Explore the vast range of titles available.

The muscarinic receptor agonist xanomeline has antipsychotic properties without dopamine blockade. Cholinergic adverse events limit its use. When xanomeline was combined with trospium to limit peripheral effects, scores were better on measures of schizophrenia than were scores with placebo over a period of 5 weeks.

In a multicenter trial in 566 patients with critical illness who had delirium, the use of haloperidol or ziprasidone, as compared with placebo, had no significant effect on the duration of delirium or coma. Side effects and extrapyramidal disorders occurred at similar rates in all groups.

Haloperidol is frequently used to treat delirium in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), but evidence of its effect is limited. In this multicenter, blinded, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned adult patients with delirium who had been admitted to the ICU for an acute condition to receive intravenous haloperidol (2.5 mg 3 times daily plus 2.5 mg as needed up to a total maximum daily dose of 20 mg) or placebo. Haloperidol or placebo was administered in the ICU for as long as delirium continued and as needed for recurrences. The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of the hospital at 90 days after randomization. A total of 1000 patients underwent randomization; 510 were assigned to the haloperidol group and 490 to the placebo group. Among these patients, 987 (98.7%) were included in the final analyses (501 in the haloperidol group and 486 in the placebo group). Primary outcome data were available for 963 patients (97.6%). At 90 days, the mean number of days alive and out of the hospital was 35.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 32.9 to 38.6) in the haloperidol group and 32.9 (95% CI, 29.9 to 35.8) in the placebo group, with an adjusted mean difference of 2.9 days (95% CI, -1.2 to 7.0) (P = 0.22). Mortality at 90 days was 36.3% in the haloperidol group and 43.3% in the placebo group (adjusted absolute difference, -6.9 percentage points [95% CI, -13.0 to -0.6]). Serious adverse reactions occurred in 11 patients in the haloperidol group and in 9 patients in the placebo group. Among patients in the ICU with delirium, treatment with haloperidol did not lead to a significantly greater number of days alive and out of the hospital at 90 days than placebo. (Funded by Innovation Fund Denmark and others; AID-ICU ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03392376; EudraCT number, 2017-003829-15.).

New treatments with new mechanisms are urgently needed for people with schizophrenia. Xanomeline is a dual M1 and M4-preferring muscarinic receptor agonist that does not block D2 dopamine receptors, unlike all currently approved treatments for schizophrenia. Xanomeline–trospium (KarXT) combines xanomeline with the peripherally restricted muscarinic receptor antagonist trospium chloride with the goal of ameliorating xanomeline-related adverse events associated with peripheral muscarinic receptors. The EMERGENT-2 trial aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of KarXT in people with schizophrenia experiencing acute psychosis. EMERGENT-2 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, flexible-dose, 5-week, inpatient, phase 3 trial in people with schizophrenia. Participants were adults aged 18–65 years with a diagnosis of schizophrenia who had a recent worsening of psychosis warranting hospital admission, a Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) score of 80 or higher, and a Clinical Global Impression-Severity score of 4 or higher. The participants were recruited from 22 inpatient sites in the USA, and were randomly assigned (1:1) to KarXT or placebo twice per day. Participants randomly assigned to KarXT received 50 mg xanomeline and 20 mg trospium twice per day for the first 2 days and then 100 mg xanomeline and 20 mg trospium twice per day for days 3–7. Beginning on day 8, KarXT dosing was flexible with an optional increase to 125 mg xanomeline and 30 mg trospium twice per day and the option to return to 100 mg xanomeline and 20 mg trospium based on tolerability. The primary endpoint was change from baseline to week 5 in PANSS total score. Efficacy analyses used the modified intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned participants who received at least one trial medication dose and had at least one post-baseline PANSS assessment). Least squares mean change from baseline, SE, and least squares mean difference between the KarXT and placebo groups at week 5, along with the 95% CI and two-sided p values were calculated for the primary and secondary continuous efficacy endpoints. Safety analyses included all participants receiving at least one trial medication dose and used descriptive statistics. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04659161). From Dec 16, 2020, to April 13, 2022, of 407 people who were screened, 252 participants meeting enrolment criteria were randomly assigned to the KarXT (n=126) or placebo (n=126). Baseline PANSS total scores were 98·3 (KarXT; n=126) and 97·9 (placebo; n=125). The trial met the primary endpoint with a mean change from baseline to week 5 in PANSS total score that favoured KarXT (–21·2 points, SE 1·7) versus placebo (–11·6 points, 1·6; least squares mean difference –9·6; 95% CI –13·9 to –5·2; p<0·0001, Cohen's d effect size=0·61). All secondary endpoints were also met, and favoured KarXT versus placebo (p<0·05). The most common adverse events with KarXT versus placebo were constipation (27 [21%] vs 13 [10%]), dyspepsia (24 [19%] vs 10 [8%]), headache (17 [14%] vs 15 [12%]), nausea (24 [19%] vs seven [6%]), vomiting (18 [14%] vs one [1%]), hypertension (12 [10%] vs one [1%]), dizziness (11 [9%] vs four [3%]), gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (eight [6%] vs zero [0%]), and diarrhoea (seven [6%] vs four [3%]). Treatment-emergent adverse event rates of extrapyramidal motor symptoms (KarXT, zero [0%] vs placebo, zero [0%]), akathisia (one [1%] vs one [1%]), weight gain (zero [0%] vs one [1%]), and somnolence (six [5%] vs five [4%]) were similar between the KarXT and placebo groups, as were adverse event-related discontinuation rates (nine [7%] vs seven [6%]). In the EMERGENT-2 trial, KarXT was effective in reducing positive and negative symptoms and was generally well tolerated. These results support the potential for KarXT to represent a new class of effective and well tolerated antipsychotic medicines based on activating muscarinic receptors, not the D2 dopamine receptor-blocking mechanism of all current antipsychotic medications. Results from additional trials, including the identical EMERGENT-3 trial and the 52-week, open-label EMERGENT-4 and EMERGENT-5 trials, will provide additional information on the efficacy and safety of KarXT in people with schizophrenia. Karuna Therapeutics.

BackgroundDifferent effectiveness profiles among antipsychotics may be a key point to optimize treatment in patients suffering a first episode of psychosis to impact on long-term outcome. The aim of this study is to compare the clinical effectiveness of olanzapine, risperidone, haloperidol, aripiprazole, ziprasidone, and quetiapine in the treatment of first episode of psychosis at 3-year follow-up.MethodFrom February 2001 to January 2011, 2 phases of a prospective, randomized, open-label study were undertaken. A total of 376 first-episode drug-naïve patients were randomly assigned to olanzapine (n = 55), risperidone (n = 63), haloperidol (n = 56), aripiprazole (n = 78), ziprasidone (n = 62), or quetiapine (n = 62) and followed up for 3 years. The primary effectiveness measure was all cause of treatment discontinuation. In addition, an analysis based on intention-to-treat principle was conducted in the analysis for clinical efficacy.ResultsThe overall dropout rate at 3 years reached 20.75%. Treatment discontinuation rates were significantly different among treatment groups (olanzapine = 69.09, risperidone = 71.43, aripiprazole = 73.08%, ziprasidone = 79.03%, haloperidol = 89.28%, and quetiapine = 95.53%) (χ2 = 79.86; P = .000). Statistically significant differences in terms of lack of efficacy, adherence, and tolerability were observed among treatment groups along the 3-year follow-up, determining significant differences in time to all-cause discontinuation (log-rank = 92.240; P = .000). Significant differences between treatments were found in the categories of sleepiness/sedation, increased sleep duration, akinesia, weight gain, ejaculatory dysfunction, extrapyramidal-symptoms, and amenorrhea.ConclusionsOlanzapine, risperidone, and aripiprazole presented advantages for the first-line treatment of first episode of psychosis in terms of effectiveness. Identifying different discontinuation patterns may contribute to optimize treatment selection after first episode of psychosis.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02526030 https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02526030

In a randomized trial involving schizophrenic patients with acute psychosis, a new oral drug that does not have a dopamine D2-receptor–binding mechanism of action led to a greater reduction in the severity of overall symptoms than placebo over 4 weeks. The incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms was 3% with the new drug, a finding similar to that with placebo.

Using Richardson and Davidson’s model and the sciences of pharmacokinetics and clinical pharmacopsychology, this article reviewed the: (1) poor life expectancy associated with treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS), which may be improved in patients who adhere to clozapine; (2) findings that clozapine is the best treatment for TRS (according to efficacy, effectiveness and well-being); and (3) potential for clozapine to cause vulnerabilities, including potentially lethal adverse drug reactions such as agranulocytosis, pneumonia, and myocarditis. Rational use requires: (1) modification of the clozapine package insert worldwide to include lower doses for Asians and to avoid the lethality associated with pneumonia, (2) the use of clozapine levels for personalizing dosing, and (3) the use of slow and personalized titration. This may make clozapine as safe as possible and contribute to increased life expectancy and well-being. In the absence of data on COVID-19 in clozapine patients, clozapine possibly impairs immunological mechanisms and may increase pneumonia risk in infected patients. Psychiatrists should call their clozapine patients and families and explain to them that if the patient develops fever or flu-like symptoms, the psychiatrist should be called and should consider halving the clozapine dose. If the patient is hospitalized with pneumonia, the treating physician needs to assess for symptoms of clozapine intoxication since halving the dose may not be enough for all patients; consider decreasing it to one-third or even stopping it. Once the signs of inflammation and fever have disappeared, the clozapine dose can be slowly increased to the prior dosage level.

Background:This double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter, phase-3 study was designed to test the noninferiority of paliperidone palmitate 3-month formulation (PP3M) to the currently marketed 1-month formulation (PP1M) in patients (age 18–70 years) with schizophrenia, previously stabilized on PP1M.Methods:After screening (≤3 weeks) and a 17-week, flexible-dosed, open-label phase (PP1M: day 1 [150mg eq. deltoid], day 8 [100mg eq. deltoid.], weeks 5, 9, and 13 [50, 75, 100, or 150mg eq., deltoid/gluteal]), clinically stable patients were randomized (1:1) to PP3M (fixed-dose, 175, 263, 350, or 525mg eq. deltoid/gluteal) or PP1M (fixed-dose, 50, 75, 100, or 150mg eq. deltoid/gluteal) for a 48-week double-blind phase.Results:Overall, 1016/1429 open-label patients entered the double-blind phase (PP3M: n=504; PP1M: n=512) and 842 completed it (including patients with relapse). PP3M was noninferior to PP1M: relapse rates were similar in both groups (PP3M: n=37, 8%; PP1M: n=45, 9%; difference in relapse-free rate: 1.2% [95% CI:-2.7%; 5.1%]) based on Kaplan-Meier estimates (primary efficacy). Secondary endpoint results (changes from double-blind baseline in positive and negative symptom score total and subscale scores, Clinical Global Impression-Severity, and Personal and Social Performance scores) were consistent with primary endpoint results. No clinically relevant differences were observed in pharmacokinetic exposures between PP3M and PP1M. Both groups had similar tolerability profiles; increased weight was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event (double-blind phase; 21% each). No new safety signals were detected.Conclusion:Taken together, PP3M with its 3-month dosing interval is a unique option for relapse prevention in schizophrenia.

Because of the debate about whether second-generation antipsychotic drugs are better than first-generation antipsychotic drugs, we did a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials to compare the effects of these two types of drugs in patients with schizophrenia. We compared nine second-generation antipsychotic drugs with first-generation drugs for overall efficacy (main outcome), positive, negative and depressive symptoms, relapse, quality of life, extrapyramidal side-effects, weight gain, and sedation. We included 150 double-blind, mostly short-term, studies, with 21 533 participants. We excluded open studies because they systematically favoured second-generation drugs. Four of these drugs were better than first-generation antipsychotic drugs for overall efficacy, with small to medium effect sizes (amisulpride −0·31 [95% CI −0·44 to −0·19, p<0·0001], clozapine −0·52 [−0·75 to −0·29, p<0·0001], olanzapine −0·28 [−0·38 to −0·18, p<0·0001], and risperidone −0·13 [−0·22 to −0·05, p=0·002]). The other second-generation drugs were not more efficacious than the first-generation drugs, even for negative symptoms. Therefore efficacy on negative symptoms cannot be a core component of atypicality. Second-generation antipsychotic drugs induced fewer extrapyramidal side-effects than did haloperidol (even at low doses). Only a few have been shown to induce fewer extrapyramidal side-effects than low-potency first-generation antipsychotic drugs. With the exception of aripiprazole and ziprasidone, second-generation antipsychotic drugs induced more weight gain, in various degrees, than did haloperidol but not than low-potency first-generation drugs. The second-generation drugs also differed in their sedating properties. We did not note any consistent effects of moderator variables, such as industry sponsorship, comparator dose, or prophylactic antiparkinsonian medication. Second-generation antipsychotic drugs differ in many properties and are not a homogeneous class. This meta-analysis provides data for individualised treatment based on efficacy, side-effects, and cost. National Institute of Mental Health.

Abstract Background This is a placebo-controlled multi-national trial of roluperidone, a compound with antagonist properties for 5-HT2A, sigma2, and α1A-adrenergic receptors, targeting negative symptoms in patients with schizophrenia. This trial follows a previous trial that demonstrated roluperidone superiority over placebo in a similar patient population. Methods Roluperidone 32 mg/day, roluperidone 64 mg/day, or placebo was administered for 12 weeks to 513 patients with schizophrenia with moderate to severe negative symptoms. The primary endpoint was the PANSS-derived Negative Symptom Factor Score (NSFS) and the key secondary endpoint was Personal and Social Performance scale (PSP) total score. Results NSFS scores were lower (improved) for roluperidone 64 mg compared to placebo and marginally missing statistical significance for the intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis data set (P ≤ .064), but reached nominal significance (P ≤ .044) for the modified-ITT (m-ITT) data set. Changes in PSP total score were statistically significantly better on roluperidone 64 mg compared to placebo for both ITT and m-ITT (P ≤ .021 and P ≤ .017, respectively). Conclusions Results of this trial confirm the potential of roluperidone as a treatment of negative symptoms and improving everyday functioning in patients with schizophrenia. Study registration: Eudra-CT: 2017-003333-29; NCT03397134.