Catherine Orr1, Santosh Deshpande1, Sonja Sawh1, Philip M Jones2, Kamini Vasudev3. 1. 1 Pharmacy Department, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario. 2. 2 Departments of Anesthesia & Peri-operative Medicine and Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Western University, London, Ontario. 3. 3 Departments of Psychiatry and Medicine, Western University, London, Ontario.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A systematic review was conducted to examine the efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability of asenapine compared with other antipsychotics in the treatment of psychotic disorders. METHODS: Four databases, 8 trial registries, and conference presentations were searched for randomized clinical trials of asenapine versus any comparator for the treatment of any psychotic illness. Primary outcome measures were changes in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score and the incidence of withdrawal due to adverse effects. RESULTS: Eight randomized clinical trials, encompassing 3765 patients, that compared asenapine with placebo ( n = 5) and olanzapine ( n = 3) were included. No differences were found between asenapine and olanzapine in terms of changes to PANSS total or PANSS negative subscale scores. Patients taking asenapine were more likely to experience worsening schizophrenia and/or psychosis than were those taking olanzapine. No differences were found between asenapine and olanzapine in rates of discontinuation due to adverse drug reactions or lack of efficacy, but those taking asenapine had higher rates of withdrawal for any reason than those taking olanzapine. Asenapine caused less clinically significant weight gain or increases in triglycerides than olanzapine and was more likely to cause extrapyramidal symptoms than olanzapine. In comparison to placebo, either no difference or superiority was demonstrated in favour of asenapine on all efficacy measures. CONCLUSION: The current evidence is limited, as asenapine has been compared only with placebo or olanzapine. In the randomized clinical trials analysed, asenapine was similar or superior to placebo and similar or inferior to olanzapine on most efficacy outcomes. While asenapine demonstrated fewer adverse metabolic outcomes than olanzapine, rates of extrapyramidal symptom-related adverse effects were higher.
OBJECTIVE: A systematic review was conducted to examine the efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability of asenapine compared with other antipsychotics in the treatment of psychotic disorders. METHODS: Four databases, 8 trial registries, and conference presentations were searched for randomized clinical trials of asenapine versus any comparator for the treatment of any psychotic illness. Primary outcome measures were changes in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score and the incidence of withdrawal due to adverse effects. RESULTS: Eight randomized clinical trials, encompassing 3765 patients, that compared asenapine with placebo ( n = 5) and olanzapine ( n = 3) were included. No differences were found between asenapine and olanzapine in terms of changes to PANSS total or PANSS negative subscale scores. Patients taking asenapine were more likely to experience worsening schizophrenia and/or psychosis than were those taking olanzapine. No differences were found between asenapine and olanzapine in rates of discontinuation due to adverse drug reactions or lack of efficacy, but those taking asenapine had higher rates of withdrawal for any reason than those taking olanzapine. Asenapine caused less clinically significant weight gain or increases in triglycerides than olanzapine and was more likely to cause extrapyramidal symptoms than olanzapine. In comparison to placebo, either no difference or superiority was demonstrated in favour of asenapine on all efficacy measures. CONCLUSION: The current evidence is limited, as asenapine has been compared only with placebo or olanzapine. In the randomized clinical trials analysed, asenapine was similar or superior to placebo and similar or inferior to olanzapine on most efficacy outcomes. While asenapine demonstrated fewer adverse metabolic outcomes than olanzapine, rates of extrapyramidal symptom-related adverse effects were higher.
Authors: Sunny Chapel; Matt M Hutmacher; George Haig; Howard Bockbrader; Rik de Greef; Sheldon H Preskorn; Richard L Lalonde Journal: J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 3.126
Authors: John M Kane; Mary Mackle; Linda Snow-Adami; Jun Zhao; Armin Szegedi; John Panagides Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2011-02-22 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Robert W Buchanan; John Panagides; Jun Zhao; Phillip Phiri; Wil den Hollander; Xianwei Ha; Alex Kouassi; Larry Alphs; Nina Schooler; Armin Szegedi; Pilar Cazorla Journal: J Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 3.153
Authors: Marc De Hert; Weiping Yu; Johan Detraux; Kim Sweers; Ruud van Winkel; Christoph U Correll Journal: CNS Drugs Date: 2012-09-01 Impact factor: 5.749
Authors: Stefan Leucht; Andrea Cipriani; Loukia Spineli; Dimitris Mavridis; Deniz Orey; Franziska Richter; Myrto Samara; Corrado Barbui; Rolf R Engel; John R Geddes; Werner Kissling; Marko Paul Stapf; Bettina Lässig; Georgia Salanti; John M Davis Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-06-27 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Raul Felipe Palma-Álvarez; Elena Ros-Cucurull; Josep Antoni Ramos-Quiroga; Carlos Roncero; Lara Grau-López Journal: Psychopharmacol Bull Date: 2019-02-15
Authors: Maxine Zhou; Sahar Derakhshanian; Alexander Rath; Sarah Bertrand; Caroline DeGraw; Rachel Barlow; Aja Menard; Adam M Kaye; Jamal Hasoon; Elyse M Cornett; Alan D Kaye; Omar Viswanath; Ivan Urits Journal: Psychopharmacol Bull Date: 2020-09-14
Authors: Suresh Durgam; Ronald P Landbloom; Mary Mackle; Xiao Wu; Maju Mathews; Henry A Nasrallah Journal: Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat Date: 2017-07-31 Impact factor: 2.570