THN 102 for Excessive Daytime Sleepiness Associated with Parkinson's Disease: A Phase 2a Trial.

BACKGROUND: Excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) is a frequent and disabling symptom of Parkinson's disease (PD) without approved treatment. THN102 is a novel combination drug of modafinil and low-dose flecainide. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of THN102 in PD patients with EDS. METHODS: The method involved a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial testing two doses of THN102 (200 mg/d modafinil with 2 mg/d [200/2] or 18 mg/d flecainide [200/18]) versus placebo; 75 patients were exposed to treatment. The primary endpoint was safety. The primary efficacy outcome was the change in Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score. RESULTS: Both doses of THN102 were well tolerated. ESS significantly improved with THN102 200/2 (least square means vs. placebo [95% confidence interval, CI]: -1.4 [-2.49; -0.31], P = 0.012) but did not change significantly with the 200/18 dosage. CONCLUSIONS: THN102 was well tolerated and showed a signal of efficacy at the 200/2 dose, supporting further development for the treatment of EDS in PD. © 2021 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Efficacy of THN102 (a combination of modafinil and flecainide) on vigilance and cognition during 40-hour total sleep deprivation in healthy subjects: Glial connexins as a therapeutic target.

AIMS: THN102 is a novel combination of modafinil and low-dose flecainide, targeting glial connexin activity to modulate modafinil effects. We investigated THN102 efficacy compared to modafinil and to placebo on vigilance and cognitive function during 40-hour total sleep deprivation (TSD). METHODS: Twenty healthy men participated in a double-blind, randomized, incomplete-block 3-period cross-over trial with 5 treatments (n = 12 per group): placebo (PBO), modafinil 100 mg (MOD100), THN102 100/1, 100/3, 100/9 (modafinil 100 mg and flecainide 1, 3 or 9 mg). Each period included a baseline day and a TSD day with treatments administered 3 times (01:00, 09:00 and 19:00). Reaction time in psychomotor vigilance test, subjective somnolence and vital signs were assessed before and during treatment. Working memory (2-Back) and executive processes (Go/noGo for vigilance and inhibition, Wisconsin card sorting task for mental flexibility, and Tower of London test for planning) were evaluated at 16:30. RESULTS: At 5 hours postdose−1 (after 23 hours TSD, primary endpoint), THN102 100/1 resulted in statistically higher psychomotor vigilance test speed vs MOD100 (3.97 ± 0.09 vs 3.74 ± 0.14, P < .05). No increase in effect was observed with higher flecainide doses in combinations. Most THN102 doses vs MOD100 also improved the number of correct responses in 2-Back and Go errors in Go/noGo (P < .05 for all doses), and perseverative responses in Wisconsin card sorting task (for 100/1 and 100/9). No impact on cardiac conduction was noted with THN102, and safety was similar to MOD100. CONCLUSIONS: THN102 seems more efficient than modafinil on vigilance, working memory and executive functions, opening new perspectives in management of hypersomnolence disorders.

Placebo-controlled evaluation of four novel compounds for the treatment of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Four studies using identical protocols evaluated the safety and efficacy of four novel, evidence-based targets for antipsychotic agents: a neurokinin (NK(3)) antagonist (SR142801), a serotonin 2A/2C (5-HT(2A/2C)) antagonist (SR46349B), a central cannabinoid (CB(1)) antagonist (SR141716), and a neurotensin (NTS(1)) antagonist (SR48692). METHOD: Adults with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder (N=481) were randomly assigned in a 3:1:1 ratio to receive fixed doses of investigational drug, placebo, or haloperidol for 6 weeks. Primary efficacy variables included changes from baseline in total score on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, severity of illness score on the Clinical Global Impression (CGI), and total score and psychosis cluster score on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS). RESULTS: Significantly greater improvement in all primary efficacy variables was seen in the group receiving haloperidol than in the group receiving placebo at 6 weeks (endpoint analyses), indicating the validity of the study. The group receiving the NK(3) antagonist showed significantly greater improvement over baseline than the group receiving placebo as measured by Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score, CGI severity of illness score, and BPRS psychosis cluster score. Reductions in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total and negative scores in the group receiving the 5-HT(2A/2C) antagonist were significantly larger than those in the group receiving placebo. The improvements in psychopathology produced by the NK(3) and 5-HT(2A/2C) antagonists were smaller than those produced by haloperidol, although the response to the NK(3) antagonist was positively correlated with plasma levels. The groups receiving the CB(1) and NTS(1) antagonists did not differ from the group receiving placebo on any outcome measure. All investigational drugs were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: The novel design used in this study permitted the use of a smaller number of patients receiving placebo to test the efficacy of the four novel compounds. The NK(3) and 5-HT(2A/2C) antagonists showed evidence of efficacy in the treatment of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. Study limitations preclude a definitive conclusion on the efficacy of CB(1) and NTS(1) antagonists in the treatment of schizophrenia. Further study of these two promising nondopaminergic mechanisms to treat schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder appears indicated.

Amisulpride vs. risperidone in chronic schizophrenia: results of a 6-month double-blind study.

This multicenter, double-blind, randomized study evaluated the efficacy, safety and functional effects of two atypical antipsychotics, amisulpride and risperidone, in patients with chronic schizophrenia (DSM IV) with a recent worsening of symptoms. It was planned as a non-inferiority trial. 309 patients received amisulpride (400-1,000 mg/day) or risperidone (4-10 mg/day) for six months. Amisulpride was demonstrated to be not inferior to risperidone with respect to the decrease in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score from baseline (90% 2-sided confidence interval (-5.6; 4.0)). Symptomatic improvement measured with the Brief Psychiatry Rating Scale (BPRS), the PANSS positive subscale, and the Bech Rafaelsen Melancholia Scale was similar in both groups. Amisulpride was significantly (p <.05) superior to risperidone in terms of response (>/=50% improvement in PANSS and BPRS total scores or "very much/much improved" on the Clinical Global Impression Scale) and also demonstrated better functional effects and subjective response. Both treatments were well tolerated and had a similar low incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms; however, amisulpride was associated with less weight gain and endocrine/sexual symptoms.

A double-blind, randomised comparative trial of amisulpride versus olanzapine in the treatment of schizophrenia: short-term results at two months.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of the atypical antipsychotics amisulpride and olanzapine in the treatment of acute psychotic exacerbations of schizophrenia. DESIGN AND SETTING: A multinational, double-blind randomised clinical trial. PATIENTS AND TREATMENT: Three hundred and seventy-seven patients with predominantly positive symptomatology were treated for six months with either amisulpride (200-800 mg/d) or olanzapine (5-20 mg/d). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Short-term results were analysed after two months of treatment. The primary efficacy measure was the change of score on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS). Other measures of efficacy and safety were also evaluated. RESULTS: Psychotic symptoms, as measured on the BPRS score, improved with both treatments, amisulpride being equivalent to olanzapine. All BPRS factor scores, as well as depressive symptoms, improved to a similar extent with both treatments. Less than five per cent of patients withdrew for adverse events, and there was no evidence for the emergence of extrapyramidal symptoms with either treatment. Statistically significant greater weight gain (2.7 +/- 3.9 kg) was observed during the study in the olanzapine group, compared with the amisulpride group (0.9 +/- 3.2 kg, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Amisulpride and olanzapine show equivalent efficacy at 2 months in the treatment of acute psychotic exacerbations of schizophrenia. Amisulpride offers a significant advantage in preserving body weight.

Dose-related effects of amisulpride on five dimensions of psychopathology in patients with acute exacerbation of schizophrenia.

The present analysis investigated symptom-specific dose-response relationships of the atypical antipsychotic amisulpride (AMI) in schizophrenic patients. The effects of different AMI doses on five different symptom dimensions of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) were analyzed. Results on global efficacy and safety parameters have been previously published. Four AMI doses (100 mg/day [AMI100], 400 mg/day [AMI400], 800 mg/day [AMI800], 1200 mg/day) were compared with 16 mg haloperidol (HAL16) in a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, 4-week trial. A total of 319 patients with acute exacerbation of schizophrenia (DSM-III-R) were included. AMI100 was compared with the other AMI doses, and HAL16 was compared with all AMI dosage groups. Response on BPRS factors defined as > or = 40% improvement and ORs were computed. An optimal AMI dose was calculated for each BPRS factor based on linear and quadratic regression. For all BPRS factors, inverted u-shaped dose-response curves emerged (r2 > 95%). The estimated AMI dose optimum for the BPRS factors activation/ agitation (760 mg), thought disturbances (716 mg), and hostility/suspiciousness (694 mg) was higher than that for anergia/negative symptoms (584 mg) and depression/anxiety (672 mg). Significant differences (p < 0.05) were found for AMI400/800 versus AMI100 (thought disturbances, hostility/ suspiciousness), for AMI400/800 versus HAL16 (depression/anxiety, thought disturbances, hostility/suspiciousness), and for AMI400 versus HAL16 (anergia/negative symptoms). ORs for response of the BPRS factors depression/anxiety, anergia/negative symptoms, and hostility/suspiciousness were highest under treatment with AMI400 compared to AMI100 and HAL16. For the BPRS factors thought disturbances and activation/agitation, the highest response chance emerged under AMI800 compared to AMI100 or HAL16. AMI seems to show the best clinical efficacy in acutely schizophrenic patients in a moderate dose (400-800 mg/day), with a somewhat lower dose optimum for negative than for positive symptoms. The present finding of distinct dose-response relationships of AMI regarding the BPRS dimensions is in accordance with studies on the mechanism of action of AMI and provides a useful rationale for the clinical treatment of schizophrenic patients with AMI.