首页> 外文期刊>Annals of General Psychiatry >Long-acting injectable paliperidone palmitate versus oral paliperidone extended release: a comparative analysis from two placebo-controlled relapse prevention studies
【24h】

Long-acting injectable paliperidone palmitate versus oral paliperidone extended release: a comparative analysis from two placebo-controlled relapse prevention studies

机译:长效可注射帕潘立酮棕榈酸酯与口服帕潘立酮缓释:两项安慰剂对照预防复发研究的比较分析

获取原文
       

摘要

Background Increasing availability and use of long-acting injectable antipsychotics have generated a need to compare these formulations with their oral equivalents; however, a paucity of relevant data is available. Methods This post hoc comparison of the long-term efficacy, safety and tolerability of maintenance treatment with paliperidone palmitate (PP) versus oral paliperidone extended release (ER) used data from two similarly designed, randomised, double-blind (DB), placebo-controlled schizophrenia relapse prevention trials. Assessments included measures of time to relapse, symptom changes/functioning and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Time to relapse between treatment groups was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazards model. Between-group differences for continuous variables for change scores during the DB phase were assessed using analysis of co-variance models. Categorical variables were evaluated using Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. No adjustment was made for multiplicity. Results Approximately 45% of enrolled subjects in both trials were stabilised and randomised to the DB relapse prevention phase. Risk of relapse was higher in subjects treated with paliperidone ER than in those treated with PP [paliperidone ER/PP hazard ratio (HR), 2.52; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.46–4.35; p p 70, both approximately 58.5%; p = 1.000] compared with a 10.9% decrease for paliperidone ER (58.5% vs 47.6%, respectively; p = 0.048). The least squares mean change for Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score at DB end point in these previously stabilised subjects was 3.5 points in favour of PP (6.0 vs 2.5; p = 0.025). The rates of TEAEs and AEs of interest appeared similar. Conclusions This analysis supports maintenance of effect with the injectable compared with the oral formulation of paliperidone in patients with schizophrenia. The safety profile of PP was similar to that of paliperidone ER. Future studies are needed to confirm these findings.
机译:背景技术长效可注射抗精神病药的可用性和使用日益增加,因此需要将这些制剂与其口服等效物进行比较。但是,相关数据很少。方法这项关于帕潘立酮棕榈酸酯(PP)与口服帕潘立酮缓释(ER)维持治疗的长期疗效,安全性和耐受性的事后比较,来自两个类似设计的随机,双盲(DB),安慰剂-对照精神分裂症预防复发试验。评估包括复发时间,症状改变/功能和治疗紧急不良事件(TEAE)的量度。使用Cox比例风险模型评估治疗组之间的复发时间。使用协方差模型分析,评估了DB阶段在变更得分方面连续变量的组间差异。分类变量使用卡方检验和Fisher精确检验进行评估。没有为多重性进行任何调整。结果两项试验中约有45%的入选受试者稳定下来并随机进入DB复发预防阶段。帕潘立酮ER治疗的患者复发风险高于PP治疗[帕潘立酮ER / PP危险比(HR)为2.52; 95%置信区间(CI)为1.46–4.35; p p 70,均约为58.5%; p = 1.000],而帕潘立酮ER则下降了10.9%(分别为58.5%和47.6%; p = 0.048)。在这些先前稳定的受试者中,DB终点的阳性和阴性综合症量表(PANSS)总分的最小二乘均值变化为赞成PP的3.5分(6.0 vs 2.5; p = 0.025)。感兴趣的TEAE和AE的速率似乎相似。结论与帕潘立酮口服制剂相比,该分析支持精神分裂症患者维持疗效。 PP的安全性与帕潘立酮ER相似。需要进一步的研究来证实这些发现。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号