PANSS Individual Item and Marder Dimension Analyses From a Pivotal Trial of RBP-7000 (Monthly Extended-Release Risperidone) in Schizophrenia Patients.

Background: Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) data from a pivotal phase 3 study in participants with schizophrenia of RBP-7000, a recently marketed long-acting subcutaneous injectable risperidone formulation, were examined to determine if dose-response relationships existed for different items of the PANSS.Methods: Changes in the 30 PANSS items were analyzed individually and using the 5 factor-analysis-derived dimensions defined by Marder and colleagues. Subgroups of patients who could benefit from the RBP-7000 120 mg dose were investigated.Results: 337 participants were randomized and received study medication (RBP-7000 90 mg n = 111, RBP-7000 120 mg n = 114, placebo n = 112). Dose-dependent responses were observed in items from the study-specified PANSS positive and general psychopathology exploratory subscales. Dose-dependent responses were observed across all 5 Marder dimensions, with the largest effect sizes observed with the 120 mg dose in the uncontrolled hostility/excitement (UHE) and anxiety/depression dimensions. Participants with baseline UHE dimension scores ≥ 9 demonstrated greater improvement in PANSS total score at the 120 mg dose compared to the 90 mg dose.Conclusions: RBP-7000 demonstrated efficacy across both the primary and exploratory PANSS study endpoints and the post hoc Marder dimensions. Schizophrenia patients with higher baseline Marder UHE scores may benefit from initiation of treatment at the 120 mg dose.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02109562.

An antibody against IL-5 reduces numbers of esophageal intraepithelial eosinophils in children with eosinophilic esophagitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The role of interleukin (IL)-5 in the pathogenesis of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) has been established in animal models; anti-IL-5 therapy has been reported to be effective in adults. We investigated whether IL-5 has a role in accumulation of esophageal eosinophils in children with EoE and whether therapy with mepolizumab, an antibody against IL-5, reduces the number of esophageal intraepithelial eosinophils in children with EoE. METHODS: We performed an international, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, prospective study of 59 children with EoE, defined as baseline peak count of esophageal intraepithelial eosinophils of ≥ 20 in at least 1 high-power field (hpf). Patients received an infusion every 4 weeks (a total of 3 infusions) of 0.55, 2.5, or 10 mg/kg mepolizumab. No placebo group was used. RESULTS: Baseline peak and mean esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil counts were (mean ± SE) 122.5 ± 8.78 and 39.1 ± 3.63 per hpf, respectively. Four weeks after the third infusion, peak eosinophil counts were <5 per hpf in 5 of 57 children (8.8%); we did not observe differences among groups given different doses of mepolizumab. Reduced peak and mean eosinophil counts, to <20 per hpf, were observed in 18 of 57 (31.6%) and 51 of 57 (89.5%) children, respectively. Peak and mean esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil counts decreased significantly to 40.2 ± 5.17 and 9.3 ± 1.25 per hpf, respectively (P < .0001). An analysis to evaluate predictors of response associated a higher mean baseline esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count with a greater reduction in mean count (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: IL-5 is involved in the pathogenesis of EoE in children. Mepolizumab, an antibody against IL-5, reduces esophageal eosinophilic inflammation in these patients.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to assess efficacy and safety of 0.5 mg and 1 mg alosetron in women with severe diarrhea-predominant IBS.

OBJECTIVE: Alosetron is indicated for women with chronic, severe diarrhea-predominant IBS (d-IBS) who have not responded adequately to conventional therapy. Constipation is the most common adverse event with alosetron treatment. Multiple dosing regimens were assessed in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (S3B30040) to determine efficacy, tolerability, and evaluate constipation rate. METHODS: 705 women with severe d-IBS were randomized to placebo, alosetron 0.5 mg once daily, 1 mg once daily, or 1 mg twice daily for 12 wk. The primary end point was the proportion of week 12 responders (patients with moderate or substantial improvement in IBS symptoms) on the 7-point Likert Global Improvement Scale (GIS). Secondary end points were average rate of adequate relief of IBS pain and discomfort, and bowel symptom improvements. RESULTS: The proportion of GIS responders at week 12 (primary time point) was significantly greater in all alosetron groups compared with placebo (54/176 [30.7%], 90/177 [50.8%], 84/175 [48%], and 76/177 [42.9%] for placebo, 0.5, 1 mg once daily, and 1 mg twice daily alosetron groups, respectively; P< or = 0.02). Results were similar for the average adequate relief rate (treatment effects > or =12%, P< or = 0.038). Bowel symptoms were improved in all alosetron groups. Constipation was the most common adverse event (9%, 16%, and 19% patients in the 0.5 mg, 1 mg once daily, and 1 mg twice daily groups, respectively). One event of intestinal obstruction and one of ischemic colitis occurred in the 0.5 mg group, and one event of fecal impaction occurred in the 1 mg twice-daily group. All were self-limited and resolved without sequelae. CONCLUSION: Alosetron 0.5 mg and 1 mg once daily as well as 1 mg twice daily are effective in providing global improvement in IBS symptoms, adequate relief of IBS pain and discomfort, and improvement in bowel symptoms in women with severe d-IBS. Lower dosing regimens resulted in a decreased constipation rate.

Long-term safety and efficacy of alosetron in women with severe diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: To assess long-term safety and efficacy of alosetron in women with severe, chronic diarrhea-predominant IBS and in a subset having more frequent urgency (i.e., bowel urgency at least 10 of 14 days during screening). METHODS: Randomized patients received either alosetron 1 mg (n = 351) or placebo (n = 363) twice daily during a 48-wk, double-blind study. The primary endpoint was the 48-wk average rate of adequate relief of IBS pain and discomfort. Secondary endpoints included 48-wk average satisfactory control rates of urgency, stool frequency, stool consistency, and bloating. Other efficacy endpoints were average monthly adequate relief and urgency control rates and impact of provided rescue medication. RESULTS: Alosetron-treated patients had significantly greater 48-wk average adequate relief (p= 0.01) and urgency control (p < 0.001) rates, regardless of rescue medication use, compared with placebo. Results in subjects with more frequent urgency were more robust than those in the overall population (p= 0.005). In weeks without rescue medication use, satisfactory control rates for stool frequency and stool consistency were significantly greater in alosetron-treated patients than placebo. Alosetron-treated patients had significantly greater adequate relief than placebo-treated patients (p < 0.05) in 9 of 12 months and significantly greater urgency control (p < 0.001) in all months. Adequate relief and urgency control were maintained throughout the treatment. Adverse events and serious adverse events were similar between treatment groups, except for constipation. Neither ischemic colitis nor serious events related to bowel motor dysfunction was reported. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term use of alosetron is effective and well-tolerated in women with chronic, diarrhea-predominant IBS, including those with more frequent urgency.

Effect of alosetron on bowel urgency and global symptoms in women with severe, diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome: analysis of two controlled trials.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of alosetron on bowel urgency and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) global improvement in diarrhea-predominant IBS (D-IBS). METHODS: Women with a lack of satisfactory bowel urgency control at least 50% of the time during screening were randomized to receive alosetron 1 mg (n = 246) or placebo (n = 246) twice daily. The primary end point was the percentage of days with satisfactory control of bowel urgency. The response rate for the IBS global improvement scale (GIS) was a secondary end point. GIS responders were patients who recorded either moderate or substantial improvement in IBS symptoms relative to the way they felt before entering the study. Other end points included improvement in stool frequency, stool consistency, and percentage of days with incomplete evacuation. Further analyses were performed on a subset of patients who had at least 10 of 14 days during screening (>/=71% of days) with a lack of satisfactory control of bowel urgency. RESULTS: Patients had severe chronic IBS symptoms, and 89% of patients had D-IBS. Alosetron resulted in a greater percentage of days with satisfactory control of urgency compared with placebo (69% vs. 56%, respectively, P < 0.001). Greater percentages of alosetron-treated patients were GIS responders at 4, 8, and 12 weeks compared with placebo (59% vs. 41%, 63% vs. 41%, and 68% vs. 46%, respectively, P < 0.001). Patients with more frequent urgency had similar results. Constipation occurred in 28% and 9% of subjects in the alosetron- and placebo-treated groups, respectively. No cases of ischemic colitis were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Alosetron effectively manages bowel urgency and improves global symptoms in women with severe chronic D-IBS.