Aripiprazole is effective, safe, and well tolerated for the positive and negative symptoms in schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. It is the first non-D2 receptor antagonist with clear antipsychotic effects and represents a novel treatment development for psychotic disorders.

Rimegepant (Nurtec ODT)—an orally administered, small‐molecule calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor antagonist indicated for the acute and preventive treatment of migraine—is a substrate for both the P‐glycoprotein and breast cancer resistance protein transporters in vitro. We evaluated the effects of concomitant administration of strong inhibitors of these transporters on the pharmacokinetics of rimegepant in healthy subjects. This single‐center, open‐label, randomized study was conducted in 2 parts, both of which were 2‐period, 2‐sequence, crossover studies. Part 1 (n = 15) evaluated the effect of a single oral dose of 200‐mg cyclosporine, a strong inhibitor of the P‐glycoprotein and breast cancer resistance protein transporters, on the pharmacokinetics of rimegepant 75 mg. Part 2 (n = 12) evaluated the effect of a single oral dose of 600‐mg quinidine, a strong selective P‐glycoprotein transporter, on the pharmacokinetics of rimegepant 75 mg. Coadministration with cyclosporine showed an increase in rimegepant area under the plasma concentration–time curve from time 0 to infinity and maximum observed concentration based on geometric mean ratios (90% confidence intervals [CIs]) of 1.6 (1.49‐1.72) and 1.41 (1.27‐1.57), respectively, versus rimegepant alone. Coadministration with quinidine showed an increase in rimegepant area under the plasma concentration–time curve from time 0 to infinity and maximum observed concentration geometric mean ratios (90% CIs) of 1.55 (1.40‐1.72) and 1.67 (1.46‐1.91), respectively, versus rimegepant alone. Strong P‐glycoprotein inhibitors (cyclosporine, quinidine) increased rimegepant exposures (>50%, <2‐fold). In parts 1 and 2, rimegepant coadministration was well tolerated and safe. The similar effect of cyclosporine and quinidine coadministration on rimegepant exposure suggests that inhibition of breast cancer resistance protein inhibition may have less influence on rimegepant exposure.

This report presents the results of a retrospective analysis of pooled efficacy data from eight studies in which buspirone was compared to placebo in 520 patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). In addition to evaluating overall efficacy in the composite patient data base, four criteria were used to identify subsets of patients with GAD who had coexisting depressive symptoms of at least moderate intensity: (1) a score of ≧ 2 on the Hamilton Anxiety (HAM-A) Rating Scale item 6 (depressed mood), (2) a score of ≧ 2 on the Hamilton Depression (HAM-D) Rating Scale item 1 (depressed mood), (3) a HAM-D total score of ≧ 18, or (4) a HAM-D Retardation Factor value (items 1,7,8, and 14) greater than the median for the group. Overall, patients treated with buspirone demonstrated significant (p ≤ 0.001) improvement over baseline in total HAM-A scores compared to patients who received placebo. Buspirone also produced significant (p ≤ 0.001) global improvement compared to placebo as assessed by the attending physician. Of the GAD patients stratified according to the four criteria for coexisting depressive symptoms, a substantial percentage (44-64%) of the total patient sample exhibited significant depressive symptoms as part of their anxiety disorder. Patients with GAD and coexisting depressive symptoms of at least moderate intensity exhibited significantly greater improvement with buspirone compared to placebo treatment regardless of the stratification criterion used. They also responded at least as well or better to buspirone therapy as did those with GAD who had less intense depressive symptoms. Weekly ratings indicated that buspirone produced a progressively increasing anxiolytic response relative to placebo throughout the 4-week double-blind treatment period. These findings indicate that buspirone is an effective anxiolytic for patients with GAD who experience coexisting depressive symptoms regardless of the intensity of those symptoms.

Objective: This randomized, partially-blinded, placebo-controlled study evaluated hemodynamic effects, pharmacokinetic interactions, and safety of concomitant administration of oral rimegepant and subcutaneous sumatriptan. Methods: Healthy non-smokers aged ≥18 and ≤40 years (men) or ≥18 and ≤50 years (women) were enrolled. On Day 1, subjects received 12 mg of sumatriptan as 2 subcutaneous 6 mg injections separated by 1 hour. From Days 2 to 4, subjects received rimegepant or placebo once daily (randomized 6 to 1, rimegepant to placebo). On Day 5, subjects received rimegepant or placebo, followed 2 hours later by 2 subcutaneous 6 mg injections of sumatriptan, separated by 1 hour. Sumatriptan was administered at the same times as on Day 1. Results: All 42 dosed subjects were analyzed. There were no significant differences in the time-weighted average of mean arterial pressure, diastolic blood pressure, or systolic blood pressure between treatment with rimegepant + sumatriptan and sumatriptan alone. Co-administration of rimegepant and sumatriptan had no effect on the pharmacokinetics of either drug. Overall, 93% (39/42) of subjects experienced ≥1 adverse event; injection site reaction was most common (60% [29/42]). Conclusions: Concomitant administration of oral rimegepant and subcutaneous sumatriptan to healthy adults was without hemodynamic or pharmacokinetic interaction and was safe and well tolerated.

No abstract