PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12076408

Amisulpride for schizophrenia.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The treatment of schizophrenia with old, 'typical' antipsychotic drugs such as haloperidol can be problematic, because many people treated with these drugs will suffer from movement disorders. Amisulpride is said to be an "atypical" antipsychotic which induces less movement disorder and which is effective for the negative symptoms of schizophrenia. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of amisulpride as compared with placebo, typical and atypical antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia. SEARCH STRATEGY: The authors carried out electronic searches of Biological Abstracts (1982-1999), CINAHL (1982-1999), Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 1999), Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (November 2000), EMBASE (1980-1999), LILACS(1982-1999), MEDLINE (1966-1999) and PsycLIT (1974-1999). They checked all identified studies for further trial citations, and sought these studies in the Science Citation Index. They also contacted authors of trials and the manufacturer of amisulpride. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials comparing amisulpride to placebo, typical or atypical antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia or other non-affective serious mental illnesses. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted and analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of dichotomous data were calculated using a random effects model, and, where possible, the number needed to treat was calculated. Weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated for continuous data. MAIN RESULTS: This review currently includes 19 randomised studies with a total of 2443 participants. Most trials were of short duration. Data from 4 trials with 514 participants with predominantly negative symptoms suggest that low-dose (up to 300mg/day) amisulpride was a more acceptable treatment than placebo (n=514, RR 0.6 CI 0.5 to 0.8, NNT 3 CI 3 to 7), the improvement of the participants' global state (n=242, RR 0.6 CI 0.5 to 0.8, NNT 3 CI 2 to 6) and the treatment of negative symptoms (n=177, WMD -10.1 CI -16.6 to -3.5). Amisulpride was shown to be more likely to cause extrapyramidal symptoms than placebo in two studies (n=269, RR 2.2 CI 1.2 to 4.2), but this result did not hold calculating the risk reduction so that an NNT-statistic could not be indicated. Compared to typical antipsychotics, the pooled results of a total of fourteen trials suggest that amisulpride was more effective in improving global state (n=651, RR 0.7 CI 0.5 to 0.9, NNT 6 CI 4 to 11), the general mental state (n=695, WMD -4.2 CI -6.5 to -1.9) and the negative symptoms of schizophrenia (n=506, WMD -2.8 CI -4.3 to -1.3). Regarding positive symptoms, amisulpride was as effective as typical antipsychotics. Amisulpride was less prone to cause at least one general adverse event (n=751, RR 0.9 CI 0.8 to 0.97, NNH 9 CI 6 to 18), one extrapyramidal symptom (n=771, RR 0.7 CI 0.6 to 0.9, NNH 5 CI 4 to 9) or to require the use of antiparkinson medication (n=851, RR 0.6 CI 0.5 to 0.8, NNH 4 CI 3 to 6). No clear differences in other adverse events compared to typical drugs were found. Amisulpride also seemed to be more acceptable than conventional drugs as measured by the outcome 'leaving the studies early' (n=1512, RR 0.8 CI 0.7 to 0.9, NNT 16 CI 9 to 69) than conventional drugs, but this result might have been overestimated due to a publication bias which could not be excluded with certainty. A single trial compared amisulpride to another 'atypical' antipsychotic, risperidone. With the exception of agitation, which was more frequent in the amisulpride group (n=228, RR 3.4 CI 1.2 to 10.1, NNH 11 CI 6 to 50) no significant differences were recorded on efficacy or acceptability. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

N E Mota, M S Lima, B G Soares. 2002. Amisulpride for schizophrenia.. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd001357

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

[The benzamides tiapride, sulpiride, and amisulpride in treatment for Tourette's syndrome].

The treatment of Tourette's syndrome is a challenge. Dopamine receptor antagonists are the drugs of first choice for the treatment of tics. Because large controlled trials are lacking, there is no consensus about which of the different neuroleptic drugs should be preferred. In Germany, tiapride seems to be used most often for the treatment of tics in children - although only one small controlled trial has been performed on it till now. In adults, other dopamine receptor antagonists such as risperidone, pimozide, and sulpiride seem to be more effective than tiapride. Today it is unknown whether new atypical neuroleptic drugs including the benzamide amisulpride are more effective than the older benzamides tiapride and sulpiride.

Amisulpride↗

Is the superior efficacy of new generation antipsychotics an artifact of LOCF?

It has been argued that the efficacy superiority found in meta-analyses for some of the atypical antipsychotics is an artifact of higher dropout rates due to side effects in the haloperidol group combined with last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) analyses. We therefore reanalyzed a number of pivotal studies comparing new generation antipsychotics (NGAs) and conventional antipsychotics (CAs). A total of 5 studies (n = 1271) comparing amisulpride and 3 studies (n = 2454) comparing olanzapine with CAs were reanalyzed using original patient data. We applied 4 different models: LOCF, completer analysis, LOCF but excluding dropouts due to adverse events, and LOCF but excluding all dropouts with the exception of dropouts related to efficacy. Effect sizes expressed as standardized mean differences between NGAs and CAs based on the 4 different analysis models were compared. The overall results were not different irrespective of the model used. Single studies, however, showed higher effect sizes when LOCF instead of other models was used. Overall, it does not seem that higher dropout rates due to side effects in the haloperidol groups together with LOCF analyses consistently biased the results in favor of amisulpride and olanzapine. Because the results of the single studies, however, showed that this may occasionally be the case, future studies should look at the data from different angles applying sensitivity analyses, and they may use alternative statistics such as mixed models, which need to be developed further. Ultimately, strategies to reduce dropout rates are needed.

Amisulpride↗