Sublingual Asenapine Research Articles

Sensory evaluation of the bitterness of asenapine using D-sorbitol pretreatment: single-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial

BackgroundAntipsychotics are essential in the acute treatment of and maintenance therapy for schizophrenia, but medication adherence and long-term treatment continuity are needed to maximize their effectiveness. Each antipsychotic has various side effects, which may affect adherence. Some patients with schizophrenia are reluctant to take asenapine because of its unique oral-related side effects, such as the bitter taste caused by sublingual administration. Our previous basic research found that D-sorbitol lowered the bitterness parameters of the taste sensors. However, whether D-sorbitol has the same effect in patients remains unclear. Therefore, using a D-sorbitol solution, we aim to evaluate changes in the bitterness of asenapine among patients with schizophrenia.MethodsIn this single-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial, we plan to recruit 20 adult patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorder who take sublingual asenapine tablets. The participants will be divided into two groups (n = 10 each). Each group will be given a D-sorbitol or placebo solution on the first day for rinsing before taking the sublingual asenapine tablets. After a 1-day interval, the participants will rinse their mouths again with a different liquid. Questionnaires regarding changes in taste and the willingness to continue asenapine will be conducted before the start of the study and after each rinse. The primary and secondary end points will be a taste evaluation of bitterness, and the willingness to continue asenapine, respectively. Differences in questionnaire scores between the D-sorbitol and placebo solutions will be calculated and analyzed using a McNemar test.DiscussionThis study aims to determine the efficacy of D-sorbitol in masking the bitter taste of asenapine. To our knowledge, it is the first intervention study using D-sorbitol for bitter taste of asenapine in patients with schizophrenia. Evidence of the efficacy of D-sorbitol could result in D-sorbitol pretreatment being an easy and inexpensive means of improving adherence to asenapine.Trial registrationThis study was registered in the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials jRCTs041210019, on May 14, 2021. Ethics approval was obtained from the Nagoya University Clinical Research Review Board.

Asenapine transdermal delivery system (Secuado®) in schizophrenia: a profile of its use in the USA

Asenapine, an atypical antipsychotic indicated for the treatment of schizophrenia, was first available as a twice-daily sublingual tablet. However, there are some challenges associated with the use of sublingual asenapine. More recently, a comparable transdermal formulation of asenapine (Secuado®) has been approved in the USA as the first antipsychotic patch for the treatment of schizophrenia in adults. Asenapine transdermal delivery system (TDS) offers a simpler and more convenient dosage regimen and avoids adverse events related to sublingual administration, potentially leading to better adherence to treatment. In a pivotal 6-week phase 3 study in patients with an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia, once-daily application of asenapine TDS 3.8 mg/24 h and 7.6 mg/24 h significantly reduced psychotic symptoms and global disease severity compared with placebo. Asenapine TDS is generally well tolerated, with the systemic safety profile being largely consistent with that established for sublingual asenapine. Although the use of asenapine TDS is associated with application site reactions, these reactions are generally mild to moderate in severity.

Evidence-Based Review of Pharmacotherapy for Acute Agitation. Part 1: Onset of Efficacy

BackgroundThe main goal of antipsychotic medication in the management of acute agitation in the emergency department is to rapidly induce calm without oversedation, enabling patients to participate in their own care. However, there is a paucity of comparative studies, particularly with newer fast-acting second-generation antipsychotic agents. Objective of the ReviewThis structured evidence-based review compared the onset of efficacy of antipsychotic treatments for acute agitation using data from randomized controlled trials identified by a literature search of the PubMed database. ResultsBased on findings from 28 blinded randomized controlled trials, onset of efficacy was rapid and generally observed at the first time point after intramuscular administration of ziprasidone (15−30 min) or olanzapine (15−30 min), but was more likely to be delayed with intramuscular haloperidol, even when combined with lorazepam (30−60 min), and intramuscular aripiprazole (45−90 min). When administered orally, rapid onset of efficacy was also consistently observed at the first assessment time point with olanzapine (15−120 min), risperidone (30−120 min), and sublingual asenapine (15 min). Significant effects were apparent for inhaled loxapine within 10−20 min. Effects were apparent within approximately 5−10 min with i.v. droperidol. Onset of efficacy was typically more rapid with second-generation antipsychotic agents than benzodiazepines, but data are limited. ConclusionsAlthough the patient populations of trials included in this review do not truly reflect that of the emergency department, the results provide useful information to emergency physicians on the rapid efficacy of certain newer-generation antipsychotic agents for the treatment of acutely agitated patients.

Exploring the long-term safety of asenapine in adults with schizophrenia in a double-blind, fixed-dose, extension study.

PurposeThe primary objective of this study was to assess long-term safety with sublingual asenapine 2.5 or 5 mg twice daily (BID) in patients with schizophrenia.Patients and methodsActively treated patients on asenapine 2.5 mg BID, asenapine 5 mg BID, or olanzapine 15 mg once daily (QD) who completed a 6-week randomized, double-blind, placebo- and olanzapine-controlled study continued lead-in treatment in this 26-week, multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, olanzapine-controlled Phase IIIB extension study; placebo patients were assigned to asenapine 2.5 mg BID treatment. Safety analyses were based on the all treated set (patients who received one or more doses of extension trial medication); change from baseline analyses used the acute study baseline. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and changes in laboratory parameters were monitored; weight change for asenapine versus olanzapine was the key secondary objective. Descriptive statistics were used; weight change was analyzed using a mixed-model repeated-measure approach.ResultsOf the 120 patients in the all-treated set, 60% completed treatment (asenapine 2.5 mg BID 66.1% overall, asenapine 5 mg BID 52.4%, olanzapine 15 mg QD 56.3%). The incidence of TEAEs was higher for placebo patients from the lead-in study who switched to asenapine 2.5 mg BID for extension treatment (71.0%) versus patients continuing asenapine 2.5 mg BID (38.7%), asenapine 5 mg BID (38.1%), or olanzapine 15 mg QD (25.0%). The most common TEAE (≥5% in every group) was worsening of schizophrenia. Least squares mean change in body weight from the acute study baseline to week 26 was +0.6 kg for overall asenapine 2.5 mg BID, +0.8 kg for asenapine 5 mg BID, and +1.2 kg for olanzapine 15 mg QD. There were no clinically relevant changes in metabolic parameters; values were generally similar across treatment groups.ConclusionAsenapine 2.5 mg BID and 5 mg BID were generally well tolerated in long-term treatment. Weight gain was less for overall asenapine 2.5 mg BID and 5 mg BID than for olanzapine 15 mg QD.

Preventing Violence in Patients with Schizophrenia

Violence in patients with schizophrenia has garnered substantial public attention in the lay press. Although schizophrenia is associated with a modestly elevated risk for violent behavior, which is further increased by comorbid substance use disorders, most patients with schizophrenia are not violent and most violent individuals do not have schizophrenia. At present, primary prevention efforts are of theoretical interest and include attention being placed on childhood maltreatment. Research into secondary prevention, defined as the prevention of occurrence of violent behavior in persons already diagnosed with schizophrenia, has identified several risk factors including substance use and nonadherence to medication treatment. A specific antiaggressive effect of clozapine has been identified and should be considered as a treatment option for persons with schizophrenia and persistent aggressive behavior. A potential alternative to clozapine is olanzapine, based on a randomized controlled trial where although olanzapine was less efficacious than clozapine in aggression outcomes, olanzapine was more efficacious than haloperidol, and the choice of olanzapine is further supported by evidence from two large effectiveness studies, the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness and the European First-Episode Schizophrenia study. Tertiary prevention, defined as the acute management of agitated and aggressive behavior, is accomplished with the use of psychological and behavioral interventions such as verbal de-escalation techniques, in combination with pharmacological agents. For persons with schizophrenia, antipsychotics are preferred. Although rapidly acting intramuscular formulations have been the mainstay for this type of treatment, oral agents such as inhaled loxapine and sublingual asenapine can be considered.

The effect of food on the high clearance drug asenapine after sublingual administration to healthy male volunteers

To determine the effects of food on the pharmacokinetics of sublingual asenapine. Healthy male volunteers (n=26, age 19-53 years) randomly received a single sublingual dose of asenapine 5 mg after ≥ 10 h fasting (Treatment A, reference), after a high-fat meal (Treatment B) and after ≥ 10 h fasting with a high-fat meal at 4 h post-dose (Treatment C). Blood samples were drawn over 72 h to measure asenapine plasma concentrations. Effects of food intake on asenapine pharmacokinetics were assessed using bioequivalence criteria and evaluated using a compartmental modelling analysis. Compared with the reference, mean asenapine exposure (AUC0-last and AUC0-∞) was approximately 20 % lower after intake of a high-fat meal prior to dosing, whereas Cmax decreased by only about 10 %. When a high-fat meal was taken 4 h post-dose in the fasting state, asenapine concentrations were similar to the reference during the first 4 h post-dose. After the meal intake, asenapine concentrations decreased quickly for several hours. Compartmental modelling indicated that a transient 2.5-fold increase in asenapine clearance after eating could explain the asenapine concentration-time profiles for both food regimens. To our knowledge, this is the first study investigating the effect of food upon the sublingual administration of a drug. A high-fat meal taken before or 4 h post-dose of sublingual asenapine indirectly caused a transient increase in liver blood flow that resulted in a temporal increase in asenapine clearance. As the effects on asenapine exposure were small and not clinically relevant, no additional restrictions are required for the timing of food intake in relation to asenapine dosing.

A single‐dose, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial of sublingual asenapine for acute agitation

To assess sublingual asenapine for acute agitation. Agitated adults 18-65 years (any diagnosis) presenting for treatment in an emergency department and found to have a score of ≥14 on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Excited Component (PANSS-EC) were randomized to receive either a single dose of a sublingual 10 mg tablet of asenapine or placebo. Primary outcome measure was change in the PANSS-EC score from baseline to 2 h after medication or placebo administration. Secondary outcomes included the percentage of responders with a ≥ 40% reduction from baseline on the PANSS-EC score at 2 h. A total of 120 subjects were randomized, 60 each to sublingual asenapine or placebo. Mean (SE) baseline PANSS-EC scores for the asenapine-treated and placebo-treated subjects were 19.4 ± 0.66 and 20.1 ± 0.61, respectively. Mean PANSS-EC scores at endpoint (LOCF) was 7.4 ± 0.65 for the asenapine-treated subjects and 14.7 ± 0.98 for the placebo-treated subjects. Change in PANSS-EC score at 2 h was statistically significantly greater for the asenapine-treated subjects compared with the placebo-treated subjects. NNT for response vs. placebo was 3 (95% CI 2-4). Sublingual asenapine was efficacious in the treatment of agitation with an effect size comparable to that observed in prior studies of intramuscular antipsychotics.

New approaches for the management of bipolar disorder: role of sublingual asenapine in the treatment of mania

Bipolar disorder is a prevalent disorder that tends to become progressive without treatment and with inadequate treatment. Second generation (atypical) antipsychotic drugs have increasingly been used as adjunctive treatment or monotherapy for mania, but they have the potential for significant adverse effects and their role in maintenance treatment remains unclear. Asenapine is a new atypical antipsychotic medication formulated in a sublingual preparation that has been studied for mania but not maintenance therapy. Evidence indicating efficacy, adverse effects, and potential benefits and drawbacks of using asenapine in the treatment of bipolar disorder based on currently available published data are summarized.

Asenapine Safety, Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetics After Single and Multiple Doses in Healthy Volunteers.

This double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study is the first in healthy volunteers to describe the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of sublingual asenapine at therapeutic dosages. After a 2-day placebo run-in phase, healthy male volunteers received placebo or asenapine escalated to dosages of 3, 5, 10, or 15 mg bid. Another group received single doses (2 and 5 mg) 1 week apart. Serial blood samples were obtained for pharmacokinetic analysis. The single asenapine doses and multiple bid doses up to 10 mg were well tolerated. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events were somnolence, oral paresthesia, fatigue, headache, dizziness, and dyspnea. Clinically relevant abnormalities or trends in laboratory and vital signs measures, physical examinations, or electrocardiograms were not observed. Asenapine was rapidly absorbed, with a tmax of ∼1 hour, and was biphasically eliminated with a terminal elimination half-life of 20 to 30 hours. In the range of 3 to 10 mg bid, increases in plasma concentrations were less than dose proportional. Asenapine appears to be well tolerated at single doses up to 5 mg and multiple doses up to 10 mg bid and can be administered to healthy volunteers in clinical pharmacology studies using the dosing regimens described.

Sublingual asenapine: a guide to its use in acute mania in adults with bipolar I disorder

Sublingual asenapine: a guide to its use in acute mania in adults with bipolar I disorder

Short‐term safety and pharmacokinetic profile of asenapine in older patients with psychosis

The aim of this study was to assess the short-term tolerability of two titration schedules of sublingual asenapine in older patients with psychosis, not associated with organic brain disease, and to compare asenapine pharmacokinetics in older patients versus younger adults with schizophrenia. Patients ≥ 65 years with psychosis without dementia were randomized for 6 weeks to two dose-escalation regimens: 2 days at 2 mg twice daily (BID), 2 days at 5 mg BID, and 10 mg BID thereafter (slow escalation); or 4 days at 5 mg BID and 10 mg BID thereafter (rapid escalation). Clinical and pharmacokinetic assessments were performed in each group. Of 122 randomized patients, 76 (62.3%) completed the trial. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) was comparable (72.1%) with both regimens. The most frequently reported AEs were hypertension, headache, and somnolence; incidence of extrapyramidal symptom-related AEs was 5.7%. Mean end point weight change was 0.4 kg. For asenapine 5 and 10 mg BID, median times to maximum concentration were 1.00 and 1.06 h, respectively; maximum concentrations (C(max) ) were 4.73 and 7.93 ng/mL; areas under the concentration versus time curve (0-12 h; AUC(0-12) ) were 32.1 and 56.3 ng∙h/mL. Despite 12-30% increases in asenapine C(max) and AUC(0-12) in older patients compared with previously published findings in younger schizophrenia patients, possibly as a result of slower drug clearance, asenapine was generally well tolerated during both dose-escalation schedules. No dose adjustment appears to be necessary in older patients.

Asenapine Pharmacokinetics in Hepatic and Renal Impairment

The effects of hepatic or renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics of atypical antipsychotics are not well understood. Drug exposure may increase in patients with hepatic disease, owing to a reduction of certain metabolic enzymes. The objective of the present study was to study the effects of hepatic or renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics of asenapine and its N-desmethyl and N⁺-glucuronide metabolites. Two clinical studies were performed to assess exposure to asenapine, desmethylasenapine and asenapine N⁺-glucuronide in subjects with hepatic or renal impairment. Pharmacokinetic parameters were determined from plasma concentration-time data, using standard noncompartmental methods. The pharmacokinetic variables that were studied included the maximum plasma concentration (C(max)) and the time to reach the maximum plasma concentration (t(max)). Eligible subjects, from inpatient and outpatient clinics, were aged ≥18 years with a body mass index of ≥18 kg/m² and ≤32 kg/m². Sublingual asenapine (Saphris®) was administered as a single 5 mg dose. Thirty subjects participated in the hepatic impairment study (normal hepatic function, n = 8; mild hepatic impairment [Child-Pugh class A], n = 8; moderate hepatic impairment [Child-Pugh class B], n = 8; severe hepatic impairment [Child-Pugh class C], n = 6). Thirty-three subjects were enrolled in the renal impairment study (normal renal function, n = 9; mild renal impairment, n = 8; moderate renal impairment, n = 8; severe renal impairment, n = 8). Asenapine and N-desmethylasenapine exposures were unaltered in subjects with mild or moderate hepatic impairment, compared with healthy controls. Severe hepatic impairment was associated with increased area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity (AUC(∞)) values for total asenapine, N-desmethylasenapine and asenapine N⁺-glucuronide (5-, 3-, and 2-fold, respectively), with slight increases in the C(max) of asenapine but 3- and 2-fold decreases in the C(max) values for N-desmethylasenapine and asenapine N⁺-glucuronide, respectively, compared with healthy controls. The mean AUC(∞) of unbound asenapine was more than 7-fold higher in subjects with severe hepatic impairment than in healthy controls. Mild renal impairment was associated with slight elevations in the AUC(∞) of asenapine compared with healthy controls; alterations observed with moderate and severe renal impairment were marginal. N-desmethylasenapine exposure was only slightly altered by renal impairment. No correlations were observed between exposure and creatinine clearance. Severe hepatic impairment (Child-Pugh class C) was associated with pronounced increases in asenapine exposure, but significant increases were not seen with mild (Child-Pugh class A) or moderate (Child-Pugh class B) hepatic impairment, or with any degree of renal impairment. Asenapine is not recommended in patients with severe hepatic impairment; no dose adjustment is needed in patients with mild or moderate hepatic impairment, or in patients with renal impairment.

Effects of asenapine on depressive symptoms in patients with bipolar I disorder experiencing acute manic or mixed episodes: a post hoc analysis of two 3-week clinical trials

BackgroundAsenapine demonstrated superiority over placebo for mania in bipolar I disorder patients experiencing acute current manic or mixed episodes in 2 randomized, placebo-and olanzapine-controlled trials. We report the results of exploratory pooled post hoc analyses from these trials evaluating asenapine's effects on depressive symptoms in patients from these trials with significant baseline depressive symptoms.MethodsIn the original trials (A7501004 [NCT00159744], A7501005 [NCT00159796]), 977 patients were randomized to flexible-dose sublingual asenapine (10 mg twice daily on day 1; 5 or 10 mg twice daily thereafter), placebo, or oral olanzapine 5-20 mg once daily for 3 weeks. Three populations were defined using baseline depressive symptoms: (1) Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score ≥20 (n = 132); (2) Clinical Global Impression for Bipolar Disorder-Depression (CGI-BP-D) scale severity score ≥4 (n = 170); (3) diagnosis of mixed episodes (n = 302) by investigative site screening. For each population, asenapine and olanzapine were independently compared with placebo using least squares mean change from baseline on depressive symptom measures.ResultsDecreases in MADRS total score were statistically greater with asenapine versus placebo at days 7 and 21 in all populations; differences between olanzapine and placebo were not significant. Decreases in CGI-BP-D score were significantly greater with asenapine versus placebo at day 7 in all categories and day 21 in population 1; CGI-BP-D score reductions were significantly greater with olanzapine versus placebo at day 21 in population 1 and day 7 in populations 2 and 3.ConclusionsThese post hoc analyses show that asenapine reduced depressive symptoms in bipolar I disorder patients experiencing acute manic or mixed episodes with clinically relevant depressive symptoms at baseline; olanzapine results appeared to be less consistent. Controlled studies of asenapine in patients with acute bipolar depression are necessary to confirm the generalizability of these findings.

A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial of Asenapine for the Prevention of Relapse of Schizophrenia After Long-Term Treatment

Long-term efficacy of asenapine in preventing schizophrenia relapse was assessed in a 26-week double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that followed 26 weeks of open-label treatment. Stable schizophrenia patients (DSM-IV-TR criteria) who were cross-titrated from previous medication to sublingual asenapine and remained stable during 26 weeks of open-label treatment were eligible for 26 weeks of double-blind treatment, with randomization to continued asenapine or switch to placebo. Time to relapse/impending relapse (primary endpoint, as usually determined by specific scores on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness Scale) and discontinuation for any reason (key secondary endpoint) were assessed by survival analyses for asenapine versus placebo. The study was conducted from May 2005 through June 2008. Of 700 enrolled patients treated with open-label asenapine, 386 entered (asenapine, n = 194; placebo, n = 192) and 207 completed (n = 135; n = 72) the double-blind phase. Times to relapse/impending relapse and discontinuation for any reason were significantly longer with asenapine than with placebo (both P < .0001). Incidence of relapse/impending relapse was lower with asenapine than placebo (12.1% vs 47.4%, P < .0001). The modal dosage of asenapine was 10 mg twice daily in both phases. During the double-blind phase, the incidence of adverse events (AEs) considered serious with asenapine and placebo was 3.1% and 9.9%, respectively; incidence of extrapyramidal symptom-related AEs was 3.1% and 4.7%, respectively. The most frequently reported AEs with asenapine versus placebo were anxiety (8.2%; 10.9%), increased weight (6.7%; 3.6%), and insomnia (6.2%; 13.5%). The incidence of clinically significant weight gain (≥ 7% increase from double-blind baseline) was 3.7% with asenapine and 0.5% with placebo. Long-term treatment with asenapine was more effective than placebo in preventing relapse of schizophrenia and appeared to be safe and well tolerated. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT00150176.

Role of sublingual asenapine in treatment of schizophrenia.

Asenapine tablets are a new option for the treatment of schizophrenia. Sublingual administration is essential because bioavailability if ingested is less than 2%. Efficacy is supported by acute and long-term randomized controlled studies conducted by the manufacturer, with asenapine 5 mg twice daily evidencing superiority over placebo in six-week studies of acute schizophrenia, and flexibly-dosed asenapine (modal dose 10 mg twice daily) superior to placebo in a 26-week maintenance of response study. Tolerability advantages over some second-generation antipsychotics, such as olanzapine, include a relatively favorable weight and metabolic profile, as demonstrated in a 52-week randomized, head-to-head, double-blind clinical trial. Although dose-related extrapyramidal symptoms and akathisia can be present, the frequency of these effects is lower than that for haloperidol and risperidone. Somnolence may also occur, and appears to be somewhat dose-dependent when examining rates of this among patients receiving asenapine for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Prolactin elevation can occur, but at a rate lower than that observed for haloperidol or risperidone. Unique to asenapine is the possibility of oral hypoesthesia, occurring in about 5% of participants in the clinical trials. Obstacles to the use of asenapine are the recommendations for twice-daily dosing and the need to avoid food or liquids for 10 minutes after administration, although the bioavailability is only minimally reduced if food or liquids are avoided for only two minutes.

Effect of absorption site on the pharmacokinetics of sublingual asenapine in healthy male subjects

Asenapine is a psychopharmacologic agent approved in the United States for the acute treatment of schizophrenia in adults and the acute treatment of manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder with or without psychotic features in adults. It is pending approval for the treatment of schizophrenia and manic episodes associated with bipolar I disorder in Europe. Asenapine is administered as a sublingual formulation. To determine whether the pharmacokinetics of asenapine are impacted by placing the tablet buccally ('cheeking') or allowing the tablet to dissolve on the top of the tongue, pharmacokinetics were compared following buccal and supralingual administration versus sublingual administration. In this open-label, randomized, 3-way crossover trial, healthy men (n=36) received single 5 mg doses of asenapine via sublingual, supralingual and buccal routes, at least 1 week apart. With buccal administration, the area under the concentration-over-time curve (AUC(0-infinity)) and peak concentration (C(max)) were, respectively, 24%, and 19% higher than with sublingual administration; these routes were not bioequivalent. With supralingual administration, AUC(0-infinity) and C(max) were 6% and 13% lower than with sublingual administration; bioequivalence was established based on AUC(0-infinity) only; bioequivalence based on C(max) could not be assessed due to 40% within-subject variability. The most common adverse events were oral paresthesia (sublingual, 75.8%; supralingual, 55.9%; buccal, 45.7%) and somnolence (81.8%; 76.5%; 68.6%). Compared with the recommended sublingual route of asenapine administration, exposure was 24% higher with buccal administration and comparable to supralingual administration. However, differences in exposure associated with variable placement in the oral cavity did not compromise safety in healthy subjects.

Asenapine in the treatment of acute mania in bipolar I disorder: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Background Asenapine is indicated in adults for acute treatment of manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder with or without psychotic features. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of asenapine in bipolar I disorder. Methods Adults experiencing manic or mixed episodes were randomized to 3 weeks of flexible-dose treatment with sublingual asenapine (day 1: 10 mg BID, 5 or 10 mg BID thereafter; n = 185), placebo ( n = 98), or oral olanzapine (day 1: 15 mg QD, 5–20 mg QD thereafter; n = 205). Primary efficacy, YMRS total score change from baseline to day 21, was assessed using ANCOVA with last observation carried forward. Results Mean daily doses were 18.4 mg asenapine and 15.9 mg olanzapine. Least squares mean changes in YMRS total score on day 21 were significantly greater with asenapine than placebo (− 11.5 vs − 7.8; P < 0.007), with advantage seen as early as day 2 (− 3.2 vs − 1.7; P = 0.022). Changes with olanzapine on days 2 and 21 also exceeded placebo (both P < 0.0001). YMRS response and remission rates with olanzapine, but not asenapine, exceeded those of placebo. Incidence of EPS-related adverse events was 10.3%, 3.1%, and 6.8% with asenapine, placebo, and olanzapine, respectively; incidence of clinically significant weight gain (7.2%; 1.2%; 19.0%). Mean weight change (baseline to endpoint) was 0.9, 0.1, and 2.6 kg with asenapine, placebo, and olanzapine, respectively. Limitations As this short-term study was designed for comparisons with placebo, any comparisons between asenapine and olanzapine should be interpreted cautiously. Conclusions Asenapine was superior to placebo in reducing YMRS total score and was well tolerated.

Corrigendum

Corrigendum

A 3‐week, randomized, placebo‐controlled trial of asenapine in the treatment of acute mania in bipolar mania and mixed states

Asenapine is approved for bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. This was a 3-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of asenapine for treating acute bipolar mania. After a single-blind placebo run-in period, adults (n = 488) experiencing manic or mixed episodes were randomized to flexible-dose sublingual asenapine (10 mg BID on day 1; 5 or 10 mg BID thereafter; n = 194), placebo (n = 104), or oral olanzapine (15 mg BID on day 1; 5-20 mg QD thereafter; n = 191). Primary efficacy, change in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score from baseline to day 21, was assessed using analysis of covariance with last observation carried forward [(LOCF); primary analysis]. A mixed model for repeated measures [(MMRM); prespecified secondary analysis] was also used to assess efficacy. Tolerability and safety assessments included adverse events, physical examinations, extrapyramidal symptom ratings, and laboratory values. Mean daily dosages were asenapine 18.2 mg and olanzapine 15.8 mg. Significantly greater least squares (LS) mean +/- SE changes in YMRS scores were observed on day 2 with asenapine (-3.0 +/- 0.4) and olanzapine (-3.4 +/- 0.4) versus placebo (-1.5 +/- 0.5, both p < 0.01) and were maintained until day 21 (-10.8 +/- 0.8 with asenapine, -12.6 +/- 0.8 with olanzapine; both p < or = 0.0001 versus placebo, -5.5 +/- 1.1) with LOCF. The results of MMRM analyses were consistent with those of LOCF. Asenapine had a modest impact on weight and metabolic measures. These results indicate that asenapine is rapidly acting, efficacious, and well tolerated for patients with bipolar I disorder experiencing an acute manic episode.

Asenapine

Asenapine is a novel psychopharmacological agent that binds with high affinity and specificity to numerous dopamine, serotonin, noradrenaline (norepinephrine) and histamine receptor subtypes. It is being developed for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar mania. In two randomized, controlled trials of asenapine monotherapy and in one randomized, controlled trial of adjunctive asenapine therapy in adult patients with bipolar I disorder, sublingual asenapine produced significantly greater reductions from baseline than placebo in clinician-assessed Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score at 3 weeks. In two randomized, controlled trials in adult patients with acute schizophrenia, treatment with asenapine reduced from baseline the clinician-assessed Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score to a significantly greater extent than placebo at 6 weeks. In schizophrenic patients with predominant, persistent, negative symptoms, asenapine at 26 weeks reduced the Negative Symptom Assessment (NSA-16) total score from baseline to an extent similar to that observed with olanzapine. Sublingual asenapine was generally well tolerated in clinical trials, with most treatment-emergent adverse events being of mild to moderate severity. Incidence rates of clinically significant weight gain, extrapyramidal symptoms, hyperprolactinaemia and alterations in glucose or lipid metabolism were generally low.