Safety and Tolerability of Starting Aripiprazole Lauroxil With Aripiprazole Lauroxil NanoCrystal Dispersion in 1 Day Followed by Aripiprazole Lauroxil Every 2 Months Using Paliperidone Palmitate Monthly as an Active Control in Patients With Schizophrenia: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Aripiprazole lauroxil (AL) 1064 mg every 2 months following initiation using the AL NanoCrystal Dispersion formulation (ALNCD) plus 30-mg oral aripiprazole was efficacious and well tolerated in a 25-week, randomized, double-blind phase 3 trial in adults with acute schizophrenia. This post hoc analysis further characterized the safety of AL 1064 mg administered every 2 months and that of active control paliperidone palmitate (PP) 156 mg monthly based on occurrence, timing, and severity of adverse events (AEs) associated with antipsychotic medications.Methods: This study was conducted between November 2017 and March 2019. AL or PP was initiated during an inpatient stay of ≥ 2 weeks with transition to outpatient treatment thereafter. Rates of AEs of clinical interest, including injection site reactions (ISRs), motor AEs, sedation, hypotension, prolactin level increase, weight gain, and suicidal ideation/behavior, were summarized through weeks 4, 9, and 25 for each treatment.Results: Of 200 patients who received ≥ 1 dose of study treatment, 99 (49.5%) completed the study (AL, 57%; PP, 43%). Mean (SD) baseline Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total scores were 94.1 (9.04) and 94.6 (8.41) in the AL and PP treatment groups, respectively. AEs were reported by 69/99 (70%) patients administered AL and 72/101 (71%) administered PP; most AEs were mild or moderate in severity. ISRs (AL, 18.2%; PP, 26.7%) occurred primarily on days 1 and 8. All akathisia/restlessness AEs (AL, 10.1%; PP, 11.9%) occurred during the first 4 weeks; <10% of patients (either treatment) experienced hypotension, sedation, or suicidal ideation/behavior events. Weight gain of ≥ 7% from baseline occurred in 9.3% of AL- and 23.8% of PP-treated patients. Median prolactin concentrations changed by -4.60 and -3.55 ng/mL among AL-treated males and females, respectively, and did not exceed 2 times normal levels in any AL-treated patients. In PP-treated patients, changes were 21.20 and 80.40 ng/mL and concentrations exceeded 2 times normal in 38% and 88% of males and females, respectively.Conclusions: No new early- or late-emerging safety concerns were observed through 25 weeks of treatment with AL 1064 mg every 2 months following initiation using ALNCD plus 30-mg oral aripiprazole. Results were consistent with known safety profiles of AL and PP and support the safety of AL 1064 mg every 2 months initiated using ALNCD plus 30-mg oral aripiprazole.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03345979.

Avapritinib versus Placebo in Indolent Systemic Mastocytosis.

Avapritinib in Indolent Systemic MastocytosisIn a randomized trial, patients with indolent systemic mastocytosis were treated with avapritinib or placebo along with supportive care. The trial primary end point was the change in mean total symptom scores at 24 weeks. Avapritinib-treated patients had a decrease in mean total symptom score of 15.6 points compared with 9.2 points in the placebo group.

Analysis of prolactin and sexual side effects in patients with schizophrenia who switched from paliperidone palmitate to aripiprazole lauroxil.

One strategy to address hyperprolactinemia and associated sexual side effects in patients receiving antipsychotics is switching to an antipsychotic not associated with prolactin elevation (eg, aripiprazole). This post hoc analysis assessed prolactin concentrations and sexual side effects in an open-label prospective study of switching long-acting injectable antipsychotics from paliperidone palmitate (PP) to aripiprazole lauroxil (AL). Serum prolactin was measured throughout the study. Patient-reported sexual and endocrine side effects were assessed on the UKU Side Effect Rating Scale sexual function subscale and analyzed in study completers. Prior to starting AL treatment (screening), 49/50 (98%) patients had prolactin concentrations above the upper limit of normal (ULN; >13.13 ng/mL [males]; >26.72 ng/mL [females]). Six months after beginning AL treatment, prolactin levels were above ULN in 2/32 (6.3%) patients. Among 32 study completers, 81.3% reported sexual dysfunction in ≥1 domain at screening versus 56.3% at 6 months after starting AL treatment. Diminished sexual desire was the most common patient-reported sexual complaint at screening (46.9%); at 6 months, it was reported by 18.8%. In this post hoc analysis, the high levels of prolactin observed at screening decreased during AL treatment, and modest improvements in sexual side effects were evident in patients with schizophrenia.

Efficacy and Safety of a 2-Month Formulation of Aripiprazole Lauroxil With 1-Day Initiation in Patients Hospitalized for Acute Schizophrenia Transitioned to Outpatient Care: Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Active-Control ALPINE Study.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate efficacy and safety of a 2-month formulation of aripiprazole lauroxil (AL) with 1-day initiation during hospitalization for acute exacerbation of schizophrenia followed by transition to outpatient care. METHODS: The phase 3b double-blind Aripiprazole Lauroxil and Paliperidone palmitate: INitiation Effectiveness (ALPINE) study was conducted from November 2017 to March 2019. Adults with acute schizophrenia according to DSM-5 criteria were randomized (1:1) to AL (AL NanoCrystal Dispersion + oral aripiprazole 30 mg, day 1; AL 1,064 mg, day 8 and every 8 weeks [q8wk]) or paliperidone palmitate (PP 234 mg, day 1; PP 156 mg, day 8 and then q4wk) for 25 weeks. Patients remained hospitalized ≥ 2 weeks after randomization per protocol. Primary endpoint was within-group change in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score (PANSST) from baseline to week 4. Secondary analyses included within- and between-group changes from baseline at various time points. Adverse events (AEs) and laboratory data were monitored. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients were randomized (AL, n = 99; PP, n = 101); 56.6% and 42.6%, respectively, completed the study. For AL, the mean baseline PANSST was 94.1; scores were significantly reduced from baseline at week 4 (-17.4; P < .001) and were also reduced at weeks 9 (-19.8) and 25 (-23.3). With PP, PANSST also improved significantly from baseline (94.6) at week 4 (-20.1; P < .001) and also improved at weeks 9 (-22.5) and 25 (-21.7). The 3 most common AEs over 25 weeks in the AL group were injection site pain (17.2%), increased weight (9.1%), and akathisia (9.1%). The same AEs were the most common in the PP group (injection site pain [24.8%], increased weight [16.8%], and akathisia [10.9%]). CONCLUSIONS: AL and PP were efficacious and well-tolerated for initiating treatment of schizophrenia in the hospital and continuing outpatient treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03345979.

Diroximel Fumarate Demonstrates an Improved Gastrointestinal Tolerability Profile Compared with Dimethyl Fumarate in Patients with Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: Results from the Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III EVOLVE-MS-2 Study.

BACKGROUND: Diroximel fumarate (DRF) is a novel oral fumarate approved in the USA for relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis. DRF is converted to monomethyl fumarate, the pharmacologically active metabolite of dimethyl fumarate (DMF). DRF 462 mg and DMF 240 mg produce bioequivalent exposure of monomethyl fumarate and are therefore expected to have similar efficacy/safety profiles; the distinct chemical structure of DRF may contribute to its tolerability profile. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the gastrointestinal tolerability of DRF and DMF over 5 weeks in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. METHODS: EVOLVE-MS-2 was a phase III, randomized, double-blind, head-to-head, 5-week study evaluating the gastrointestinal tolerability of DRF 462 mg vs DMF 240 mg, administered twice daily in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, using two self-administered gastrointestinal symptom scales: Individual Gastrointestinal Symptom and Impact Scale (IGISIS) and Global Gastrointestinal Symptom and Impact Scale (GGISIS). The primary endpoint was the number of days with an IGISIS intensity score ≥ 2 relative to exposure. Other endpoints included the degree of gastrointestinal symptom severity measured by IGISIS/GGISIS and assessment of safety/tolerability. RESULTS: DRF-treated patients experienced a statistically significant reduction (46%) in the number of days with an IGISIS symptom intensity score ≥ 2 compared with DMF-treated patients (rate ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.54 [0.39-0.75]; p = 0.0003). Lower rates of gastrointestinal adverse events (including diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain) were observed with DRF than DMF (34.8% vs 49.0%). Fewer patients discontinued DRF than DMF because of adverse events (1.6% vs 5.6%) and gastrointestinal adverse events (0.8% vs 4.8%). CONCLUSIONS: DRF demonstrated an improved gastrointestinal tolerability profile compared with DMF, with less severe gastrointestinal events and fewer days of self-assessed gastrointestinal symptoms, fewer gastrointestinal adverse events, and lower discontinuation rates because of gastrointestinal adverse events. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03093324).

Diroximel fumarate (DRF) in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: Interim safety and efficacy results from the phase 3 EVOLVE-MS-1 study.

BACKGROUND: Diroximel fumarate (DRF) is a novel oral fumarate for patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). DRF and the approved drug dimethyl fumarate yield bioequivalent exposure to the active metabolite monomethyl fumarate; thus, efficacy/safety profiles are expected to be similar. However, DRF's distinct chemical structure may result in a differentiated gastrointestinal (GI) tolerability profile. OBJECTIVE: To report interim safety/efficacy findings from patients in the ongoing EVOLVE-MS-1 study. METHODS: EVOLVE-MS-1 is an ongoing, open-label, 96-week, phase 3 study assessing DRF safety, tolerability, and efficacy in RRMS patients. Primary endpoint is safety and tolerability; efficacy endpoints are exploratory. RESULTS: As of March 2018, 696 patients were enrolled; median exposure was 59.9 (range: 0.1-98.9) weeks. Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 84.6% (589/696) of patients; the majority were mild (31.2%; 217/696) or moderate (46.8%; 326/696) in severity. Overall treatment discontinuation was 14.9%; 6.3% due to AEs and <1% due to GI AEs. At Week 48, mean number of gadolinium-enhancing lesions was significantly reduced from baseline (77%; p < 0.0001) and adjusted annualized relapse rate was low (0.16; 95% confidence interval: 0.13-0.20). CONCLUSION: Interim data from EVOLVE-MS-1 suggest DRF is a well-tolerated treatment with a favorable safety/efficacy profile for patients with RRMS.

Challenges of post-authorization safety studies: Lessons learned and results of a French study of fentanyl buccal tablet.

PURPOSE: Recruiting and retaining participants in real-world studies that collect primary data are challenging. This article illustrates these challenges using a post-authorization safety study (PASS) to assess adverse events (AEs) experienced with fentanyl buccal tablet (FBT) over 3 months of treatment. METHODS: This was an observational, prospective, multicenter study in France conducted over 1 year. The study employed primary data collection in FBT-treated patients and their treating physicians via a site qualification questionnaire and patient log completed by physicians and a questionnaire and pain diary completed by patients. Strategies to increase participation included reminders, newsletters, frequent follow-up telephone calls, and reducing the extent of data collected. RESULTS: Of the 1118 physicians contacted who returned the participation form or responded to a telephone call, only 128 expressed willingness to participate. Key reasons for non-participation were lack of interest (69.7%) and FBT not being used in practice by the contacted physician (25.1%). Overall, 224 patients were screened by 31 physicians, and 97 were enrolled. Key reasons for patient non-inclusion were unwillingness or inability to complete the patient AE diary or questionnaire (40.9% [52/127]) and patients' decision (33.9% [43/127]). CONCLUSIONS: Despite efforts to increase participation, enrollment in this study was low. Recruitment and retention methods are limited in their capacity to optimally execute a primary data collection in a PASS. For a PASS to provide reliable and valid information on medication use, involvement from health care agencies, regulators, and pharmaceutical companies is needed to establish their importance, drive study participation, and reduce patient withdrawal.