Iloperidone, Asenapine, and Lurasidone: A Brief Overview of 3 New Second-Generation Antipsychotics

New York University School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, New York, NY, USA.
Postgraduate Medicine (Impact Factor: 1.54). 03/2011; 123(2):153-62. DOI: 10.3810/pgm.2011.03.2273
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Three new second-generation antipsychotics were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2009 and 2010: iloperidone, asenapine, and lurasidone. All 3 agents are approved for the treatment of acute schizophrenia in adults, and asenapine is also approved for the maintenance treatment of schizophrenia and as a monotherapy or as an adjunct to lithium or valproate for the treatment of bipolar manic or mixed episodes. The expectation is that these new agents will be less problematic regarding treatment-emergent weight gain and metabolic disturbances, which unfortunately can occur with several other second-generation antipsychotics. Asenapine is a sublingual preparation, in contrast to iloperidone and lurasidone, which are swallowed. Iloperidone and asenapine are dosed twice daily, in contrast to lurasidone, which is dosed once daily with food. Both asenapine and lurasidone can be initiated at a dose that is possibly therapeutic, but iloperidone requires 4 days of titration to reach its recommended target dose range. Although both asenapine and lurasidone can be associated with dose-related treatment-emergent akathisia, iloperidone is essentially free of extrapyramidal adverse effects or akathisia throughout its recommended dose range. Sedation and/or somnolence have been reported with each medication. They are the most common adverse events associated with asenapine treatment, and are clearly dose-related for lurasidone. In contrast, no therapeutic dose response for iloperidone, asenapine, or lurasidone is clearly evident from short-term clinical trials. Longer-term and naturalistic studies will be helpful in evaluating these agents and their role in the psychiatric armamentarium.

Download full-text


Available from: Leslie Citrome, Mar 27, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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.
    Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 05/2011; 7:325-39. DOI:10.2147/NDT.S16077 · 2.15 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Schizophrenia affects ∼1.1% of the United States population, resulting in substantial direct, indirect and societal costs. Objective: To evaluate hospitalization rates associated with use of paliperidone palmitate (PP). Data were from a variable-duration double-blind (DB), randomized, relapse-prevention comparison (NCT00111189) of PP vs. placebo (Pbo), followed by a 1-year open-label extension (OLE). Between-phase change in schizophrenia-related hospitalizations was evaluated using data from an investigator-completed questionnaire. Change in hospitalizations using patients before enrollment who participated in the OLE phase was also analyzed. Poisson regression was used to evaluate changes in incidence density within exposure category and by schizophrenia duration. A total of 160 patients in the PP-PP group and 153 in the Pbo-PP group from the DB to the OLE phase were included. Mean age (standard deviation [SD]), gender, and duration of schizophrenia were similar at the start of the DB phase (Pbo: 38.5 years [10.6], 51.0% male, 68.0% ≥5 years' duration; PP: 37.3 years [11.4] (p = 0.342); 51.9% male (p = 0.874); 70.0% ≥5 years' duration (p = 0.698), respectively. From the DB to the end of the OLE phase, the number of hospitalizations per person-year for patients treated during the DB phase with Pbo significantly declined from 0.27 to 0.06 (78% reduction; p = 0.005). A statistically nonsignificant difference was observed for PP patients treated during the DB phase with PP (0.11-0.04; 63.6% reduction; p = 0.076), compared with the OLE phase. Change from before enrollment to the end of the OLE phase (n = 381) produced similar results (0.35-0.04; 88.6% reduction; p < 0.001). Patients who enroll in a clinical trial may be different from the general population and this may affect the generalizability of results. From the double-blind to the open-label phase and from prior to the trial until the end of the open-label phase, hospitalizations significantly decreased for patients with schizophrenia treated with PP.
    Current Medical Research and Opinion 06/2011; 27(8):1603-11. DOI:10.1185/03007995.2011.595000 · 2.37 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Bipolar disorder (BD) is one of the most potentially severe mental disorders. Literature data indicate that despite the current available treatments, a large proportion of patients do not achieve complete remission, with consequent residual symptoms and chronic impairment. We carried out a comprehensive review of new pharmacologic treatments for BD. Even though the core treatment of BD likely will not likely undergo substantial changes over the next few years, many promising results with respect to new augmentation strategies were identified. New treatments for bipolar depression and for BD-related cognitive impairment seem to represent particularly fertile areas of research.
    Current Psychiatry Reports 08/2011; 13(6):513-21. DOI:10.1007/s11920-011-0231-1 · 3.05 Impact Factor