New Drugs 2021, Part 2.

ABSTRACT: The second of a two-part series, this article describes eight recently approved drugs, including the first drug approved for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2, a first-in-class HIV attachment inhibitor, and a new intravenous injection indicated for the treatment of acute pain in adults for whom other treatments are ineffective.

The role of cannabidiol oil in schizophrenia treatment. a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The purpose of the present meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy of cannabidiol (CBD) oil in patients with schizophrenia. A search was conducted in EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) up to April 24th, 2020. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs), which used CBD oil treatment versus placebo or any other antipsychotic in schizophrenia patients either as monotherapy or add-on therapy, were included. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. The primary outcomes were efficacy as measured by total symptoms of schizophrenia and improvement in cognition. The meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO [number: CRD42020157146]. Three double-blind RCTs were included. In one study, CBD oil was compared with amisulpride as monotherapy treatment, but no statistically significant difference in overall efficacy was detected between them. No data were available for cognition. The other two studies estimated the effects of CBD oil as add-on treatment compared to placebo; no significant difference was found either in overall efficacy or in cognition. Altogether, insufficient evidence exists on the efficacy and safety of CBD oil in schizophrenia patients. More RCTs, comparing CBD oil with placebo and other antipsychotics are warranted.

Cognitive Effects of Combined Amisulpride and Quetiapine Treatment in Patients With Refractory Schizophrenia: A Naturalistic, Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Regarding the treatment of patients with resistant schizophrenia, different options exit, although they are supported by limited evidence. In this study, antipsychotic polypharmacy, comprising 1200 mg of amisulpride and 600 mg of quetiapine, was used. Clinical change evaluation was performed using neurocognitive evaluations. STUDY QUESTION: The use of amisulpride and quetiapine will imply a clinical improvement in patients affected by schizophrenia, which will be specially reflected in a cognitive improvement. STUDY DESIGN: Naturalistic and prospective study. Twenty-six patients were applied and assessed by a battery of neurocognitive evaluations since the pretreatment baseline until 6-month treatment. The patients had no biological response to medication, high social maladjustment, and a long clinical history of the disease. Kane and Brenner criteria for treatment-resistant schizophrenia were applied to choose the subjects. MEASURES AND OUTCOMES: The cognitive improvement will imply a significant betterment, from the pretreatment baseline until 6-month treatment, in the following cognitive tests: Stroop Test, WAIS Coding Subtest, and Comprehensive Trail Making Test (CTMT). An improvement in the Calgary Depression Scale, Simpson-Angus Scale, and Visual Analogue Scale (EVA) will also be observed. This scales were been used during the baseline, 3 months after, and then, 6 months. RESULTS: Subjects, after 6-month treatment with amisulpride and quetiapine, did show statistically significant differences in the assessed areas: WAIS Coding Subtest (P < 0.001), CTMT A and B (CTMT A P < 0.034; CTMT B P < 0.000), and Stroop Tests: Word (P < 0.001), Word-Color (P < 0.007), and Interference (P < 0.039). Furthermore, they showed a statistically significant difference in the Calgary Depression Scale (P < 0.002), Simpson-Angus Scale (P < 0.019), and EVA (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this report show a cognitive and clinical improvement in refractory patients after the administration of amisulpride and quetiapine.

Amisulpride for the Rescue Treatment of Postoperative Nausea or Vomiting in Patients Failing Prophylaxis: A Randomized, Placebo-controlled Phase III Trial.

BACKGROUND: Although antiemetics are commonly used to prevent postoperative nausea or vomiting, the failure rate is appreciable and there is currently no generally accepted standard for rescue treatment of postoperative nausea or vomiting after failed prophylaxis. This prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, multicenter study was designed to test the hypothesis that intravenous amisulpride, a dopamine D2/D3-antagonist, is superior to placebo at treating established postoperative nausea or vomiting after failed prophylaxis. METHODS: A total of 2,285 adult patients undergoing surgery under general inhalational anesthesia and receiving standard antiemetic prophylaxis were enrolled at 23 sites in Canada, France, Germany, and the United States. Of these, 702 patients experienced postoperative nausea or vomiting in the 24-h period after surgery and were randomized to receive a single dose of 5 or 10 mg intravenous amisulpride or matching placebo. The primary endpoint was complete response, defined as no emesis or rescue antiemetic use for 24 h after study drug administration, excluding emesis in the first 30 min. Secondary endpoints included incidence of emesis and rescue medication use, nausea burden, time to treatment failure, and length of stay in postanesthesia care unit and hospital. RESULTS: Complete response occurred in significantly more patients receiving 10 mg amisulpride (96 of 230, 41.7%) than placebo (67 of 235, 28.5%), a 13.2% difference (95% CI, 4.6 to 21.8; odds ratio, 1.80; P = 0.006). A 5-mg dose of amisulpride did not show a significant benefit (80 of 237, 33.8%); the difference from placebo was 5.2% (95% CI, 3.1 to 13.6; odds ratio, 1.24; P = 0.109). The total number of adverse events recorded and proportion of patients with at least one adverse event were comparable between the placebo and amisulpride groups. No clinically relevant toxicities were observed. CONCLUSIONS: A single 10-mg dose of intravenous amisulpride was safe and more effective than placebo at treating established postoperative nausea or vomiting in patients failing postoperative nausea or vomiting prophylaxis.

Amisulpride prevents nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remain significant clinical problems, especially in the delayed phase (24-120 h after chemotherapy). Amisulpride is a dopamine D2/D3-receptor antagonist previously shown to be an effective intravenous antiemetic. We conducted a randomised, double-blind study to characterise the dose response of oral amisulpride in delayed phase CINV. METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving cisplatin ≥ 70 mg/m2 or an anthracycline-cyclophosphamide regimen for breast cancer received, on day 1, 20 mg amisulpride and 8-16 mg ondansetron intravenously followed, once daily on days 2-4, by 10, 20 or 40 mg oral amisulpride or placebo. A control group receiving standard three-drug prophylaxis was enrolled for assay sensitivity purposes. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR), defined as no emesis or rescue medication use, in the delayed phase. RESULTS: Three hundred eighteen subjects were evaluable per protocol. CR rate (24-120 h) was 20% with placebo and 46% with 10 mg amisulpride (p = 0.006 after multiplicity adjustment); in the three-drug control group, it was 59%. Emesis, nausea and 0-120-h CR rate were significantly improved with 10 mg amisulpride compared to placebo. Higher doses of amisulpride were not more effective than 10 mg. In patients with acute phase CR, delayed phase CR rate was 44% for placebo, 75% for 10 mg amisulpride (p = 0.022) and 70% for the 3-drug control. No significant differences were seen between groups in safety parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Amisulpride 10 mg orally is safe and superior to placebo at preventing delayed CINV caused by highly emetogenic chemotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01857232.

Amisulpride for very late-onset schizophrenia-like psychosis: the ATLAS three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: Very late-onset (aged ≥ 60 years) schizophrenia-like psychosis (VLOSLP) occurs frequently but no placebo-controlled, randomised trials have assessed the efficacy or risks of antipsychotic treatment. Most patients are not prescribed treatment. OBJECTIVES: The study investigated whether or not low-dose amisulpride is superior to placebo in reducing psychosis symptoms over 12 weeks and if any benefit is maintained by continuing treatment thereafter. Treatment safety and cost-effectiveness were also investigated. DESIGN: Three-arm, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Participants who received at least one dose of study treatment were included in the intention-to-treat analyses. SETTING: Secondary care specialist old age psychiatry services in 25 NHS mental health trusts in England and Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: Patients meeting diagnostic criteria for VLOSLP and scoring > 30 points on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS). INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to three arms in a two-stage trial: (1) 100 mg of amisulpride in both stages, (2) amisulpride then placebo and (3) placebo then amisulpride. Treatment duration was 12 weeks in stage 1 and 24 weeks (later reduced to 12) in stage 2. Participants, investigators and outcome assessors were blind to treatment allocation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were psychosis symptoms assessed by the BPRS and trial treatment discontinuation for non-efficacy. Secondary outcomes were extrapyramidal symptoms measured with the Simpson-Angus Scale, quality of life measured with the World Health Organization's quality-of-life scale, and cost-effectiveness measured with NHS, social care and carer work loss costs and EuroQol-5 Dimensions. RESULTS: A total of 101 participants were randomised. Ninety-two (91%) participants took the trial medication, 59 (64%) completed stage 1 and 33 (56%) completed stage 2 treatment. Despite suboptimal compliance, improvements in BPRS scores at 12 weeks were 7.7 points (95% CI 3.8 to 11.5 points) greater with amisulpride than with placebo (11.9 vs. 4.2 points; p = 0.0002). In stage 2, BPRS scores improved by 1.1 point in those who continued with amisulpride but deteriorated by 5.2 points in those who switched from amisulpride to placebo, a difference of 6.3 points (95% CI 0.9 to 11.7 points; p = 0.024). Fewer participants allocated to the amisulpride group stopped treatment because of non-efficacy in stages 1 (p = 0.01) and 2 (p = 0.031). The number of patients stopping because of extrapyramidal symptoms and other side effects did not differ significantly between groups. Amisulpride treatment in the base-case analyses was associated with non-significant reductions in combined NHS, social care and unpaid carer costs and non-significant reductions in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in both stages. Including patients who were intensive users of inpatient services in sensitivity analyses did not change the QALY result but resulted in placebo dominance in stage 1 and significant reductions in NHS/social care (95% CI -£8923 to -£122) and societal costs (95% CI -£8985 to -£153) for those continuing with amisulpride. LIMITATIONS: The original recruitment target of 300 participants was not achieved and compliance with trial medication was highly variable. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose amisulpride is effective and well tolerated as a treatment for VLOSLP, with benefits maintained by prolonging treatment. Potential adverse events include clinically significant extrapyramidal symptoms and falls. FUTURE WORK: Trials should examine the longer-term effectiveness and safety of antipsychotic treatment in this patient group, and assess interventions to improve their appreciation of potential benefits of antipsychotic treatment and compliance with prescribed medication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45593573 and EudraCT2010-022184-35. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 67. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.