Safety Profile of Pimavanserin Therapy in Elderly Patients with Neurodegenerative Disease-Related Neuropsychiatric Symptoms: A Phase 3B Study.

Background: Pimavanserin, a 5-HT2A receptor inverse agonist/antagonist, is the only medication approved by the FDA for the treatment of hallucinations and delusions associated with Parkinson's disease psychosis (PDP). Further expanding knowledge of the safety profile of pimavanserin in PDP and neurodegenerative diseases (NDD) such as Alzheimer's disease is of great interest for informing its use in patients with PDP (with or without dementia), given this population is highly sensitive to adverse effects following antipsychotic use. Objective: This trial evaluated the effects of pimavanserin compared to placebo in frail older adults and elderly patients with neuropsychiatric symptoms related to NDD, such as hallucinations and delusions, to better understand the safety of pimavanserin in this population. Methods: This was a phase 3b, 8-week treatment (study duration of up to 16 weeks), multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-arm parallel-group trial (NCT03575052). The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability, measured by treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Secondary safety endpoints were change from baseline in motor and cognitive function; exploratory endpoints included suicidality, sleep quality, and neuropsychiatric symptoms. Results: Incidences of TEAEs were similar between treatment groups; 29.8% reported ≥1 TEAE (pimavanserin: 30.4%; placebo: 29.3%), and 1.8% reported serious TEAEs (pimavanserin: 2.0%; placebo: 1.5%). Pimavanserin did not impact motor- or cognitive-related function. Conclusions: Pimavanserin was well tolerated and not associated with motor or cognitive impairment. Together, these findings highlight the manageable and generally favorable safety profile of pimavanserin in patients with NDD, contributing to our knowledge on the safety of pimavanserin as it generalizes to patients with PDP.

Switching to iloperidone: An omnibus of clinically relevant observations from a 12-week, open-label, randomized clinical trial in 500 persons with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: To describe secondary analyses from a 12-week, randomized, open-label trial where adult schizophrenia outpatients receiving risperidone, olanzapine, or aripiprazole were switched to iloperidone. METHODS: Patients were randomized into two groups: one where the antecedent antipsychotic dose was titrated downwards to zero over 2 weeks (n=240), and the other group where the antecedent antipsychotic was abruptly stopped (n=260). Adaptations of the Clinical Global Impression scale were used to evaluate clinical changes. Other assessments included the reporting of adverse events (AEs), study discontinuation, body weight, and metabolic variables. RESULTS: Improvement was steady throughout the study for both gradual- and immediate-switch groups starting at Week 1 and continuing through Week 12. Discontinuations due to AEs in the first 2 weeks of treatment were higher for the immediate-switch group compared with the gradual-switch group (10.8% vs. 5.4%, NNT 19, 95% CI 10-151). Fewer patients in the gradual-switch group experienced dizziness as an AE, whereas a higher percentage of patients in the immediate-switch group exhibited earlier onset of a therapeutic response within the first 2 weeks; both groups were comparable thereafter with low rates of dizziness and similar efficacy outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Switching to iloperidone can be accomplished either with a gradual crossover or immediate discontinuation of the prior antipsychotic; however, the immediate-switch method is associated with greater proportion of initial dizziness. The observed outcomes are consistent with what has been previously reported regarding iloperidone's favorable akathisia/EPS profile and modest impact on somnolence/sedation, body weight, and metabolic variables.

A trial evaluating gradual- or immediate-switch strategies from risperidone, olanzapine, or aripiprazole to iloperidone in patients with schizophrenia.

In a 12-week randomized open-label trial, adults diagnosed with schizophrenia experiencing inadequate efficacy and/or poor tolerability on risperidone, olanzapine, or aripiprazole were randomized to switch to iloperidone either gradually (ie, down-titration of current therapy over the first 2weeks [to 50% on Day 1, 25% by Week 1, 0% by Week 2]) or immediately. All patients were titrated on iloperidone to 6mg BID by Day 4, then flexibly dosing between 6 and 12mg BID, as needed. The primary variable was the Integrated Clinical Global Impression of Change (I-CGI-C) and the primary analysis time point was Week 12. A total of 500 patients were randomized and received iloperidone (gradual switch, 240; immediate switch, 260), with 175, 155, and 170 patients switched from risperidone, olanzapine, and aripiprazole, respectively. I-CGI-C Results confirmed improved outcomes at Week 12, with scores that were similar between the gradual- and immediate-switch groups, respectively, for risperidone, 2.82 and 2.67 (95% CI: -0.229, 0.511); olanzapine, 2.87 and 3.03 (95% CI: -0.548, 0.235); and aripiprazole, 2.79 and 2.81 (95% CI: -0.405, 0.368). Incidence of adverse events (AEs) was similar in both switch groups, with the most frequently reported (≥10%) being dizziness, dry mouth, somnolence, and weight increase. In conclusion, switching to iloperidone by either a gradual or an immediate method did not reveal any clinically significant differences in ratings of overall efficacy and safety/tolerability outcomes, based on the I-CGI-C at 12weeks. Similar overall safety/AE profiles were observed regardless of the specific agent from which patients were switched.

Hierarchical Bayesian cognitive processing models to analyze clinical trial data.

Identifying disease-modifying treatment effects in earlier stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD)-when changes are subtle-will require improved trial design and more sensitive analytical methods. We applied hierarchical Bayesian analysis with cognitive processing (HBCP) models to the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) and MCI (mild cognitive impairment) Screen word list memory task data from 14 Alzheimer's disease AD patients of the Myriad Pharmaceuticals' phase III clinical trial of Flurizan (a γ-secretase modulator) versus placebo. The original analysis of 1649 patients found no treatment group differences. HBCP analysis and the original ADAS-Cog analysis were performed on the small sample. HBCP analysis detected impaired memory storage during delayed recall, whereas the original ADAS-Cog analytical method did not. The HBCP model identified a harmful treatment effect in a small sample, which has been independently confirmed from the results of other γ-secretase inhibitor. The original analytical method applied to the ADAS-Cog data did not detect this harmful treatment effect on either the full or the small sample. These findings suggest that HBCP models can detect treatment effects more sensitively than currently used analytical methods required by the Food and Drug Administration, and they do so using small patient samples.

A 25-week, open-label trial investigating rivastigmine transdermal patches with concomitant memantine in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease: a post hoc analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the tolerability and efficacy of the rivastigmine transdermal patch in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease receiving concomitant memantine. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Post hoc analysis of a 25-week, randomized, prospective, open-label, parallel-group study. Patients receiving donepezil were switched to rivastigmine patches (4.6 mg/24 h) immediately or following a 7-day withdrawal for 4 weeks (core phase), before titrating up to 9.5 mg/24 h for a further 20-week extension phase. Prior memantine therapy was continued throughout. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Tolerability (adverse events [AEs], serious AEs [SAEs] and discontinuations) and efficacy (cognition, global functioning and activities of daily living [ADLs]) were assessed for the rivastigmine transdermal patch, with or without concomitant memantine. RESULTS: Overall, 135 and 126 patients received rivastigmine with and without memantine, respectively. Of these, 122 (90.4%) and 118 (93.7%) patients with and without memantine, respectively, completed the core phase; 120 and 114 patients, respectively, entered the extension phase, and 90 (75.0%) and 86 (75.4%) completed the study. The incidences of AEs (73.3 vs. 67.5%) and SAEs (10.4 vs. 7.1%) were both slightly larger in patients receiving concomitant memantine, but the differences were not statistically significant (95% CIs: -5.2, 16.9 and -3.6, 10.1 for AEs and SEAs, respectively). The incidence of gastrointestinal AEs was low in both groups. Discontinuation due to AEs was higher in patients who received memantine (17.0 vs. 11.9%). Changes in cognitive and global function were similar between groups. ADL scores worsened in both groups; significantly more in those treated with memantine. CONCLUSION: Use of the rivastigmine transdermal patch in patients on established memantine appears to be well-tolerated, with only modest, non-significant increases in AEs compared with monotherapy, and did not seem to affect cognition or global functioning adversely.

A pilot study evaluating the efficacy and safety of rivastigmine in patients with mixed dementia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The two most common causes of dementia in the elderly are Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VaD), which can coexist as mixed dementia. The object of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of rivastigmine in patients with mixed dementia (AD with VaD). STUDY DESIGN: This 26-week open-label pilot study was conducted at 19 centres in the US. To reduce bias, the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive (ADAS-Cog) raters were blinded to all efficacy measures and to patient dosage information. Patients were treated with rivastigmine and titrated to their highest tolerated dose, up to 12 mg/day (6 mg twice daily). The primary efficacy measure was cognitive function assessed by the ADAS-Cog subscale (without the concentration/distractibility item, to be consistent with cognitive outcome measures used in previous rivastigmine trials). RESULTS: Forty-seven percent of patients treated with rivastigmine 6-12 mg/day demonstrated improvement on the ADAS-Cog at 26 weeks, with >25% of patients having a clinically significant improvement of > or =4 points. Treatment with rivastigmine (6-12 mg/day) was well tolerated by the majority of patients. The most common adverse effects occurring in >10% of patients were nausea, vomiting, dizziness and diarrhoea. CONCLUSION: This pilot study suggests that rivastigmine treatment may have beneficial effects in the treatment of patients with mixed dementia.