Differences in psychiatric background and dose–response to asenapine in patients with schizophrenia were examined based on efficacy and safety, using data obtained in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Patients with schizophrenia were classified into three clusters by a cluster analysis based on the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS) subscores at baseline, using the data from a 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. PANSS Marder factor scores were calculated for each cluster. The efficacy of 10 or 20 mg/day of asenapine on PANSS score was used as the primary endpoint, with the incidence of adverse events evaluated as the secondary endpoint.

A total of 529 asenapine-treated patients were classified into 3 clusters: Cluster-P with the higher scores in positive symptoms, disorganized thoughts, and hostility/excitement, Cluster-N with higher scores in negative symptoms, and Cluster-L with overall lower scores. In Cluster-N and Cluster-L, both 10 and 20 mg/day groups showed significant improvement in PANSS scores, while only the 20 mg/day group showed a significant difference in Cluster-P. Cluster-N and Cluster-L had differences in the incidence of adverse events, but this was not seen in Cluster-P.

The efficacy and safety of asenapine 10 and 20 mg/day differed between the 3 clusters of patients. This suggests that background information regarding baseline psychiatric symptoms may affect the therapeutic response in patients with schizophrenia.

Asenapine is the most recent compound that has been FDA- and EMA-approved for treatment of mania. Its efficacy and safety have been assessed in placebo-controlled trials, but little is known about its performance in routine clinical conditions. In this study, we compared features of patients treated with adjunctive asenapine or other adjunctive antipsychotics and the costs of the treatment.

A combined prospective and retrospective data collection and analysis was conducted from January 2011 to December 2013 following a clinical interview and assessment of manic and depressive symptoms (YMRS, HDRS-17), clinical state (CGI-BP-M), psychosocial functioning (FAST), sexual dysfunction (PRSexDQ) and health resource costs associated with treatment with adjunctive asenapine versus other adjunctive antipsychotics.

Hundred and fifty-two patients from different university hospitals were included. Fifty-three patients received adjunctive asenapine and 99 received other adjunctive antipsychotics concomitantly to mood stabilizers. Considering inpatients, those treated with adjunctive asenapine presented a significantly less severe manic episode (P = 0.001), less psychotic symptoms (P = 0.030) and more comorbid personality disorder (P = 0.002). Regarding outpatients, those treated with adjunctive asenapine showed significantly less severe manic episode (P = 0.046), more previous mixed episodes (P = 0.013) and more sexual dysfunction at baseline (P = 0.036). No significant differences were found in mean total costs per day.

Clinicians tended to use adjunctive asenapine in patients with less severe manic symptoms but more complex clinical profile, including more mixed episodes in the past, concomitant personality disorder, and sexual problems. Treatment with adjunctive asenapine was not associated with higher costs when compared to other options.

Controlling hyperactive and mixed delirium is extremely important for the continuation of cancer treatment in palliative care. In general, oral antipsychotics are the first-line drug therapy for delirium; however, oral administration is problematic in patients presenting dysphagia. In this case report, we describe an end-stage cancer patient with aphagia who developed delirium and responded to sublingual antipsychotic asenapine for treating delirium. We also discuss the effectiveness of asenapine in hyperactive delirium as well as its usefulness for treating delirium in palliative care.

A cancer patient with delirium was treated with several oral antipsychotics commonly used to treat delirium but did not respond to any of them. The patient subsequently developed aphagia with progression of the disease. Sublingual asenapine was therefore given to treat delirium.

Asenapine was effective in treating delirium without causing any obvious side effects.

In the present case, asenapine was effective in treating hyperactive delirium that did not respond to commonly used antipsychotics. Because asenapine is a sublingual tablet, it can be used in patients with dysphagia and aphagia. In addition, this drug is anticipated to diminish the burden of end-stage patients from taking oral medications. Furthermore, its management is easier compared with injections, and can therefore also be easily used in homecare patients. Based on these perspectives, asenapine may become an important option for treating delirium in palliative care.

Evaluate the efficacy and safety of asenapine 2.5 mg twice daily (bid; n=97) or 5 mg bid (n=113) versus placebo (n=101) in adults with acute exacerbation of schizophrenia.

Adults with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) schizophrenia diagnosis were randomized to asenapine 2.5 mg bid, 5 mg bid, placebo, or olanzapine 15 mg once daily. The primary objective was to test superiority of asenapine versus placebo as measured by the change from baseline to day 42 in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score. The key safety objective was to evaluate weight change in asenapine versus olanzapine at day 42.

The primary efficacy endpoint was met; the difference in least squares mean change from baseline to day 42 in PANSS total score between asenapine 5 mg bid and placebo was −5.5 points (unadjusted 95% CI: −10.1, −1.0; multiplicity adjusted P=0.0356). Neither asenapine 2.5 mg bid nor olanzapine 15mg were superior to placebo.

Both asenapine groups demonstrated significantly less weight gain than olanzapine at day 42. Significantly higher incidences of oral hypoesthesia and dysgeusia (combined) for asenapine 2.5 mg bid (5.2% vs 0.0%; P=0.0217) and 5 mg bid (7.1% vs 0.0%; P=0.0033) were observed versus placebo. There were no significant differences between asenapine and placebo for insomnia, extrapyramidal symptoms, akathisia, dizziness, or combination of somnolence/sedation/hypersomnia.

This study supports previous efficacy and safety findings of asenapine; asenapine 5 mg bid is the lowest effective dose in adults with schizophrenia. Asenapine was associated with significantly less weight gain than olanzapine at day 42.

Asenapine is an atypical antipsychotic that is currently available for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar I disorder. Although the atypical antipsychotics clozapine and olanzapine are effective for depression and anxiety in schizophrenia, as demonstrated by animal model studies, this has not been clarified for asenapine. Therefore, we compared the effects of asenapine in the conditioned fear stress model with those of clozapine and olanzapine.

Rats were individually fear conditioned using electrical foot shock in a Skinner box. Approximately 24 h later, individual animals were returned to the same Skinner box (without electrical shock) and their freezing behaviour was observed for 5 min. Animals were treated with asenapine, clozapine, olanzapine, the 5-HT1A receptor partial agonist buspirone, or the 5-HT2C receptor antagonist SB242084 at 30 min before freezing behaviour assessment. The 5-HT1A receptor antagonist WAY100635 or the 5-HT2C receptor agonist Ro60-0175 was also used concomitantly with asenapine. The effects of asenapine, clozapine, and olanzapine on serotonin release in the rat hippocampus were also measured using in vivo microdialysis.

Asenapine reduced freezing behaviour, while neither clozapine nor olanzapine reduced freezing behaviour. Buspirone and SB242084 also reduced freezing behaviour. The effect of asenapine in reducing freezing behaviour was not altered by the concomitant administration of WAY100635 or Ro60-0175. Both asenapine and clozapine, but not olanzapine, increased serotonin release in the rat hippocampus.

Asenapine may have superior therapeutic effect on anxiety symptoms than other agents, although the underlying mechanism of its anxiolytic activity remains unknown.