Aripiprazole is the first next-generation atypical antipsychotic with a mechanism of action that differs from currently marketed typical and atypical antipsychotics. Aripiprazole displays properties of an agonist and antagonist in animal models of dopaminergic hypoactivity and hyperactivity, respectively. This study examined the interactions of aripiprazole with a single population of human D2 receptors to clarify further its pharmacologic properties. In membranes prepared from Chinese hamster ovary cells that express recombinant D2L receptors, aripiprazole bound with high affinity to both the G protein-coupled and uncoupled states of receptors. Aripiprazole potently activated D2 receptor-mediated inhibition of cAMP accumulation. Partial receptor inactivation using the alkylating agent N-ethoxycarbonyl-2-ethoxy-1,2-dihydroquinoline (EEDQ) significantly reduced the maximum effect of aripiprazole on inhibition of cAMP accumulation. This effect was seen with concentrations of EEDQ that did not alter the maximal inhibitory effect of dopamine. Consistent with the expected effects of a partial agonist, increasing concentrations of aripiprazole blocked the action of dopamine with maximal blockade equal to the agonist effect of aripiprazole alone. The efficacy of aripiprazole relative to that of dopamine varied from 25% in cells that lacked spare receptors for dopamine to 90% in cells with receptor reserve. These results, together with previous studies demonstrating partial agonist activity at serotonin 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)1A receptors and antagonist activity at 5-HT2A receptors, support the identification of aripiprazole as a dopamine-serotonin system stabilizer. The receptor activity profile may underlie the unique activity of aripiprazole in animals and its antipsychotic activity in humans.

Neuropeptide Y (NPY) has been implicated in the phase shifting of circadian rhythms in the hypothalamic suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN). Using long-term, multiple-neuron recordings, we examined the direct effects and phase-shifting properties of NPY application in rat SCN slices in vitro (n = 453). Application of NPY and peptide YY to SCN slices at circadian time (CT) 7.5-8.5 produced concentration-dependent, reversible inhibition of cell firing and a subsequent significant phase advance. Several lines of evidence indicated that these two effects of NPY were mediated by different receptors. NPY-induced inhibition and phase shifting had different concentration-response relationships and very different phase-response relationships. NPY-induced phase advances, but not inhibition, were blocked by the GABAA antagonist bicuculline, suggesting that NPY-mediated modulation of GABA may be an underlying mechanism whereby NPY phase shifts the circadian clock. Application of the Y2 receptor agonists NPY 13-36 and (Cys2,8-aminooctanoic acid5,24,D-Cys27)-NPY advanced the peak of the circadian rhythm but did not inhibit cell firing. The Y1 and Y5 agonist [Leu31,Pro34]-NPY evoked a substantial inhibition of discharge but did not generate a phase shift. NPY-induced inhibition was not blocked by the specific Y1 antagonist BIBP-3226; the antagonist also had no effect on the timing of the peak of the circadian rhythm. Application of the Y5 agonist [D-Trp32]-NPY produced only direct neuronal inhibition. These are the first data to indicate that at least two functional populations of NPY receptors exist in the SCN, distinguishable on the basis of pharmacology, each mediating a different physiological response to NPY application.

These results support a partial agonist activity for aripiprazole at 5-HT(1A) receptors in vitro and in vivo, and suggest important interactions with other 5-HT-receptor subtypes. This receptor activity profile may contribute to the antipsychotic activity of aripiprazole in humans.

IMPORTANCEAcute agitation is common in patients with bipolar disorder and requires urgent management to relieve distress and to prevent escalation to aggressive behavior.OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect of orally absorbed, sublingual dexmedetomidine, a selective α 2A -adrenergic receptor agonist on symptoms of acute agitation in patients with bipolar disorder.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 15 sites in the US with enrollment between February 24, 2020, and April 27, 2020, and final follow-up on May 21, 2020. A total of 380 adults with bipolar I or II disorder were randomized and 362 completed the study. INTERVENTIONS Participants were randomized to 3 groups: sublingual dexmedetomidine 180 μg (n = 127), sublingual dexmedetomidine 120 μg (n = 127), or placebo (n = 126). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary efficacy end point was the mean change from baseline at 2 hours for the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Excited Component (PEC) total score. The range of possible total scores is 5 (absence of agitation) to 35 (extremely severe). The secondary end point was the earliest time of a statistically significant change in PEC total score from baseline for the drug vs placebo. On the primary efficacy end point, to account for multiplicity associated with comparing 2 sublingual dexmedetomidine doses with placebo, the 2-sided significance level for each dose vs placebo was set at .025. RESULTSOf 380 patients randomized (mean age, 45.6 years; 54.8% women; and 56.1% Black individuals), 378 (99.5%) self-administered the study medication and completed the study. Baseline agitation was mild to moderate, with an overall mean PEC total score of 18.0. Two hours after taking the medication, the mean changes from baseline in PEC total score were −10.4 for sublingual dexmedetomidine 180 μg, −9.0 for sublingual dexmedetomidine 120 μg, and −4.9 for placebo. Least-square mean differences from placebo in the sublingual dexmedetomidine groups at 2 hours were −5.4 (97.5% CI, −6.6 to −4.2) for 180 μg and −4.1 (97.5% CI, −5.3 to −2.9) for 120 μg (both doses P < .001 vs placebo). Treatment effects began 20 minutes after taking the medication among patients in the sublingual dexmedetomidine groups (least-square mean difference for 180 μg, −1.1 [97.5% CI, −2.0 to −0.2]; P = .007; for 120 μg, −1.0 [97.5% CI, −1.9 to −0.1]; P = .009). Adverse events occurred in 35.7% of patients taking 180 μg of dexmedetomidine, 34.9% taking 120 μg, and 17.5% taking placebo. The most common adverse events (Ն5%) in the respective 180 μg, 120 μg, and placebo groups were somnolence (21.4% and 20.6% vs 4.8%); dry mouth (4.8% and 7.1% vs 0.8%); hypotension (6.3% and 4.8% vs 0%); and dizziness (5.6% and 5.6% vs 0.8%).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with mild to moderate agitation associated with bipolar disorder, treatment with a sublingual film formulation of dexmedetomidine 120 μg or 180 μg, compared with placebo, resulted in significantly greater reduction in the agitation score...

Innovation is essential for the identification of novel pharmacological therapies to meet the treatment needs of patients with psychiatric disorders. However, over the last 20 yr, in spite of major investments targets falling outside the classical aminergic mechanisms have shown diminished returns. The disappointments are traced to failures in the target identification and target validation effort, as reflected by the poor ability of current bioassays and animal models to predict efficacy and side-effects. Mismatch between disease biology and how psychiatric diseases are categorized has resulted in clinical trials of highly specific agents in heterogeneous patients, leading to variable treatment effects and failed studies. As drug hunters, one sees the opportunity to overhaul the pharmaceutical research and development (R&D) process. Improvements in both preclinical and clinical translational research need to be considered. Linking pharmacodynamic markers with disease biology should provide more predictive and innovative early clinical trials which in turn will increase the success rate of discovering new medicines. However, to exploit these exciting scientific discoveries, pharmaceutical companies need to question the conventional drug research and development model which is silo-driven, non-integrative across the confines of a company, non-disclosing across the pharmaceutical industry, and often independent from academia. This leads to huge redundancy in effort and lack of contextual learning in real time. Nevertheless, there are signs that drug discovery in the 21st century will see more intentional government, academic and industrial collaborations to overcome the above challenges that could eventually link mechanistic disease biology to segments of patients, affording them the benefits of rational and targeted therapy.