Explore the vast range of titles available.

The dopamine D2/D3 antagonist amisulpride has demonstrated its superiority and efficacy in prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Given the branded intravenous amisulpride (Barhemsys ) has not been approved in China, there is unmet clinical need for amisulpride. Our primary objective was to ascertain the efficacy and safety of the generic intravenous amisulpride (QLG2069) in the prophylaxis of PONV. In this phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 551 adult Chinese patients (with ≥2 Apfel risk factors for PONV) undergoing elective laparoscopic gynecological or abdominal surgery were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive either generic intravenous amisulpride or placebo. The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR) rate, defined as the proportion of patients demonstrating neither emetic episodes (vomiting/retching) nor requiring rescue antiemetics throughout the 24-hour postoperative window. Totally, 542 patients (amisulpride group: n=275; placebo group: n=267) were included in the full analysis set. Amisulpride demonstrated significantly higher CR rate compared to placebo (53.82% vs 40.07%; P=0.0011) within 24-h postoperative period. Patients treated with intravenous amisulpride exhibited significantly lower incidence of moderate-to-severe nausea (28.36% vs 37.08%; P=0.0266) and emesis (44.73% vs 57.30%; P=0.0030) compared to the incidence in the placebo group. The proportion of patients without nausea was numerically higher (45.09%) in the amisulpride group compared to that in the placebo group (37.45%), although the difference did not reach statistical significance (P=0.0685). No significant difference in the proportions of patients receiving rescue medication was noticed between the two groups (21.09% vs 28.09%; P=0.0569). The incidence of adverse events were comparable in two groups. The generic intravenous amisulpride was safe and effective in prophylaxis of PONV in Chinese patients with moderate-to-high risk of PONV to were undergoing laparoscopic gynecological or abdominal surgery.

Abstract Background and Hypothesis Meta-analyses have shown that the majority of patients with schizophrenia who have not improved after 2 weeks of treatment with an antipsychotic drug are unlikely to fully respond later. We hypothesized that switching to another antipsychotic with a different receptor binding profile is an effective strategy in such a situation. Study Design In total, 327 inpatients with an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia were randomized to double-blind treatment with either olanzapine (5–20 mg/day) or amisulpride (200–800 mg/day). Those patients who had not reached at least 25% Positive-and-Negative-Syndrome-Scale (PANSS) total score reduction from baseline after 2 weeks (the “non-improvers”) were rerandomized double-blind to either staying on the same compound (“stayers”) or to switching to the other antipsychotic (“switchers”) for another 6 weeks. The primary outcome was the difference in the number of patients in symptomatic remission between the combined “switchers” and the “stayers” after 8 weeks of treatment, analyzed by logistic regression. Study Results A total of 142 nonimprovers were rerandomized at week two. 25 (45.5 %) of the ‘stayers' compared to 41 (68.3 %) of the “switchers” reached remission at endpoint (p = .006). Differences in secondary efficacy outcomes were not significant, except for the PANSS negative subscore and the Clinical-Global-Impression-Scale. “Switchers” and “stayers” did not differ in safety outcomes. Conclusions Switching “non-improvers” from amisulpride to olanzapine or vice-versa increased remission rates and was safe. The superiority in the primary outcome was, however, not paralleled by significant differences in most secondary efficacy outcomes and the effect was only apparent at the last visit making replications of longer duration necessary.

This report presents the rationale and design of a multi-center clinical trial that examines the efficacy and safety of antipsychotic combination treatment in acutely ill schizophrenia patients compared to antipsychotic monotherapy. Antipsychotic combination treatment is common in clinical practice worldwide, despite clinical guidelines generally not recommending such practice due to lacking evidence for its efficacy and safety. Olanzapine has a related chemical structure and comparable receptor-binding profile as clozapine, which demonstrated superior efficacy in combination studies, but has a more unfavorable side-effect profile compared to olanzapine. Amisulpride and olanzapine have shown promising therapeutic efficacy in meta-analyses in monotherapy for people with schizophrenia. Combining amisulpride and olanzapine, complementary receptor-binding properties may enhance efficacy and possibly reduce (or at least not augment) side effects due to the different receptor profiles and metabolization pathways. Accordingly, we hypothesize that patients treated with amisulpride plus olanzapine show greater improvement on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score after 8 weeks versus either monotherapy. A randomized, double-blind controlled trial is performed at 16 German centers comparing flexibly dosed monotherapy of oral amisulpride (400–800 mg/day), and olanzapine (10–20 mg/day) and amisulpride–olanzapine co-treatment. Sample size was calculated to be n = 101 per treatment arm, assuming an effect size of 0.500 and a two-sided alpha = 0.025 and beta = 0.90. Recruitment for this trial started in June 2012. Until December 2018, 328 patients have been randomized. Trial conduct has been extended to reach the projected sample size. Publication of the study results is expected in 2019 informing an evidence-based recommendation regarding specific antipsychotic combination treatment.

Balancing the exploration of new options and the exploitation of known options is a fundamental challenge in decision-making, yet the mechanisms involved in this balance are not fully understood. Here, we aimed to elucidate the distinct roles of dopamine and noradrenaline in the exploration-exploitation tradeoff during human choice. To this end, we used a double-blind, placebo-controlled design in which participants received either a placebo, 400 mg of the D2/D3 receptor antagonist amisulpride, or 40 mg of the β-adrenergic receptor antagonist propranolol before they completed a virtual patch-foraging task probing exploration and exploitation. We systematically varied the rewards associated with choice options, the rate by which rewards decreased over time, and the opportunity costs it took to switch to the next option to disentangle the contributions of dopamine and noradrenaline to specific choice aspects. Our data show that amisulpride increased the sensitivity to all of these three critical choice features, whereas propranolol was associated with a reduced tendency to use value information. Our findings provide novel insights into the specific roles of dopamine and noradrenaline in the regulation of human choice behavior, suggesting a critical involvement of dopamine in directed exploration and a role of noradrenaline in more random exploration.

The observation of animal orofacial and behavioral reactions has played a fundamental role in research on reward but is seldom assessed in humans. Healthy volunteers (N = 131) received 400 mg of the dopaminergic antagonist amisulpride, 50 mg of the opioidergic antagonist naltrexone, or placebo. Subjective ratings, physical effort, and facial reactions to matched primary social (affective touch) and nonsocial (food) rewards were assessed. Both drugs resulted in lower physical effort and greater negative facial reactions during reward anticipation, especially of food rewards. Only opioidergic manipulation through naltrexone led to a reduction in positive facial reactions to liked rewards during reward consumption. Subjective ratings of wanting and liking were not modulated by either drug. Results suggest that facial reactions during anticipated and experienced pleasure rely on partly different neurochemical systems, and also that the neurochemical bases for food and touch rewards are not identical. Studies in rats and other species have shown that two chemical messengers in the brain regulate how much an animal desires a reward, and how pleasant receiving the reward is. In this context, chemicals called opioids control both wanting and enjoying a reward, whereas a chemical called dopamine only regulates how much an animal desires it. However, since these results were obtained from research performed on animals, further studies are needed to determine if these chemicals play the same roles in the human brain. Korb et al. show that the same brain chemicals that control reward anticipation and pleasure in rats are also at work in humans. In the experiment, 131 healthy volunteers received either a drug that blocks opioid signaling in the brain, a drug that blocks dopamine signaling, or a placebo, a pill with no effect. Then, participants were given, on several occasions, either sweet milk with chocolate or a gentle caress on the forearm. Participants rated how much they wanted each of the rewards before receiving it, and how much they liked it after experiencing it. To measure their implicit wanting of the reward, participants also pressed a force-measuring device to increase their chances of receiving the reward. Additionally, small electrodes measured the movement of the volunteer’s smiling or frowning muscles to detect changes in facial expressions of pleasure. Volunteers taking either drug pressed on the device less hard than the participants taking the placebo, suggesting they did not want the rewards as much, and they frowned more as they anticipated the reward, indicating less anticipatory pleasure. However, only the volunteers taking the opioid-blocking drug smiled less when they received a reward, indicating that these participants did not get as much pleasure as others out of receiving it. These differences were most pronounced when volunteers looked at or received the sweet milk with chocolate. This experiment helps to shed light on the chemicals in the human brain that are involved in reward-seeking behaviors. In the future, the results may be useful for developing better treatments for addictions.

Background Although clozapine is an effective option for treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS), there are still 1/3 to 1/2 of TRS patients who do not respond to clozapine. The main purpose of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was to explore the amisulpride augmentation efficacy on the psychopathological symptoms and cognitive function of clozapine-resistant treatment-refractory schizophrenia (CTRS) patients. Methods A total of 80 patients were recruited and randomly assigned to receive initial clozapine plus amisulpride (amisulpride group) or clozapine plus placebo (placebo group). Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS), Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale scores, Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS), Treatment Emergent Symptom Scale (TESS), laboratory measurements, and electrocardiograms (ECG) were performed at baseline, at week 6, and week 12. Results Compared with the placebo group, amisulpride group had a lower PANSS total score, positive subscore, and general psychopathology subscore at week 6 and week 12 ( P Bonferroni  < 0.01). Furthermore, compared with the placebo group, the amisulpride group showed an improved RBANS language score at week 12 ( P Bonferroni  < 0.001). Amisulpride group had a higher treatment response rate ( P  = 0.04), lower scores of CGI severity and CGI efficacy at week 6 and week 12 than placebo group ( P Bonferroni  < 0.05). There were no differences between the groups in body mass index (BMI), corrected QT (QTc) intervals, and laboratory measurements. This study demonstrates that amisulpride augmentation therapy can safely improve the psychiatric symptoms and cognitive performance of CTRS patients. Conclusion This study indicates that amisulpride augmentation therapy has important clinical significance for treating CTRS to improve clinical symptoms and cognitive function with tolerability and safety. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov identifier- NCT03652974. Registered August 31, 2018, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03652974

Dopamine is thought to play a crucial role in value-based decision making. However, the specific contributions of different dopamine receptor subtypes to the computation of subjective value remain unknown. Here we demonstrate how the balance between D1 and D2 dopamine receptor subtypes shapes subjective value computation during risky decision making. We administered the D2 receptor antagonist amisulpride or placebo before participants made choices between risky options. Compared with placebo, D2 receptor blockade resulted in more frequent choice of higher risk and higher expected value options. Using a novel model fitting procedure, we concurrently estimated the three parameters that define individual risk attitude according to an influential theoretical account of risky decision making (prospect theory). This analysis revealed that the observed reduction in risk aversion under amisulpride was driven by increased sensitivity to reward magnitude and decreased distortion of outcome probability, resulting in more linear value coding. Our data suggest that different components that govern individual risk attitude are under dopaminergic control, such that D2 receptor blockade facilitates risk taking and expected value processing.

This study aimed to evaluate the predictive performance of published amisulpride population pharmacokinetic (PopPK) models in schizophrenia patients with an external data set and establish remedial dosing regimens for nonadherent amisulpride-treated patients. A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science to identify PopPK models for evaluation. The evaluation process involved analyzing 390 serum concentration samples obtained from 361 Chinese adult inpatients diagnosed with schizophrenia. Model predictability was evaluated by prediction-based and simulation-based diagnostics. Based on validation results, a modified PopPK model was constructed to characterize amisulpride pharmacokinetic in our patients. Monte Carlo simulation was employed to investigate non-adherence scenarios and the impact of subsequently administered remedial regimens. In the five assessed published models, four included trough concentrations from schizophrenia patients, and one combined single-dose data from healthy older adults and trough concentrations from older adults with Alzheimer's disease. The PE for population and individual predictions ranged from -92.89% to 27.02% and -24.82% to 4.04%, respectively. In the simulation-based diagnostics, the NPDE results indicated noticeable bias in all models. Therefore, a modified one-compartment model, with estimated creatinine clearance(eCLcr) as covariates on the apparent clearance (CL/F) of amisulpride, was developed. For delays in medication dosing, if the delay is within 12 hours, take half the missed dose right away, then resume the normal schedule; if the delay is up to 24 hours, just continue with the regular dosing schedule. Existing published models lack the necessary reliability for cross-center application. Future prospective studies are required to assess our model before integrating it into clinical practice. Model-based simulations provided a rational approach to propose remedial strategies for delayed or missed doses.

Background It remains a challenge to predict the long-term response to antipsychotics in patients with schizophrenia who do not respond at an early stage. This study aimed to investigate the optimal predictive cut-off value for early non-response that would better predict later non-response to antipsychotics in patients with schizophrenia. Methods This multicenter, 8-week, open-label, randomized trial was conducted at 19 psychiatric centers throughout China. All enrolled participants were assigned to olanzapine, risperidone, amisulpride, or aripiprazole monotherapy for 8 weeks. The positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) was evaluated at baseline, week 2, week 4, and week 8. The main outcome was the prediction of nonresponse. Nonresponse is defined as a < 20% reduction in the total scores of PANSS from baseline to endpoint. Severity ratings of mild, moderate, and severe illness corresponded to baseline PANSS total scores of 58, 75, and 95, respectively. Results At week 2, a reduction of < 5% in the PANSS total score showed the highest total accuracy in the severe and mild schizophrenia patients (total accuracy, 75.0% and 80.8%, respectively), and patients who were treated with the risperidone and amisulpride groups (total accuracy, 82.4%, and 78.2%, respectively). A 10% decrease exhibited the best overall accuracy in the moderate schizophrenia patients (total accuracy, 84.0%), olanzapine (total accuracy, 79.2%), and aripiprazole group (total accuracy, 77.4%). At week 4, the best predictive cut-off value was < 20%, regardless of the antipsychotic or severity of illness (total accuracy ranging from 89.8 to 92.1%). Conclusions Symptom reduction at week 2 has acceptable discrimination in predicting later non-response to antipsychotics in schizophrenia, and a more accurate predictive cut-off value should be determined according to the medication regimen and baseline illness severity. The response to treatment during the next 2 weeks after week 2 could be further assessed to determine whether there is a need to change antipsychotic medication during the first four weeks. Trial registration This study was registered on Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03451734).

Background Antipsychotic treatment may improve clinical insight. However, previous studies have reported inconclusive findings on whether antipsychotics improve insight over and above the reduction in symptoms of psychosis. These studies assessed homogeneous samples in terms of stage of illness. Randomised studies investigating a mixed population of first- and multiepisode schizophrenia spectrum disorders might clarify this disagreement. Methods Our data were derived from a pragmatic, rater-blinded, semi-randomised trial that compared the effectiveness of amisulpride, aripiprazole and olanzapine. A sample of 144 patients with first- or multiepisode schizophrenia spectrum disorders underwent eight assessments during a 1-year follow-up. Clinical insight was assessed by item General 12 from the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). We analysed latent growth curve models to test if the medications had a direct effect on insight that was over and above the reduction in total psychosis symptoms. Furthermore, we investigated whether there were differences between the study drugs in terms of insight. Results Based on allocation analysis, all three drugs were associated with a reduction in total psychosis symptoms in the initial phase (weeks 0–6). Amisulpride and olanzapine were associated with improved insight over and above what was related to the reduction in total psychosis symptoms in the long-term phase (weeks 6–52). However, these differential effects were lost when only including the participants that chose the first drug in the randomisation sequence. We found no differential effect on insight among those who were antipsychotic-naïve and those who were previously medicated with antipsychotics. Conclusions Our results suggest that antipsychotic treatment improves insight, but whether the effect on insight surpasses the effect of reduced total psychosis symptoms is more uncertain. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01446328, 05.10.2011.