Xanomeline is a muscarinic M 1 /M 4 preferring receptor agonist with little or no affinity for dopamine receptors. The compound reduces psychotic-like symptoms in patients with Alzheimer's disease and exhibits an antipsychotic-like profile in rodents without inducing extrapyramidal side effects (EPS) at therapeutically relevant doses. In the present study, we examined whether the xanomeline-induced functional dopamine antagonism found in rodent studies could also be observed in nonhuman primates. In addition, we studied whether the lack of EPS observed in rodents also applies to primates. To this end, we investigated the effects of xanomeline on the behavior induced by D-amphetamine and (À)-apomorphine in drug-naive Cebus apella monkeys. Antipsychotic compounds antagonize amphetamine-induced motor unrest and stereotypies in this species. Xanomeline inhibited D-amphetamine-induced motor unrest, stereotypies and arousal as well as apomorphine-induced stereotypies and arousal in drug-naive Cebus apella monkeys. Xanomeline did not induce EPS but vomiting occurred in some monkeys at high doses, in accordance with emetic events observed in Alzheimer patients following xanomeline administration. Even when xanomeline was tested in EPS-sensitized Cebus apella monkeys, EPS were not observed at the dose range of xanomeline used in the D-amphetamine-apomorphine combination study (0.5-3 mg/kg). However, when xanomeline was tested at 4 mg/kg, moderate dystonia was seen in two out of three monkeys. It is concluded that xanomeline inhibits Damphetamine-and (À)-apomorphine-induced behavior in Cebus apella monkeys at doses that do not cause EPS. These data further substantiate that muscarinic receptor agonists may be useful in the pharmacological treatment of psychosis.

No abstract

No abstract

The objective of this 6-week, 120-patient, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial was to investigate if a foam dressing with ibuprofen provided clinically relevant pain relief (PAR) for exuding, painful venous leg ulcers in comparison with a similar foam dressing without ibuprofen. Primary outcome parameter was PAR compared with baseline pain during the first 5 days of the investigation. PAR was registered by the patient morning and evening. Main end point was proportion of patients reporting a summed PAR score of at least 50% of the total maximum PAR (i.e., responders) and the corresponding number needed to treat (NNT). Wound-related parameters such as ulcer healing, ulcer area reduction, and peri-ulcer skin condition as well as adverse events were recorded during all 6 weeks of the investigation. PAR was significantly greater in the ibuprofen foam group than the comparator group (p = 0.0438). There were 34% responders in the ibuprofen foam group vs. 19% in the comparator group (NNT = 6.8). When evening data were analyzed separately to evaluate PAR over daytime, NNT was 5.3. Wound healing parameters and adverse events were comparable. In conclusion, in this study, the ibuprofen foam dressing provided clinically relevant PAR for patients with exuding, painful venous ulcers.