Letter to the Editor: Rethinking The Cost Of Antipsychotic Treatment: The Average Cost Of The Drugs Used In Turkey In 2020. / Editöre Mektup: Çildirigideren Ilaç Tedavisinde Maliyeti Yeniden Düsünmek: Türkiye'de Kullanilan Ilaçlarin 2020 Yili Ortalama Tedavi Maliyeti.

Dear Editor, The costs of antipsychotic drugs (APDs) used in the treatment of mental disorders with psychosis are mentioned in treatment guidelines (APA 2021, NICE 2014). While the American Psychiatric Association guideline states that every specialist should make decisions according to the rules and conditions of their country and their region, the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence guideline emphasizes that drug costs must be taken into consideration in the treatment process. Classical or first-generation antipsychotic drugs (FAPDs) are relatively cheaper in terms of sales prices compared to atypical or second-generation antipsychotic drugs (SAPDs) with a slightly different effect mechanism. The price difference between the two drug groups can be so large that sometimes it may be necessary to consider whether the cost of a second-generation drug is worth its benefit. While deciding on the use of first-generation or second-generation drugs, a multifaceted assessment should be made, such as the patient's level of compliance with the treatment, the possibility of occurrence of side effects, the possible effects of these side effects on body health and treatment compliance, and whether or not the costs are covered. The most important criterion that determines the choice of medication for psychiatrists is of course the multi-dimensional benefit/harm ratio that the drug used will reveal in the long term. We think that in our country, which, in terms of economic indicators is not in a strong position as an importer of pharmaceutical raw materials from abroad, APDs' cost calculation should be considered because drug costs constitute an important part of the direct treatment costs of psychotic disorders in developing countries such as Turkey (Yildiz and Cerit 2006). We calculated the unit (mg) price based on the box prices of the APDs in use in 2020, thinking that it might work when calculating the cost of the illness using APDs as the main component of the treatment and calculated the annual average drug costs with the daily average dosage. Although the daily treatment dose varies with the stage of the illness and the individual characteristics of the patient, the average doses recommended for maintenance treatment were used here (Öztürk and Ulusahin 2018). The daily and annual cost calculations based on the assumption that the average maintenance treatment dose was used with the unit price obtained from (Drug Prices 2020) the drugs in the Turkish pharmaceutical market in September 2020 are shown in Table 1. A similar study was done in 2005 (Yildiz 2005). The purpose of this article is to redetermine the average costs of APDs in the Turkish pharmaceutical market every 15 years and to bring them to the attention of experts in terms of cost-effectiveness studies. When the costs in 2005 are examined, it is seen that the annual costs of the FAPDs were around 450 TRY, and the annual cost of oral preparations of SAPDs was 2,500 TRY (5 times the first generation). In 2005, there was only one depot of SAPD (risperidon consta) that allowed intramuscular (IM) administration, and its average annual cost was 5,400 TRY, 3 times more than the tablet form (1,700 TRY). In 2005, when the price of risperidone consta, which was the first second-generation depot APD, were compared with the prices of the first-generation depot drugs (fluphenazine = 380 TRY, flupentixol = 876 TRY, zuclopentixol = 730 TRY), the cost difference was 6-14 times. This almost-10-fold difference between the cost of the first and second generation APDs was remarkable. It is seen that this difference (risperidone consta = 10,807 TRY, fluphenazine = 916 TRY, flupentixol = 1,007 TRY, zuclopenthixol = 2,372 TRY, and haloperidol deconate 237 TRY) did not change in 2020. In 2020, the average RETHINKING THE COST OF ANTIPSYCHOTIC TREATMENT: THE AVERAGE COST OF THE DRUGS USED IN TURKEY IN 2020 2 Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi 2 Turkish Journal of Psychiatry Letter to the Editor 146 147 annual cost of oral use preparations of FAPDs is 925 TRY, while the average annual cost of oral forms of SAPDs is 2,580 TRY. The 5-fold difference observed in 2005 between the first and second-generation ones of the oral APDs decreased to 2.5 times in 2020. It is clear that while the difference between the cost of oral use of first- and second-generation drugs was halved in 2020, the difference between the costs of depot preparations applied with IM did not change. In 2005, the average dollar rate was 1.34 TRY, and in 2020 it was 7.02 TRY (Republic of Turkey Central Bank Exchange Rates, 2021). It is understood that the 5-fold increase in dollar exchange rate is not reflected in all drug prices in the same way. For example, there was a 3 to 4-fold increase in the prices of haloperidol, chlorpromazine, fluphenazine, trifluperazine and zuclopenthixol, while a less than two-fold increase in pimozide, flupenthixol, sulpiride, amisulpride and quetiapine and a decrease in the prices of clozapine, olanzapine, ziprasidone and risperidone in the tablet form. There is also a two-fold increase in the price of risperidone consta. The fluctuations in drug prices in 2005 and 2020 are shown in Table 2 in 500, 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 and 5,000 TRY brackets. It is noteworthy that while some drugs have moved into an upper price bracket in terms of annual costs, some have fallen into a lower price bracket. The prices of the second generation long-acting (depot) antipsycotic drugs (LA-APDs), which were not available in the Turkish pharmaceutical market in 2005, are quite high compared to others. In 2020, the annual cost of all of them, including risperidone consta, is over 10 thousand TRY. It is understood that the underlying reason for such price increase is the fact that the drug is wanted/sought after/new/marketed rather than the dollar exchange rate. For example, while there was a certain increase in the price of FAPDs, the increase in the price of some of the SAPDs (sulpiride, amisulpride, quetiapine tablet) was low, while the price of some others (clozapine, olanzapine, ziprasidone, risperidone tablet) decreased. It should also be taken into account that the effect of generic drugs entering the market during this period may have had an impact on price changes. It is noteworthy that while the annual cost of risperidone consta was approximately 3 times higher than the tablet form (5,400 TRY versus 1,700 TRY) in 2005, this difference reached 14 folds (10,807 TRY versus 742 TRY) in 2020. In 2005, the difference between the lowest daily cost (0.07 TRY) and the highest daily cost (14.80 TRY) was 211 times (Yildiz 2005), this difference had receded to 111 times (0.35 TRY versus 38.72 TRY) in 2020. Still a huge difference, isn't it? Table 1. Current Forms, Box Prices, Daily and Annual Costs in For Maintenance Treatment of Antipsychotic Drugs Available in the Pharmaceutical Market in September 2020 in Turkey No Generic name Trade name Dosage forms (mg) BV Price# TRY/Mg ADD Cost/d Cost/y 2005** 1 Haloperidol Norodol 5, 10, 20 tb 5/50 17.57 0.070 5 0.35 127 26 5, 10 amp 5/5 5.35 0.214 5 1.07 390 - 50, 150 LAI 50/1 9.80 0.196 1/15* 0.65 237 - 2 Chlorpromazine Largactil 25,100 tb 100/30 17.92 0.006 300 1.79 653 197 3 Fluphenazine Prolixin 25 LAI 25/1 17.57 0.703 1/7* 2.51 916 380 4 Trifluoperazine Stilizan 1, 2, 5 drj; 1 amp 5/30 14.52 0.096 10 0.97 354 91 5 Pimozide Nörofren 2 tb 2/30 19.33 0.322 4 1.29 470 365 6 Flupenthixol Fluanxol 3 drj 3/50 65.75 0.438 6 2.63 960 526 20 LAI 20/1 19.33 0.966 1/7* 2.76 1,007 876 7 Zuklopenthixol Clopixol 2, 10, 25 tb 2/50 38.65 0.386 20 7.72 2,817 701 200 LAI, 50 acu 200/1 45.55 0.227 1/7* 6.50 2,372 730 8 Sulpirid Dogmatil 200 tb 200/24 23.15 0.005 600 3.00 1,095 876 9 Amisulpirid Solian 200 tb 200/60 146.92 0.012 600 7.20 2,628 2,387 10 Quetiapine Seroquel 25, 50, 100, 200, 300, 400 tb 300/30 137.17 0.015 600 9.00 3,285 2,628 11 Clozapine Leponex 25, 100 tb 100/50 32.56 0.006 400 2.40 876 1,898 12 Olanzapine Zyprexa 5, 10, 20 tb 10/28 152.96 0.546 10 5.46 1,992 2,606 13 Ziprasidone Zeldox 20, 40, 60, 80 tb 60/56 189.89 0.056 120 6.72 2,452 3,541 14 Sertindole Serdolect 4, 12, 16, 20 tb 16/28 453.53 1.012 16 16.19 5,909 - 15 Risperidone Risperdal 1, 2, 3, 4 tb; 1 sol 2/20 20.34 0.508 4 2.03 741 1,719 Ris. Consta 25, 37.5, 50 LAI 37.5/1 444.17 11.840 1/15* 29.61 10,807 5,402 16 Paliperidone Invega 3, 6, 9 tb 6/28 213.15 1.268 6 7.61 2,777 - Xeplion 50, 75, 100, 150 LAI 100/1 1161.56 11.615 1/30* 38.72 14,132 - Trevicta 175, 263, 350, 525 LAI 350/1 3426.95 9.788 1/90* 38.08 13,899 - 17 Aripiprazole Abilify 5, 10, 15, 20 tb; 1 sol 20/28 113.25 0.404 20 8.08 2,949 - Abilify Main. 400 LAI 400/1 971.17 2.420 1/30* 32.37 11,815 - BV: Baseline value (in mg of the form and the number in the box), Price#: Box price of the base value in TRY, TRY/mg: Value per milligram in Turkish Lira, ADD: Average daily dose, Cost/d: Daily cost in TRY, Cost/y: Annual cost in TRY, mg: Milligram, tb: Tablet, drj: Dragee, amp: Ampoule, LAI: Long-acting injectable, acu: Acuphase, d: Day, TRY: Turkish Lira, *LAI per 7,15,30 or 90 days, **Annual cost in TRY in 2005. 148 Received: 14.01.2021, Accepted: 31.03.2021, Available Online Date: 07.01.2022 1Prof., 2Res. Assis., Kocaeli University School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, Kocaeli, Turkey. e-mail: myildiz60@yahoo.com https://doi.org/10.5080/u26315 The difference in 2005 between oral FAPDs prices and SAPDs prices seems to have halved in 2020. In 2020, the average daily treatment cost of oral drugs, whether for the first generation or the second generation, is 3 TRY (approximately the same for FAPDs applied with IM), while the daily cost of LA-SAPDs is around 33 TRY. It is seen that the difference between costs is approximately 11 times. This difference increases to 50 times for haloperidol deconate. From here, the following judgment can be made: in order for LA-SAPDs to be preferred, they must be at a value that will constitute at least 11 times higher cost. This cost can and should be taken, especially for patients who are non-adherend with treatment and who do not adapt to LA-FAPDs. Because for clinicians, preventing the multi-dimensional destructiveness of psychosis in the individual, families and the society should be the priority. In this case, calculating the cost should not be a primary consideration. However, it is also known that patients who are non-adherend with treatment gain the ability to understand their illness and make consistent evaluations with its' results. If a psychosocial therapy has been carried out for a patient using IM medication for six months or a year, it is likely that this period provides insight and increases the level of treatment compliance. After one year of IM application, whether or not the patient will comply with oral treatment should be re-evaluated and the transition to oral treatment should be considered. If there is no problem in the patient's oral treatment compliance, it should be taken into account that the benefit of this transition will be at least 11-folds a year with this transition. Naturally, it will be necessary to apply IM for some patients for years. Moreover, there will be patients who need to switch from monthly administration of LA-SAPDs to quarterly usage patterns. However, we can say that most patients using LA-APDs will not need such use after a while, based on our clinical practice, although there is no study done in this field. With this study, we wanted to emphasize that while prescribing drugs used in the treatment of illnesses with psychotic symptoms, they should take into account the side effects of the drugs, as well as the daily, monthly, annual, and lifetime costs of the drugs. The principle of 'using an effective drug recommended for a specific disorder at the required dose, in sufficient time, at the lowest cost' adopted in the rational drug use guidelines should not be forgotten. It is expected that the modification of drug treatments, considering their costs as well as their efficiency, will contribute significantly to the country's economy in the long run. Mustafa Yildiz1, Emre Osman2 REFERENCES American Psychiatric Association (2021) The American Psychiatric Association practice guideline for the treatment of patients with schizophrenia. Third edition. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. Drug Prices. https://www.ilacrehberi.com/ilac-fihrist/ Accession date: 25th September 2020. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) (2014) Psychosis and schizophrenia in adults: prevention and management. NICE Guideline CG178; https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg178. Accession date: 4th April 2018. Öztürk MO, Ulusahin NA (2018) Mental Health and Disorders. 18th Edit. Ankara: Nobel Tip Kitapevleri. (In Turkish) Republic of Turkey Central Bank Exchange Rates. https://www.tcmb.gov.tr/kurlar/kurlar_tr.html Accession date: 10th January 2021. Yildiz M (2005) The cost of treatment of psychotic disorders. Turk Psikiyatri Derg 16:146-7. (In Turkish) Yildiz M, Cerit C (2006) Annual cost of treatment for schizophrenia: Estimation from a university hospital data in Turkey. Bulletin of Clinical Psychopharmacology 16:239-44. Table 2. Comparison of the Annual Costs of Antipsychotic Drugs Calculated By The Daily Standard Average Dose Use, at Certain Price Ranges, for the Years 2005 and 2020 Price bracket (TRY) 2005 2020 500 ↓ Haloperidol tb, amp, Trifluoperazine drj, Chlorpromazine tb, Pimozid tb, Fluphenazine LAI Haloperidol tb, amp, depo, Trifluoperazine drj, Pimozid tb 500-1,000 Flupenthixol drj, LAI, Zuklopenthixol tb, acu, LAI, Sulpirid tb Chlorpromazine tb, Fluphenazine LAI, Flupenthixol drj, LAI, Clozapine tb, Risperidone tb 1,000-2,000 Clozapine tb, Risperidone tb Olanzapine tb, Sulpirid tb 2,000-3,000 Amisulpirid tb, Olanzapine tb, Quetiapine tb Zuklopenthixol tb, acu, LAI, Amisulpirid tb, Ziprasidone tb, Paliperidone tb, Aripiprazole tb 3,000-5,000 Ziprasidone tb Quetiapine tb 5,000-10,000 Risperidone consta Sertindole tb 10,000 ↑ Risperidone consta, Paliperidone monthly, Paliperidone 3 monthly, Aripiprazole maintana tb: Tablet, drj: Dragee, amp: Ampoule, LAI: Long-acting injectable, acu: Acuphase.

The overall assessment of simultaneous photocatalytic degradation of Cimetidine and Amisulpride by using chemical and genotoxicological approaches.

Pharmaceutical Active Compounds (PhACs) are of particular interest among the emerging contaminants detected in the aquatic environment. Commonly, PhACs exist as complex mixtures in aquatic systems, causing potential adverse effects to the environment and human health than those of individual compounds. Based on the increasing interest in the contamination of water resources by PhACs, the photocatalytic degradation of Cimetidine and Amisulpride as a mixture in combination with their toxic and genotoxic effects before and after the treatment were evaluated for the first time. The toxic, genotoxic and cytotoxic effects were investigated using the Trypan Blue Exclusion Test and the Cytokinesis Block MicroNucleus (CBMN) assay in cultured human lymphocytes. The photocatalytic degradation of the PhACs was studied in ultrapure water and environmentally relevant matrices using UV-A and visible (Vis) irradiation and C-TiO2 (TiO2 Kronos vlp 7000) as photocatalyst. High removal percentages were observed for both compounds under UV-A and Vis irradiation in ultrapure water. In lake and drinking water a slower degradation rate was shown that could be attributed to the complex composition of these matrices. Scavenging experiments highlighted the significant role of h+ and O2●- in the degradation mechanisms under both irradiation sources. Oxidation, dealkylation and deamination were the main degradation pathways. Regarding the individual compounds, Amisulpride was found to be more cytotoxic than Cimetidine. No significant differences of the genotoxic effects during the treatment were observed. However, a slight increase in cytotoxicity was observed at the first stages of the process. At the end of the process under both UV-A and Vis light, non-significant cytotoxic/toxic effects were observed. Based on the results, heterogeneous photocatalysis can be considered as an effective process for the treatment of complex mixtures without the formation of harmful transformation products.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of amisulpride and olanzapine in the treatment of schizophrenia in China.

BACKGROUND: Both amisulpride and olanzapine are leading treatments for schizophrenia in China. This study aimed to investigate the long-term cost-effectiveness of amisulpride and olanzapine in the treatment of schizophrenia in China. METHODS: A decision-analytic Markov model was developed to simulate the lifetime clinical and economic outcomes of schizophrenia treatment from the healthcare payer perspective. The long-term costs and QALYs were estimated. Sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the impact of variance of parameters on the results. RESULTS: Treatment with amisulpride provided an effectiveness gain of 16.59 QALYs at an average cost of USD 25,884 whereas olanzapine resulted in 16.38 QALYs at a cost of USD 34,839 over a lifetime horizon. One-way sensitivity analysis suggested that the most sensitive variable was the unit cost of olanzapine. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis based on a Monte Carlo simulation with a lifetime horizon, the probability of amisulpride being cost-effective was 99.8% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of USD 9,322, the GDP per capita in China 2018. A scenario analysis with updated olanzapine unit cost suggested an ICER of 7,857 USD/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Amisulpride is likely to be a cost-effective option with increased effectiveness compared with olanzapine in the treatment of schizophrenia patients in China.

An overview of intravenous amisulpride as a new therapeutic option for the prophylaxis and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Introduction: Current therapies of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are based on a combination of antiemetics from different pharmacological classes. Dopamine receptor antagonists are one of the cornerstones of such multimodal antiemetic approach, with droperidol being the best studied representative of this group. Droperidol's use has significantly declined after the FDA's black-box warning in 2001 due to its QT-prolonging properties. Amisulpride is a promising antiemetic agent which could fill this gap.Areas covered: In this review, the authors discuss the pharmacological profile as well as clinical safety and efficacy of intravenous amisulpride and its relevance in the management of PONV. The article is based on a Medline, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Library search for studies on amisulpride conducted so far.Expert opinion: Promising clinical results on Barhemsys®, an intravenous formulation of amisulpride, make it a potential future drug of choice from the dopamine receptor antagonist group, replacing droperidol after its safety concerns. Amisulpride's success on the market will mostly be determined by its cost-effectiveness and it will likely find a brighter use on the US-market, where the black-box warning led to droperidol's withdrawal, while in many European countries, droperidol is still being used as an antiemetic.

Amisulpride - is it as all other medicines or is it different? An update. / Amisulpryd ­ lek taki sam jak wszystkie czy inny? Aktualizacja.

Amisulpride is an antipsychotic available in Europe since 1990s, in Poland since 2000. Subsequent years brought to Polish market more second-generation compounds such as ziprasidone and aripiprazole. In 2018, the Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Tariff System issued positive recommendation for lurasidone in schizophrenia (Recommendation 30/2018) facilitating its entry to the market. Thanks to new molecules, therapeutic possibilities of medicines consequently rise, however, higher number of available substances of different properties brings also more dilemmas which one to pick. Since new publications of comparative drug trials, meta-analyses and systematic reviews are issued regularly, the authors present herein publications issued within last ten years focusing on amisulpride as opposed to other neuroleptics used in Poland. Although in many aspects it is equivalent to other atypical antipsychotics, it still has some advantages. Amisulpride seems to have better outcome than classic and atypical neuroleptics when it comes to depressive symptoms and predominant negative symptoms. It might also be superior to haloperidol in inducing symptomatic remission in first episode schizophrenia. Except for prolactin increase its side effects profile is favorable - it rarely leads to extrapyramidal symptoms (which are dose-dependent) and sedation. Therefore many patients accept treatment with amisulpride for its measurable clinical gains, such as improvement of positive symptoms and higher quality of life, compared to typical neuroleptics. Pharmacokinetics of amisulpride also encourage its wider use, especially when there is either a need for combined psychopharmacotherapy or comorbidity with general medical condition rises a need for somatic parallel treatment.

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.

Comparative efficacy and safety between amisulpride and olanzapine in schizophrenia treatment and a cost analysis in China: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and cost-minimization analysis.

BACKGROUND: Amisulpride was introduced into China in 2010 as a second-generation atypical antipsychotic, while olanzapine has been on the market since 1999 as one of the leading treatments for schizophrenia in China. Since more Chinese patients are gaining access to amisulpride, the study aims to compare the efficacy, safety, and costs between amisulpride and olanzapine for schizophrenia treatment in China. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and WanFang database were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to July 2018. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was utilized to assess the quality of included studies. A meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of amisulpride and olanzapine, followed by a cost-minimization analysis using local drug and medical costs reported in China. RESULTS: Twenty RCTs with 2000 patients were included in the systematic review. There were no significant differences between amisulpride and olanzapine on efficacy measures based on scores from the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms, the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale and the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity or Improvement. For safety outcomes, amisulpride was associated with lower fasting blood glucose and less abnormal liver functions as well as significantly lower risks of weight gain, constipation, and somnolence; olanzapine was associated with significantly lower risks of insomnia and lactation/amenorrhea/sexual hormone disorder. No significant differences were found in risks of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), tremor, akathisia, abnormal corrected QT interval. Cost-minimization analysis showed that amisulpride was likely to be a cost-saving alternative in China, with potential savings of 1358 Chinese Yuan (CNY) per patient for a three-month schizophrenia treatment compared with olanzapine. CONCLUSION: As the first meta-analysis and cost-minimization analysis comparing the efficacy, safety and cost of amisulpride and olanzapine within a Chinese setting, the study suggests that amisulpride may be an effective, well-tolerated, and cost-saving antipsychotic drug alternative in China.

Amisulpride augmentation in clozapine-unresponsive schizophrenia (AMICUS): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: When treatment-refractory schizophrenia shows an insufficient response to a trial of clozapine, clinicians commonly add a second antipsychotic, despite the lack of robust evidence to justify this practice. OBJECTIVES: The main objectives of the study were to establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of augmentation of clozapine medication with a second antipsychotic, amisulpride, for the management of treatment-resistant schizophrenia. DESIGN: The study was a multicentre, double-blind, individually randomised, placebo-controlled trial with follow-up at 12 weeks. SETTINGS: The study was set in NHS multidisciplinary teams in adult psychiatry. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible participants were people aged 18-65 years with treatment-resistant schizophrenia unresponsive, at a criterion level of persistent symptom severity and impaired social function, to an adequate trial of clozapine monotherapy. INTERVENTIONS: Interventions comprised clozapine augmentation over 12 weeks with amisulpride or placebo. Participants received 400 mg of amisulpride or two matching placebo capsules for the first 4 weeks, after which there was a clinical option to titrate the dosage of amisulpride up to 800 mg or four matching placebo capsules for the remaining 8 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the proportion of 'responders', using a criterion response threshold of a 20% reduction in total score on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale. RESULTS: A total of 68 participants were randomised. Compared with the participants assigned to placebo, those receiving amisulpride had a greater chance of being a responder by the 12-week follow-up (odds ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 3.42) and a greater improvement in negative symptoms, although neither finding had been present at 6-week follow-up and neither was statistically significant. Amisulpride was associated with a greater side effect burden, including cardiac side effects. Economic analyses indicated that amisulpride augmentation has the potential to be cost-effective in the short term [net saving of between £329 and £2011; no difference in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] and possibly in the longer term. LIMITATIONS: The trial under-recruited and, therefore, the power of statistical analysis to detect significant differences between the active and placebo groups was limited. The economic analyses indicated high uncertainty because of the short duration and relatively small number of participants. CONCLUSIONS: The risk-benefit of amisulpride augmentation of clozapine for schizophrenia that has shown an insufficient response to a trial of clozapine monotherapy is worthy of further investigation in larger studies. The size and extent of the side effect burden identified for the amisulpride-clozapine combination may partly reflect the comprehensive assessment of side effects in this study. The design of future trials of such a treatment strategy should take into account that a clinical response may be not be evident within the 4- to 6-week follow-up period usually considered adequate in studies of antipsychotic treatment of acute psychotic episodes. Economic evaluation indicated the need for larger, longer-term studies to address uncertainty about the extent of savings because of amisulpride and impact on QALYs. The extent and nature of the side effect burden identified for the amisulpride-clozapine combination has implications for the nature and frequency of safety and tolerability monitoring of clozapine augmentation with a second antipsychotic in both clinical and research settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT number 2010-018963-40 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN68824876. 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. 21, No. 49. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Pharmacokinetics and relative bioavailability of a generic amisulpride tablet in healthy Chinese volunteers
.

OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare the pharmacokinetic properties and bioavailability of a newly developed formulation of amisulpride with those of a conventional formulation in healthy Chinese volunteers under fasting state. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-dose, two-sequence crossover study was designed. 20 healthy subjects (14 males and 6 females) were randomized into two groups. A single oral dose of amisulpride (200 mg) was given after an overnight fast of 12 hours. Blood samples were taken at scheduled time spots and separated by a washout period of 14 days. Plasma concentration of amisulpride was measured by high-performance liquid chromatography-fluorescence detector (HPLC-FLD) method. RESULTS: The pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-tlast, AUC0-∞, and Cmax for the 20 subjects after a single oral dose of the trial preparation or the reference preparation were 4,767.2 and 4,856.3 ng×h×mL-1; 4,891.7 and 5,043.2 ng×h×mL-1; 584.7 and 586.3 ng×mL-1, respectively. The relative bioavailability was 98.9 ± 14.5%. No significant difference was found among the main pharmacokinetic parameters in the two preparations by ANOVA. The 90% confidence intervals for the geometric mean ratios (test/reference) of Cmax and AUC0-tlast were 90.7 - 109.1% and 92.5 - 103.6%, respectively, meeting the predetermined criteria (80 - 125%) for bioequivalence. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated that the two preparations met the regulatory criteria for bioequivalence and both formulations were well tolerated.
.

Fluphenazine (oral) versus atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Fluphenazine is a typical antipsychotic drug from the phenothiazine group of antipsychotics. It has been commonly used in the treatment of schizophrenia, however, with the advent of atypical antipsychotic medications, use has declined over the years. OBJECTIVES: To measure the outcomes (both beneficial and harmful) of the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of oral fluphenazine versus atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Studies (25 April 2013). For the economic search, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Health Economic Database (CSzGHED) on 31 January 2014 SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing fluphenazine (oral) with any other oral atypical antipsychotics. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors worked independently to inspect citations and assess the quality of the studies and to extract data. For homogeneous dichotomous data we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI), and calculated the mean differences (MDs) for continuous data. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and used GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) to rate the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Four studies randomising a total of 202 people with schizophrenia are included. Oral fluphenazine was compared with oral amisulpride, risperidone, quetiapine and olanzapine.Comparing oral fluphenazine with amisulpride, there was no difference between groups for mental state using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) (1 RCT, n = 57, MD 5.10 95% CI -2.35 to 12.55, very low-quality evidence), nor was there any difference in numbers leaving the study early for any reason (2 RCTs, n = 98, RR 1.19 95% CI 0.63 to 2.28, very low-quality evidence). More people required concomitant anticholinergic medication in the fluphenazine group compared to amisulpride (1 RCT, n = 36, RR 7.82 95% CI 1.07 to 57.26, very low-quality evidence). No data were reported for important outcomes including relapse, changes in life skills, quality of life or cost-effectiveness.Comparing oral fluphenazine with risperidone, data showed no difference between groups for 'clinically important response' (1 RCT, n = 26, RR 0.67 95% CI 0.13 to 3.35, very low-quality evidence) nor leaving the study early due to inefficacy (1 RCT, n = 25, RR 1.08 95% CI 0.08 to 15.46, very low-quality evidence). No data were reported data for relapse; change in life skills; quality of life; extrapyramidal adverse effects; or cost-effectiveness.Once again there was no difference when oral fluphenazine was compared with quetiapine for clinically important response (1 RCT, n = 25, RR 0.62 95% CI 0.12 to 3.07, very low-quality evidence), nor leaving the study early for any reason (1 RCT, n = 25, RR 0.46 95% CI 0.05 to 4.46, very low-quality evidence). No data were reported for relapse; clinically important change in life skills; quality of life; extrapyramidal adverse effects; or cost-effectiveness.Compared to olanzapine, fluphenazine showed no superiority for clinically important response (1 RCT, n = 60, RR 1.33 95% CI 0.86 to 2.07, very low-quality evidence), in incidence of akathisia (1 RCT, n = 60, RR 3.00 95% CI 0.90 to 10.01, very low-quality evidence) or in people leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 60, RR 3.00 95% CI 0.33 to 27.23, very low-quality evidence). No data were reported for relapse; change in life skills; quality of life; or cost-effectiveness. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Measures of clinical response and mental state do not highlight differences between fluphenazine and amisulpride, risperidone, quetiapine or olanzapine. Largely measures of adverse effects are also unconvincing for substantive differences between fluphenazine and the newer drugs. All included trials carry a substantial risk of bias regarding reporting of adverse effects and this bias would have favoured the newer drugs. The four small short included studies do not provide much clear information about the relative merits or disadvantages of oral fluphenazine compared with newer atypical antipsychotics.

Skating on thin ice: pragmatic prescribing for medication refractory schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Clozapine is the treatment of choice for medication refractory psychosis, but it does not benefit half of those put on it. There are numerous studies of potential post-clozapine strategies, but little data to guide the order of such treatment in this common clinical challenge. We describe a naturalistic observational study in 153 patients treated by a specialist psychosis service to identify optimal pharmacotherapy practice, based on outcomes. METHODS: Medication and clinical data, based on the OPCRIT tool, were examined on admission and discharge from the national psychosis service. The primary outcome measure was the percentage change in mental state examination symptoms between admission and discharge and the association with medication on discharge. Exploratory analyses evaluated the specificity of individual medication effects on symptom clusters. RESULTS: There were fewer drugs prescribed at discharge relative to admission, suggesting an optimisation of medication, and a doubling of the number of patients treated with clozapine. Treatment with clozapine on discharge was associated with maximal decrease in symptoms from admission. In the group of patients that did not respond to clozapine monotherapy, the most effective drug combinations were clozapine augmentation with 1) sodium valproate, 2) lithium, 3) amisulpride, and 4) quetiapine. There was no support for a dose-response relationship for any drug combination. CONCLUSIONS: Clozapine monotherapy is clearly the optimal medication in medication refractory schizophrenia and it is possible to maximise its use. In patients unresponsive to clozapine monotherapy, augmentation with sodium valproate, lithium, amisulpride and quetiapine, in that order, is a reasonable treatment algorithm. Reducing the number of ineffective drugs is possible without a detrimental effect on symptoms. Exploratory data indicated that clozapine was beneficial across a range of symptoms domains, whereas olanzapine was beneficial specifically for hallucinations and lamotrigine for comorbid affective symptoms.

Prolonged QT Risk Assessment in Antipsychotic Overdose Using the QT Nomogram.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Antipsychotic drugs are frequently reported to cause QT prolongation and torsade de pointes. We aim to investigate the potential risk of torsade de pointes in antipsychotic overdose by assessing the QT interval with the QT nomogram. METHODS: All presentations to a toxicology service between January 1987 and May 2013 were reviewed. Admissions with single ingestions of an antipsychotic greater than maximum daily dose were extracted. Demographics, dose, ECG, and outcomes (arrhythmias and death) were obtained. QT intervals in multiple leads were manually measured and the median taken. QT-heart rate (QT-HR) pairs were plotted on the QT nomogram and defined as prolonged if above the abnormal line. The QTcF (Fridericia's HR correction) was calculated and compared with dose. RESULTS: From 2,356 antipsychotic overdoses, 494 were included. There were no abnormal QT-HR pairs in 4 aripiprazole, 31 pericyazine, 14 trifluoperazine, and 7 haloperidol overdoses. Abnormal QT intervals occurred in 9 of 16 amisulpride overdoses (56%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 31% to 79%), 16 of 57 thioridazine overdoses (28%; 95% CI 17% to 42%), and 5 of 29 chlorpromazine overdoses (17%; 95% CI 7% to 36%). Abnormal QT intervals occurred in 5 of 41 risperidone overdoses (12%; 95% CI 5% to 27%), 10 of 202 quetiapine overdoses (5%; 95% CI 3% to 9%), and 2 of 76 olanzapine overdoses (3%; 95% CI 0.5% to 10%), but there was no correlation between dose and QTcF, and most abnormal QT intervals were at fast HR. An additional 186 single antipsychotic ingestions with noncardiotoxic coingestants had similar proportions of abnormal QT. There was 1 case of torsade de pointes in a thioridazine overdose. CONCLUSION: There appeared to be significant risk of QT prolongation with amisulpride and thioridazine overdoses. Although there were abnormal QT intervals for quetiapine, olanzapine, and risperidone overdoses, they were associated with tachycardia and not dose dependent, and so were unlikely to be associated with increased torsade de pointes risk.

Accounting for uncertainty due to 'last observation carried forward' outcome imputation in a meta-analysis model.

Missing outcome data are a problem commonly observed in randomized control trials that occurs as a result of participants leaving the study before its end. Missing such important information can bias the study estimates of the relative treatment effect and consequently affect the meta-analytic results. Therefore, methods on manipulating data sets with missing participants, with regard to incorporating the missing information in the analysis so as to avoid the loss of power and minimize the bias, are of interest. We propose a meta-analytic model that accounts for possible error in the effect sizes estimated in studies with last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputed patients. Assuming a dichotomous outcome, we decompose the probability of a successful unobserved outcome taking into account the sensitivity and specificity of the LOCF imputation process for the missing participants. We fit the proposed model within a Bayesian framework, exploring different prior formulations for sensitivity and specificity. We illustrate our methods by performing a meta-analysis of five studies comparing the efficacy of amisulpride versus conventional drugs (flupenthixol and haloperidol) on patients diagnosed with schizophrenia. Our meta-analytic models yield estimates similar to meta-analysis with LOCF-imputed patients. Allowing for uncertainty in the imputation process, precision is decreased depending on the priors used for sensitivity and specificity. Results on the significance of amisulpride versus conventional drugs differ between the standard LOCF approach and our model depending on prior beliefs on the imputation process. Our method can be regarded as a useful sensitivity analysis that can be used in the presence of concerns about the LOCF process.

Antipsychotic combination using low-dose antipsychotics is as efficacious and safe as, but cheaper, than optimal-dose monotherapy in the treatment of schizophrenia: a randomized, double-blind study.

The use of antipsychotic combination has been increasing during the last decade. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of low-dose amisulpride plus low-dose sulpiride with full-dose amisulpride in the treatment of acute schizophrenia. In this 6-week, double-blind, fixed-dose study, patients were randomized to antipsychotic combination (400 mg/day amisulpride plus 800 mg/day sulpiride, N=46) or monotherapy (800 mg/day amisulpride, N=46) groups. Efficacy measurements included the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and subscales, and other scales. Safety and quality of life were also assessed. Response was defined as a 30% reduction in the PANSS total score. Both groups were similar in terms of the following: (a) clinical characteristics at baseline, (b) response rates, and (c) score changes in all psychopathology measures, quality of life, and all side-effect scales after 6 weeks of treatment. There were also no significant between-group differences in changes in other safety measurement. However, the combination strategy did reduce treatment costs. The current study suggests that an antipsychotic combination of low-dose antipsychotics is as efficacious and safe as, but cheaper than, optimal-dose monotherapy in the treatment of schizophrenia.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of burning mouth syndrome therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To study the cost-effectiveness of four alternative treatments for burning mouth syndrome (BMS). METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from a healthcare payer perspective of four therapy strategies (amisulpride, paroxetine, sertraline and topical clonazepam), using a decision-tree model that incorporated direct healthcare costs and probabilities associated with the possible events and outcomes. Average cost-effectiveness and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. Sensitivity analyses included the costs of brand name and generic drugs in five European countries (France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and UK), as well as two scenarios with different treatment length. RESULTS: Of the drugs analysed, topical clonazepam proved to be the most cost-effective therapy. Although generic proved more efficient than brand name drugs, they displayed no advantage over brand name topical clonazepam. The Netherlands was the country with the highest overall drug efficiency. Sensitivity analyses highlighted the robustness of the model, because topical clonazepam proved to be the most efficient therapy under all the different scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Topical clonazepam, which previous analyses of clinical evidence have shown to be the drug of choice for BMS, also proved to be the most cost-effective of the drugs analysed for this condition.

Assessment of infant dose through milk in a lactating woman taking amisulpride and desvenlafaxine for treatment-resistant depression.

This study presents the case of a 35-year-old breastfeeding mother who delivered her fourth child 5 months previously and was prescribed 100 mg amisulpride twice daily and 250 mg desvenlafaxine in the morning for treatment-resistant depression. Arriving at this regimen took approximately 2 months postbirth. Because she was keen to continue breastfeeding her infant, and published data on the use of amisulpride and desvenlafaxine were very limited, the clinical team sought assistance from the therapeutic drug monitoring laboratory to quantify infant dose-exposure to guide consideration of continuing breastfeeding. A sampling schedule for milk and plasma from mother and plasma from her infant was agreed and drug concentrations were measured by high-performance liquid chromatography. Absolute (theoretic) infant dose (µg/kg/d) was calculated as the product of the average concentration in milk and an assumed milk intake of 0.15 L/kg/day (294 mg/kg/day for desvenlafaxine and 183 mg/kg/day for amisulpride), and relative infant dose was estimated as absolute infant dose expressed as a percentage of the maternal dose in µg/kg/day (7.8% for desvenlafaxine and 6.1% for amisulpride). Consistent with the infant being partially breastfed, the ratio of drug in the infant's plasma to that in mother's plasma was lower at 1.7% for desvenlafaxine and 3.9% for amisulpride. A pediatric assessment of the infant found achievement of expected developmental progress for age and no detectable drug-related adverse effects. Assessing the safety of breastfeeding was difficult because it involved simultaneous use of two drugs for which there was limited previous experience. However, after discussion of the infant dose-exposure data and lack of adverse effects, the mother elected to continue partial breastfeeding for the next few months. The clinical team plans a reassessment of the infant's progress in 3 months.

[Costs of treatment in patients with schizophrenia switched to amisulpride--one-year follow-up]. / Az amisulpridre történô átállítás hatása a szkizofréniával kapcsolatos költségekre egyéves követés során.

OBJECTIVES: In our present research we have studied the costs associated with switching schizophrenia patients to amisulpride as well as the efficacy of amisulpride treatment. We wanted to explore whether the relatively higher costs of amisulpride can be recovered under the current Hungarian economic and financing conditions. METHODS: From 2002, we analysed clinical improvement with a 6 months follow-up measured by CGI and also compared the costs that were incurred before and after switching in 76 patients suffering from schizophrenia who received amisulpride instead of their previous treatment with typical or atypical antipsychotics. In a second, retrospective phase of the study which lasted for 6 months, we studied the willingness of investigators and patients to continue amisulpride treatment. During this period of treatment both the investigators and the patients were unaware of the fact that the circumstances of treatment would be investigated later; thus, we could determine the number of investigators and patients who decided on the continuation of amisulpride in this phase, and how costs changed later on. In our analysis we followed the cost evaluation methodology introduced earlier by Agnes Rupp. RESULTS: 68 patients were available for the second phase of the study, 65 continued the treatment with amisulpride. Amisulpride has demonstrated cost neutrality in both phases of the study. Higher costs of this medicine have been compensated by an increase in productivity and the resulting cost reduction. Amisulpride treatment was associated with a significant improvement of CGI-measures. CONCLUSIONS: In an open, non-controlled study, modelling a field study in its second phase, amisulpride has been shown to be an effective antipsychotic which is readily accepted by patients and clinicians and which can be prescribed without increasing costs.

Atypical antipsychotic therapy for treatment of schizophrenia in Hong Kong Chinese patients--a cost analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the direct medical cost of atypical antipsychotic therapy for schizophrenia among Hong Kong Chinese patients and to identify factors affecting the cost of treatment. METHODS: In this retrospective database analysis, patient data were retrieved from three Hong Kong public hospitals. Patients aged 2 18 years who received an initial prescription for olanzapine, risperidone, quetiapine or amisulpride between April 1 and September 30, 2003; and had an ICD-10-coded diagnosis of schizophrenia were included. Patient data were collected for a maximum duration of 1 year before and after treatment initiation. Primary outcome measures were the schizophrenia-related direct medical costs. Demographic and clinical factors were analyzed by multiple regression analysis to identify influential factors for the cost of atypical antipsychotic therapy. RESULTS: A total of 325 patient records were reviewed and 82 patients were included in the analysis. Cost per patient per month for clinic visits (US$ 67 +/- 41 versus US$ 78 +/- 41), medications (US$ 8 +/- 12 versus US$ 97 +/- 83), and the total cost per patient per month (US$ 314 +/- 898 versus US$ 431 +/- 914) increased significantly after treatment initiation (US$ 1 = HK$ 7.8). Previous duration of hospitalization (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 1.00 1.01), history of substance abuse (RR = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.05 1.52) and use of depot antipsychotics (RR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.05 - 1.42) were associated with higher cost of atypical antipsychotic therapy. CONCLUSION: The total direct medical cost increased significantly after initiation of atypical antipsychotic therapy in a cohort of Chinese patients with schizophrenia. History of drug abuse, use of depot antipsychotics and prior duration of hospitalization were positive predictors of cost of therapy.

Cost analysis of treating schizophrenia with amisulpride: naturalistic mirror image study.

The aim of the study was to examine the costs of schizophrenia treatment using the atypical antipsychotic amisulpride relative to treatment with other antipsychotics. Service use data were collected for one year of amisulpride treatment. The patients were also assessed with the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scale and scales of Quality of Life. These were compared with retrospectively collected data for the 1-year period prior to the patients commencing amisulpride. The findings indicate that, compared with the year before, the clinical and quality of life scores improved during the year of treatment with amisulpride. There was a numerical reduction of total costs, as well as costs of in- and out-patient service use per patient per year during the year on amisulpride compared with the year before the patients started amisulpride. Patients on amisulpride spent fewer days as acute in-patients, but stayed longer in rehabilitation wards. Amisulpride treatment may lead to a reduction in the cost of treating schizophrenia in comparison with treatment with other antipsychotic medications.

Amisulpride: a review of its use in the management of schizophrenia.

Amisulpride (Solian), a substituted benzamide derivative, is a second-generation antipsychotic that preferentially binds to dopamine D2/D3 receptors in limbic rather than striatal structures. High dosages preferentially antagonise postsynaptic D2/D3 receptors, resulting in reduced dopamine transmission, and low dosages preferentially block presynaptic D2/D3 receptors, resulting in enhanced dopamine transmission. Amisulpride (200-1200 mg/day) was at least as effective as haloperidol and as effective as risperidone or olanzapine, in studies of up to 1 year in patients with schizophrenia manifesting predominantly positive symptoms. Amisulpride (50-300 mg/day) was significantly more effective than placebo in studies of up to 6 months in patients manifesting predominantly negative symptoms. Quality of life was also improved significantly more in patients receiving amisulpride than in those receiving haloperidol in 4- and 12-month studies in patients with predominantly mixed symptoms. Amisulpride was generally well tolerated in clinical trials. In patients with predominantly positive symptoms, amisulpride appeared to be better tolerated than haloperidol and was tolerated as well as risperidone and olanzapine. The incidence of extrapyramidal adverse effects with amisulpride was lower than with haloperidol but was generally similar to risperidone or olanzapine. Weight gain with amisulpride was less than that with risperidone or olanzapine and, unlike these agents, amisulpride does not seem to be associated with diabetogenic effects. Plasma prolactin levels are increased during amisulpride therapy and amenorrhoea occurs in about 4% of women. The incidence of adverse events with low dosages of amisulpride (< or = 300 mg/day) in patients with predominantly negative symptoms was similar to that observed with placebo. In conclusion, oral amisulpride (200-1200 mg/day) is at least as effective as haloperidol, and as effective as risperidone or olanzapine, in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia manifesting predominantly positive symptoms. In the treatment of patients manifesting predominantly negative symptoms, low dosages of amisulpride (50-300 mg/day) are significantly more effective than placebo. Amisulpride appears to be better tolerated than haloperidol, causing a lower incidence of extrapyramidal adverse effects and an improved quality of life. Compared with risperidone or olanzapine, amisulpride is more likely to cause hyperprolactinaemia, but has a lower propensity to cause weight gain and does not seem to be associated with diabetogenic effects. Thus, amisulpride is an effective and well tolerated option for the first-line treatment of patients with acute schizophrenia as well as for those requiring long-term maintenance therapy.