Changing the Antipsychotic in Early Nonimprovers to Amisulpride or Olanzapine: Randomized, Double-Blind Trial in Patients With Schizophrenia.

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

Amisulpride and olanzapine combination treatment versus each monotherapy in acutely ill patients with schizophrenia in Germany (COMBINE): a double-blind randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Combining antipsychotics is common in schizophrenia treatment, despite evidence-based guidelines generally not recommending such practice. Otherwise, evidence remains inconclusive, especially regarding specific combinations. The trial aimed to test whether a combination of amisulpride plus olanzapine is more effective than either intervention as a monotherapy. METHODS: A multicentre, 16-week, randomised, double-blind, controlled trial was done at 16 psychiatric in-patient centres throughout Germany. Inclusion criteria were adults aged 18-65 years with non-first episode schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and with a Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score of at least 70 and at least two items of the positive symptoms subscale rated at least 4. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 16 weeks of treatment with either amisulpride plus olanzapine, amisulpride plus placebo, or olanzapine plus placebo (1:1:1), and block randomisation was stratified by study site. To keep patients and investigators masked throughout the duration of the trial, amisulpride, olanzapine, and placebo were administered as identical capsules. Flexibly dosed monotherapy of oral amisulpride (amisulpride plus placebo, 200-800 mg per day) or olanzapine (olanzapine plus placebo, 5-20 mg per day) was compared with a combination of amisulpride plus olanzapine. The primary outcome was symptom reduction measured by the PANSS total score after 8 weeks, in the modified intention-to-treat population (all patients randomly assigned to an intervention and receiving at least one study drug dose). As determined a priori, group differences were examined by t tests (Bonferroni-Holm-adjustment) followed by pre-planned Bayesian analyses as well as imputation methods based on mixed models to account for missing values and post-hoc ANCOVA adjusting for PANSS baseline scores. The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01609153; the German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00003603; and the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database, EudraCT-No. 2011-002463-20. FINDINGS: Between June 15, 2012, and Dec 15, 2018, 13 692 patients were assessed for eligibility. 13 364 patients were excluded (including for not meeting inclusion criteria, declining to participate, or inappropriate reasons for changing pharmacological treatment), and 328 were then randomly assigned to an intervention group. 112 patients were randomly assigned to receive amisulpride plus olanzapine, 109 were randomly assigned to receive amisulpride plus placebo, and 107 were randomly assigned to receive olanzapine plus placebo. 321 patients were analysed for the primary outcome in the modified intention-to-treat population after exclusion of screening failures and patients who did not receive the intervention (110 for amisulpride plus olanzapine, 109 for amisulpride plus placebo, and 102 for olanzapine plus placebo). Among the 321 patients who were randomly assigned to intervention groups and analysed for the primary outcome, 229 (71%) were male, 92 (29%) were female; the mean age was 40·2 years (SD 11·7); and 296 (92%) were White and 25 (8%) were classified as other ethnicity. PANSS total score improved significantly more at 8 weeks in the amisulpride plus olanzapine group (-29·6 [SD 14·5]) than in the olanzapine plus placebo group (-24·1 [13·4], p=0·049, Cohen's d=0·396). A significant difference was not observed in reduction of PANSS total score between the amisulpride and olanzapine group compared with the amisulpride and placebo group (-25·2 [SD 15·9], p=0·095, Cohen's d=0·29). After 8 weeks and 16 weeks, sexual dysfunction, weight, and waist circumference increase were significantly higher for patients receiving amisulpride plus olanzapine than for those receiving amisulpride plus placebo, with no differences in serious adverse events. Two patients died during study participation; one randomly assigned to the amisulpride plus olanzapine group, and one assigned to the olanzapine plus placebo group (both assessed with no relation to treatment). INTERPRETATION: The advantages of amisulpride plus olanzapine have to be weighed against a higher propensity for side-effects. The use of this specific combination therapy could be an alternative to monotherapy in certain clinical situations, but side-effects should be considered. FUNDING: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

A randomized double-blind controlled trial to assess the benefits of amisulpride and olanzapine combination treatment versus each monotherapy in acutely ill schizophrenia patients (COMBINE): methods and design.

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

Symptoms of anxiety and depression are frequent in patients with acute hepatitis C and are not associated with disease severity.

OBJECTIVE: Neuropsychiatric symptoms of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and during peginterferon α therapy have been investigated in the chronic stage of the infection, but have not been described during the acute phase of the disease so far. We therefore evaluated anxiety and depression in patients with acute hepatitis C by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) within a clinical trial. METHODS: Data were analysed from the German Hep-Net Acute HCV-III study. Anxiety and depression were characterized by an anxiety (HADS-A) and a depression subscale (HADS-D). More than eight points in each subscale were considered clinically relevant. Data were prospectively collected at baseline, end of treatment and at the end of the study. RESULTS: At baseline, a HADS-A above eight points was observed significantly more frequently than a HADS-D above eight points [n=23/103 (22%) vs. n=12/103 (12%); P=0.041].A pathological HADS-A or HADS-D score did not correlate with age, sex, IL28B genotype, the probable mode of infection, HCV genotype or severity of disease as investigated by alanine aminotransferase and bilirubin levels.Antiviral therapy did not influence anxiety as 12/50 (24%) of patients had HADS-A above 8 at the end of therapy. The proportion of patients with HADS-D above eight points increased from 12% at baseline to 24% (n=12/50) at the end of therapy (P=0.06). HADS results were not associated with lost to follow-up or sustained virological response rates. CONCLUSION: HADS data in acute HCV infection indicate that anxiety and depression do not correlate with severity of the disease, mode of acquisition, lost to follow-up and sustained virological response rates.

Delayed versus immediate treatment for patients with acute hepatitis C: a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Early treatment of acute hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection with interferon alfa monotherapy is very effective, with cure rates of greater than 85%. However, spontaneous clearance of HCV occurs in 10-50% of cases. We aimed to assess an alternative treatment strategy of delayed antiviral therapy in patients who do not eliminate the virus spontaneously compared with immediate treatment. METHODS: In our open-label phase 3 non-inferiority trial, we enrolled adults (≥18 years) with acute hepatitis C but no HIV or hepatitis B co-infection at 72 centres in Germany. We randomly allocated patients with symptomatic acute hepatitis C (1:1) to receive immediate pegylated interferon alfa-2b treatment for 24 weeks or delayed treatment with pegylated interferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin (for 24 weeks) starting 12 weeks after randomisation if HCV RNA remained positive. We used a computer-generated randomisation sequence and block sizes of eight, stratified by bilirubin concentration. We assigned all asymptomatic patients to immediate treatment with pegylated interferon alfa-2b for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was sustained HCV RNA negativity in all randomly allocated participants who completed screening (intention-to-treat analysis), with a non-inferiority margin of 10%. For the primary analysis, we calculated the virological response of patients in the immediate and delayed treatment groups and an absolute risk difference stratified by bilirubin status. The trial was stopped early on advice from the study advisory committee because of slow recruitment of participants. This study is registered, number ISRCTN88729946. FINDINGS: Between April, 2004, and February, 2010, we recruited 107 symptomatic and 25 asymptomatic patients. 37 (67%) of 55 symptomatic patients randomly allocated to receive immediate treatment and 28 (54%) of 52 symptomatic patients randomly allocated to receive delayed treatment had a sustained virological response (difference 13·7%, 95% CI -4·6 to 32·0; p=0·071). 18 (72%) of 25 asymptomatic patients had a sustained virological response. 22 (42%) of 52 symptomatic patients allocated to receive delayed treatment did not complete follow-up compared with 20 (25%) of 80 symptomatic or asymptomatic patients assigned immediate treatment (p=0·037). 11 symptomatic patients (21%) assigned delayed treatment had spontaneous HCV clearance. 14 patients who received delayed pegylated interferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin treatment and completed follow-up achieved sustained virological response. INTERPRETATION: Delayed treatment is effective although not of equal efficacy to immediate treatment; coupled with the rate of spontaneous clearance it can reduce unnecessary treatment in closely monitored populations. Immediate treatment seems preferable in populations where loss to follow-up is great. FUNDING: German Network of Competence on Viral Hepatitis (HepNet, funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, grants 01KI0102, 01KI0401, and 01KI0601), MSD, Schering-Plough.

Prevalence of alpha-fodrin antibodies in patients with chronic hepatitis C infection and Sjögren syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: Hepatitis C virus infection (HCV) is associated with various extrahepatic manifestations. Antibodies against alpha-fodrin are associated with sicca symptoms and may valuable diagnostic markers in patients with primary Sjögren syndrome (SS) lacking Ro antibodies. The frequency and role of alpha-fodrin antibodies in patients with chronic HCV infection are unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of alpha-fodrin antibodies in HCV-infected patients with SS. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Alpha-fodrin antibodies were detected more often in hepatitis C patients (25%; n=142) than in HBV-infected individuals (8%; n=49) and healthy controls (6%; n=174) (p<0.01). Based on these findings, we investigated the frequency of sicca symptoms in a second cohort and studied other antibodies associated with SS. RESULTS: HCV-infected individuals showed sicca symptoms in 53% of cases as determined by the Saxon and Schirmer tests, which was more frequent than in healthy controls (1%, p<0.01) but not in patients with autoimmune liver disease (51%). Antibodies specific for Ro (SS-A) were significantly more common in patients with autoimmune liver disease than in HCV-infected patients and healthy controls (16% versus 1% and 0%, p<0.003). SS was found in 18% of patients with HCV, in 15% of patients with autoimmune liver disease and in 1% of healthy controls. However, we found no correlation between sicca symptoms and the presence of antibodies against alpha-fodrin, Ro and La. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with chronic HCV infection show a high prevalence of sicca symptoms and antibodies against alpha-fodrin. However, neither the frequency nor the severity of symptoms correlated with the presence of alpha-fodrin antibodies.