One-year, low-dose neuroleptic study of in-patients with chronic schizophrenia characterised by persistent negative symptoms. Amisulpride v. haloperidol. Long-term safety and efficacy of amisulpride in subchronic or chronic schizophrenia. Amisulpride Study Group. Amisulpride, and atypical antipsychotic, in the treatment of acute episodes of schizophrenia: a dose-ranging study vs. haloperidol. The Amisulpride Study Group. Amisulpride has a superior benefit/risk profile to haloperidol in schizophrenia: results of a multicentre, double-blind study (the Amisulpride Study Group). A double-blind, randomized comparative trial of amisulpride versus olanzapine for 6 months in the treatment of schizophrenia. Improvement of schizophrenic patients with primary negative symptoms treated with amisulpride. Amisulpride Study Group. A double-blind, randomised comparative trial of amisulpride versus olanzapine in the treatment of schizophrenia: short-term results at two months. Amisulpride vs. risperidone in chronic schizophrenia: results of a 6-month double-blind study. Ziprasidone and amisulpride effectively treat negative symptoms of schizophrenia: results of a 12-week, double-blind study. Amisulpride versus placebo in the medium-term treatment of the negative symptoms of schizophrenia. A double-blind randomised comparative trial of amisulpride versus olanzapine for 2 months in the treatment of subjects with schizophrenia and comorbid depression. Amisulpride versus flupentixol in schizophrenia with predominantly positive symptomatology -- a double-blind controlled study comparing a selective D2-like antagonist to a mixed D1-/D2-like antagonist. The Amisulpride Study Group.
Amisulpride is a potent substituted benzamide antipsychotic drug claimed to improve the negative symptoms of schizophrenia, particularly at low dosage.
                Sixty long-term in-patients with schizophrenia and selected for predominant negative symptoms were randomised to receive either haloperidol or amisulpride. Over a year there was systematic dose reduction, as symptoms allowed.
                There were no significant differences between the treatment groups in the proportion receiving low-dose treatment, the control of positive symptoms, or ratings of social behaviour, side-effects or tardive dyskinesia. For negative symptoms, there were consistent but non-significant trends in favour of amisulpride. The amisulpride patients required significantly less anticholinergic medication.
                In chronically-hospitalised in-patients with schizophrenia characterised by persistent negative symptoms, amisulpride was a well-tolerated maintenance antipsychotic medication. The drug had only a limited effect in reducing negative symptoms, which were relatively stable, enduring phenomena in this sample, despite dosage reduction. Amisulpride is an atypical antipsychotic with selective affinity for dopamine D2/3 receptors. In this long-term, open, randomised, multicentre trial, patients with chronic or subchronic schizophrenia received amisulpride (n =370) or haloperidol (n = 118) for 12 months. Dosage regimens were flexible (amisulpride 200-800 mg/day, haloperidol 5-20 mg/day). Improvement in mean Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale total score was significantly greater for amisulpride than haloperidol (17.0 versus 12.8, P = 0.01). Positive symptoms (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale [PANSS] positive) improved in a similar way in each group but amisulpride caused a significantly better improvement in negative symptoms (PANSS negative) (7.1 versus 3.7, P < 0.0001). Improvements in Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) and Quality of Life Scale (QLS) scores were also significantly greater in the amisulpride group (GAF -20.1 versus -13.6, P = 0.001; QLS -0.64 versus -0.30, P = 0.02). Adverse events were mainly psychiatric in nature, and occurred with similar frequency in each group (amisulpride 254/370, 69%; haloperidol 82/118, 70%). Extrapyramidal symptoms were more frequent for haloperidol (48/118, 41% versus 96/370, 26% for amisulpride), leading to a greater requirement for antiparkinsonian medication (haloperidol 66/118, 56% versus amisulpride 118/370, 32%). Haloperidol significantly aggravated parkinsonism, akathisia and involuntary movement compared to amisulpride. The overall incidence of endocrine events was comparable between groups (4% for amisulpride, 3% for haloperidol). Maintenance of efficacy was comparable in both treatment groups; 59% of amisulpride patients and 55% of haloperidol patients improved after 1 month of therapy remained improved throughout the study period. Amisulpride is effective following flexible long-term administration and significantly improves social functioning and quality of life. This 4-week, double-blind, randomized study was undertaken to determine the dose-response relationship of amisulpride in 319 patients with acute exacerbation of schizophrenia. Fixed doses of amisulpride (400, 800 and 1200 mg/day) and haloperidol (16 mg/day) were compared to amisulpride, 100 mg/day, as a potentially subtherapeutic dose. Efficacy data (BPRS total score and PANSS positive subscale) in the amisulpride groups generated a bell-shaped dose-response curve, with 400 mg/day and 800 mg/day being the most effective treatments for positive symptoms. Parkinsonism did not increase significantly between baseline and endpoint with amisulpride 400, 800 and 1200 mg/day compared to the amisulpride 100 mg/day group, whereas the difference was significant for haloperidol (P<0.05). It is concluded that amisulpride 400 mg and 800 mg/day is highly effective in treating the positive symptoms of schizophrenia, with less extrapyramidal side-effects than haloperidol 16 mg/day. In a multicentre, double-blind, flexible-dose study, 199 patients with paranoid schizophrenia or schizophreniform disorders received haloperidol (10-30 mg/d) or amisulpride (400-1200 mg/d) for four months. More patients in the haloperidol group withdrew prematurely (44% vs 26%; P = 0.0077) due to a higher incidence of adverse events. Amisulpride was at least as effective as haloperidol in reducing the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) total score (-27.3 vs -21.9) (non-inferiority test; P < 0.001). The PANSS positive score improved to a similar extent in both groups whilst improvement in the PANSS negative score was significantly greater with amisulpride (-10.5 vs -7.2; P = 0.01). The percentage of responders on the Clinical Global Impression scale was also significantly greater with amisulpride (71% vs 47%; P < 0.001). Both the Quality of Life Scale (QLS) and the Functional Status Questionnaire (FSQ) improved to a significantly greater extent under amisulpride. Haloperidol was associated with a greater incidence in extrapyramidal symptoms and with a greater increase in the Simpson-Angus score than was seen with amisulpride (0.32 vs 0.02; P < 0.001). In conclusion, amisulpride is globally superior to haloperidol in the treatment of acute exacerbations of schizophrenia and significantly improves patients' quality of life and social adjustment. Atypical antipsychotics offer advantages over earlier drugs for the treatment of schizophrenia, although few data exist on the relative merits of different atypical antipsychotics. A multicentre, double-blind, randomized trial was performed to compare amisulpride and olanzapine in the treatment of acute schizophrenia. Adult schizophrenic patients with dominant positive symptomatology received amisulpride (200-800 mg/day) or olanzapine (5-20 mg/day) for 6 months. The primary efficacy variable was change from baseline of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) score, assessed with a non-inferiority analysis. The evolution of positive and negative symptomatology, depression, social functioning and quality of life were assessed. Safety evaluation included adverse event reporting, neurological status and body weight. The improvement of BPRS score was 32.7% in the amisulpride group and 33.0% in the olanzapine group; thus, the efficacy of amisulpride was not inferior to that of olanzapine. All other secondary efficacy outcome variables evolved to a similar extent in both groups. Adverse event frequency was similar in both groups. Amenorrhoea was encountered only in the amisulpride group (6.2% of patients), whereas elevations of liver transaminases were more frequent in the olanzapine group (17% versus 3.7% of patients). The incidence and mean extent of clinically relevant weight gain were higher in the olanzapine group (35.1% and 3.9 kg) than in the amisulpride group (20.6% and 1.6 kg). The efficacy of amisulpride is not inferior to that of olanzapine in the treatment of acute schizophrenia. The side-effect profile of the two drugs differed. The goal of this placebo-controlled study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of low doses of amisulpride, an atypical antipsychotic of the benzamide class with high affinity for D2 and D3 dopamine receptors, in the treatment of schizophrenic patients with predominantly primary negative symptoms.
                After completion of a 4-week washout period, schizophrenic patients with primary negative symptoms participated in a 12-week, multicenter double-blind trial of placebo (N = 83), amisulpride, 50 mg/day (N = 84), or amisulpride, 100 mg/day (N = 75). They were evaluated with the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms, the Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms, the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale.
                Both amisulpride treatment groups showed significantly greater improvement in negative symptoms than the placebo group. Positive symptom scores were low at baseline and changed minimally during the study, suggesting that the improvement in negative symptoms was independent of improvement in positive symptoms. The safety of amisulpride was comparable to that of placebo, and extrapyramidal symptoms were infrequent. Comparable efficacy and safety results were observed with either dose of amisulpride.
                These findings confirm and extend those of earlier placebo-controlled studies of low-dose amisulpride in the treatment of patients with predominantly negative symptoms of schizophrenia. To compare the efficacy and safety of the atypical antipsychotics amisulpride and olanzapine in the treatment of acute psychotic exacerbations of schizophrenia.
                A multinational, double-blind randomised clinical trial.
                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).
                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.
                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).
                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. 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. We compared the efficacy of ziprasidone and amisulpride in the treatment of negative symptoms and overall psychopathology in subjects who had chronic schizophrenia with predominantly negative symptoms. This multicentre, 12-week, double-blind study randomly assigned subjects with predominantly negative-symptom schizophrenia [i.e. Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) Negative Subscale score >or=6 points greater than Positive Subscale score] to ziprasidone (40-80 mg b.i.d.; n=60) or amisulpride (50-100 mg b.i.d.; n=63). The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline in PANSS Negative Subscale score. Secondary efficacy variables included change in scores for PANSS Total, Global Assessment of Functioning, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale derived from PANSS Total and Core, Clinical Global Impression (CGI)-Severity and CGI-Improvement. For the change in PANSS Negative Subscale score, a ratio to assess the equivalence of the treatment groups was calculated from the least squares mean changes from baseline, with equivalence claimed if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the ratio exceeded 0.60. Mean daily dose, adjusted for differential numbers of subjects and differential days between visits, was 118.0 mg for ziprasidone and 144.7 mg for amisulpride. Mean PANSS Negative Subscale scores improved over the 12-week treatment period for intent-to-treat subjects, evaluable subjects (subjects with >or=4 weeks of double-blind treatment and no protocol deviations) and completers in both treatment groups. Ziprasidone demonstrated efficacy comparable to amisulpride in improving negative symptoms and global psychopathology. The groups demonstrated comparable improvements in secondary efficacy variables. Both agents were generally well tolerated, with comparably low incidences of movement disorders. In subjects with negative symptom-prominent schizophrenia, ziprasidone in mean daily doses of 118 mg was equivalent to amisulpride in mean daily doses of 148 mg in ameliorating negative symptoms and comparable in improving overall psychopathology and global illness severity. Amisulpride is a substituted benzamide with high selectivity for dopamine D2 and D3 receptors. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effect of 100 mg amisulpride in patients with predominantly negative symptoms of schizophrenia.
                This was a multi-centre, randomised, parallel-group, double-blind study. Patients received either amisulpride (100 mg/day) or placebo over a six-month treatment period.
                A total of 141 patients were included, 69 received amisulpride, 72 placebo. Fifty-eight patients (41%) had received neuroleptic treatment prior to inclusion. The percentage of amisulpride patients completing the study (55%) was significantly higher than that with placebo (32%), and drop-out rates due to lack of efficacy were 27% with amisulpride and 47% with placebo. All efficacy assessments were statistically in favour of amisulpride compared with placebo. The overall incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms was comparable in both groups; only five patients started anti-Parkinsonian treatment during the study (one in the placebo and four in the amisulpride group).
                Amisulpride is effective in the medium-term treatment schizophrenic patients with predominantly negative symptoms. To compare the efficacy and safety of amisulpride and olanzapine in subjects with schizophrenia and comorbid depression in a randomised double-blind trial.
                Eighty-five adult patients fulfilling DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia and presenting a depressive episode were randomised to amisulpride (200-600 mg/day) or olanzapine (5-15 mg/day) for 8 weeks. Primary efficacy variables were change in Calgary Depression Scale (CDS) score and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) of Change. Safety was monitored by adverse event reporting and determination of extrapyramidal function and metabolic variables.
                The mean change from baseline of CDS score was -6.84 in the amisulpride group and -7.36 in the olanzapine group. 65.9% and 61.5% of subjects, respectively, were considered "much" or "very much" improved. No significant inter-group difference in effect size was observed. The frequency of adverse events was low and emergence of extrapyramidal symptoms was not seen. Four patients in the olanzapine group developed abnormal triglyceride levels. Mean weight gain was 1.45 and 0.5 kg, respectively, in the olanzapine and amisulpride groups.
                Amisulpride and olanzapine are effective in patients with schizophrenia and comorbid depression. Tolerance of both drugs was acceptable, although use of olanzapine was associated with a trend toward greater metabolic side-effects . The benzamide amisulpride (ASP) is a selective D2-like dopamine antagonist, while flupentixol (FPX), a thioxanthene, blocks D2-like, D1-like and 5-HT2 receptors. To evaluate efficacy and safety of ASP and to investigate the importance of an additional D1-like antagonism for antipsychotic effects and extrapyramidal tolerability, a randomized double-blind multi- center study versus FPX as reference drug was performed for 6 weeks in 132 patients suffering from acute schizophrenia (DSM-III-R) with predominant positive symptomatology. Doses were initially fixed (ASP: 1000 mg/day; FPX: 25 mg/day) but could be reduced by 40% in case of side effects (mean daily doses: ASP: 956 mg; FPX: 22.6 mg). Intention-to-treat evaluation demonstrated significant improvement under both medications. The difference between the mean BPRS decreases of both treatment groups was 5.6 points (95% CI: 0.55; 10.65) in favour of ASP. According to CGI, 62% of patients in either drug group were treatment responders. ANCOVA analysis showed that reductions of BPRS (ASP: -42%; FPX: -32%) and SAPS (ASP: -78%; FPX: -65%) were more pronounced under ASP. Due to adverse events, significantly fewer ASP patients (6%) were withdrawn from the study (FPX: 18%). Extrapyramidal tolerability was better in the ASP group, as demonstrated by smaller increases in the Simpson-Angus Scale, the AIMS, and the Barnes Akathisia Scale in ANCOVA analyses with dosage as covariate. ASP appears to be as effective as FPX with regard to antipsychotic effects on positive schizophrenic symptomatology, while extrapyramidal tolerability is better. These conclusions have to be drawn cautiously, as dosage effects on outcome parameters cannot be entirely ruled out. The present results question the notion that additional blockade of D1-like receptors may be necessary to achieve sufficient antipsychotic effects or to improve extrapyramidal tolerability.
This systematic review confirms that amisulpride is an effective 'atypical' antipsychotic drug for those with schizophrenia. Amisulpride may offer a good general profile, at least compared to high-potency 'typical' antipsychotics. It may also yield better results in some specific outcomes related to efficacy, such as improvement of global state and general negative symptoms. It might be more acceptable and more tolerable than high-potency conventional antipsychotics, especially regarding extrapyramidal side-effects.
Longer term randomised trials are needed to evaluate the comparative value of amisulpride, particularly compared to other expensive atypical antipsychotics. These should focus on important outcomes which have not been sufficiently monitored such as service use, family burden and quality of life.