Long-term safety and efficacy of amisulpride in subchronic or chronic schizophrenia. Amisulpride Study Group.

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.

Safety profile of amisulpride in short- and long-term use.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of the new atypical antipsychotic drug, amisulpride, in short- and long-term use. METHOD: Studies comparing the safety of amisulpride with that of haloperidol and risperidone, respectively, are reviewed. Safety was monitored by open adverse event reporting, the Simpson-Angus Scale, the Barnes Akathisia Scale and the Abnormal Involuntary Movement scale. RESULTS: In short- and long-term studies, amisulpride induced significantly less EPS and akathisia than haloperidol. Safety ratings were similar to risperidone in short-term studies. In studies of chronic schizophrenia with predominant negative symptoms, amisulpride was similar to placebo. Endocrine effects were similar in amisulpride-, haloperidol- and risperidone-treated patients. Weight gain with amisulpride was significantly less than risperidone in a short-term study. No clinically important effects on haematological, hepatic or cardiac function were recorded. Data obtained in short- and long-term studies have been confirmed in extensive post-marketing surveillance data. CONCLUSION: Amisulpride has a broad spectrum of efficacy in schizophrenia without introducing the iatrogenic consequences associated with older therapies.

Safety of amisulpride (Solian): a review of 11 clinical studies.

We assessed the overall safety profile of amisulpride based on the results from 11 clinical studies performed in patients suffering from schizophrenia with predominance of positive or negative symptoms. A total of 1933 patients were randomly assigned to treatment with amisulpride (n = 1247) or haloperidol (n = 309), risperidone (n = 113), flupentixol (n = 62) and placebo (n = 202). Safety data collection was performed using open reporting, UKU scales or specific extrapyramidal side-effect scales; electrocardiogram recording and vital signs examination; laboratory data collection. Amisulpride demonstrated a satisfactory global safety profile in the range of doses usually prescribed. The number of patients having at least one extrapyramidal side-effect was higher in haloperidol patients compared with both amisulpride and risperidone patients (50% versus 30% in the two latter groups). For endocrine events, a similar rate was observed between amisulpride and risperidone groups (4% versus 6%, respectively) versus 1% in the haloperidol group. Electrocardiogram results were satisfactory, confirmed by the absence of cardiovascular events. The overall laboratory safety profile of amisulpride did not show clinically relevant abnormalities in liver function tests nor haematological abnormalities. Our extensive clinical data confirm the satisfactory safety profile of amisulpride which is superior to standard reference compounds.