September 30, 2010

Fanapt: Deconstructing A Promotional Slide Deck

fanapt title slide.JPG
Lesson 1: it's pronounced (fa NAPT.)  I know, I know.

The intention here isn't to catch Big Pharma in a lie, but to show the data for Fanapt while also showing you the "behind the slides" context.  I've done something similar for Geodon and Seroquel (multiple times.)

Some of this material overlaps with the otherst, but I've repeated it here so it could stand alone.

I made these slides mostly from memory or from the PI using MS Paint.  They appear different/more professional in the promotional materials, I can assure you.

-------

First, an apocryphal story: Fanapt was named after the Greek word "phaneros" which means to manifest, to make obvious.  It was done because the CEO/Founder of Vanda Pharmaceuticals was Greek (Polymeropoulos.) 


Slide 1: Pharmacology

fanapt pharmacology.png

Those affinity constants on the right side don't tell you how much of each effect you'll get;  they tell the order of binding.  It tells you, for example, that the antihistamine effect will occur at a much higher dose than what's needed for the antipsychotic effect.

So what can we expect to happen with these numbers?

  1. At the lower doses, it will act a lot like Risperdal: selective and relatively equal 5HT2a and D2 blockade (Ki between 0.1 and 7nM).
  2. However, it has a1 blockade-- so I expect to see more orthostatic hypotension/sedation than Risperdal, especially as the dose is increased.
  3. Based on the in vitro affinities shown here (which are often poor proxies for in vivo, but I can only work with what I have)-- I'd expect EPS, prolactin, TD, akathisia rates to be superior to Risperdal, comparable to Zyprexa, and worse than Seroquel.

fanapt affinity.jpg(from Seeman 2004)


On the side it tells you about the 2 active metabolites.  The P95 metabolite only shows affinity for serotonin and noradrenergic alpha1 receptors.  What does that mean to psychiatry?  Nothing: P95 doesn't cross the blood brain barrier.  What does it mean to the rest of the body?  Orthostatic hypotension. 

See that 5HT7 early on in dosing?  That receptor is involved in circadian rhythm.  I don't know what that means yet, but as far as I know it is unique to this drug.


Slide 2: Pharmacodynamics



fanapt 2d6.png

This slide is here to tell you that people who are poor metabolizers of CYP2D6 chemicals (e.g. Fanapt) will have higher blood levels.  Clinically relevant people are 10% of caucasians and 5% of blacks none of whom you will ever be able to detect.  Also relevant are drugs that inhibit 2D6 and 3A4 (Prozac, Paxil).

In drug drug interactions, the order of the drugs is very important.  If you are already on Prozac, (hopefully) the doctor will simply observe that you needed less dose for the effect, regardless of whether he was even aware of the reason you needed less (the interaction.)  But if you're on Fanapt already, and then get put on Prozac, your Fanapt levels will rise.




Slide 3: QTc


fanapt qtc.png
To put this in perspective: giving the max dose in one week, further elevated by the presence of Prozac or Paxil and ketoconazole, still resulted in an increase (19ms) that is less than the normal within-day variability (about 25ms). 

The risk is fairly low.

Also, scan the slide, what does the FDA tell you?  It tells you beware of people with cardiac arrhythmias; other drugs that also prolong QT; the metabolic effects of certain drugs (e.g. Paxil); and be aware of (low) potassium and magnesium.

It does not say to get an EKG.  First, the average circadian variability is about 20-25ms.  Second, a normal EKG today doesn't predict a normal EKG tomorrow, especially when drug levels are changing (and patients often get used to QT effects, so the prolongation lessens.)  So unless you plan on doing daily EKGs, you risk information bias, i.e. letting today's normal EKG fool you into thinking all is well.

Better to be aware of the above listed factors, such as potassium, or to be aware of them.  For example, what things lead to low potassium (which would increase the risk of QTc prolongation?)  Diuretics, vomiting, etc.

Also be aware that order of drugs matters: a man on HCTZ for a year (potassium had time to normalize)  who then gets Fanapt is at less risk than a man titrated to 24mg Fanapt who then gets HCTZ thrown on top.



Slide 4: Rationale For Active Control


active control fanapt.png

The slide appears before any other description of the study.  Why? 

This is not an "active comparator" study, it is an "active control" study.  The purpose of the active control-- something you know reliably beats placebo in these kinds of studies-- is just a test to see whether the study "worked" (assay sensitivity.) 

  • If the drug that usually works fails here, then likely the study itself was a bust.
  • If it works but Fanapt doesn't, then Fanapt is a bust.

The reason you can't simply compare to the drug to your active control is twofold:

  1. there may not be enough patients in the active control arm-- its results may come out worse than ordinarily. (if it fails in one guy, but you only have two guys...)
  2. the dose of the active control might be enough to usually beat placebo, but maybe not enough to beat 24mg of Fanapt.   If you run a trial of 30mg Zyprexa (a lot) vs. 1mg Risperdal (a little) vs. placebo, both would beat placebo; but could you really infer that Zyprexa is a more efficacious drug than Risperdal?


Slide 5: 4 Week Trial Design


fanapt 4 week trial design.png


Why 4 weeks?  Because dropouts in an 8 week study would decrease the power (e.g. sensitivity) of the study.

Why Geodon?  To maintain the blinding: it's easy to tell if you're on Zyprexa (sedation) or Haldol (akathisia), but Geodon is milder. 

"Geodon needs to be taken with food!"  It was, they were careful, this is an inpatient study.

Observe that they got to 24mg of Fanapt and 160mg Geodon in 1 week.  That will seem amazingly fast, or amazingly slow, depending on your background.


Slide 6: Primary Demographics

fanapt 4 week baseline characteristics.png


While you may be tempted to skip this, don't.

ITT= intent to treat.  If a guy drops out after taking only one pill, what do you do?  ITT says he is still part of the study.  How do we deal with dropouts?

If you take their last observed score and carry it to the end, the overall average will appear sicker (and the drug may appear less effective than if they stayed on it.)  Or, as here, you take into account the trajectory of the scores to infer where they would have gone if they stayed in the study.  (More on LOCF, etc, here.)

Note that the primary efficacy measure is change on the PANSS scale: 30 items, scored 1 (absent) -7 (extreme).  So a completely normal person scores a 30.

In order to be in the study, they needed to be sick enough to score above 70.  And they were, at baseline, about 90.

Slide 7: 4 Week Trial Results


4 week results fanapt.png




It's apparent that Fanapt beat placebo, -12 to -7.1  However, they started at a baseline of  90-92, so they ended up around 80.  These patients are all still quite symptomatic-- they'd still be eligible to participate in the study again!

Note the lack of a Geodon curve.  Where is it?  I found it in the original study:

cutler fanapt.jpg
The study makes numerous comparisons with Geodon: efficacy measures, safety, side effects, etc.  As well they should-- so why deliberately hide it in the promotional deck doesn't.

"Well, it shows that Geodon beat it, that's why they hide it."  That's the reflexive answer.  But it is the FDA that does not allow comparisons between drugs in promotional materials.  They do it to prevent unwarranted comparisons, fine, but that's different than hiding the fact that it was already compared.

Note that Geodon 160mg was slightly better than Fanapt 24mg.  While it's impossible to speculate, I will anyway: perhaps a little less, say, 120mg of Geodon, is about the same as 24mg Fanapt?
 

Slide 8: 6 Week Trial Design

6 week trial design fanapt.png

Similar to the 4 week trial, but note:

  • in the 4 week trial, patients were on 24mg/d by the end of week 1.  So these doses are either lower (high dose) or considerably lower (low dose) 
  • the active control is Risperdal. It took a week to get to 160mg of Geodon, which is about 3-4mg Risperdal-- in this study, patients were on 6mg Risperdal by the third day.

Why did I say 160mg of Geodon is about 3-4mg Risperdal?  Because about the same number of D2 receptors are blocked at those doses.  Since the 4 week study revealed a slight superiority of 160mg of Geodon over 24mg Fanapt, I'd expect 6mg Risperdal to blow it out of the water.


Slide 9: 6 Week Trial Results



fanapt 6 week results.png

If the results here were easy to interpret, you wouldn't need me.

The change from baseline, -4.3, -7.4, and -8.8, are numerically smaller differences than those in the 4 week study because it's a different scale.  This is the BPRS, not PANSS-- their mean baseline score was 55.  However, the results are comparable.

Note that the low dose and high dose are both about the same until week 5, and even then there is only a slight benefit from a doubled dose.  Stop at 12mg and assess; if you need more, go to 24mg, but don't rush to 24mg as per the FDA approved titration.  As you will see later, the side effects at 24mg are greater than at 12mg.


Where's Risperdal?  Have to go to the internet:


fanapt vs risperdal.png


Risperdal 6mg, as predicted, was substantially "more"/better than 24mg Fanapt.  Going by the conversion, we'd thus expect about 24mg Fanapt to be equivalent to 3mg of Risperdal to 120mg Geodon.

Now for something odd:

Look at the blue heading above the graph in the slide.  "Excluding schizoaffective patients."  Huh?  In the original study (3005) schizophrenics and schizoaffectives both were permitted, assuming they were psychotic enough.   When both were included, the low dose Fanapt (<16mg) failed vs. placebo.  Only when the sample was restricted to schizophrenics did the low dose beat placebo.

This was a multi site, international study.  Trouble was, none of the U.S. sites showed efficacy for either Fanapt or Risperdal.   So all of the data you see here is very unamerican. 

So why the poor results? 

First, the Fanapt dose relative to Risperdal may be too low-- so low, in fact, that people drop out due to lack of efficacy.  Indeed: 23% of Fanapt vs. 8% of Risperdalers dropped out from lack of efficacy, early on in the study (Americans want everything immediately.)

And so, secondly: this is an LOCF.  When they drop out, they carry their early "sick" score to the end, making it look worse than it could have been. (2) So the 23% who dropped out early will drag the 6 week average up (sicker).  When they went back and looked at the data using only patients who stayed on it for at least two weeks, the results of both doses and Risperdal were all comparable. 

Moral: LOCF can kill a study if they drop out early.

To make sure, the FDA reanalyzed the data using  MMRM (which doesn't use a last score but extrapolates from the trajectory of the scores):

fda mmrm fanapt 3005.png
which here shows slightly better Risperdal efficacy, but again, it's 6-8mg, which is the inpatient equivalent of hitting them with a car.

Slide 10: Discontinuation Due To Adverse Events


fanapt ae.png

Awesome. However, every slide which reports FDA blessed data only reports from a specific time after randomization.  So in this case, that's after Day 3.  How many people dropped out in the first three days, "screening intolerability?"  No idea.  (NB: in long term maintenance trials, the randomization might not happen for months after patients are screened and stabilized, so those first few months would not be included in the overall data, e.g. this.)


Slide 11: Adverse Events
 

fanapt adverse events.jpg
The problem with such slides is there's no way to organize it in your head.  Is there a reason why dizziness doubles with dose, but dry mouth doesn't?

Go back to slide 1 and imagine the fountain model of receptor affinity.  alpha1-- the receptor  that causes orthostasis and probably "dizziness" and "somnolence" (and reflexive tachycardia) is a later receptor-- the higher you push the dose, the more of that effect you will get.

Slide 12: Extra Pyramidal Symptoms


fanapt eps.jpg

Rates of EPS appear to be low and don't increase with increased dose. Why?  Go back to Slide 1, point 3: if/since EPS is related to Fanapt's affinity for blocking the D2 receptor, and its affinity lies somewhere between Zyprexa and Seroquel, then the EPS rates should also be somewhere between Zyprexa and Seroquel, i.e. very low.  Also, note slide 9: Fanapt 20-24mg will be about equivalent to 10mg Zyprexa or 3mg Risperdal.

Slide 13: Prolactin levels


fanapt prolactin.jpg
As above, D2 affinities predict prolactin levels somewhere comparable to Zyprexa, i.e. low.  Rigorously, it should be noted that this is only data in the first month, not after a year of exposure; but if the affinity is weak enough that it only transiently binds to the receptor-- and thus only transiently results in prolactin surges, then there will be less overall exposure.

Extra credit: "If prolactin is related to D2 blockade and affinity at the D2 receptor, than why does Haldol cause less hyperprolactinemia than Risperdal, even though Rispderal;s affinity is less than Haldol's?

Most antipsychotics easily cross the blood brain barrier.  Risperdal doesn't (well).  The pituitary is outside of the blood brain barrier.  In order to get adequate penetration into the brain, a higher dose of Risperdal is used than would be if it could easily pass.  So outside the BBB, the pituitary is exposed to much more Risperdal than Haldol, even though they block comparable amounts of D2 receptors inside the brain.

Slide 14, 15: Clinically significant weight gain and Mean change in weight

fanapt significant weight.jpg
A tricky slide.  It shows that 12-18% of patients have "significant weight gain," defined as >7% of body weight.  So about 10-15 lbs.

However,

fanapt mean weight change.jpg
If the mean weight change is 4.6 lbs, and 15% of them gained more than 10lbs, then that means that some people gained no weight, and may even have lost weight.   The trick is to distinguish those people. 

Can the people at risk for greatest increase be predicted?  We only have the lessons of Zyprexa:

1. Those who gain weight do it early; what happens in the first three weeks are predictive
2. The main dietary intervention should be reducing carbs/sugars, especially fructose, not total calories.


Slide 16: Lipid Profile

fanapt triglycerides.png

The point of the slide is that Fanapt doesn't affect TG or cholesterol much from placebo.

However:

1.  This is short term, one month.  If the weight change is mechanistically like Zyprexa then it should show up in a month.  But if it is like Risperdal, slower, and possibly tied to prolactin elevation (the effect of which can take months- a year) then this doesn't tell you much.

2.  Why does the placebo TG have a negative?  In other words, why does putting them on placebo make the TG go down?  Recall the study design: real patients are taken off their meds, and randomized to Fanapt or placebo.  Maybe taking them off Zyprexa is what did it?    Nope.  Most acute (vs. maintenance) studies are done inpatient; so patients are taken from the outside, where they eat terrible diets and smoke packs of cigarettes, and moved inpatient where they eat comparatively healthier food, and smoke much less.

----


Addendum 6/1/11:



fanapt pharm.jpg
This graph shows the in-vitro affinities of Fanapt from a study in 2001.  Biggest bar is the highest affinity, which in this case is alpha1.  Yet in the pharmacology slide:

fanapt pharmacology.pngalpha1 is way down.  The slide suggests that alpha1 blockade-- orthostatic hypotension-- happens at higher doses.  Yet the graph above suggests that it should be the very first thing out of the box.


Turns out... Novartis made a mistake with the decimal point.  That's not 36 nM, but 0.36 nM.  Here's the new slide:

new fanapt pharmacology.jpg


That is a gigantic oops.  First, it means that orthostasis comes early and fast, which is bad enough.  It also means you can't rush the dose titration, which is what docs want to do in severe, acute situations.

But it hurts the credibility of the company.  Yes, it's a mistake, a "small" one in the sense that it could be missed, but if a trader bought something at 100x more or less than it was worth. it would be labeled a catastrophe.  Even accidentally overstating the clinical trial data is easier to apologize for because we all understand that clinical data is "in progress."  But pharmacology is supposed to be a drug's true identity, outside of marketing, outside of spin.

And the problem is that in order for Novartis to explain this in any way other than to say, "we made a gigantic mistake," it must make absorb pharmacology into marketing; instead of merely saying, "yes, we have a lot of alpha1 blockade, just go slow and the patient will not notice" they have to change reality: "well that's not really a big difference..."

You might also enjoy:

Deconstructing A Promotional Slide Deck: Geodon

How Seroquel XR Works

Seroquel For Bipolar Maintenance
















Comments

Thank you, this is helpful.... (Below threshold)

September 30, 2010 10:10 PM | Posted by theskepticalshrink: | Reply

Thank you, this is helpful.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
I am crying!... (Below threshold)

October 1, 2010 3:32 AM | Posted by Joe: | Reply

I am crying!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
I know your subjects focusi... (Below threshold)

October 2, 2010 12:07 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

I know your subjects focusing on the goings on in society garner more discussion, and they can be an interesting read no doubt, but I still enjoy lurking about for your insight into psychiatric treatments and commentary on psychiatry itself.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
your liver is my hero ;)</p... (Below threshold)

October 2, 2010 3:29 PM | Posted by queen mab: | Reply

your liver is my hero ;)

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Great! The receptor-based p... (Below threshold)

October 4, 2010 9:34 AM | Posted by medsvstherapy: | Reply

Great! The receptor-based posts are really helping me work toward my certification in armchair pharmacology.

One problem in the post: what pt population? People recently hospitalized due to schizophrenic decompensation?

I am trying to put together the msmt of psychosis, and the trialing of antipsychotic meds, with the discussion of augmenting an antidepressant with an antipsychotic.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Thanks for taking the time ... (Below threshold)

October 18, 2010 11:21 PM | Posted by promotional items: | Reply

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this, I feel strongly about it and love learning more on this topic. If possible, as you gain expertise, would you mind updating your blog with more information? It is extremely helpful for me

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Great analysis as usual! I ... (Below threshold)

October 27, 2010 8:38 AM | Posted by Dassex: | Reply

Great analysis as usual! I recommend your blog to all my residents, as I myself learn with every post. If you need some more liver tissue, I think I could scare up some people who would gladly donate some of their hepatic reserve, me included.

Keep taking your thiamine/folate vitamins!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
<a href="http://www.coachus... (Below threshold)

November 2, 2010 2:10 AM | Posted by asics running shoes: | Reply

coach outlet

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
Alone's tone is much less s... (Below threshold)

November 27, 2010 4:13 PM | Posted by syntaxfree: | Reply

Alone's tone is much less snarky than usual here -- particularly because this is a pharm article. I'm worried.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
""Well, it shows tha... (Below threshold)

November 27, 2010 6:25 PM | Posted by FutureLeader: | Reply

"
"Well, it shows that Geodon beat it, that's why they hide it." That's the reflexive answer. But it is the FDA that does not allow comparisons between drugs in promotional materials. They do it to prevent unwarranted comparisons, fine, but that's different than hiding the fact that it was already compared."

I am young and naive: can someone please explain why the FDA does not allow comparisons between drugs in promotional materials? This information should be made readily available to doctors, not deliberately withheld so that doctors must waste time seeking it out. This policy seems beneficial only to people in the business of manufacturing new medicines. Why do doctors allow this type of policy to exist? Do they not become outraged and want to punch someone really hard in the face or does that feeling just fade away after awhile? Any help with my questions would be greatly appreciated.

Also, is it not a little bit disturbing to anyone that doctors- like the above commenter Dassex- have resorted to reading unauthorized anonymous obscure blogs in order to learn more about the medicines they are prescribing?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
So, FutureLeader, medicine'... (Below threshold)

November 27, 2010 7:07 PM | Posted by SteveBMD: | Reply

So, FutureLeader, medicine's not quite the hotbed of intellectual curiosity and professional integrity you expected it to be, huh?

Ah, you have much, much to learn.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Hi!Where can one o... (Below threshold)

November 29, 2010 9:42 AM | Posted by John: | Reply

Hi!

Where can one obtain binding affinity date for other meds, like that you have used in Slide 1 and the diagram below it?

I'm a junior psychiatrist and love this kind of stuff.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Any reason why "extrapyrami... (Below threshold)

November 29, 2010 11:48 AM | Posted by MedsVsTherapy: | Reply

Any reason why "extrapyramidal" is written as "extra pyramidal?"

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Any reason why "extrapyr... (Below threshold)

November 29, 2010 11:51 AM | Posted, in reply to MedsVsTherapy's comment, by syntaxfree: | Reply

Any reason why "extrapyramidal" is written as "extra pyramidal?"

Maybe he gives his posts a quick run through a spell checker? Somehow americans seem to have spelling problems more often than we portuguese and spanish speakers, even though our spelling is much more regular and less prone to errors. (Someone once pointed out that "ghoti" can be construed to be pronounced as "fish")

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Where can one obtain bin... (Below threshold)

November 29, 2010 12:03 PM | Posted, in reply to John's comment, by syntaxfree: | Reply

Where can one obtain binding affinity date for other meds, like that you have used in Slide 1 and the diagram below it?

I'm not a medical doctor, but we the crazy people who also happen to be huge nerds swear by Stahl's psychopharmacology reference books. (Search Amazon for "Stahl's Essential Psychopharmacology of X"; there are books for antidperessants, mood stabilizers, etc.)

If you have any specific questions, the good people at the Crazy Meds! boards are very, very, very knowledgeable, more so than many experienced doctors. Dymphna and Jerod Poore are almost research scientists.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Um, be careful about... (Below threshold)

November 29, 2010 12:10 PM | Posted, in reply to syntaxfree's comment, by SteveBMD: | Reply


Um, be careful about "swearing by" Stahl's material. He's a huckster, one of the best out there. Smart guy, but (IMO) has decided to ditch scientific integrity and rigor for "cartoon" pharmacology. If you prefer "paint by numbers" prescribing to a rational understanding of personal dynamics and intricate pharmacology, go right ahead and put your money in his pocket.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Well, remember we're talkin... (Below threshold)

November 29, 2010 12:48 PM | Posted, in reply to SteveBMD's comment, by syntaxfree: | Reply

Well, remember we're talking about people who have very odd reactions to medications, which are more often than not ignored by the mainstream research programs, so this is a "Lorenzo's oil" situation. For example, I have dissociative symptoms (not recognizing myself in the mirror or in pictures, for example) that somehow disappear when I'm on Topamax. I was screened for TLE, and we (me and my MDs) ruled out a "subclinical psychosis" explanation for my symptoms, so they're just out there. We have to do some Wild Mass Guessing, and Stahl's "stylized facts" approach does help a lot.

I kind of see parallels of what you're saying with how abstract microeconomics disapproves of stuff we see published in the field of applied industrial organization. Operating by Stahl's stylized facts is still a much closer shot at understanding weird cases than fitting to WebMD questionnaires. And after all, "scientific rigor" in psychiatry is strongly dependent on your ex ante categories, which for standardization have to fit to the "symptom checklist" approach of the DSMs. Is that really better than logical guesswork based on receptor affinities and suchlike?

I know that "patient activism" is a huge double-edged sword -- patients know themselves better and care more than any doctor would, but they're much more prone to bias and plain bad reasoning. But if your patients understand Stahl, you have to start listening to them.

I hope you're not being dismissive out of "MD exceptionalism". I probably understand the statistical strengths and weaknesses of medical studies better than you, even if you understand the underlying categories better than me.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Shorter answer: the underst... (Below threshold)

November 29, 2010 12:55 PM | Posted, in reply to SteveBMD's comment, by syntaxfree: | Reply

Shorter answer: the understanding of economic policy you may gain from reading The Economics and the Wall Street Journal is paint-by-the-numbers, and yet I can't criticize you for not understanding the significance of the too often tragically ignored Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem in respect to Obama's fiscal plan! You have to vote for someone, somehow, and I don't expect you to understand differentiable manifolds to do so.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I'm familiar with Stahl ins... (Below threshold)

December 7, 2010 4:58 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

I'm familiar with Stahl inside out, but it doesn't list K values for drugs. Where can I get those from?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The best place to get K val... (Below threshold)

January 29, 2011 7:09 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

The best place to get K values is the NIMH website http://pdsp.med.unc.edu/indexR.html

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
I started Fanapt in ... (Below threshold)

February 24, 2011 2:38 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply


I started Fanapt in December, 2010 for a schizophrenic relapse and immediately had 4 days of nearly constant night seizures in spite of the fact that I take Lamictal 200 mg BID for TLE Complex Partial seizures. I had to cut the dose to almost nothing and it has taken almost 3 months to raise it to 8 mg QD. If you have patients with Epilepsy go easy on the dose increase! Oh, how is it working? OK, I guess but I think therapy is more important and I wouldn't use this drug without it.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
I thought this was an activ... (Below threshold)

November 11, 2011 3:05 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

I thought this was an active control not an active comparator study. Please explain the difference.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
If someone has an allergy, ... (Below threshold)

January 1, 2012 4:22 PM | Posted by MIchael: | Reply

If someone has an allergy, e.g. hives in response to Geodon, is Fanapt different enough?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
My son was put on Abilify s... (Below threshold)

June 11, 2012 2:13 PM | Posted by Linda: | Reply

My son was put on Abilify several years ago and gained 95 pounds in 6-8 months. He liked how he felt with it so we didn't change it until it was clear (actually past the time) that the upward trend would continue. Later he was put on topamax for headaches (and it helped with mood disorder) and he lost all the weight he had gain. Due to other side effects he had to stop the Topamax. He has now gained 50 pounds and the trend seems to be continuing. (He went to Lamictal) He craves sugars where when on Topamax he wouldn't eat ANYthing sweet. Now he can't get enough. For a 19 year old he also eats low protein. Can't get him to exercise. Now they want to try Fanapt and told me that people rarely gain on this one. That isn't how I'm reading the study. Does anyone know what messes with the appetite and the craving for carbs? This weight gain seems to bring on depression and a refussal to be active. While his mood disorder is difficult to deal with, I'm not sure that what is being proposed is the right thing. What is your take?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Your insight is always appr... (Below threshold)

June 19, 2012 8:54 AM | Posted by Mark: | Reply

Your insight is always appreciated! Love how you cut through the BS and give the real deal. You have any opinions on ADHD meds specifically non-stimulant like Strattera?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Mass murderer Adam L... (Below threshold)

December 16, 2012 8:29 PM | Posted by anonymous: | Reply


Mass murderer Adam Lanza was prescribed Fanapt. "To
make manifest", indeed.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Fanapt in the news re Sandy... (Below threshold)

December 18, 2012 7:03 PM | Posted by Altostrata: | Reply

Fanapt in the news re Sandy Hook mass murder http://www.businessinsider.com/adam-lanza-taking-antipsychotic-fanapt-2012-12

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Adam Lanza was never on Fan... (Below threshold)

February 12, 2014 10:09 PM | Posted by JB: | Reply

Adam Lanza was never on Fanapt. Congrats to Anonymous and Altostrata for getting suckered by an anti-psych medication hoax.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/27/jonathan-lee-riches-impersonates-adam-lanzas-uncle_n_2370571.html

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
JB, are you, like, 12 years... (Below threshold)

February 12, 2014 10:34 PM | Posted, in reply to JB's comment, by Altostrata: | Reply

JB, are you, like, 12 years old?

George, is that you? Don't you have anything better to do?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I started on depekote for m... (Below threshold)

February 15, 2014 12:11 PM | Posted by ch: | Reply

I started on depekote for my bipolar and gained 50 pounds in 4 mounths i am now taking topomax and wellbutrin and lost 100 pounds in less then a yr now they added a low dose of fanapt with what im taking now. I hope i dont gain any weight back. Im terrified of the scale. And if i gain weight i go into depression mode does anyone no if a low dose of fanapt makees u gain weight??

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Um, how do you know this JB... (Below threshold)

February 18, 2014 4:25 PM | Posted, in reply to JB's comment, by BOB FIDDAMAN (@Fiddaman): | Reply

Um, how do you know this JB?

Are you privy to information that the rest of the world ain't?

Lanza's notes have been released...but not all of them.

What have you seen that we haven't?

Unless you are just making it up?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Post a Comment


Live Comment Preview

December 20, 2014 02:53 AM | Posted by Anonymous: