- response analysis of FGAs and SGAs, and (4) an analy- pride, risperidone, and olanzapine. We found no evi- sis of the effect on efficacy of an overly high dose of an dence that the haloperidol dose (or all FGA comparators FGA comparator. converted to haloperidol-equivalent doses) affected these results when we examined its effect by drug or in a 2-way Methods: Literature search of clinical trials between analysis of variance model in which SGA effectiveness is January 1953 and May 2002 of patients with schizophre- entered as a second factor. nia from electronic databases, reference lists, posters, the Food and Drug Administration, and other unpublished Conclusion: Some SGAs are more efficacious than FGAs, data. We included 124 randomized controlled trials with and, therefore, SGAs are not a homogeneous group. efficacy data on 10 SGAs vs FGAs and 18 studies of com- parisons between SGAs. Two of us independently ex- Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003;60:553-564 NE OF THE most impor- Our primary aim was to perform a tant clinical decisions is meta-analysis of randomized trials on the which antipsychotic agent efficacy of second-generation antipsychot- to prescribe. Consensus ics (SGAs) vs FGAs and trials comparing panel recommendations SGAs. Our meta-analysis, which included Odiffer markedly. Geddes and his collabo- more drugs and more recent trials, re- rators (2000) in the UK National Schizo- viewed 142 controlled studies (124 stud- phrenia Guideline Development Group ies of SGAs vs FGAs [18272 patients] and conducted a meta-analysis and con- 18 studies of SGAs [2748 patients]), about cluded1(p1371): “There is no clear evidence 4 times the number of studies included in that atypical antipsychotics are more ef- previous meta-analyses. To carry out the pri- fective or are better tolerated than con- mary analysis correctly, it was necessary to ventional antipsychotics.” Other research- analyze the SGA efficacy dose-response ers2-4 share their view. In contrast, some curve, as some meta-analyses used subop- algorithms recommend second-genera- timal doses in their estimates,14,15 and to per- tion antipsychotics (FGAs) as first-line form a meta-analysis of 24 comparisons of treatment based on adverse effect advan- FGAs in which patients were randomized tages but equivocal efficacy differ- to receive a medium dose vs a high dose. ences.5-8 The American Psychiatric Asso- Geddes et al1 assert that overly high doses From the Psychiatric Institute, ciation treatment guidelines,9 the of a comparator are less efficacious than me- University of Illinois at Chicago Schizophrenia Patient Outcomes Re- dium doses, and, therefore, the observed bet- (Dr Davis and Ms Chen); and search Team funded by the Agency for ter efficacy of some SGAs might be an arti- the Department of Psychiatry Healthcare Research and Quality (for- fact of a negative effect on efficacy of the and Behavioral Sciences, merly the Agency for Health Care Policy overly high dose of FGA comparator. We Stanford University School of and Research),10 the US National Insti- conducted meta-regressions to explore the Medicine, Stanford, Calif 11 12,13 (Dr Glick). This study received tute of Mental Health, and others have effect of comparator dose on our data, on no direct or indirect support issued equivocating guidelines recom- data from the 30 studies reviewed by Ged- from the pharmaceutical mending all antipsychotics and leaving the des et al1 (our analysis of the raw data of industry. clinician without an effective guide. Geddes et al), and on the comparable pooled (REPRINTED) ARCH GEN PSYCHIATRY/ VOL 60, JUNE 2003 WWW.ARCHGENPSYCHIATRY.COM 553 ©2003 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. Downloaded From: https://jamanetwork.com/ on 09/29/2021 PRINCIPAL OUTCOME 18 C D 16 Effect sizes were calculated from the Positive and Negative Syn- 23 14 B drome Scale (PANSS) or, when that was not available, from the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS).24 When neither the PANSS 12 16.3 mg nor the BPRS was available, the Clinical Global Rating was used, 10 using change scores adjusted for baseline (analysis of covari- 11.6 mg A ance) or, when not available, change scores (baseline minus end 8 point score) and, when both were unavailable, end point scores. 6 Effect size is essentially the improvement score of SGA minus FGA BPRS Score Improvement 4 divided by their pooled standard deviation. Normal quantile plots 6.6 mg were generated to ensure that the outcome variable was reason- 2 ably normally distributed (Web, Figure 11). 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 DATA EXTRACTION Olanzapine Dose, log We based our meta-analysis, as far as possible, on the intent- Figure 1. Olanzapine dose-response curve. The 3 dotted lines extending past the 16.3-mg dose indicate that there is uncertainty regarding when the curve to-treat sample using the last-observation-carried-forward flattens. A indicates the dose greater than 60% of the optimal dose; B and C, method. The mean, sample size, and standard deviation data approximations of the optimal dose range; D, an unnecessarily high dose; of all studies were extracted by one of us (J.M.D.); one of us BPRS, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. (I.D.G. or N.C.) performed independent data extractions. Cochrane dataset of 33 trials (6464 patients) of SGA vs FGA VALIDITY ASSESSMENT 15-19 efficacy. We conducted extensive sensitivity analyses to determine Additional methods, search strategies, tables, fig- whether results were altered by excluding certain studies or by ures, discussions, citations, and sensitivity analyses can be meta-regression. We explored the effects of study design, re- accessed on our Web site (herein referred to as “Web”) (http: port completeness (qualitatively), peer-reviewed publication vs //www.psych.uic.edu/faculty/davis/meta_analysis) (Uni- non–peer-reviewed publication (including data from posters versity of Illinois at Chicago, Department of Psychiatry, and the FDA Web site), quality of study, global rating vs 2003) or by requesting a copy from the authors. We plan PANSS/BPRS continuous scales, and exclusion of certain drugs to update our meta-analysis on the Web quarterly. (Web, “Sensitivity Analysis”). To evaluate data extraction, we compared our effect sizes with those we calculated from the sample size, mean, and standard deviation from the Cochrane METHODS reviews15-19 and Geddes et al1 effect sizes. SELECTION AND STUDY CHARACTERISTICS QUANTITATIVE DATA SYNTHESIS We selected random-assignment, controlled clinical trials of pa- 25 tients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder with no re- Five Hedges-Olkin–based software programs were used: Coch- rane MetaView (version 4.1.1),26 2 SAS-based programs (ver- striction on publication date, language, or sample size of 10 SGAs 27,28 29 (amisulpride, aripiprazole, clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine fu- sion 8.2), MetaWin (version 2.0), Comprehensive Meta- marate, remoxipride hydrochloride, risperidone, sertindole, zipra- Analysis (version 1.0.25; Biostat, Englewood, NJ), and a DOS sidone hydrochloride, and zotepine) compared with either FGAs program to establish consistency across different meta-analytic or another SGA, and a dose-response comparison of FGAs and techniques. We used fixed-effects models except when signifi- SGAs. Previous research20 has established that all FGAs are equally cant heterogeneity dictated the use of random-effects models. (Sig- efficacious. We analyzed the medical literature in its original lan- nificant heterogeneity implies that effect sizes between the stud- ies differ more than expected by chance.) Because our conclusions guage. We performed a sensitivity analysis and generated fun- 1 nel plots to assess the possibility of publication bias. differed from those of Geddes et al, we evaluated whether this was due to meta-analytic methods or interpretation (effect of com- SEARCH STRATEGY parator dose). Consequently, to hold dose constant, we con- structed dose-response curves from fixed-dose, random- Modeled after the search strategy of Cochrane reviews, we assignment, double-blind studies of SGAs (and FGAs using searched the following databases: MEDLINE (January 1, 1966, haloperidol equivalents) to identify the therapeutic dose range to May 31, 2002), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (Janu- by inspection (Figure 1, point B).30-33 In the randomized, mul- ary 1, 1970, to March 31, 2002), CINAHL (January 1, 1982, to tiple fixed-dose studies, we pooled all doses greater than approxi- April 30, 2002), PsychINFO (January 1, 1987, to January 31, mately 60% of the therapeutic dose, that is, medium olanzapine 2002). We also searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic doses of approximately 11 mg or greater (Figure 1, point A), ris- Reviews (Issue 2, 2002) and reference lists in journal articles. peridone doses of 4 mg or greater, quetiapine doses of 150 mg The Quality of Reporting of Meta-Analyses statement21 and the (the most efficacious dose) or greater, and sertindole doses of 12 empiric study by McAuley and coworkers22 indicate that ex- mg or greater.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2D6 Substrates 2D6 Inhibitors 2D6 Inducers
    Physician Guidelines: Drugs Metabolized by Cytochrome P450’s 1 2D6 Substrates Acetaminophen Captopril Dextroamphetamine Fluphenazine Methoxyphenamine Paroxetine Tacrine Ajmaline Carteolol Dextromethorphan Fluvoxamine Metoclopramide Perhexiline Tamoxifen Alprenolol Carvedilol Diazinon Galantamine Metoprolol Perphenazine Tamsulosin Amiflamine Cevimeline Dihydrocodeine Guanoxan Mexiletine Phenacetin Thioridazine Amitriptyline Chloropromazine Diltiazem Haloperidol Mianserin Phenformin Timolol Amphetamine Chlorpheniramine Diprafenone Hydrocodone Minaprine Procainamide Tolterodine Amprenavir Chlorpyrifos Dolasetron Ibogaine Mirtazapine Promethazine Tradodone Aprindine Cinnarizine Donepezil Iloperidone Nefazodone Propafenone Tramadol Aripiprazole Citalopram Doxepin Imipramine Nifedipine Propranolol Trimipramine Atomoxetine Clomipramine Encainide Indoramin Nisoldipine Quanoxan Tropisetron Benztropine Clozapine Ethylmorphine Lidocaine Norcodeine Quetiapine Venlafaxine Bisoprolol Codeine Ezlopitant Loratidine Nortriptyline Ranitidine Verapamil Brofaramine Debrisoquine Flecainide Maprotline olanzapine Remoxipride Zotepine Bufuralol Delavirdine Flunarizine Mequitazine Ondansetron Risperidone Zuclopenthixol Bunitrolol Desipramine Fluoxetine Methadone Oxycodone Sertraline Butylamphetamine Dexfenfluramine Fluperlapine Methamphetamine Parathion Sparteine 2D6 Inhibitors Ajmaline Chlorpromazine Diphenhydramine Indinavir Mibefradil Pimozide Terfenadine Amiodarone Cimetidine Doxorubicin Lasoprazole Moclobemide Quinidine Thioridazine Amitriptyline Cisapride
    [Show full text]
  • Antipsychotics
    The Fut ure of Antipsychotic Therapy (page 7 in syllabus) Stepp,,hen M. Stahl, MD, PhD Adjunct Professor, Department of Psychiatry Universityyg of California, San Diego School of Medicine Honorary Visiting Senior Fellow, Cambridge University, UK Sppyonsored by the Neuroscience Education Institute Additionally sponsored by the American Society for the Advancement of Pharmacotherapy This activity is supported by an educational grant from Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc. Copyright © 2011 Neuroscience Education Institute. All rights reserved. Individual Disclosure Statement Faculty Editor / Presenter Stephen M. Stahl, MD, PhD, is an adjunct professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, and an honorary visiting senior fellow at the University of Cambridge in the UK. Grant/Research: AstraZeneca, BioMarin, Dainippon Sumitomo, Dey, Forest, Genomind, Lilly, Merck, Pamlab, Pfizer, PGxHealth/Trovis, Schering-Plough, Sepracor/Sunovion, Servier, Shire, Torrent Consultant/Advisor: Advent, Alkermes, Arena, AstraZeneca, AVANIR, BioMarin, Biovail, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CeNeRx, Cypress, Dainippon Sumitomo, Dey, Forest, Genomind, Janssen, Jazz, Labopharm, Lilly, Lundbeck, Merck, Neuronetics, Novartis, Ono, Orexigen, Otsuka, Pamlab, Pfizer, PGxHealth/Trovis, Rexahn, Roche, Royalty, Schering-Plough, Servier, Shire, Solvay/Abbott, Sunovion/Sepracor, Valeant, VIVUS, Speakers Bureau: Dainippon Sumitomo, Forest, Lilly, Merck, Pamlab, Pfizer, Sepracor/Sunovion, Servier, Wyeth Copyright © 2011 Neuroscience Education Institute. All rights reserved. Learninggj Objectives • Differentiate antipsychotic drugs from each other on the basis of their pharmacological mechanisms and their associated therapeutic and side effects • Integrate novel treatment approaches into clinical practice according to best practices guidelines • Identify novel therapeutic options currently being researched for the treatment of schizophrenia Copyright © 2011 Neuroscience Education Institute.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dose-Concentration-Effect Relationships—The Basis for TDM. a Critical Appraisal Lars F
    International Congress Series 1220 (2001) 117-123 The dose-concentration-effect relationships—the basis for TDM. A critical appraisal Lars F. Gram Institute of Public Health, Research Unit of Clinical Pharmacology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark—Odense University, Odense, Denmark Abstract Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (TDM) is based on a series of theoretical assumptions, a clinical pharmacological rationale, scientific documentation and a practical implementation, respecting the theoretical and scientific basis. The clinical pharmacological rationale for TDM; a pharmacokinetic variability exceeding therapeutic index and dose titration on the basis of clinical or paraclinical measurements not being feasible, limits TDM to a minor fraction of all drags available. The theoretical assumption that blood concentration measurements reflect/predict the tissue/receptor concentration and the clinical endpoints, requires several points to be considered such as concentration fluctuations, protein binding, active metabolites, etc. A relatively constant ratio between blood and tissue/receptor concentration is generally assumed, but the important role of transporter proteins, with inter- and intraindividual variability due to polymorphisms, inducers and inhibitors seriously challenge this basic assumption. Concentration—effect relationships concerns groups of patients and indicate the probability of a given response (therapeutic/toxic) at a given concentration. Dose-effect and concentration-effect studies of drugs like digoxin, lithium and antidepressants have shown that the dose-effect or concentration-effect curves for therapeutic effect and tolerability are flat and overlapping. Dose-effect studies, now standard in drag development, represent a unique possibility to examine dose—concentration-effect relationships of new drags. © 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Therapeutic Drag Monitoring; Dose; Concentration; Effect E-mail address: [email protected] (L.F.
    [Show full text]
  • Electronic Search Strategies
    Appendix 1: electronic search strategies The following search strategy will be applied in PubMed: ("Antipsychotic Agents"[Mesh] OR acepromazine OR acetophenazine OR amisulpride OR aripiprazole OR asenapine OR benperidol OR bromperidol OR butaperazine OR Chlorpromazine OR chlorproethazine OR chlorprothixene OR clopenthixol OR clotiapine OR clozapine OR cyamemazine OR dixyrazine OR droperidol OR fluanisone OR flupentixol OR fluphenazine OR fluspirilene OR haloperidol OR iloperidone OR levomepromazine OR levosulpiride OR loxapine OR lurasidone OR melperone OR mesoridazine OR molindone OR moperone OR mosapramine OR olanzapine OR oxypertine OR paliperidone OR penfluridol OR perazine OR periciazine OR perphenazine OR pimozide OR pipamperone OR pipotiazine OR prochlorperazine OR promazine OR prothipendyl OR quetiapine OR remoxipride OR risperidone OR sertindole OR sulpiride OR sultopride OR tiapride OR thiopropazate OR thioproperazine OR thioridazine OR tiotixene OR trifluoperazine OR trifluperidol OR triflupromazine OR veralipride OR ziprasidone OR zotepine OR zuclopenthixol ) AND ("Randomized Controlled Trial"[ptyp] OR "Controlled Clinical Trial"[ptyp] OR "Multicenter Study"[ptyp] OR "randomized"[tiab] OR "randomised"[tiab] OR "placebo"[tiab] OR "randomly"[tiab] OR "trial"[tiab] OR controlled[ti] OR randomized controlled trials[mh] OR random allocation[mh] OR double-blind method[mh] OR single-blind method[mh] OR "Clinical Trial"[Ptyp] OR "Clinical Trials as Topic"[Mesh]) AND (((Schizo*[tiab] OR Psychosis[tiab] OR psychoses[tiab] OR psychotic[tiab] OR disturbed[tiab] OR paranoid[tiab] OR paranoia[tiab]) AND ((Child*[ti] OR Paediatric[ti] OR Pediatric[ti] OR Juvenile[ti] OR Youth[ti] OR Young[ti] OR Adolesc*[ti] OR Teenage*[ti] OR early*[ti] OR kids[ti] OR infant*[ti] OR toddler*[ti] OR boys[ti] OR girls[ti] OR "Child"[Mesh]) OR "Infant"[Mesh])) OR ("Schizophrenia, Childhood"[Mesh])).
    [Show full text]
  • Tardive Akathisia
    HEALTH & SAFETY: PSYCHIATRIC MEDICATIONS Tardive Akathisia FACT SHEET Tardive Akathisia BQIS Fact Sheets provide a general overview on topics important to supporting an individual’s health and safety and to improving their quality of life. This document provides general information on the topic and is not intended to replace team assessment, decision-making, or medical advice. This is the ninth of ten Fact Sheets regarding psychotropic medications. Intended Outcomes Individuals will understand the symptoms, common causes, and treatment of tardive akathisia. Definitions Akathisia: A movement disorder characterized by motor restlessness/a feeling of inner restlessness with a compelling need to be moving. Tardive akathisia: A severe prolonged form of akathisia which may persist after stopping the medica- tion causing the symptoms. Facts • Akathisia is: – the most common drug induced movement disorder. – a side effect of medication. – most often caused by antipsychotic medications that block dopamine. • Medications with akathisia as a potential side effect include: – Benzisothiazole (ziprasidone) – Benzisoxazole (iloperidone) – Butyrophenones (haloperidol, droperidol) – Calcium channel blockers (flunarizine, cinnarizine) – Dibenzazepine (loxapine, asenapine) – Dibenzodiazepine (clozapine, quetiapine) – Diphenylbutylpiperidine (pimozide) – Indolones (molindone) – Lithium – Phenothiazines (chlorpromazine, triflupromazine, thioridazine, mesoridazine, trifluoperazine, prochlorperazine, perphenazine, fluphenazine, perazine) Bureau of Quality Improvement
    [Show full text]
  • Dopamine Receptor Contribution to the Action of PCP, LSD and Ketamine
    Molecular Psychiatry (2005) 10, 877–883 & 2005 Nature Publishing Group All rights reserved 1359-4184/05 $30.00 www.nature.com/mp ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE Dopamine receptor contribution to the action of PCP, LSD and ketamine psychotomimetics P Seeman1,2,FKo1 and T Tallerico2 1Department of Pharmacology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 2Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Although phencyclidine and ketamine are used to model a hypoglutamate theory of schizophrenia, their selectivity for NMDA receptors has been questioned. To determine the affinities of phencyclidine, ketamine, dizocilpine and LSD for the functional high-affinity state High of the dopamine D2 receptor, D2 , their dissociation constants (Ki) were obtained on [3H]domperidone binding to human cloned dopamine D2 receptors. Phencyclidine had a high High affinity for D2 with a Ki of 2.7 nM, in contrast to its low affinity for the NMDA receptor, with a 3 Ki of 313 nM, as labeled by [ H]dizocilpine on rat striatal tissue. Ketamine also had a high High affinity for D2 with a Ki of 55 nM, an affinity higher than its 3100 nM Ki for the NMDA sites. High Dizocilpine had a Ki of 0.3 nM at D2 , but a Kd of 1.8 nM at the NMDA receptor. LSD had a Ki of 2nMatD2High. Because the psychotomimetics had higher potency at D2High than at the NMDA site, the psychotomimetic action of these drugs must have a major contribution from D2 agonism. Because these drugs have a combined action on both dopamine receptors and NMDA receptors, these drugs, when given in vivo, test a combined hyperdopamine and hypoglutamate theory of psychosis.
    [Show full text]
  • Nervous System Drug Poster
    Nervous System Drugs Created by the Njardarson Group (The University of Arizona): Edon Vitaku, Elizabeth A. Ilardi, Daniel J. Mack, Monica A. Fallon, Erik B. Gerlach, Miyant’e Y. Newton, Angela N. Yazzie, Jack Siqueiros, Jón T. Njarðarson Cocaine Aspirin Caffeine Procaine Benzocaine Metharbital Oxycodone Disulfiram Morphine Ergotamine Hydromorphone Codeine Pemoline Amphetamine Thiopental Methadone Methadone Biperiden Thiopental D.H.E. Trimethadione Urecholine Cafergot ( Cocaine ) ( Aspirin ) ( Caffeine ) ( Procaine ) ( Benzocaine ) ( Metharbital ) ( Oxycodone ) ( Disulfiram ) ( Morphine ) ( Ergotamine ) ( Hydromorphone ) ( Codeine ) ( Pemoline ) ( Amphetamine ) ( Thiopental ) ( Methadone ) ( Methadone ) ( Biperiden ) ( Thiopental ) ( Dihydroergotamine ) ( Trimethadione ) ( Bethanechol ) ( Ergotamine & Caffeine ) ANESTHETIC ANALGESIC PSYCHOANALEPTIC ANESTHETIC ANESTHETIC ANTIEPILEPTIC ANALGESIC MISC. NERVOUS ANALGESIC ANALGESIC ANALGESIC ANALGESIC PSYCHOANALEPTIC PSYCHOANALEPTIC ANESTHETIC ANALGESIC MISC. NERVOUS ANTI-PARKINSON PSYCHOLEPTIC ANALGESIC ANTIEPILEPTIC MISC. NERVOUS ANALGESIC Approved 1880 Approved 1899 Approved 1900 Approved 1900 Approved 1902 Approved 1905 Approved 1916 Approved 1920 Approved 1920 Approved 1921 Approved 1926 Approved 1930 Approved 1930 Approved 1933 Approved 1934 Approved 1937 Approved 1937 Approved 1940 Approved 1940 Approved 1946 Approved 1947 Approved 1948 Approved 1948 Lidocaine Artane Anileridine Chlor-Trimeton Clonidine Ethchlorvynol Imipramine Morphine Percodan Paramethadione Secobarbital Apomorphine
    [Show full text]
  • Multi-Discipline Review
    CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND RESEARCH APPLICATION NUMBER: 209500Orig1s000 MULTI-DISCIPLINE REVIEW Summary Review Office Director Cross Discipline Team Leader Review Clinical Review Non-Clinical Review Statistical Review Clinical Pharmacology Review NDA 209500 Multi-disciplinary Review and Evaluation Caplyta (lumateperone) NDA/BLA Multi-Disciplinary Review and Evaluation Application Type NDA Application Number(s) 209500 Priority or Standard Standard Submit Date(s) September 27, 2018 Received Date(s) September 27, 2018 PDUFA Goal Date December 27, 2019 Division/Office Division of Psychiatry / Office of Drug Evaluation-I Review Completion Date December 20, 2019 Established/Proper Name Lumateperone (Proposed) Trade Name Caplyta Pharmacologic Class Atypical Antipsychotic Code name ITI-007 Applicant Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. Dosage form 42 mg Capsules Applicant proposed Dosing 42 mg by mouth once daily Regimen Applicant Proposed Schizophrenia/Adults Indication(s)/Population(s) Applicant Proposed 58214004 | Schizophrenia (disorder) SNOMED CT Indication Disease Term for each Proposed Indication Recommendation on Approval Regulatory Action Recommended Schizophrenia/Adults Indication(s)/Population(s) (if applicable) Recommended SNOMED 58214004 | Schizophrenia (disorder) CT Indication Disease Term for each Indication (if applicable) Recommended Dosing 42 mg by mouth once daily Regimen 1 Version date: October 12, 2018 Reference ID: 4537404 NDA 209500 Multi-disciplinary Review and Evaluation Caplyta (lumateperone) Table of Contents Table of
    [Show full text]
  • Medical Review(S)
    CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND RESEARCH APPLICATION NUMBER: 22-173 MEDICAL REVIEW(S) Review and Evaluation of Clinical Data NDA #22-173/000 Sponsor: Eli Lilly and Company Drug: Olanzapine Pamoate Depot Proposed Indication: Schizophrenia Material Submitted: Resubmission to CR Letter Correspondence Date: March 11, 2009 Date Received: March 12, 2009 Related NDA: NDA 20592 (olanzapine oral tablet) I. Background The original NDA was submitted on April 27, 2007 for the indications of acute and maintenance treatment of schizophrenia, and was granted a not approvable status on 25 February 2008. The primary deficiency in this application is the lack of sufficient information on the risk of a severe adverse event, the post- injection delirium/sedation syndrome (PDSS), characterized with severe central nerve system (CNS) depression and temporally associated with olanzapine pamoate depot (OP Depot) injection, which has been observed in approximately 1% of patients who have participated in the development program for OP Depot. On 7 May 2008, Lilly met with FDA to discuss aspects of a proposed amendment to the application that would address the primary deficiency, PDSS, including enhanced label language and risk-minimization activities. FDA suggested a medication registry in addition to the sponsor’s proposed risk management plan. On 13 June 2008, Lilly submitted a completed response package to the Not Approvable (NA) letter dated on 25 Feb. 2008. The submission includes an amended risk management plan, including additional information regarding the medication registry and draft training materials. On 15 December 2008, FDA issued a Complete Response (CR) Letter and requested the sponsor submitting a revised Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) and a revised Medication Guide to address the deficiencies identified by the division of Risk 1 Management (DRISK), the Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology (OSE).
    [Show full text]
  • Download Product Insert (PDF)
    PRODUCT INFORMATION Remoxipride (hydrochloride) Item No. 30971 CAS Registry No.: 73220-03-8 Formal Name: 3-bromo-N-[[(2S)-1-ethyl-2-pyrrolidinyl] O methyl]-2,6-dimethoxy-benzamide, O Br monohydrochloride N MF: C16H23BrN2O3 • HCl FW: 407.7 H N Purity: ≥98% O Supplied as: A crystalline solid • HCl Storage: -20°C Stability: ≥2 years Information represents the product specifications. Batch specific analytical results are provided on each certificate of analysis. Laboratory Procedures Remoxipride (hydrochloride) is supplied as a crystalline solid. A stock solution may be made by dissolving the remoxipride (hydrochloride) in water. The solubility of remoxipride (hydrochloride) in water is approximately 100 nM. We do not recommend storing the aqueous solution for more than one day. Description 1 Remoxipride is an atypical antipsychotic and dopamine D2 receptor antagonist (Ki = 0.2 µM). It is selective for the dopamine D2 receptor over a panel of 33 receptors, neurotransmitter transporters, and ion channels at 10 µM but does inhibit the sigma (σ) receptor (Ki = 0.065 µM). Remoxipride (2-20 µmol/kg, i.p.) increases striatal 3,4-dihydroxyphenylacetic acid (DOPAC) and homovanillic 2 acid (HVA) levels in rats. It inhibits apomorphine-induced stereotypy and hyperactivity in rats with ED50 values of 5.6 and 0.8 µmol/kg, respectively.3 Formulations containing remoxipride have previously been used in the treatment of schizophrenia. References 1. Leysen, J.E., Janssen, P.M.F., Schotte, A., et al. Interaction of antipsychotic drugs with neurotransmitter receptor sites in vitro and in vivo in relation to pharmacological and clinical effects: Role of 5HT2 receptors.
    [Show full text]
  • Chlorpromazine Equivalents: a Consensus of Opinion for Both Clinical and Research Applications
    DRUG INFORMATION QUARTERLY Chlorpromazine equivalents: a consensus of opinion for both clinical and research applications Moria Atkins, Adrian Burgess, Clare Bottomley and Massimo Riccio A consensusof available Information isused to produce levant articles from the medical literature were a working table of conversion for the most commonly obtained from reference lists of publications and used drugs to Chlorpromazine equivalents. A user- by searching the MEDLINEdatabase from 1989- friendly computer program has also been developed 1995. 1989 was chosen as a starting point from this information. The use of the concept In the because this was the year of publication of the clinical setting and for research purposes is briefly major papers by Rey and Schulz's teams which discussed. thoroughly reviewed the subject. No restrictive search parameters were imposed with regard to The use of high-dose neuroleptics has been type of publication. If there was any discrepancy debated in recent literature and reports of deaths in the literature about Chlorpromazine equiva occurring in patients given such high doses have lence the most often quoted figure was used. A received much publicity (Mehtonen et ai, 1991). range is quoted for depot drugs because of the The Royal College of Psychiatrists responded to extreme lack of agreement in the literature. The unease among its members on this subject by results of our survey are illustrated in Table 1. convening a consensus panel of experts to review the use of high-dose drugs (Thompson, 1994). Practice is changing towards using an effective Comment antipsychotic dose of a neuroleptic with added General agreement was found for most drugs benzodiazepines if required for tranquillisatìon.
    [Show full text]
  • (2006.01) A61P 25/36 (2006.01) A61K 9/00 (2006.01) (21) International Application Number: PCT/US20 19/059852 (22) International Filing Date: 05 November 2019 (05
    ( (51) International Patent Classification: A61K 31/485 (2006.01) A61P 25/36 (2006.01) A61K 9/00 (2006.01) (21) International Application Number: PCT/US20 19/059852 (22) International Filing Date: 05 November 2019 (05. 11.2019) (25) Filing Language: English (26) Publication Language: English (30) Priority Data: 62/756,322 06 November 2018 (06. 11.2018) US 62/820,582 19 March 2019 (19.03.2019) US (71) Applicant: PURDUE PHARMA L.P. [US/US]; One Stamford Forum, 201 Tresser Boulevard, Stamford, CT 06901 (US). (72) Inventors: HUANG, Haiyong, Hugh; 5 Millar Court, Princeron Junction, NJ 08550 (US). SHET, Manjunath, S.; 22 Wimbledon Court, White Plains, NY 10607 (US). (74) Agent: KOPELEVICH, Sofia et al.; Lowenstein Sandler LLP, One Lowenstein Drive, Roseland, NJ 07068 (US). (81) Designated States (unless otherwise indicated, for every kind of national protection available) : AE, AG, AL, AM, AO, AT, AU, AZ, BA, BB, BG, BH, BN, BR, BW, BY, BZ, CA, CH, CL, CN, CO, CR, CU, CZ, DE, DJ, DK, DM, DO, DZ, EC, EE, EG, ES, FI, GB, GD, GE, GH, GM, GT, HN, HR, HU, ID, IL, IN, IR, IS, JO, JP, KE, KG, KH, KN, KP, KR, KW,KZ, LA, LC, LK, LR, LS, LU, LY,MA, MD, ME, MG, MK, MN, MW, MX, MY, MZ, NA, NG, NI, NO, NZ, OM, PA, PE, PG, PH, PL, PT, QA, RO, RS, RU, RW, SA, SC, SD, SE, SG, SK, SL, SM, ST, SV, SY, TH, TJ, TM, TN, TR, TT, TZ, UA, UG, US, UZ, VC, VN, ZA, ZM, ZW.
    [Show full text]