Trial of Satralizumab in Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorder.

BACKGROUND: Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) is an autoimmune disease of the central nervous system and is associated with autoantibodies to anti-aquaporin-4 (AQP4-IgG) in approximately two thirds of patients. Interleukin-6 is involved in the pathogenesis of the disorder. Satralizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting the interleukin-6 receptor. The efficacy of satralizumab added to immunosuppressant treatment in patients with NMOSD is unclear. METHODS: In a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with NMOSD who were seropositive or seronegative for AQP4-IgG to receive either satralizumab, at a dose of 120 mg, or placebo, administered subcutaneously at weeks 0, 2, and 4 and every 4 weeks thereafter, added to stable immunosuppressant treatment. The primary end point was the first protocol-defined relapse in a time-to-event analysis. Key secondary end points were the change from baseline to week 24 in the visual-analogue scale (VAS) pain score (range, 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more pain) and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) score (range, 0 to 52, with lower scores indicating more fatigue). Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 83 patients were enrolled, with 41 assigned to the satralizumab group and 42 to the placebo group. The median treatment duration with satralizumab in the double-blind period was 107.4 weeks. Relapse occurred in 8 patients (20%) receiving satralizumab and in 18 (43%) receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16 to 0.88). Multiple imputation for censored data resulted in hazard ratios ranging from 0.34 to 0.44 (with corresponding P values of 0.01 to 0.04). Among 55 AQP4-IgG-seropositive patients, relapse occurred in 11% of those in the satralizumab group and in 43% of those in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.75); among 28 AQP4-IgG-seronegative patients, relapse occurred in 36% and 43%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.20 to 2.24). The between-group difference in the change in the mean VAS pain score was 4.08 (95% CI, -8.44 to 16.61); the between-group difference in the change in the mean FACIT-F score was -3.10 (95% CI, -8.38 to 2.18). The rates of serious adverse events and infections did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with NMOSD, satralizumab added to immunosuppressant treatment led to a lower risk of relapse than placebo but did not differ from placebo in its effect on pain or fatigue. (Funded by Chugai Pharmaceutical; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02028884.).

Safety and efficacy of satralizumab monotherapy in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder: a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Satralizumab, a humanised monoclonal antibody targeting the interleukin-6 receptor, reduced the risk of relapse in patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) when added to immunosuppressant therapy. This study assessed the safety and efficacy of satralizumab monotherapy in patients with the disorder. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial, we enrolled adults aged 18-74 years with aquaporin-4 antibody seropositive or seronegative NMOSD at 44 investigational sites in 13 countries. Eligible participants had experienced at least one documented NMOSD attack or relapse in the past 12 months and had a score of 6·5 or less on the Expanded Disability Status Scale. Exclusion criteria included clinical relapse 30 days or fewer before baseline. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive satralizumab 120 mg or visually matched placebo subcutaneously at weeks 0, 2, 4, and every 4 weeks thereafter. Taking immunosuppressants concomitantly was prohibited. The primary endpoint was time to the first protocol-defined relapse, based on the intention-to-treat population and analysed with stratification for two randomisation factors (previous therapy for prevention of attacks and nature of the most recent attack). Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of satralizumab or placebo. The double-blind phase was due to last until 44 protocol-defined relapses occurred or 1·5 years after random assignment of the last patient enrolled, whichever occurred first; participants could enter an open-label phase after the occurrence of a protocol-defined relapse or at the end of the double-blind phase. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02073279. FINDINGS: 95 (57%) of 168 screened participants were randomly assigned to treatment (63 to satralizumab; 32 to placebo) between Aug 5, 2014, and April 2, 2017. Protocol-defined relapses occurred in 19 (30%) patients receiving satralizumab and 16 (50%) receiving placebo (hazard ratio 0·45, 95% CI 0·23-0·89; p=0·018). 473·9 adverse events per 100 patient-years occurred in the satralizumab group, as did 495·2 per 100 patient-years in the placebo group; the incidence of serious adverse events and adverse events leading to withdrawal was similar between groups. INTERPRETATION: Satralizumab monotherapy reduced the rate of NMOSD relapse compared with placebo in the overall trial population, with a favourable safety profile. The patient population included a ratio of aquaporin-4 antibody seropositive and seronegative patients that was reflective of clinical practice. Satralizumab has the potential to become a valuable treatment option for patients with NMOSD. FUNDING: Chugai Pharmaceutical (Roche).

A double-blind, placebo-controlled dose-response comparison of intramuscular olanzapine and haloperidol in the treatment of acute agitation in schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: An intramuscular (IM) formulation of olanzapine has been developed because there are no rapid-acting IM atypical antipsychotic drugs currently available in the United States for treating acute agitation in patients with schizophrenia. METHODS: Recently hospitalized acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia (N = 270) were randomized to receive 1 to 3 IM injections of olanzapine (2.5, 5.0, 7.5, or 10.0 mg), haloperidol (7.5 mg), or placebo within 24 hours. A dose-response relationship for IM olanzapine in the reduction of agitation was assessed by measuring the reduction in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale Excited Component (PANSS-EC) scores 2 hours after the first injection. Safety was assessed by recording adverse events and with extrapyramidal symptom scales and electrocardiograms at 24 hours after the first injection. RESULTS: Olanzapine exhibited a dose-response relationship for reduction in agitation (F(1,179)= 14.4; P<.001). Mean PANSS-EC reductions 2 hours after the first injection of olanzapine (2.5 mg = -5.5; 5.0 mg = -8.1; 7.5 mg = -8.7; 10.0 mg = -9.4) were superior to those with placebo (-2.9; P =.01 vs olanzapine at 2.5 mg; P<.001 for each other olanzapine dose) but not with haloperidol (-7.5). A dose of 5.0, 7.5, or 10.0 mg of olanzapine caused a greater reduction in agitation than placebo 30 minutes after the first injection. There were no differences between treatment groups for hypotension, the most frequently reported adverse event, or for clinically relevant changes in the QTc interval. There was a greater incidence of treatment-emergent parkinsonism during treatment with IM haloperidol (16.7%) than with 2.5 (P =.03), 5.0 (P =.03), or 7.5 mg (P =.01) of IM olanzapine (0%) or with placebo (0%) (P =.01). CONCLUSIONS: Intramuscular olanzapine at a dose of 2.5 to 10.0 mg per injection exhibits a dose-response relationship in the rapid treatment of acute agitation in patients with schizophrenia and demonstrates a favorable safety profile.

Olanzapine in the treatment of dopamimetic-induced psychosis in patients with Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Studies in elderly patients demonstrate antipsychotic efficacy and favorable safety profiles for olanzapine. We report results from two placebo-controlled, double-blind studies of olanzapine for treatment of dopamimetic drug-induced psychosis in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). METHODS: Patients were treated with olanzapine or placebo for 4 weeks while dopamimetic therapy was held constant. Olanzapine was initiated at 2.5 mg/day, with 2.5-mg/day increases allowed every 3 to 4 days up to the maximum dose of 15 mg/day. RESULTS: Olanzapine patients showed significant improvements from baseline on positive symptoms and most efficacy measures, but no significant treatment-group differences were observed. Olanzapine performed significantly worse than placebo in both studies on the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) total, Motor, and Activities of Daily Living scales, but not the UPDRS Tremor item or Complications scores. Corrected QT interval, vital signs, and body weight were not significantly different from placebo. CONCLUSIONS: These findings did not demonstrate superior efficacy of olanzapine for treatment of dopamimetic-induced psychosis in PD. The initial dose-titration schedule and mild baseline levels of psychosis may account for these findings. Future studies involving gradual dose titration are needed to explore further olanzapine's optimum use for patients with PD with treatment-related psychosis.

A comparison of the efficacy and safety of olanzapine versus haloperidol during transition from intramuscular to oral therapy.

BACKGROUND: Acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia who receive intramuscular (IM) medications typically are switched to oral (PO) antipsychotic maintenance therapy. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of olanzapine versus those of haloperidol during transition from IM to PO therapy. We used additional data from a previously reported trial to test the hypothesis that the reduction in agitation achieved by IM olanzapine 10 mg or IM haloperidol 7.5 mg would be maintained following transition to 4 days of PO olanzapine or PO haloperidol (5-20 mg/d for both). We also hypothesized that olanzapine would maintain its more favorable extrapyramidal symptom (EPS) safety profile. METHODS: This was a multinational (hospitals in 13 countries), double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Acutely agitated inpatients with schizophrenia were treated with 1 to 3 IM injections to olanzapine 10 mg or haloperidol 7.5 mg over 24 hours and were entered into a 4-day PO treatment period with the same medication (5-20 mg/d for both). The primary efficacy measurement was reduction in agitation, as measured by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Excited Component (PANSS-EC) score. Adverse events and scores on EPS rating scales were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 311 patients (204 men, 107 women; mean [SD] age, 38.2 [11.6] years) were enrolled (131, 126, and 54 patients in the olanzapine, haloperidol, and placebo groups, respectively). In all, 93.1% (122/131) of olanzapine-treated patients and 92.1% (116/126) of haloperidol-treated patients completed the IM period and entered the PO period; 85.5% (112/131) of olanzapine-treated patients and 84.1% (106/126) of haloperidol-treated patients completed the PO period. IM olanzapine and IM haloperidol effectively reduced agitation over 24 hours (mean [SD] PANSS-EC change, -7.1 [4.81 vs -6.7 [4.3], respectively). Reductions in agitation were sustained throughout the PO period with both study drugs (mean [SD] change from PO period baseline, -0.6 [4.8] vs -1.3 [4.4], respectively). During PO treatment, haloperidol-treated patients spontaneously reported significantly more acute dystonia than olanzapine-treated patients (4.3%[5/116] vs 0% [0/122], respectively; P = 0.026) and akathisia (5.2% [6/116] vs 0% [0/122], respectively; P = 0.013). Significantly more haloperidol-treated patients than olanzapine-treated patients met categorical criteria for treatment-emergent akathisia (18.5% [17/92] vs 6.5% [7/107], respectively; P = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: In the acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia in this study, both IM olanzapine 10 mg and IM haloperidol 7.5 mg effectively reduced agitation over 24 hours. This alleviation of agitation was sustained following transition from IM therapy to 4 days of PO treatment (5-20 mg/d for both). During the 4 days of PO treatment, olanzapine-treated patients did not spontaneously report any incidences of acute dystonia, and olanzapine had a superior EPS safety profile to that of haloperidol. The combination of IM and PO olanzapine may help improve the treatment of acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia.

D-fenfluramine-evoked serotonergic responses in olanzapine-treated schizophrenic patients.

Antagonist activity at the 5-HT(2) receptor may contribute to the therapeutic efficacy of atypical antipsychotics in schizophrenia. This neuroendocrine study examined the in vivo functional serotonergic (5-HT) activity of the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine. We examined central 5-HT(2) responses by measuring the serum prolactin (PRL) over 5 h in response to 30 mg of D-fenfluramine (DFEN) in two groups of male schizophrenic patients. Blunted PRL responses to DFEN indicate functional 5-HT(2) receptor antagonism. Seven patients treated with olanzapine at a mean (S.D.) dose of 13.1 (4.6) for a mean of 28 weeks were compared with a matched group of eight patients who had received no antipsychotic treatment for at least 2 weeks. Baseline PRL levels did not differ significantly in the two patient groups and were within the normal range. The olanzapine-treated patients showed a significantly lower maximal DFEN-evoked PRL response and a significantly lower group x time overall PRL release compared with the untreated patient group. We have previously demonstrated a similar degree of functional in vivo 5-HT(2) antagonism with the atypical antipsychotic clozapine. This study thus suggests that this activity may not contribute to the unique clinical efficacy of clozapine.

Association of tardive dyskinesia with variation in CYP2D6: Is there a role for active metabolites?

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine whether there was an association between tardive dyskinesia (TD) and number of functional CYP2D6 genes. METHODS: A Caucasian sample of 70 patients was recruited in 1996-1997 from South London and Maudsley National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, UK. Subjects had a DSM-IIIR diagnosis of schizophrenia and were treated with typical antipsychotics at doses equivalent to at least 100 mg chlorpromazine daily for at least 12 months prior to assessment. All patients were genotyped for CYP2D6 alleles*3-5, *41, and for amplifications of the gene. RESULTS: There were 13 patients with TD. The mean (standard deviation (SD)) years of duration of antipsychotic treatment in TD-positive was 15.8 (7.9) vs TD-negative 11.1 (7.4) (p=0.04). Increased odds of experiencing TD were associated with increased ability to metabolize CYP2D6, as measured by genotypic category (odds ratio (OR)=4.2), increasing duration in treatment (OR=1.0), and having drug-induced Parkinsonism (OR=9.7). DISCUSSION: We found a significant association between CYP2D6 genotypic category and TD with the direction of effect being an increase in the number of functional CYP2D6 genes being associated with an increased risk of TD. This is the first study to examine the association between TD and CYP2D6 in Caucasians with this number of genotypic categories. In the future, metabolomics may be utilized in the discovery of biomarkers and novel drug targets.

Pharmacokinetics and safety of single doses of drisapersen in non-ambulant subjects with Duchenne muscular dystrophy: results of a double-blind randomized clinical trial.

Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is a progressive, lethal neuromuscular disorder caused by the absence of dystrophin protein due to mutations of the dystrophin gene. Drisapersen is a 2'-O-methyl-phosphorothioate oligonucleotide designed to skip exon 51 in dystrophin pre-mRNA to restore the reading frame of the mRNA. This study assessed safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of drisapersen after a single subcutaneous administration in non-ambulatory subjects. Eligible subjects were non-ambulant boys aged ⩾9years, in wheelchairs for ⩾1 to ⩽4years, with a diagnosis of DMD resulting from a mutation correctable by drisapersen treatment. Four dose cohorts were planned (3, 6, 9 and 12mg/kg), but study objectives were met with the 9mg/kg dose. Less than proportional increase in exposure was demonstrated over the 3-9mg/kg dose range, though post hoc analysis showed dose proportionality was more feasible over the 3-6mg/kg range. Single doses of drisapersen at 3 and 6mg/kg did not result in significant safety or tolerability concerns; however, at the 9mg/kg dose, pyrexia and transient elevations in inflammatory parameters were seen. The maximum tolerated dose of 6mg/kg drisapersen was identified for further characterization in multiple dose studies in the non-ambulant DMD population.

Safety and efficacy of drisapersen for the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DEMAND II): an exploratory, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Duchenne muscular dystrophy is caused by dystrophin deficiency and muscle deterioration and preferentially affects boys. Antisense-oligonucleotide-induced exon skipping allows synthesis of partially functional dystrophin. We investigated the efficacy and safety of drisapersen, a 2'-O-methyl-phosphorothioate antisense oligonucleotide, given for 48 weeks. METHODS: In this exploratory, double-blind, placebo-controlled study we recruited male patients (≥5 years of age; time to rise from floor ≤7 s) with Duchenne muscular dystrophy from 13 specialist centres in nine countries between Sept 1, 2010, and Sept 12, 2012. By use of a computer-generated randomisation sequence, we randomly allocated patients (2:2:1:1; block size of six; no stratification) to drisapersen 6 mg/kg or placebo, each given subcutaneously and either continuously (once weekly) or intermittently (nine doses over 10 weeks). The primary endpoint was change in 6-min walk distance (6MWD) at week 25 in patients in the intention-to-treat population for whom data were available. Safety assessments included renal, hepatic, and haematological monitoring and recording of adverse events. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01153932. FINDINGS: We recruited 53 patients: 18 were given continuous drisapersen, 17 were given intermittent drisapersen, and 18 were given placebo (continuous and intermittent groups combined). At week 25, mean 6MWD had increased by 31·5 m (SE 9·8) from baseline for continuous drisapersen, with a mean difference in change from baseline of 35·09 m (95% CI 7·59 to 62·60; p=0·014) versus placebo. We recorded no difference in 6MWD changes from baseline between intermittent drisapersen (mean change -0·1 [SE 10·3]) and placebo (mean difference 3·51 m [-24·34 to 31·35]) at week 25. The most common adverse events in drisapersen-treated patients were injection-site reactions (14 patients given continuous drisapersen, 15 patients given intermittent drisapersen, and six given placebo) and renal events (13 for continuous drisapersen, 12 for intermittent drisapersen, and seven for placebo), most of which were subclinical proteinuria. None of the serious adverse events reported (one for continuous, two for intermittent, and two for placebo) resulted in withdrawal from the study. INTERPRETATION: Continuous drisapersen resulted in some benefit in 6MWD versus placebo at week 25. The safety findings are similar to those from previous studies. Ambulation improvements in this young population with early-stage Duchenne muscular dystrophy are encouraging but need to be confirmed in larger studies. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline, Prosensa Therapeutics BV (a subsidiary of Prosensa Holding NV).

Antipsychotic drugs: atypical advantages and typical disadvantages.

Atypical antipsychotic drugs are recommended for the first line treatment of all patients with schizophrenia. This is because it has been demonstrated that atypical antipsychotic drugs are more effective across a broader range of symptoms of schizophrenia than typical antipsychotic drugs and because they are dramatically less likely to cause the extrapyramidal and endocrine side effects that greatly impair quality of life for patients and reduce their willingness to adhere to maintenance treatment. Atypical antipsychotic drugs are not perfect but they are the most effective and the safest treatment for schizophrenia presently available. The atypical antipsychotic drugs currently marketed in Ireland for the first line treatment of schizophrenia include amisulpride, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone and ziprasidone. These agents differ somewhat in chemical class, indications, daily dose range, need for titration, daily dosing regimen and available formulations (see Table 1). Clozapine is marketed for patients unresponsive to, or intolerant of, other antipsychotic drugs and must thus be regarded as a second line treatment for schizophrenia. Zotepine is not yet available in Ireland while the marketing of sertindole has been suspended following reports of arrhythmias and sudden cardiac deaths.

Calming versus sedative effects of intramuscular olanzapine in agitated patients.

Distinct calming rather than nonspecific sedation is desirable for the treatment of acute agitation. In 3 double-blind studies, acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia (N = 311), bipolar mania (N = 201), or dementia (N = 206) were treated with intramuscular (1-3 injections/24 hrs) olanzapine (2.5-10.0 mg), haloperidol (7.5 mg), lorazepam (2.0 mg), or placebo. The Agitation-Calmness Evaluation Scale (ACES; Eli Lilly and Co.) and treatment-emergent adverse events assessed sedation. Across all studies, 1 patient (lorazepam-treated, bipolar) became unarousable. There were no significant between-group differences in ACES scores of deep sleep or unarousable at any time across. Excluding asleep patients, agitation remained significantly more reduced with olanzapine than placebo (P <.05). The incidences of adverse events indicative of sedation were not significantly different with olanzapine versus comparators. For the treatment of acute agitation associated with schizophrenia, bipolar mania, or dementia, intramuscular olanzapine-treated patients experienced no more sedation than haloperidol- or lorazepam-treated patients and experienced distinct calming rather than nonspecific sedation.

Intramuscular olanzapine and intramuscular haloperidol in acute schizophrenia: antipsychotic efficacy and extrapyramidal safety during the first 24 hours of treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the antipsychotic efficacy and extrapyramidal safety of intramuscular (i.m.) olanzapine and i.m. haloperidol during the first 24 hours of treatment of acute schizophrenia. METHOD: Patients (n = 311) with acute schizophrenia were randomly allocated (2:2:1) to receive i.m. olanzapine (10.0 mg, n = 131), i.m. haloperidol (7.5 mg, n = 126), or i.m. placebo (n = 54). RESULTS: After the first injection, i.m. olanzapine was comparable to i.m. haloperidol and superior to i.m. placebo for reducing mean change scores from baseline on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BRPS) Positive at 2 hours (-2.9 olanzapine, -2.7 haloperidol, and -1.5 placebo) and 24 hours (-2.8 olanzapine, -3.2 haloperidol, and -1.3 placebo); the BPRS Total at 2 hours (-14.2 olanzapine,-13.1 haloperidol, and -7.1 placebo) and 24 hours (-12.8 olanzapine, -12.9 haloperidol, and -6.2 placebo); and the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scale at 24 hours (-0.5 olanzapine, -0.5 haloperidol, and -0.1 placebo). Patients treated with i.m. olanzapine had significantly fewer incidences of treatment-emergent parkinsonism (4.3% olanzapine vs 13.3% haloperidol, P = 0.036), but not akathisia (1.1% olanzapine vs 6.5% haloperidol, P = 0.065), than did patients treated with i.m. haloperidol; they also required significantly less anticholinergic treatment (4.6% olanzapine vs 20.6% haloperidol, P < 0.001). Mean extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) safety scores improved significantly from baseline during i.m. olanzapine treatment, compared with a general worsening during i.m. haloperidol treatment (Simpson-Angus Scale total score mean change: -0.61 olanzapine vs 0.70 haloperidol; P < 0.001; Barnes Akathisia Scale global score mean change: -0.27 olanzapine vs 0.01 haloperidol; P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: I.m. olanzapine was comparable to i.m. haloperidol for reducing the symptoms of acute schizophrenia during the first 24 hours of treatment, the efficacy of both being evident within 2 hours after the first injection. In general, more EPS were observed during treatment with i.m. haloperidol than with i.m. olanzapine.