DOCSLIB.ORG

How Effective Are Second-Generation Antipsychotic Drugs?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
How Effective Are Second-Generation Antipsychotic Drugs? Molecular Psychiatry (2009) 14, 429–447 & 2009 Nature Publishing Group All rights reserved 1359-4184/09 $32.00 www.nature.com/mp ORIGINAL ARTICLE How effective are second-generation antipsychotic drugs? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials S Leucht1, D Arbter1, RR Engel2, W Kissling1 and JM Davis3 1Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Klinik fu¨r Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie der TU-Mu¨nchen, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universita¨tMu¨nchen, Mu¨nchen, Germany; 2Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Psychiatrische Klinik der Ludwig-Maximilian-Universita¨tMu¨nchen, Mu¨nchen, Germany and 3Department of Psychiatry, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared second-generation antipsychotic (SGA) drugs with placebo in schizophrenic patients and which considered 13 different outcome measures. Thirty-eight randomized controlled trials with 7323 participants were included. All SGA drugs were more effective than placebo, but the pooled effect size (ES) for overall symptoms (primary outcome) was moderate (À0.51). The absolute difference (RD) in responder rates was at 18% (41% responded to drug compared with 24% to placebo, number needed to treat = 6). Similar ESs were found for the other efficacy parameters: negative symptoms (ES = À0.39), positive symptoms (ES = À0.48), depression (ES = À0.26), relapse (RD 20%) and discontinuation due to inefficacy (RD 17%). Curiously, the efficacy of haloperidol for negative and depressive symptoms was similar to that of the SGA drugs. In contrast to haloperidol, there was no difference in terms of EPS between any SGA drugs and placebo, and there was also no difference in terms of dropouts due to adverse events. Meta-regression showed a decline in treatment response over time, and a funnel plot suggested the possibility of publication bias. We conclude that the drug versus placebo difference of SGA drugs and haloperidol in recent trials was moderate, and that there is much room for more efficacious compounds. Whether methodological issues account in part for the relatively low efficacy ESs and the scarcity of adverse event differences compared with placebo needs to be established. Molecular Psychiatry (2009) 14, 429–447; doi:10.1038/sj.mp.4002136; published online 8 January 2008 Keywords: meta-analysis; schizophrenia; antipsychotic agents; treatment outcome; bias; methodology Introduction has implications for the interpretation of comparisons between second-generation antipsychotic (SGA) Recent critics of psychotropic agents have claimed drugs and conventional antipsychotics. The review that these drugs are not efficacious. For example, the also assesses how well it can be documented that the efficacy of anticholinesterase inhibitors for Alzhei- newer drugs cause certain adverse effects. New versus mer’s dementia has been questioned,1 as has the old drug comparisons may establish that the new drug efficacy of modern antidepressants, where Moncrieff has a lower incidence of adverse effects, but they do and Kirsch2 found only a two-point difference not establish whether the newer drug can cause that between drug and placebo on the Hamilton rating adverse effect. Finally, the database allows for the scale for depression is found. In this context, we discussion of a number of design issues in the context present a meta-analysis of 38 randomly controlled of placebo-controlled research in schizophrenia. trials with 7323 participants comparing second- generation (atypical) antipsychotics with placebo. The aim is to assess the efficacy and safety of SGA Materials and methods drugs based on 13 outcomes. This large database Search allows for some judgments on the efficacy of anti- We searched the register of the Cochrane Schizophrenia psychotic drugs in general, and the degree of efficacy Group (CSG) for randomized controlled trials that compared oral routes of administration of SGAs (search Correspondence: Dr S Leucht, Klinik fu¨ r Psychiatrie und terms: amisulpride, aripiprazole, clozapine, olanza- Psychotherapie der TU-Mu¨nchen, Klinikum rechts der Isar, pine, quetiapine, risperidone, sertindole, ziprasidone Technische Universita¨tMu¨ nchen, Ismaningerstr. 22, Mu¨nchen and zotepine) with placebo and/or conventional anti- 81675, Germany. E-mail: [email protected] psychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia or related Received 29 March 2007; revised 21 November 2007; accepted 26 disorders (schizoaffective, schizophreniform or delu- November 2007; published online 8 January 2008 sional disorder, any diagnostic criteria). There were no Atypical antipsychotics versus placebo S Leucht et al 430 language restrictions. The last search was made in as a measure of acceptability of treatment. In a ‘once August 2005; since then, studies from monthly MED- randomized–analyzed’ approach, we assumed in the LINE searches until September 2006 were added. case of dichotomous data that participants who The CSG register is compiled by regular methodical dropped out prior to completion had no change in searches in numerous electronic databases (BIOSIS, their condition. CINAHL, Dissertation abstracts, EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, PSYNDEX, PsycINFO, RUSSMED and Meta-analytic calculations Sociofile), supplemented by the hand searching of Standardized mean differences (SMDs) based on relevant journals and numerous conference proceed- Hedges’s adjusted g and its 95% confidence intervals ings (for details see the description of the Cochrane (CIs) were calculated for continuous data. When s.d. Schizophrenia Group3). We also searched the FDA were not reported, we either derived them from other web site and previous reviews4,5 including those of measures of variability or P-values, or we used the the Cochrane Collaboration. Only studies meeting average s.d. of the other studies. For dichotomous the quality criteria A (adequate randomization) and B data, relative risks (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) (usually studies stated to be randomized without further along with their 95% CIs were calculated. We believe details) according to the Cochrane handbook were that both measures are important. The mathematical included.6 We used only optimum doses of SGA drugs properties of RR are somewhat better than those of in fixed-dose studies as determined in controlled dose- RD, because they make an adjustment for base- finding studies as follows: amisulpride 50–300 mg dayÀ1 line risks.13 But RRs are often misinterpreted by for predominantly negative symptoms and 400– clinicians.14,15 The number of patients needed to 800 mg dayÀ1 for positive symptoms, aripiprazole treat (NNT) or the number of participants needed to 10–30 mg day, olanzapine 10–20 mg dayÀ1, quetiapine harm were calculated as the inverse of the RD. We >250mgdayÀ1, risperidone 4–6 mg dayÀ1, sertindole also showed the percentages in each group, because 16–24 mg dayÀ1 and ziprasidone 120–160 mg dayÀ1.It we feel that this is crucial for the reader to be able should be noted that there is a debate about the to appreciate the results. For example, a RR reduction optimum quetiapine doses, but there is no evidence of 50% is not meaningful if the reader does not know from dose-finding studies that shows higher doses whether these underlying percentages are 60 versus are more efficacious. Indeed, in the studies included 30% or 4 versus 2%. here the 750 mg quetiapine per day group was the We explored study heterogeneity by using the least effective one.7 Eleven studies had an additional I2 statistics, a measure estimating how much of the haloperidol arm. The results of the studies’ haloperidol variance is explained by study heterogeneity.16 Since groups as compared with placebo were also pooled as a in some of the analyses there was considerable benchmark. heterogeneity, we applied the random effects model by Der-Simonian and Laird17 throughout for the Data extraction and outcome parameters pooling of the studies. Random-effect models are in All data were extracted independently by two general more conservative than fixed-effect models, reviewers. The first authors (when addresses were because they take heterogeneity among studies into available) and all SGA drugs manufacturers were account. When studies had several arms (for example, contacted for missing data. The primary outcome of risperidone, quetiapine and placebo), we used the interest was the mean overall change of symptoms mean of the single arms to avoid counting the same according to the following hierarchy: the change of participants twice. the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS8) Unrestricted maximum likelihood random effects total score from baseline, if not available the change of meta-regression was used to find whether there was a the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS9), then change of the primary efficacy outcome (mean change values at study end point of these scales, all based of overall symptoms) over time using publication year on intent-to-treat data set whenever available. We also as a moderator. analyzed negative symptoms, positive symptoms, We made a sensitivity analysis excluding studies depressive symptoms and overall quality of life in a that consisted of patients with predominantly nega- similar fashion. For dichotomous efficacy measures, tive symptoms,18–23 long-term studies on initially we analyzed responder rates, relapse rates and stable patients24–28 and one very short study of only dropout due to inefficacy. The hierarchy for respon- 2 weeks duration.29 Owing
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]
  • Drug Use Evaluation: Antipsychotic Utilization in Schizophrenia Patients
    © Copyright 2012 Oregon State University. All Rights Reserved Drug Use Research & Management Program Oregon State University, 500 Summer Street NE, E35 Salem, Oregon 97301-1079 Phone 503-947-5220 | Fax 503-947-1119 Drug Use Evaluation: Antipsychotic Utilization in Schizophrenia Patients Research Questions: 1. How many schizophrenia patients are prescribed recommended first-line second-generation treatments for schizophrenia? 2. How many schizophrenia patients switch to an injectable antipsychotic after stabilization on an oral antipsychotic? 3. How many schizophrenia patients are prescribed 2 or more concomitant antipsychotics? 4. Are claims for long-acting injectable antipsychotics primarily billed as pharmacy or physician administered claims? 5. Does adherence to antipsychotic therapy differ between patients with claims for different routes of administration (oral vs. long-acting injectable)? Conclusions: In total, 4663 schizophrenia patients met inclusion criteria, and approximately 14% of patients (n=685) were identified as treatment naïve without claims for antipsychotics in the year before their first antipsychotic prescription. Approximately 45% of patients identified as treatment naïve had a history of remote antipsychotic use, but it is unclear if antipsychotics were historically prescribed for schizophrenia. Oral second-generation antipsychotics which are recommended as first-line treatment in the MHCAG schizophrenia algorithm were prescribed as initial treatment in 37% of treatment naive patients and 28% of all schizophrenia patients. Recommended agents include risperidone, paliperidone, and aripiprazole. Utilization of parenteral antipsychotics was limited in patients with schizophrenia. Overall only 8% of patients switched from an oral to an injectable therapy within 6 months of their first claim. Approximately, 60% of all schizophrenia patients (n=2512) had claims for a single antipsychotic for at least 12 continuous weeks and may be eligible to transition to a long-acting injectable antipsychotic.
    [Show full text]
  • Schizophrenia Care Guide
    August 2015 CCHCS/DHCS Care Guide: Schizophrenia SUMMARY DECISION SUPPORT PATIENT EDUCATION/SELF MANAGEMENT GOALS ALERTS Minimize frequency and severity of psychotic episodes Suicidal ideation or gestures Encourage medication adherence Abnormal movements Manage medication side effects Delusions Monitor as clinically appropriate Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome Danger to self or others DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA/EVALUATION (PER DSM V) 1. Rule out delirium or other medical illnesses mimicking schizophrenia (see page 5), medications or drugs of abuse causing psychosis (see page 6), other mental illness causes of psychosis, e.g., Bipolar Mania or Depression, Major Depression, PTSD, borderline personality disorder (see page 4). Ideas in patients (even odd ideas) that we disagree with can be learned and are therefore not necessarily signs of schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is a world-wide phenomenon that can occur in cultures with widely differing ideas. 2. Diagnosis is made based on the following: (Criteria A and B must be met) A. Two of the following symptoms/signs must be present over much of at least one month (unless treated), with a significant impact on social or occupational functioning, over at least a 6-month period of time: Delusions, Hallucinations, Disorganized Speech, Negative symptoms (social withdrawal, poverty of thought, etc.), severely disorganized or catatonic behavior. B. At least one of the symptoms/signs should be Delusions, Hallucinations, or Disorganized Speech. TREATMENT OPTIONS MEDICATIONS Informed consent for psychotropic
    [Show full text]
  • Reference 8 Huang Repurposing Psychiatric Drugs for Cancer 18
    Cancer Letters 419 (2018) 257e265 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Cancer Letters journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/canlet Mini-review Repurposing psychiatric drugs as anti-cancer agents * Jing Huang a, b, c, d, Danwei Zhao e, Zhixiong Liu a, Fangkun Liu a, a Department of Neurosurgery, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University (CSU), Changsha, China b Department of Psychiatry, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, 410011, China c Mental Health Institute of the Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Chinese National Clinical Research Center for Mental Disorders (Xiangya), Changsha, Hunan, 410011, China d Chinese National Technology Institute on Mental Disorders, Hunan Key Laboratory of Psychiatry and Mental Health, Changsha, Hunan, 410011, China e Xiangya Medical School, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China article info abstract Article history: Cancer is a major public health problem and one of the leading contributors to the global disease burden. Received 10 November 2017 The high cost of development of new drugs and the increasingly severe burden of cancer globally have Received in revised form led to increased interest in the search and development of novel, affordable anti-neoplastic medications. 17 January 2018 Antipsychotic drugs have a long history of clinical use and tolerable safety; they have been used as good Accepted 19 January 2018 targets for drug repurposing. Being used for various psychiatric diseases for decades, antipsychotic drugs are now reported to have potent anti-cancer properties against a wide variety of malignancies in addition Keywords: to their antipsychotic effects. In this review, an overview of repurposing various psychiatric drugs for Antipsychotic drugs Drug repurposing cancer treatment is presented, and the putative mechanisms for the anti-neoplastic actions of these Cancer treatment antipsychotic drugs are reviewed.
    [Show full text]
  • Drug Class Review on Atypical Antipsychotic Drugs
    Drug Class Review on Atypical Antipsychotic Drugs Final Report April 2006 The purpose of this report is to make available information regarding the comparative effectiveness and safety profiles of different drugs within pharmaceutical classes. Reports are not usage guidelines, nor should they be read as an endorsement of, or recommendation for, any particular drug, use or approach. Oregon Health & Science University does not recommend or endorse any guideline or recommendation developed by users of these reports. Marian S. McDonagh, PharmD Kim Peterson, MS Susan Carson, MPH Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center Oregon Health & Science University Mark Helfand, MD, MPH, Director Copyright © 2006 by Oregon Health & Science University Portland, Oregon 97201. All rights reserved. Final Report Update 1 Drug Effectiveness Review Project TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 5 Scope and Key Questions ......................................................................................................13 METHODS .................................................................................................................... 15 Literature Search ....................................................................................................................15 Study Selection .......................................................................................................................15 Data Abstraction .....................................................................................................................15
    [Show full text]
  • How CATIE Brought Us Back to Kansas: a Critical Re-Evaluation of the Concept of Atypical Antipsychotics and Their Place In
    Advances in Psychiatric Treatment (2008), vol. 14, 17–28 doi: 10.1192/apt.bp.107.003970 How CATIE brought us back to Kansas: a critical re-evaluation of the concept of atypical antipsychotics and their place in the treatment of schizophrenia David Cunningham Owens Abstract The subdivision of the class of antipsychotic drugs into two discrete groups – ‘conventional’ (or first generation) and ‘atypical’ (or second generation) – has been adopted as standard, with the latter generally accepted as ‘better’ and widely recommended as automatic first-line choices. However, this perception has been thrown into confusion with the results of large pragmatic trials that failed to identify advantages with the new, more expensive drugs, while identifying worrying tolerability issues. This article explores the origins of ‘atypicality’, its construction on the back of a confusing and weak clinical validator (diminished liability to promote parkinsonism) and how even in relation to the archetypical atypical, clozapine, the uncertain boundaries of drug-induced extrapyramidal dysfunction may be contributing to confusion about ‘efficacy’ and ‘tolerability’. It argues that abandoning atypicality would open up clinical practice to all drugs of a single class of ‘antipsychotics’ and allow for individualised risk/benefit appraisal as a basis for truly tailored treatment recommendations. Sometimes, the best way forward is back – to take This article raises fundamental questions about stock, appraise anew, admit mistakes. This is never our understanding of the clinical pharmacology easy, especially if shadows haunt the way but, if of antipsychotic drugs – so fundamental that (as necessary, is better undertaken sooner than later – numerous publication rejections attest) they were and with honesty.
    [Show full text]
  • Antipsychotics
    © Copyright 2012 Oregon State University. All Rights Reserved Drug Use Research & Management Program Oregon State University, 500 Summer Street NE, E35 Salem, Oregon 97301-1079 Phone 503-947-5220 | Fax 503-947-1119 Class Update with New Drug Evaluations: Antipsychotics Date of Review: May 2016 End Date of Literature Search: February 2016 New Drugs: brexpiprazole Brand Names (Manufacturer): Rexulti® (Otsuka) cariprazine Vraylar™ (Actavis) Dossiers Received: yes PDL Classes: Antipsychotics, First generation Antipsychotics, Second generation Antipsychotics, Parenteral Current Status of PDL Class: See Appendix 1. Purpose for Class Update: Several new antipsychotic drug products have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration since these drug classes were last reviewed by the Oregon Health Plan (OHP) Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee. Research Questions: 1. Is there new comparative evidence of meaningful difference in efficacy or effectiveness outcomes for schizophrenia, bipolar mania or major depressive disorders (MDD) between oral antipsychotic agents (first‐ or second‐generation) or between parenteral antipsychotic agents (first‐ or second‐generation)? 2. Is there new comparative evidence of meaningful difference in harms between oral antipsychotic agents (first‐ or second‐generation) or between parenteral antipsychotic agents (first‐ or second‐generation)? 3. Is there new comparative evidence of meaningful difference in effectiveness or harms in certain subpopulations based on demographic characteristics? Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence of clinically meaningful differences between antipsychotic agents in efficacy or effectiveness or harms between antipsychotic agents for schizophrenia, bipolar mania or MDD. There is insufficient evidence to determine if brexpiprazole and cariprazine offer superior efficacy or safety to other antipsychotic agents for schizophrenia. There is insufficient evidence to determine if brexpiprazole offers superior efficacy or safety to other antipsychotic agents for MDD.
    [Show full text]
  • Should Inverse Agonists Be Defined by Pharmacological Mechanism Or
    CNS Spectrums,(2019), 24 419 – 425. © Cambridge University Press 2018. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. doi:10.1017/S1092852918000986 ORIGINAL RESEARCH Switching stable patients with schizophrenia from their oral antipsychotics to aripiprazole lauroxil: a post hoc safety analysis of the initial 12-week crossover period Peter J. Weiden,1* Yangchun Du,2 Chih-Chin Liu,2 and Arielle D. Stanford3 1 Medical Affairs, Alkermes, Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts, USA 2 Clinical Development, Alkermes, Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts, USA 3 Clinical Science, Alkermes, Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts, USA Objective. Switching antipsychotic medications is common in patients with schizophrenia who are experiencing persistent symptoms or tolerability issues associated with their current drug regimen. This analysis assessed the safety of switching from an oral antipsychotic to the long-acting injectable antipsychotic aripiprazole lauroxil (AL). Methods. This was a post hoc analysis of outpatients with schizophrenia who were prescribed an oral antipsychotic and who enrolled in an international, open-label, long-term (52-week) safety study of AL. The analysis focused on the first 3 injections of AL 882 mg over 12 weeks, divided into the immediate 4-week crossover period between the first and second AL injections (initiation phase) and the subsequent 8 weeks (stabilization phase). Patients were grouped by preswitch oral antipsychotic medication, and safety and clinical symptoms were assessed. Results. In total, 190 patients had switched from one of the following oral antipsychotic medications: aripiprazole, conventional antipsychotics, risperidone/paliperidone, olanzapine, or quetiapine.
    [Show full text]
  • Advice on Prescribing for Adults with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD)
    Advice on Prescribing for Adults with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) Dr Lynne M Drummond, Local and National OCD Services, Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy Unit, South West London and St George’s Menat Health NHS Trust 9th April 2008 Introduction Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) is a common psychiatric disorder which untreated has a chronic often deteriorating course. OCD does respond well to treatment with either psychological approaches involving Graded Exposure and Self-Imposed Ritual Prevention (ERP) or with specific pharmacological agents. This paper aims to outline the various psychopharmacological approaches. Psychopharmacological approaches Repeated trials have demonstrated that drugs which act of the serotonin system are effective in many patients with OCD (SRI and SSRIs) • The Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) are generally used as first line rather than clomipramine (a Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor- SRI) due to fewer side effects. • There is little evidence of any particular advantage of any of the SSRIs apart from some evidence that Escitalopram* may reduce relapse of OCD. • In general if there is no response to the SRI on maximal doses for 12 weeks it is worthwhile switching to an alternative. • However there is evidence that benefit from SRI can accrue over as long as 2 years Drug Dose Major side effects Any special features Seizures in a small number of patients The first SRI to and less likely if demonstrate Clomipramine Up to 225mg at <250mg effectiveness in night (increase reducing OCD slowly as tolerated) Sexual Dysfunction symptoms in 80 % Dry mouth; blurred It is a tricyclic vision drowsiness; antidepressant weight gain and orthostatic hypotension 1 50 mg in evening Gastro-intestinal initially and upsets; anorexia and increased weight loss.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Patent (10 ) Patent No.: US 10,660,887 B2 Javitt (45 ) Date of Patent: *May 26 , 2020
    US010660887B2 United States Patent (10 ) Patent No.: US 10,660,887 B2 Javitt (45 ) Date of Patent : *May 26 , 2020 (54 ) COMPOSITION AND METHOD FOR (56 ) References Cited TREATMENT OF DEPRESSION AND PSYCHOSIS IN HUMANS U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS 6,228,875 B1 5/2001 Tsai et al. ( 71 ) Applicant : Glytech , LLC , Ft. Lee , NJ (US ) 2004/0157926 A1 * 8/2004 Heresco - Levy A61K 31/198 514/561 (72 ) Inventor: Daniel C. Javitt , Ft. Lee , NJ (US ) 2005/0261340 Al 11/2005 Weiner 2006/0204486 Al 9/2006 Pyke et al . 2008/0194631 Al 8/2008 Trovero et al. ( 73 ) Assignee : GLYTECH , LLC , Ft. Lee , NJ (US ) 2008/0194698 A1 8/2008 Hermanussen et al . 2010/0069399 A1 * 3/2010 Gant CO7D 401/12 ( * ) Notice : Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this 514 / 253.07 patent is extended or adjusted under 35 2010/0216805 Al 8/2010 Barlow 2011/0207776 Al 8/2011 Buntinx U.S.C. 154 ( b ) by 95 days . 2011/0237602 A1 9/2011 Meltzer This patent is subject to a terminal dis 2011/0306586 Al 12/2011 Khan claimer . 2012/0041026 A1 2/2012 Waizumi ( 21 ) Appl. No.: 15 /650,912 FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS CN 101090721 12/2007 ( 22 ) Filed : Jul. 16 , 17 KR 2007 0017136 2/2007 WO 2005/065308 7/2005 (65 ) Prior Publication Data WO 2005/079756 9/2005 WO 2011044089 4/2011 US 2017/0312275 A1 Nov. 2 , 2017 WO 2012/104852 8/2012 WO 2005/000216 9/2013 WO 2013138322 9/2013 Related U.S. Application Data (63 ) Continuation of application No.
    [Show full text]
  • CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM DEPRESSANTS Opioid Pain Relievers Anxiolytics (Also Belong to Psychiatric Medication Category) • Codeine (In 222® Tablets, Tylenol® No
    CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM DEPRESSANTS Opioid Pain Relievers Anxiolytics (also belong to psychiatric medication category) • codeine (in 222® Tablets, Tylenol® No. 1/2/3/4, Fiorinal® C, Benzodiazepines Codeine Contin, etc.) • heroin • alprazolam (Xanax®) • hydrocodone (Hycodan®, etc.) • chlordiazepoxide (Librium®) • hydromorphone (Dilaudid®) • clonazepam (Rivotril®) • methadone • diazepam (Valium®) • morphine (MS Contin®, M-Eslon®, Kadian®, Statex®, etc.) • flurazepam (Dalmane®) • oxycodone (in Oxycocet®, Percocet®, Percodan®, OxyContin®, etc.) • lorazepam (Ativan®) • pentazocine (Talwin®) • nitrazepam (Mogadon®) • oxazepam ( Serax®) Alcohol • temazepam (Restoril®) Inhalants Barbiturates • gases (e.g. nitrous oxide, “laughing gas”, chloroform, halothane, • butalbital (in Fiorinal®) ether) • secobarbital (Seconal®) • volatile solvents (benzene, toluene, xylene, acetone, naptha and hexane) Buspirone (Buspar®) • nitrites (amyl nitrite, butyl nitrite and cyclohexyl nitrite – also known as “poppers”) Non-Benzodiazepine Hypnotics (also belong to psychiatric medication category) • chloral hydrate • zopiclone (Imovane®) Other • GHB (gamma-hydroxybutyrate) • Rohypnol (flunitrazepam) CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM STIMULANTS Amphetamines Caffeine • dextroamphetamine (Dexadrine®) Methelynedioxyamphetamine (MDA) • methamphetamine (“Crystal meth”) (also has hallucinogenic actions) • methylphenidate (Biphentin®, Concerta®, Ritalin®) • mixed amphetamine salts (Adderall XR®) 3,4-Methelynedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, Ecstasy) (also has hallucinogenic actions) Cocaine/Crack
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Subchronic Administrations of Vortioxetine, Lurasidone, And
    International Journal of Molecular Sciences Article Effects of Subchronic Administrations of Vortioxetine, Lurasidone, and Escitalopram on Thalamocortical Glutamatergic Transmission Associated with Serotonin 5-HT7 Receptor Motohiro Okada * , Ryusuke Matsumoto, Yoshimasa Yamamoto and Kouji Fukuyama Department of Neuropsychiatry, Division of Neuroscience, Graduate School of Medicine, Mie University, Tsu 514-8507, Japan; [email protected] (R.M.); [email protected] (Y.Y.); [email protected] (K.F.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +81-59-231-5018 Abstract: The functional suppression of serotonin (5-HT) type 7 receptor (5-HT7R) is forming a basis for scientific discussion in psychopharmacology due to its rapid-acting antidepressant-like action. A novel mood-stabilizing atypical antipsychotic agent, lurasidone, exhibits a unique receptor-binding profile, including a high affinity for 5-HT7R antagonism. A member of a novel class of antidepres- sants, vortioxetine, which is a serotonin partial agonist reuptake inhibitor (SPARI), also exhibits a higher affinity for serotonin transporter, serotonin receptors type 1A (5-HT1AR) and type 3 (5-HT3R), and 5-HT7R. However, the effects of chronic administration of lurasidone, vortioxetine, and the selec- Citation: Okada, M.; Matsumoto, R.; tive serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), escitalopram, on 5-HT7R function remained to be clarified. Yamamoto, Y.; Fukuyama, K. Effects Thus, to explore the mechanisms underlying the clinical effects of vortioxetine, escitalopram, and of Subchronic Administrations of lurasidone, the present study determined the effects of these agents on thalamocortical glutamatergic Vortioxetine, Lurasidone, and transmission, which contributes to emotional/mood perception, using multiprobe microdialysis Escitalopram on Thalamocortical and 5-HT7R expression using capillary immunoblotting.
    [Show full text]