Ustekinumab versus adalimumab for induction and maintenance therapy in biologic-naive patients with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3b trial.

BACKGROUND: Active-comparator trials are important to inform patient and physician choice. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of monotherapy with either ustekinumab or adalimumab in biologic-naive patients with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease. METHODS: We conducted a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, active-comparator, phase 3b trial (SEAVUE) at 121 hospitals or private practices in 18 countries. We included biologic-naive patients aged 18 years or older with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease and a Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score of 220-450, who had not responded to or were intolerant to conventional therapy (or were corticosteroid dependent) and had at least one ulcer of any size at baseline endoscopic evaluation. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1; via an interactive web response system) to receive ustekinumab (approximately 6 mg/kg intravenously on day 0, then 90 mg subcutaneously once every 8 weeks) or adalimumab (160 mg on day 0, 80 mg at 2 weeks, then 40 mg once every 2 weeks, subcutaneously) through week 56. Study treatments were administered as monotherapy and without dose modifications. Patients, investigators, and study site personnel were masked to treatment group assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who were in clinical remission (CDAI score <150) at week 52 in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all patients who were randomly assigned to a treatment group). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03464136, and EudraCT, 2017-004209-41. FINDINGS: Between June 28, 2018, and Dec 12, 2019, 633 patients were assessed for eligibility and 386 were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive ustekinumab (n=191) or adalimumab (n=195). 29 (15%) of 191 patients in the ustekinumab group and 46 (24%) of 195 in the adalimumab group discontinued study treatment before week 52. There was no significant difference between the ustekinumab and adalimumab groups in the occurrence of the primary endpoint; at week 52, 124 (65%) of 191 patients in the ustekinumab group versus 119 (61%) of 195 in the adalimumab group were in clinical remission (between-group difference 4%, 95% CI -6 to 14; p=0·42). Safety for both groups was consistent with previous reports. Serious infections were reported in four (2%) of 191 patients in the ustekinumab group and five (3%) of 195 in the adalimumab group. No deaths occurred through week 52 of the study. INTERPRETATION: Both ustekinumab and adalimumab monotherapies were highly effective in this population of biologic-naive patients, with no difference in the primary outcome between the drugs. FUNDING: Janssen Scientific Affairs.

A randomised phase II study evaluating the efficacy and safety of subcutaneously administered ustekinumab and guselkumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite treatment with methotrexate.

OBJECTIVE: Interleukin (IL)-12 and IL-23 have been implicated in the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The safety and efficacy of ustekinumab, a human monoclonal anti-IL-12/23 p40 antibody, and guselkumab, a human monoclonal anti-IL-23 antibody, were evaluated in adults with active RA despite methotrexate (MTX) therapy. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1) to receive placebo at weeks 0, 4 and every 8 weeks (n=55), ustekinumab 90 mg at weeks 0, 4 and every 8 weeks (n=55), ustekinumab 90 mg at weeks 0, 4 and every 12 weeks (n=55), guselkumab 50 mg at weeks 0, 4 and every 8 weeks (n=55), or guselkumab 200 mg at weeks 0, 4 and every 8 weeks (n=54) through week 28; all patients continued a stable dose of MTX (10-25 mg/week). The primary end point was the proportion of patients with at least a 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR 20) at week 28. Safety was monitored through week 48. RESULTS: At week 28, there were no statistically significant differences in the proportions of patients achieving an ACR 20 response between the combined ustekinumab group (53.6%) or the combined guselkumab group (41.3%) compared with placebo (40.0%) (p=0.101 and p=0.877, respectively). Through week 48, the proportions of patients with at least one adverse event (AE) were comparable among the treatment groups. Infections were the most common type of AE. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with ustekinumab or guselkumab did not significantly reduce the signs and symptoms of RA. No new safety findings were observed with either treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01645280.

Antihistamines and itch.

Histamine is one of the best-characterized pruritogens in humans. It is known to play a role in pruritus associated with urticaria as well as ocular and nasal allergic reactions. Histamine mediates its effect via four receptors. Antihistamines that block the activation of the histamine H1receptor, H1R, have been shown to be effective therapeutics for the treatment of pruritus associated with urticaria, allergic rhinitis, and allergic conjunctivitis. However, their efficacy in other pruritic diseases such as atopic dermatitis and psoriasis is limited. The other histamine receptors may also play a role in pruritus, with the exception of the histamine H2receptor, H2R. Preclinical evidence indicates that local antagonism of the histamine H3receptor, H3R, can induce scratching perhaps via blocking inhibitory neuronal signals. The histamine H4receptor, H4R, has received a significant amount of attention as to its role in mediating pruritic signals. Indeed, it has now been shown that a selective H4R antagonist can inhibit histamine-induced itch in humans. This clinical result, in conjunction with efficacy in various preclinical pruritus models, points to the therapeutic potential of H4R antagonists for the treatment of pruritus not controlled by antihistamines that target the H1R.

Clinical and preclinical characterization of the histamine H(4) receptor antagonist JNJ-39758979.

The histamine H4 receptor (H(4)R) has been shown to have preclinical involvement in both inflammatory and pruritic responses. JNJ-39758979 [(R)-4-(3-amino-pyrrolidin-1-yl)-6-isopropyl-pyrimidin-2-ylamine] is a potent and selective H(4)R antagonist with a Ki at the human receptor of 12.5 ± 2.6 nM and greater than 80-fold selectivity over other histamine receptors. The compound also exhibited excellent selectivity versus other targets. JNJ-39758979 showed dose-dependent activity in models of asthma and dermatitis consistent with other H(4)R antagonists. Preclinical toxicity studies of up to 6 months in rats and 9 months in monkeys indicated an excellent safety profile, supporting the clinical testing of the compound. An oral formulation of JNJ-39758979 was studied in a phase 1 human volunteer study to assess safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics. The compound was well tolerated, with the exception of dose-dependent nausea, and no safety issues were noted in the phase 1 study. JNJ-39758979 exhibited good pharmacokinetics upon oral dosing with a plasma half-life of 124-157 hours after a single oral dose. In addition, dose-dependent inhibition of histamine-induced eosinophil shape change was detected, suggesting that the H4R was inhibited in vivo. In conclusion, JNJ-39758979 is a potent and selective H(4)R antagonist that exhibited good preclinical and phase 1 safety in healthy volunteers with evidence of a pharmacodynamics effect in humans.

The histamine H4 receptor antagonist, JNJ 39758979, is effective in reducing histamine-induced pruritus in a randomized clinical study in healthy subjects.

The histamine H4 receptor (H4R) is a promising target for the treatment of pruritus. A clinical study was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the H4R antagonist, JNJ 39758979 [(R)-4-(3-amino-pyrrolidin-1-yl)-6-isopropyl-pyrimidin-2-ylamine], on histamine-induced pruritus in healthy subjects. A single oral dose of 600 mg JNJ 39758979, 10 mg cetirizine, or placebo was administered in a randomized, three-period, double-blind, crossover study. Treatment periods were separated by 22-day washout periods. A histamine challenge was administered on day -1 and at 2 and 6 hours postdose on day 1 of each treatment period. The primary efficacy endpoint was the area under the curve (AUC) of pruritus score 0-10 minutes after the histamine challenge. Secondary efficacy endpoints included wheal and flare areas assessed 10 minutes after the histamine challenge. Safety was assessed for all subjects. Of the 24 enrolled subjects, 23 individuals completed the study. One subject withdrew after completing two treatment periods. Due to a carryover effect of JNJ 39758979, only treatment period 1 was used for pruritus-related evaluations. Compared with placebo, the reduction of the AUC of pruritus score was significant for JNJ 39758979 at 2 hours (P = 0.0248) and 6 hours (P = 0.0060), and for cetirizine at 6 hours (P = 0.0417). In all treatment periods, JNJ 39758979 did not demonstrate a significant decrease in wheal or flare at either time point, although a significant reduction was achieved with cetirizine at 2 and 6 hours (P < 0.0001). Adverse eventss reported in >1 patient with JNJ 39758979 were headache (9%) and nausea (13%). In conclusion, JNJ 39758979 was effective in inhibiting histamine-induced pruritus in healthy subjects.

A phase II open-label trial of bortezomib in patients with multiple myeloma who have undergone an autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplant and failed to achieve a complete response.

BACKGROUND: A majority of multiple myeloma (MM) patients fail to achieve complete response (CR) to peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (PBSCT); effective options following autologous transplantation are needed. Bortezomib (B) is active against MM. This study was conducted to determine the feasibility, safety, tolerability, and efficacy of B following high-dose melphalan therapy and PBSCT. Methods Fifty patients enrolled (48 evaluable) and 49 were treated (safety population). TREATMENT: 4 cycles B 1.3 mg/m(2) Days 1, 4, 8, and 11/21-days; 4 additional cycles were permitted for stable or responding patients. Results Median age was 55 years (range, 38-73), 68% male, 64% ECOG PS = 0, 44% Durie-Salmon Stage IIIA prior to induction, 42% had symptomatic IgG MM; 74% had prior single transplant (26% tandem). Responses post-transplant: 70% PRs, 18% MRs. A median of 4 cycles (range, 2-8) of B were administered. Responses: CR 8%, uCR 2%, PR 23%, uPR 19%, MR 10%, and no change 35%; median time-to-treatment failure (TTF) was 6.2 months (range, 1.0-19.4). Three deaths occurred (n = 1 sepsis, n = 2 disease progression). Grade 3-4 treatment-related toxicities included: thrombocytopenia, neuropathy (14%, each); asthenia, neutropenia (10%, each); and nausea (4%). Twelve patients (24%) discontinued treatment due to toxicity and 30 patients (60%) completed the study; 20 patients started new treatment (median 5.8 months [range, 1.5-20.3]). CONCLUSIONS: The study closed early due to widespread availability of B, and the lack of B-naïve patients. Bortezomib monotherapy after melphalan and autologous PBSCT was feasible, safe and well-tolerated (toxicities were manageable), but failed to produce the hypothesized response rates.

Incidence of Infusion Reactions and Clinical Effectiveness of Intravenous Golimumab Versus Infliximab in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: The Real-World AWARE Study.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate tolerability and effectiveness of golimumab-IV versus infliximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in a real-world setting. METHODS: AWARE, a prospective, real-world, pragmatic, observational, multicenter, phase 4 study, enrolled RA patients when initiating golimumab-IV or infliximab. Treatment decisions were made by the treating rheumatologist. The approved doses for RA are 2 mg/kg at weeks 0, 4, then Q8W for golimumab-IV and 3 mg/kg at weeks 0, 2, 6, then Q8W (dose escalation permitted) for infliximab. A prespecified formal interim analysis was conducted. The primary endpoint was the incidence of infusion reactions (any adverse event that occurred during or within 1 h of infusion) through week 52. Major secondary endpoints were mean change from baseline in CDAI at months 6 and 12 in biologic-naïve patients (non-inferiority margin in the CDAI = 6). Baseline characteristics were adjusted using propensity scores with inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW). RESULTS: In the formal interim analysis (golimumab-IV, n = 479; infliximab, n = 354), the incidence of infusion reactions was significantly lower with golimumab-IV vs. infliximab (3.6 vs. 17.6%, p < 0.001, IPTW-adjusted). Among biologic-naïve patients, mean changes from baseline in CDAI at month 6 (- 9.5 golimumab-IV vs. - 10.1 infliximab) and at month 12 (- 9.4 golimumab-IV vs. - 10.1 infliximab) demonstrated non-inferiority. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of patients with an infusion reaction was significantly lower with golimumab-IV vs. infliximab. Among biologic-naïve patients, mean change from baseline in CDAI at months 6 and 12 was non-inferior for golimumab-IV vs. infliximab. Compared with fixed-dose golimumab-IV, infliximab dose escalation did not provide any greater improvements in CDAI for patients with RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02728934.

Signal Detection and Methodological Limitations in a Real-World Registry: Learnings from the Evaluation of Long-Term Safety Analyses in PSOLAR.

INTRODUCTION: Psoriasis Longitudinal Assessment and Registry (PSOLAR) was designed in 2007 as the first disease-based registry for patients with psoriasis. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to discuss methodological limitations and post hoc analyses in long-term safety registries using learnings from analyses of a potential safety risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in PSOLAR. METHODS: PSOLAR is an international observational study of over 12,000 psoriasis patients that was conducted to meet postmarketing safety commitments for infliximab and ustekinumab. A recent annual review of registry data indicated a potential MACE risk for ustekinumab vs. non-biologics based on prespecified COX model regression analyses, which yielded an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 1.533 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.103-2.131). Therefore, we conducted a comprehensive review of key statistical methodology and implemented post hoc analytical methods to address specific limitations. RESULTS: The following limiting factors were identified: (1) inclusion of both prevalent and incident (new) users of biologics; (2) unanticipated imbalances in patient characteristics between treatment cohorts at baseline; (3) limited availability of relevant clinical data after enrollment; and (4) divergence of characteristics associated with outcomes among comparator groups over time. The analysis was modified to include only incident users, propensity scores were used to weight HRs, and adalimumab was deemed a more clinically appropriate comparator. The revised HR was 0.820 (95% CI 0.532-1.265), indicating no meaningful increase in MACE risk for ustekinumab. CONCLUSION: Our results, which do not support a causal association between ustekinumab exposure and MACE risk, underscore the need for ongoing assessment of analytical methods in long-term observational studies.

Carisbamate as adjunctive treatment of partial onset seizures in adults in two randomized, placebo-controlled trials.

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the investigational drug carisbamate as adjunctive treatment for partial-onset seizures (POS). METHODS: Two identical, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind studies were conducted in adults with POS uncontrolled for >or=1 year. Therapy-refractory epilepsy patients (>or=16 years) remained on stable doses of prescribed antiepileptic drugs (or=50% reduction in POS frequency) during the double-blind phase compared with the prospective baseline phase. RESULTS: Of the 565 patients randomized in study 1, 93% completed the study; of the 562 randomized in study 2, 94% completed the study. Patient characteristics were similar across both studies and treatment arms: mean age, 35 years (study 1, range 16-75 years) and 36 years (study 2, range 16-74 years); approximately 50% were men. Treatment with carisbamate 400 mg/day resulted in significant improvement (p < 0.01) in both efficacy measures compared with placebo in study 1 but not in study 2. Carisbamate 200 mg/day did not differ statistically from placebo in either study. Among the most common treatment-emergent adverse events (>or=5% in any group), those with an incidence exceeding placebo (>or=3%) were dizziness (400 mg/day group) and somnolence. CONCLUSIONS: Carisbamate 400 mg/day was effective in patients with refractory partial-onset seizures in one of these global studies. More than 200 mg/day of carisbamate is required for efficacy. Carisbamate was well-tolerated in both studies.

Ethnic heterogeneity in glucoregulatory function during treatment with atypical antipsychotics in patients with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: Atypical antipsychotics induce weight gain and are linked to increased diabetes risk, but their relative impact on factors that elevate disease risk are unknown. METHODS: We performed a 6-month, randomized, double-blind study to evaluate the effects of risperidone and olanzapine in patients with schizophrenia. At baseline and weeks 6 and 24, we quantified: (1) total adiposity by DEXA, (2) visceral adiposity by abdominal CT, and (3) insulin sensitivity (SI) and (4) pancreatic function ("disposition index", DI) by intravenous glucose tolerance test. RESULTS: At baseline, groups (risperidone: n=28; olanzapine: n=31) were overweight or obese by body mass index (risperidone: 28.4+/-5.4, olanzapine: 30.6+/-7.0kg/m2). Both drugs induced weight gain (p<0.004). Total adiposity was increased by olanzapine at 6 weeks (p=0.0006) and by both treatments at 24 weeks (p<0.003). Visceral adiposity was increased by olanzapine and risperidone by 24 weeks (p<0.003). S(I) did not deteriorate appreciably, although a downward trend was observed with risperidone. Given known ethnic differences in adiposity and S(I), we performed secondary analysis in African American and Hispanic subjects. In this subset, olanzapine expanded both total and visceral adiposity (p<0.02); no increase was observed with risperidone. There were modest downward trends for SI with both treatments. By week 24, olanzapine-treated subjects exhibited diminished DI (p=0.033), indicating inadequate pancreatic compensation for insulin resistance. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first prospective study in psychiatric patients that quantified antipsychotic effects on the multiple metabolic processes that increase diabetes risk. Results indicate that ethnic minorities may have greater susceptibility to antipsychotic-induced glucoregulatory complications.

A model of anticholinergic activity of atypical antipsychotic medications.

BACKGROUND: Atypical antipsychotics clozapine, olanzapine, and quetiapine have significant affinity for the muscarinic receptors in vitro, while aripiprazole, risperidone, and ziprasidone do not. Dissimilarity in binding profiles may contribute to the reported differences in the anticholinergic effects of these antipsychotics. However, it is difficult with the available data to predict the likelihood of anticholinergic effects occurring with various doses of an atypical antipsychotic. METHODS: We developed a model to assess the potential anticholinergic activity (AA) of atypical antipsychotics at therapeutic doses. A radioreceptor assay was used to measure in vitro AA at 6 clinically relevant concentrations of aripiprazole, clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone. Using published pharmacokinetic data, in combination with the measured in vitro AA, dose-AA curves were generated. RESULTS: Clozapine, and to a lesser extent olanzapine and quetiapine showed dose-dependent increases in AA. At therapeutic doses, the AA (in pmol/mL of atropine equivalents) was estimated to range from 27-250, 1-15, and 0-5.4 pmol/mL for clozapine, olanzapine, and quetiapine, respectively. Aripiprazole, risperidone, and ziprasidone did not demonstrate AA at any of the concentrations studied. CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic doses of clozapine, olanzapine, and, to a lesser extent, quetiapine are associated with clinically relevant AA.

A double-blind comparison of risperidone, quetiapine and placebo in patients with schizophrenia experiencing an acute exacerbation requiring hospitalization.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the effects of atypical antipsychotics (risperidone or quetiapine) with placebo and with each other in recently exacerbated patients with schizophrenia requiring hospitalization. METHODS: This international, randomized, double-blind study included a 2-week monotherapy phase followed by a 4-week additive therapy phase. Recently exacerbated patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder (DSM-IV) were randomized (2:2:1) to risperidone (n = 153), quetiapine (n = 156), or placebo (n = 73). Target doses were 4 or 6 mg/day of risperidone and 400 or 600 mg/day of quetiapine by day 5, with the ability to increase to 600 or 800 mg/day of quetiapine on day 8. The main outcome measures were the total Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and need for additional psychotropic medications. RESULTS: Monotherapy Phase: The combined atypical antipsychotic group (n = 308) reached borderline superiority to placebo (n = 71) at the 2-week endpoint on mean change in total PANSS score (-24.1 +/- 1.2 and -20.2 +/- 2.0, respectively; p = 0.067). The change in the atypical group was driven by the improvement with risperidone (-27.7 +/- 1.5 vs. -20.2 +/- 2.0 with placebo, p < 0.01; and vs. -20.5 +/- 1.5 with quetiapine, p < 0.01); the improvement with quetiapine was similar to placebo, p = 0.879. Results were similar on other efficacy endpoints. Additive Therapy Phase: Additional psychotropics were prescribed to fewer (p < 0.01) risperidone (36%) than quetiapine (53%) or placebo patients (59%). The overall discontinuation rate was 18%, 26%, and 38%, respectively. Risperidone, compared with placebo, was associated with more parkinsonism, akathisia, plasma prolactin changes, and weight gain; while quetiapine was associated with more somnolence, sedation, dizziness, constipation, tachycardia, thyroid dysregulation, and weight gain. CONCLUSION: While the combined atypical antipsychotic group did not experience greater improvements than the placebo group, risperidone, but not quetiapine, was significantly superior in all measured domains to placebo in the management of recently exacerbated hospitalized patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, with no unexpected tolerability findings.

Reduction in psychotic symptoms as a predictor of patient satisfaction with antipsychotic medication in schizophrenia: data from a randomized double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction with antipsychotic treatment is important. Limited evidence suggests that satisfaction is associated with symptom improvement and compliance. Predictors of patient satisfaction with antipsychotic medication were examined in a study of patients with a recent exacerbation of schizophrenia. METHODS: Data are from a randomized, double-blind trial comparing risperidone (n = 152), quetiapine (n = 156), and placebo (n = 73). Medication Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) was completed after 14 days of treatment and after 6 weeks at last study visit. RESULTS: Medication satisfaction at both time points was significantly associated in multiple regression analysis with improvement on 3 Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) factor scores (positive symptoms p < .01; uncontrolled hostility/excitement, p < .0005; anxiety/depression, p < .04) and treatment with risperidone (p < .03); at day 14, significant association was also found with older age (p = .01). At both time points, predictor variables explained over 30% of the variance in medication satisfaction. Change in Hamilton Depression Scale, prolactin levels, sex, and reported adverse events of extrapyramidal symptoms, sedation, and movement disorders were not significant predictors of satisfaction. Lower level of medication satisfaction at day 14 was associated with earlier discontinuation in the trial at week 6 end point. A focused principal components analysis of PANSS factors and MSQ suggested that medication satisfaction relates to 3 groups of factors in descending order of magnitude: lower levels of (a) uncontrolled hostility/excitement, (b) positive symptoms, and (c) negative symptoms, disorganized thoughts, and anxiety/depression. CONCLUSION: Results give further support that treatment satisfaction is positively associated with symptom improvement, particularly psychotic symptoms, and suggest that satisfaction may also be related to compliance, as those who were more satisfied remained in the trial for a longer period of time.

Toreforant, A Histamine H4 Receptor Antagonist, in Patients with Active Rheumatoid Arthritis Despite Methotrexate Therapy: Results of 2 Phase II Studies.

OBJECTIVE: To assess toreforant (selective histamine H4 receptor antagonist) in active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: In a phase IIa, double-blind, placebo-controlled test, 86 patients were randomized (2:1) to once-daily toreforant 100 mg or placebo for 12 weeks. In phase IIb, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-range-finding evaluations, 272 patients were randomized (1:1:1:1) to once-daily placebo or toreforant 3/10/30 mg. Primary efficacy endpoints for both studies were Week 12 changes in 28-joint Disease Activity Score-C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP). RESULTS: Phase IIa testing was terminated prematurely (patient fatality; secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis). Posthoc analyses indicated toreforant 100 mg/day reduced RA signs/symptoms through Week 12. Phase IIb testing, however, showed no significant Week 12 improvement in DAS28-CRP with toreforant. CONCLUSION: Toreforant was not effective in phase IIb testing.

Psychometric evaluation of the Readiness for Discharge Questionnaire.

OBJECTIVE: The Readiness for Discharge Questionnaire (RDQ) was developed as an easy to use tool for assessing readiness for discharge, independent of socio-economic factors, for inpatients with schizophrenia. The psychometric properties of the RDQ are described. METHODS: The RDQ consists of 6 items assessing suicidality/homicidality, control of aggression/impulsivity, activities of daily living, medication-taking, delusions/hallucinations interfering with functioning and global status. A final yes/no question assesses readiness for discharge. Data derived from 3 studies (500 patients in 3 countries) were used in analyzing inter-rater and test-retest reliability, content and construct validity, and sensitivity to change. RESULTS: The inter-rater reliability was high for all items of the RDQ (reliability coefficients >0.9) and moderate to high for the readiness for discharge status (Session I: 84% agreement, kappa 0.39, polychoric correlation r=0.81; Session II: 89% agreement, kappa 0.63, polychoric correlation r=0.81. Test-retest reliability was also high for all items of the RDQ (reliability coefficients >0.9) and the readiness for discharge status (kappa=0.743; tetrachoric correlation r=0.819). Overall, 84% of the raters agreed (mean score=5.0 of possible 6.0) that the RDQ was useful in assessing a patient's readiness for discharge from the hospital. Evidence of good construct validity included significant correlations with PANSS total and factor scores, and a significant relationship with actual discharge. Significantly more patients with symptom improvement were judged ready for discharge (compared to those without symptom improvement), indicating that the RDQ was sensitive to change over time. CONCLUSIONS: The RDQ has favorable reliability and validity properties, and is an easy to use instrument in research studies for assessing readiness for discharge of inpatients with schizophrenia. Additional work in naturalistic settings is required to further validate the instrument for routine clinical use.

Effects of switching from olanzapine to risperidone on the prevalence of the metabolic syndrome in overweight or obese patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder: analysis of a multicenter, rater-blinded, open-label study.

BACKGROUND: A major contributor to mortality inpatients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder is cardiovascular disease, an important risk factor for which is the cluster of clinical abnormalities that define the metabolic syndrome (eg, abdominal/visceral obesity, hypertriglyceridemia, impaired glucose tolerance). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article was to examine the effects of switching from the antipsychotic olanzapine to risperidone on the prevalence of the metabolic syndrome in high-risk overweight or obese patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. METHODS: This post hoc analysis was based on data from a previous 2-phase, 20-week, multicenter (19 US sites), rater-blinded, open-label study. High-risk overweight or obese (body mass index [BMI], >26 kg/m(2)) patients aged 18 to 65 years with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder whose treatment was switched from olanzapine to risperidone were enrolled. Patients who entered the phase 1 switch from olanzapine to risperidone (6 weeks) and the phase 2 extension (14 weeks) were included in the assessment. The primary end point was the difference from baseline in the prevalence of the metabolic syndrome at week 20, determined using measurements of weight, BMI, waist circumference, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP). RESULTS: Baseline assessments for the metabolic syndrome were available from 121 of 123 patients recruited for phase 1 of the study (61 men, 60 women; mean [SD] age, 41.1 [10.2] years; mean [SD] BMI, 33.9 [6.9] kg/m(2)); 71 patients entered phase 2 (29 men, 42 women; mean [SD] age, 40.2 [10.3] years; mean [SD] BMI, 35.1 [7.3] kg/m(2)), of whom 39 (54.9%) ere diagnosed with schizophrenia, and 32 (45.1%) with schizoaffective disorder. The metabolic syndrome was identified in 63 (52.1%) patients at study entry. In the 71 patients with data available from baseline and week 20 (using the last observation carried forward method), the prevalence of the metabolic syndrome was reduced from 38 (53.5%) patients at baseline to 26 (36.6%) at study end (McNemar chi(2) = 8.0, P < 0.005). Significant improvements at study end were seen in mean weight (P = 0.031), BMI (P = 0.002), waist circumference (P = 0.003), SBP (P = 0.006), and DBP (P = 0.010). There was no significant difference in the reduction in the prevalence of the metabolic syndrome between patients who did or did not receive the behavioral therapy for weight loss. CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc analysis of switching from the antipsychotic olanzapine to risperidone on the prevalence of the metabolic syndrome in high-risk overweight or obese patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, the metabolic syndrome was highly prevalent at baseline. Switching from olanza- pine to risperidone was associated with a significant reduction in this prevalence.

Management of agitation, aggression, and psychosis associated with dementia: a pooled analysis including three randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind trials in nursing home residents treated with risperidone.

This analysis used pooled data from three randomized, placebo-controlled trials that examined the efficacy and safety of risperidone for the treatment of agitation, aggression, and psychosis associated with dementia in elderly nursing home residents to assess the risk-benefit of the use of risperidone in this population. The efficacy data (risperidone n=722, placebo n=428) were obtained from the Cohen-Mansfield agitation inventory (CMAI) and behavioral pathology in Alzheimer's disease (BEHAVE-AD) total and subscales. Additionally, clinical global impression (CGI) assessments were performed. Subgroup analyses were performed by type of dementia, severity of dementia, presence or absence of somnolence as an adverse event, and presence or absence of psychosis at baseline. Safety assessments included evaluation of treatment emergent adverse events, Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale, ECG and vital signs, and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). The mean dose of risperidone at end point was 1.0 mg/day (0.02 S.E.). The observed mean change at end point was significantly higher for risperidone than for placebo on CMAI total score (-11.8 versus -6.4, respectively; p<0.001), total aggression score (-5.0 versus -1.8, respectively; p<0.001), BEHAVE-AD total score (-6.1 and -3.6, respectively; p<0.001), and psychotic symptoms score (-2.1 and -1.3, respectively; p=0.003). The main treatment effects of risperidone were similar in all subgroup analyses. Additionally, risperidone-treated patients scored significantly better than placebo-treated patients on the CGI scales at end point. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was comparable between risperidone (84.3%) and placebo (83.9%). More patients discontinued due to adverse events in the risperidone-treated group (17.2%) than in the placebo group (11.2%). Differences in adverse event incidences between placebo and risperidone were observed for extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), mild somnolence and the less common cerebrovascular adverse events (CAE). Risperidone induced neither orthostatic, nor anticholinergic side effects nor falls nor cognitive decline. Of all atypical antipsychotics, risperidone has the largest database of double-blind controlled trials to support its efficacy and safety in the treatment of agitation, aggression, and psychosis associated with dementia. At the recommended doses, risperidone displayed a favorable risk-benefit profile. Risperidone was well tolerated with respect to EPS, somnolence, and anticholinergic side effects in this elderly population. In view of the risk for CAEs, risperidone, should be targeted towards the treatment of those patients in whom psychotic and behavioral symptoms of dementia are prominent and associated with significant distress, functional impairment or danger to the patient.

Phase 2a, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, parallel-group study of a H4 R-antagonist (JNJ-39758979) in Japanese adults with moderate atopic dermatitis.

This trial was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the H4 R-antagonist JNJ-39758979 in adult Japanese patients with moderate atopic dermatitis (AD). Eligible patients were randomly assigned to JNJ-39758979 300 mg, 100 mg or placebo once daily for 6 weeks in this phase 2a, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled study. Primary efficacy was assessed via week-6 Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) scores. Secondary efficacy assessments included Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) and patient-reported outcome (PRO) pruritus assessments (Pruritus Categorical Response Scale [PCRS], Pruritus Numeric Rating Scales [PNRS], Pruritus Interference Numeric Rating Scale [PINRS] and Subject's Global Impressions of Change in Pruritus [SGICP]). Eighty-eight of 105 planned patients were randomized before the study was stopped and unblinded for safety reasons. The study did not meet the primary end-point. However, numerical improvements (i.e. decreases) in median EASI were observed with JNJ-39758979 100 mg (-3.7) and 300 mg (-3.0) versus placebo (-1.3) at week 6. Nominally significant improvements across PRO PCRS, PNRS and SGICP assessments were consistently observed, particularly with JNJ-39758979 300 mg. Safety, including adverse events (AE), was comparable between JNJ-39758979 and placebo with the exception of two patients (both receiving JNJ-39758979 300 mg) with serious AE of neutropenia, leading to premature study discontinuation. No deaths were reported. Except for neutropenia, no clinically relevant changes in laboratory values were observed. Although not conclusive, findings suggest H4 R-antagonism may be beneficial for AD, particularly in controlling pruritus. JNJ-39758979 appears to be associated with drug-induced agranulocytosis, likely an off-target effect.

Results from a Phase IIA Parallel Group Study of JNJ-40346527, an Oral CSF-1R Inhibitor, in Patients with Active Rheumatoid Arthritis despite Disease-modifying Antirheumatic Drug Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of JNJ-40346527, a selective inhibitor of colony-stimulating factor-1 (CSF-1) receptor kinase that acts to inhibit macrophage survival, proliferation, and differentiation in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group study, adults were randomized (2:1) to receive oral JNJ-40346527 100 mg or placebo twice daily through Week 12. Patients with RA had disease activity [≥ 6 swollen/≥ 6 tender joints, C-reactive protein (CRP) ≥ 0.8 mg/dl] despite DMARD therapy for ≥ 6 months. The primary endpoint was change from baseline at Week 12 in the 28-joint Disease Activity Score with CRP (DAS28-CRP). Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analyses were also performed, and safety was assessed through Week 16. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients were treated (63 JNJ-40346527, 32 placebo); 8 patients discontinued treatment (6 JNJ-40346527, 2 placebo) through Week 12. Mean improvements in DAS28-CRP from baseline to Week 12 were 1.15 for the JNJ-40346527 group and 1.42 for the placebo group (p = 0.30); thus, a statistically significant difference was not observed for the primary endpoint. Pharmacokinetic exposure to JNJ-40346527 and its active metabolites was above the projected concentration needed for pharmacologic activity, and effective target engagement and proof of activity were demonstrated by increased levels of CSF-1 and decreased CD16+ monocytes in JNJ-40346527-treated, but not placebo-treated, patients. Thirty-seven (58.7%) JNJ-40346527-treated and 16 (50.0%) placebo-treated patients reported ≥ 1 adverse event (AE); 1 (1.6%) JNJ-40346527-treated and 3 (9.4%) placebo-treated patients reported ≥ 1 serious AE. CONCLUSION: Although adequate exposure and effective peripheral target engagement were evident, JNJ-40346527 efficacy was not observed in patients with DMARD-refractory active RA. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01597739. EudraCT Number: 2011-004529-28.