This article was downloaded by: [Mrs Mary Ann Muller]On: 19 June 2015, At: 11:15Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Ozone: Science & Engineering: The Journal of theInternational Ozone AssociationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
Microsoft word - paliperidone _xeplion_ final june 2011 for website
paliperidone palmitate 50mg, 75mg, 100mg and 150mg prolonged release
suspension for injection (Xeplion) SMC No. (713/11)
10 June 2011
The Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) has completed its assessment of the above product
and advises NHS Boards and Area Drug and Therapeutic Committees (ADTCs) on its use in
NHS Scotland. The advice is summarised as follows:
ADVICE: following a full submission
paliperidone palmitate prolonged release suspension for injection (Xeplion) is not
recommended for use within NHS Scotland.
Indication under review: maintenance treatment of schizophrenia in adult patients stabilised
with paliperidone or risperidone. In selected adult patients with schizophrenia and previous
responsiveness to oral paliperidone or risperidone, it may be used without prior stabilisation
with oral treatment if psychotic symptoms are mild to moderate and a long-acting injectable
treatment is needed.
Overall the manufacturer did not present a sufficiently robust clinical and economic case to
gain acceptance by SMC.
Overleaf is the detailed advice on this product.
Scottish Medicines Consortium
Published 11 July 2011 Indication
Maintenance treatment of schizophrenia in adult patients stabilised with paliperidone or
risperidone. In selected adult patients with schizophrenia and previous responsiveness to
oral paliperidone or risperidone, it may be used without prior stabilisation with oral treatment if
psychotic symptoms are mild to moderate and a long-acting injectable treatment is needed.
150mg intramuscular (im) injection, then after one week 100mg im injection, then continue on
a monthly maintenance dose. The recommended monthly maintenance dose is 75mg im;
some patients may benefit from lower or higher doses within the recommended range of
25mg to 150mg based on individual patient tolerability and/or efficacy. Patients who are
overweight or obese may require doses in the upper range. If switching from oral
paliperidone or oral risperidone, these should be discontinued upon initiation of treatment with
paliperidone im injection. If switching from long acting risperidone injection, paliperidone im
injection should be initiated in place of the next risperidone injection then continued monthly,
without the need for the one-week initiation schedule (i.e. 150mg then 100mg one week later)
described previously. The dose conversion when switching from risperidone long acting
injection is specified in the summary of product characteristics, with the monthly paliperidone
dose being double the fortnightly risperidone dose.
Product availability date
18 April 2011
Summary of evidence on comparative efficacy
Paliperidone palmitate long acting injection (LAI) is a depot injection of the atypical antipsychotic paliperidone, the active metabolite of risperidone. It is an antagonist of serotonin 5-HT2 and dopamine D2 receptors. Two similar double-blind non-inferiority studies recruited adults with schizophrenia, as defined in the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders fourth edition (DSM-IV), for at least one year and a positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) score of 60 to 120. After a washout of disallowed psychotropic medicines, in the one-year study patients were randomised equally to paliperidone LAI 50mg intramuscular (im) injection on days one and eight then monthly flexible doses of 25mg to 100mg im from weeks five to 51 or oral risperidone 1mg to 6mg daily for four weeks plus risperidone LAI 25mg im injection on days eight and 22 then fortnightly flexible doses of 12.5mg to 50mg from weeks five to 51. The initial two doses of paliperidone in this regimen are lower than the licensed dose, which was used in the subsequent three-month study. In the three-month study patients were randomised equally to the previously detailed regimen of risperidone up to 13 weeks or paliperidone LAI 150mg im on day one and 100mg im on day eight, then flexible doses every four weeks: 50mg or 100mg im on day 36 and 50mg to 150mg im on day 64. The primary endpoint, change in PANSS score from baseline to endpoint, was assessed via analysis of covariance with factors for treatment and country, and baseline PANSS score as covariate in the per protocol population, comprising 570 and 765 patients in the respective studies. The pre-specified non-inferiority margin was five points. In the one-year study mean change in PANSS score from baseline to endpoint was -11.6 and -14.4 in the paliperidone LAI and risperidone LAI groups, respectively. The difference between paliperidone LAI and risperidone LAI and in least square mean for change in PANSS score was -2.6 (95% confidence interval (CI): -5.84, 0.61) and therefore non-inferiority of paliperidone LAI to risperidone LAI was not demonstrated. In the three-month study mean change from baseline to endpoint in PANSS score was -18.6 in the paliperidone LAI group and -17.9 in the risperidone LAI group. The difference between paliperidone LAI and risperidone LAI in least square mean for change in PANSS score was 0.4 (95% CI: -1.62, 2.38) and therefore non-inferiority of paliperidone LAI to risperidone LAI was demonstrated. There were no significant differences between the treatment groups for the secondary outcomes, mean change from baseline to endpoint in Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S) and Personal and Social Performance (PSP), except for CGI-S in the one-year study. The reduction in severity of symptoms assessed via CGI-S in the one year study appears greater with risperidone LAI than paliperidone LAI, with a difference in least square means for change in CGI-S of -0.2 (95% CI: -0.41 to -0.6). In a double-blind study 410 adults with schizophrenia as defined in DSM-IV for at least one year were stabilised with a PANSS total score ≤75 and scores ≤4 for PANSS items P1 (delusions), P2 (conceptual disorganisation), P3 (hallucinatory behaviour), P6 (suspiciousness/persecution), P7 (hostility), G8 (uncooperativeness) and G14 (poor impulse control) on monthly im flexible doses of paliperidone LAI 25mg to 100mg and then randomised to continue their maintenance dose of paliperidone LAI or receive placebo. The primary outcome, time-to-first relapse, was assessed via Kaplan-Meier methodology with a two-sided log-rank test to compare treatment differences in the intention-to-treat analysis set, which included all randomised patients who received at least one injection in the double-blind phase and had data available at the analysis cut-off date. Relapse was defined as: hospitalisation for symptoms of schizophrenia; 25% increase in PANSS score for patients with an initial score >40 or a 10-point increase for patients with an initial score ≤40; deliberate self-injury; aggressive behaviour; suicidal or homicidal ideation; or an increase for two consecutive assessments of scores for individual PANSS items P1, P2, P3, P6, P7, P8 to ≥5 for patients with initial scores ≤3 or to ≥6 for patients with initial scores of 4. The study was stopped at a pre-planned interim analysis after 68 relapse events when data from 312 patients indicated that paliperidone LAI, compared to placebo, significantly delayed time-to-first relapse. The median time to relapse in the placebo group was 163 days and could not be estimated in the paliperidone LAI group. Relapse rates were significantly lower in the paliperidone LAI group versus placebo: 10% (15/156) versus 34% (53/156). Summary of evidence on comparative safety
The overall adverse effect profile of paliperidone LAI appears similar to that of risperidone LAI. In the comparisons to risperidone LAI rates of adverse events were similar, except in the one-year comparison where paliperidone LAI was associated with a higher incidence of severe psychiatric adverse events (18% vs. 14%), mainly psychotic disorder and schizophrenia. Summary of clinical effectiveness issues
The three-month study demonstrating non-inferiority of paliperidone LAI to risperidone LAI appears to be contradicted by the one-year study that failed to show non-inferiority. It has been suggested that failure to demonstrate non-inferiority in the one-year study may be due to sub-therapeutic levels of paliperidone at the start of the study resulting from a lower loading dose than the licensed dose which was used in the three-month study. This may also explain the higher incidence of severe treatment-emergent psychiatric adverse events with paliperidone LAI in the one-year study. There are no data relative to an active comparator on efficacy in prevention of relapse. In the clinical studies the exclusion criteria prevented assessment of paliperidone LAI in treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Clinical experts have advised that long acting depot injections are often used when there are compliance issues with oral medication. They note that many patients are stabilised on a first generation (typical) antipsychotic depot injection, however, use of second generation (atypical) antipsychotic depot injections is increasing. Paliperidone LAI is the third atypical antipsychotic depot injection licensed for maintenance treatment of schizophrenia and in practice it is likely to compete with other atypical antipsychotic depot injections. The dosing schedule has potential advantages, as it is given monthly rather than fortnightly, and there is no requirement for initial oral antipsychotic supplementation. In addition, it is formulated as a pre-filled syringe rather than a vial of powder for reconstitution and can be stored at room temperature rather than in the fridge. Summary of comparative health economic evidence
The manufacturer submitted a cost-minimisation analysis comparing paliperidone LAI with risperidone LAI for the treatment of patients who require an atypical antipsychotic and for whom a long acting formulation is the preferred route of administration. A one-year time horizon was selected for the base-case. The clinical evidence demonstrating similar outcomes compared to risperidone LAI came from a randomised, double-blind, flexible-dose, short-term, non-inferiority study. Resource use was estimated through the use of a Delphi Panel involving health care professionals. The analysis compared the costs associated with initiation and maintenance treatment in schizophrenia and presented the weighted average total costs per patient treated over the first year of treatment of paliperidone LAI and risperidone LAI. The weighting related to the relative proportions of patients initiated on treatment in an inpatient or in a community setting. This was assumed to be a split of 33% / 67% in the base case. The costs included medication costs, cost of wastage, oral supplementation cost, hospitalisation cost and the cost of administration in the community. The results showed that the weighted total cost was £14,446 per patient over the first year of treatment with paliperidone LAI and £16,079 per patient over the first year of treatment with risperidone LAI. As such, the manufacturer claimed that paliperidone LAI was associated with a cost saving of £1633. When the results were presented for each group separately rather than as a weighted average, paliperidone LAI was associated with an additional cost of £262 per patient and therefore would not be the preferred treatment on cost-minimisation grounds for patients initiated on treatment in the community. For patients initiated on treatment in an inpatient setting, the results showed that paliperidone LAI was still cost-saving (£5,484 less than risperidone LAI). A key driver of the result was the assumption that inpatients initiated on treatment with paliperidone LAI would be discharged from hospital 14.5 days earlier than patients on risperidone LAI. This assumption originated from the outputs of the Delphi Panel. The key finding from the sensitivity analysis was that the estimated base case results were most sensitive to assumptions relating to the cost of inpatient episodes, the length of stay during inpatient treatment initiation and the setting of treatment initiation. Sensitivity analysis showed that if no reduction in inpatient stay was achieved with paliperidone LAI, the treatment would not be cost-saving. In this scenario, for the inpatient initiation group, paliperidone LAI would be associated with an additional cost of £337 per patient or, in the case of the results presented as weighted average, an additional cost of £294 per patient. The analysis showed that the conclusion of paliperidone LAI being a cost-minimising treatment was not made for patients who are initiated on treatment in the community setting. Paliperidone LAI was the preferred treatment on cost-minimisation grounds for patients who were initiated on treatment in the hospital setting providing there were reductions in the inpatient stay due to a faster onset of action. However, a key limitation is that clinical data to support earlier patient discharge with paliperidone LAI were lacking. A further weakness is that there may other benefits of treatment (such as patient preference and service implications) which had not been accounted for within the format of economic analysis chosen. Given these concerns, the manufacturer did not present a sufficiently robust economic analysis to gain acceptance by SMC. Summary of patient and public involvement
Patient Interest Group Submissions were received from: • Support in Mind Scotland (operating name of National Schizophrenia Fellowship (Scotland) • SANE Additional information: guidelines and protocols
In 2010 the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) published clinical guideline number 82 on schizophrenia: core interventions in the treatment and management of schizophrenia in adults in primary and secondary care (updated edition). These recommend considering offering depot or long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication to people with schizophrenia who would prefer such treatment after an acute episode or where avoiding covert non-adherence (either intentional or unintentional) to antipsychotic medication is a clinical priority within the treatment plan. When initiating depot/long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication take into account the service user's preferences and attitudes towards mode of administration (regular intramuscular injections) and organisational procedures (for example, home visits and location of clinics); take into account the same criteria recommended for the use of oral antipsychotic medication within these guidelines, particularly in relation to the risks and benefits of the drug regimen and initially use a small test dose as set out in the British National Formulary (BNF) or Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC). Additional information: comparators
Depot injections of other antipsychotics, including the atypical antipsychotics, risperidone and olanzapine, and typical antipsychotics, haloperidol, flupentixol, fluphenazine, pipotiazine and zuclopenthixol. In practice paliperidone LAI is likely to compete mainly with risperidone LAI. The other atypical antipsychotic depot injection, olanzapine, has been not recommended by SMC for use within NHS Scotland. Cost of relevant comparators
Cost per year (£)
25mg to 150mg every four weeks
2,391 to 5,104
Olanzapine pamoate 150mg to 300mg every two weeks or 300mg to 405mg every four weeks 25mg to 50mg every two weeks Pipotiazine palmitate 50mg to 100mg every four weeks Fluphenazine decanoate 12.5mg to 100mg every two to five weeks Haloperidol decanoate 50mg to 300mg every four weeks Zuclopenthixol decanoate 200mg to 500mg every one to four weeks Flupentixol decanoate 50mg to 300mg every two to four weeks Doses are for general comparison and do not imply therapeutic equivalence. In the above table all drugs
are long acting injections and all doses are administered as deep intramuscular injections. Costs are from
eVadis on 25 March 2011.
Additional information: budget impact
The manufacturer assumed that three patients would be treated with paliperidone LAI in year 1, rising to 66 by year 5. These estimates appear to be based on a market share prediction of the eligible patients within the population specified by the manufacturer of 0.27% in year 1 rising to 5.5% by year 5. The corresponding net drug budget impact was estimated as a net cost increase of £2k in year 1 and £23k in year 5. References
The undernoted references were supplied with the submission. The references shaded in grey
are additional to those supplied with the submission.
Johnson & Johnson. Clinical Study Report for PSY-3002, 6 September 2007.
Fleischhacker WW, Gopal S, Samtani MN et al. Optimization of the dosing strategy for the long-
acting injectable antipsychotic Paliperidone Palmitate: Results of two randomized double-blind
studies and population pharmacokinetic simulations. 2008; Poster presented at ACNP;
Scottsdale, AZ, USA; December 7-11, 2008
Johnson & Johnson. Clinical Study Report for PSY-3006, 30 October 2009.
Pandina GJ, Lane R, Gopal S et al. A double-blind study of paliperidone palmitate and
risperidone long-acting injectable in adults with schizophrenia. Progress in Neuro-
Psychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry. 2011; 35: 218-226.
Johnson & Johnson. Clinical Study Report for PSY-3001, 15 January 2009.
Hough D, Gopal S, Vijapurkar U et al. Paliperidone Palmitate maintenance treatment in delaying
the time-to-relapse in patients with schizophrenia: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-
controlled study. Schizophr Res, 2010; 116: 107-117
European Medicines Agency. European Public Assessment Report for Xeplion
Johnson & Johnson. Synopsis of clinical study NCT00210717 (PSY-3002), 6 September 2007.
This assessment is based on data submitted by the applicant company up to and including 11
Drug prices are those available at the time the papers were issued to SMC for consideration.
These have been confirmed from the eVadis drug database. SMC is aware that for some
hospital-only products national or local contracts may be in place for comparator products that
can significantly reduce the acquisition cost to Health Boards. These contract prices are
commercial in confidence and cannot be put in the public domain, including via the SMC
Detailed Advice Document. Area Drug and Therapeutics Committees and NHS Boards are
therefore asked to consider contract pricing when reviewing advice on medicines accepted by
No part of this advice may be used without the whole of the advice being quoted in full. This advice represents the view of the Scottish Medicines Consortium and was arrived at after careful consideration and evaluation of the available evidence. It is provided to inform the considerations of Area Drug & Therapeutics Committees and NHS Boards in Scotland in determining medicines for local use or local formulary inclusion. This advice does not override the individual responsibility of health professionals to make decisions in the exercise of their clinical judgement in the circumstances of the individual patient, in consultation with the patient and/or guardian or carer.
Morning Mantra Tuesday, September 06, 2011 Indian equity indices sulked in red along with global equities on Monday after sluggish US jobs data on Friday fanned fears about the health of the world's largest economy and its fallout on ongoing global recovery amidst sustained worries about the euro zone debt crisis which prompted investors for a flight of safety from Dalal