HaloperidolPhase 1MOBSNCT03754062
Pharmacological Modulation of Belief Salience
A Phase 1 study testing L-dopa and Haloperidol in people with Haloperidol and Placebo, run by King's College London at 1 site in United Kingdom.
Trial summary
To provide an initial test of the hypothesis that dopamine mediates the motivational salience of stimuli beyond simple stimulus-reinforcement associations, the researchers propose to undertake a study of the modulation of a) levels of agreement or disagreement with; b) the perceived self- relevance; and c) the… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 65 years, men onlyHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Haloperidol, Placebo, L-DOPA
- What is being tested?
- L-dopa and Haloperidol
- Type of treatment
- Pill or oral medicine
- Could I receive a placebo?
- Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
- How many people
- 30 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited Kingdom
- Study dates
- 1 Jun 2017to 1 Sep 2019
- Phase
- Phase 1
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 65 years
- Men only
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Healthy males between the ages of 18-65
Who cannot join
- History or current psychiatric or neurological illness, history or current serious medical diagnosis, BMI outside of normal/healthy range, smoker over 5 cigarettes per day, recent use of drugs, non-english speaker.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
To provide an initial test of the hypothesis that dopamine mediates the motivational salience of stimuli beyond simple stimulus-reinforcement associations, the researchers propose to undertake a study of the modulation of a) levels of agreement or disagreement with; b) the perceived self- relevance; and c) the perceived interest of propositions expressing beliefs and values in healthy male volunteers using Ii) a dopamine antagonist (the D2-blocker haloperidol), and (ii) a dopamine precursor L-Dopa to increase CNS dopamine transmission.
The researchers will also administer the Salience Attribution Task (SAT) which will allow researchers to assess reward-learning processing of simple stimuli using a reaction-time game. This task was utilised by Roiser et al in order to explore whether delusions in medicated patients with schizophrenia were related to impairments in associative learning. The authors hypothesised that associative learning was influenced by D2 receptor blockade. The researchers extend this approach to examine the effect of dopamine modulation on the SAT as a measure of associative learning, a basic neuropsychological process that may be involved in the attribution of salience to beliefs.
Finally, the researchers will ask participants to perform a within-subjects dictator game to understand the influence of dopaminergic manipulation of the live attribution of harm intention to partners. The task has been previously validated online. Participants will play against 3 partners in a random order in each drug condition. Each partner will play the participant for 6 trials. One partner will always be fair, one will always be unfair, and one will be 50% unfair. We aim to understand whether potentiating dopamine has an additive effect on the harm intention attributions toward partners, regardless of the behaviour of the partner.
Read the detailed description
Delusions in psychiatry are viewed as a form of aberrant belief. Consequently it is important to understand the cognitive and neural processes involved in beliefs to provide insights into how these processes go awry in the formation of delusions. Beliefs have been defined as 'a disposition to express, assent to, or otherwise act in accordance with some proposition'. Some beliefs are widely held within a given society (e.g the earth revolves around the sun; eating humans is wrong), whereas others vary in association with subcultural and individual differences (e.g God created the universe; abortion is wrong). Similarly, the conviction or agreement with which an individual's beliefs and values are held may change over time, to the extent that some beliefs and values may be lost, and others acquired. Also, the perceived relevance of beliefs and values to oneself may vary. For example, beliefs that the 'earth revolves around the sun' and that 'global warming is occurring' may both be held with conviction, but the latter may be perceived as having higher relevance to the self in terms of risk, and potential life-style changes. Hence, self-relevance is a dimension of beliefs that is potentially dissociable from the conviction (level of agreement) with which a belief is held. Further, some propositions expressing beliefs and values may be regarded as more interesting than others. This raises the question of what neurobiological processes contribute to the sense of conviction for, and perceived self-relevance and interest of beliefs and values?
The mesolimbic dopamine system is a candidate neural system implicated in mediating the motivational salience of perceptions and ideas, 'whereby events and thoughts come to grab attention, drive action, and influence goal-directed behaviour because of their association with reward or punishment'. In human studies, haloperidol has been used to show that dopamine activity influences action-value estimates represented in the striatum during instrumental conditioning, as would be expected from earlier studies of feedback-based learning. Still other data suggest that brain regions rich in dopaminergic inputs play a role in processing the salience of rewarding events. What is not known is if these dopaminergic rich regions also modulate the motivational salience of more complex 'stimuli' including ideas and beliefs.
Main hypothesis:
Prediction 1:
At a neurobiological level, the hypothesis is that the mesolimbic dopamine system is recruited to tag representations (ideas and beliefs) as motivationally salient. Potentiation of dopamine transmission should increase salience of beliefs (as indicated by increases in agreement, self-relevance and interest toward propositions within science, paranormal, politics, moral, and religious themes in the Beliefs and Values Inventory while attenuation of dopamine transmission should be associated with decreased salience. Answers of items within themes will be summed to create summary scores that will be split by agreement, interest, and self-relevance dimensions.
Prediction 2:
Potentiating dopamine be associated with increased attribution of harmful intent to partners across all trials (but trait paranoia will not be associated with variation in attributions of self-interest) of a within-subjects dictator game.
Prediction 3:
Attribution of harmful intent to different dictators will follow a dose-response relationship (fair < partially fair < unfair) across all ranges of dopamine potentiation. However, L-Dopa conditions will have a higher baseline of average harmful intent. There will be no interaction between dopamine manipulations and dictator fairness on attribution of harmful intent.
If these hypotheses receive empirical support, it would be relevant to understanding the role of the dopamine system in normal cognitive processes involved in expressing or acting in accordance with beliefs. It would also be relevant to determining the role of dopamine dysregulation in psychosis (in delusion formation). Also, reduced levels of the meaningfulness of experience following antipsychotic administration (as indexed by reduced agreement for and perceived self- relevance and interest of beliefs and values) would identify a potential reason for non-compliance with antipsychotic treatment.
Supplementary hypotheses:
There will be an interaction between condition (placebo, dopamine blockade, dopamine potentiation) x dimension (agreement, self-relevance, interest), whereby self-relevance and interest are affected more by dopamine modulation than agreement. This might explain why patients with delusions who are given antipsychotics will continue to say that they believe 'x,' but don't think about it as much, and cease to act upon it.
Aims:
To provide an initial test of the hypothesis that dopamine mediates the motivational salience of stimuli beyond simple stimulus-reinforcement associations, we propose to undertake a study of the modulation of a) levels of agreement or disagreement with; b) the perceived self- relevance; and c) the perceived interest of propositions expressing beliefs and values in healthy male volunteers using i) a dopamine antagonist (the D2-blocker haloperidol), and (ii) a dopamine precursor L-Dopa to increase CNS dopamine transmission.
The researchers will also administer the Salience Attribution Task (SAT) which will allow the researchers to assess reward-learning processing of simple stimuli using a reaction-time game. This task was utilised by Roiser et al. in order to explore whether delusions in medicated patients with schizophrenia were related to impairments in associative learning. The authors hypothesised that associative learning was influenced by D2 receptor blockade. We extend this approach to examine the effect of dopamine modulation on the SAT as a measure of associative learning, a basic neuropsychological process that may be involved in the attribution of salience to beliefs.
Finally, the researchers will ask participants to perform a within-subjects dictator game to understand the influence of dopaminergic manipulation of the. Participants will play against 3 partners in a random order in each drug condition. Each partner will play the participant for 6 trials. One partner will always be fair, one will always be unfair, and one will be 50% unfair. We aim to understand whether potentiating dopamine has an additive effect on the harm intention attributions toward partners, regardless of the behaviour of the partner.
- Conditions
- Haloperidol, Placebo, L-DOPA
- Being tested
- Placebo - Cap, L-dopa, Haloperidol
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Placebo - CapDrug
Administration of Placebo by pill.
L-dopaDrug
Administration of L-dopa by pill.
HaloperidolDrug
Administration of Haloperidol by pill.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Placebo | Placebo comparator | Placebo control Receives: Drug: Placebo - Cap |
| Haloperidol 3mg | Experimental | Haloperidol Receives: Drug: Haloperidol |
| L-Dopa 150 mg & Domperidone 10mg | Experimental | L-Dopa Receives: Drug: L-dopa |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Beliefs and Values Inventory (BVI)
Change in score between conditions on the BVI. Scores will be summed by item totals within theme (paranormal, religion, morality, politics, and science) and dimension (agreement, self-relevance, and interest).
Measured: 12 Months
Salience Attribution Test (SAT)
Change in attribution of explicit and implicit salience between conditions on the SAT.
Measured: 12 Months
Within-subjects dictator game
Participants will play against three different partners, each for six trials. In each trial, the player's partner will have the option to either split or take 10p from the player, so that the player either ends up with 5p or 0p. Players will play against one partner that will always split the money, one that will always take all of the money, and one that will 50% of the time split the money. After each trial, the player will be asked on a scale of 1-100 (1 being not at all and 100 being completely):
- How much do you think your partner was driven by a desire to increase their own bonus, and
- How much do you think your partner was driven by a desire to reduce your bonus.
Total of a. and b. will be added up for each style of partner for each arm.
Measured: 12 Months
Secondary outcomes (2)
Big-5 Personality Questionnaire
The researchers will calculate the associations between personality dimensions of the Big-5 (extraversion, neuroticism, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) using the 25 item version (scores from 1-5 on a likert scale, with 5 meaning higher agreement with a statement) with variation within-subjects.
Each dimension will be totalled to calculate personality variation.
Measured: 6 Months
Brief Oxford-Liverpool Inventory of Experiences and Feelings
The researchers will calculate the associations between baseline schizotypy scores with variation within-subjects across conditions.
Unusual Experiences (hallucinations etc), Cognitive Disorganisation (cognitive difficulties), Introvertive Anhedonia (loss of pleasure etc.), and Impulsive Nonconformity (impulsiveness) sub-scales will be added up individually (from a scale of 1-5 for each item, 5 being higher agreement with an item) to calculate schizotypy on a number of dimensions.
Measured: 6 Months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted27 Nov 2018
- Study start1 Jun 2017
- Primary completion1 Sep 2019
- Study completion1 Sep 2019
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (3)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for HaloperidolStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by King's College LondonThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 1
- Primary purpose
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Model description
- Placebo x Haloperidol x LDOPA
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Investigator
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- King's College London
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Medical Research Council
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03754062
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- HR-16/17-0603
- Acronym
- MOBS
- Status last verified
- Feb 2019
- First submitted
- 23 Oct 2018
- Last updated
- 10 Oct 2019
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: Share anonymised data after collection on the Open Science Framework.
Publications
Schmidt K, Roiser JP. Assessing the construct validity of aberrant salience. Front Behav Neurosci. 2009 Dec 23;3:58. doi: 10.3389/neuro.08.058.2009. eCollection 2009.
PubMed 20057930Kapur S. Psychosis as a state of aberrant salience: a framework linking biology, phenomenology, and pharmacology in schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry. 2003 Jan;160(1):13-23. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.160.1.13.
PubMed 12505794Pessiglione M, Seymour B, Flandin G, Dolan RJ, Frith CD. Dopamine-dependent prediction errors underpin reward-seeking behaviour in humans. Nature. 2006 Aug 31;442(7106):1042-5. doi: 10.1038/nature05051. Epub 2006 Aug 23.
PubMed 16929307
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 10 Oct 2019. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Pharmacological Modulation of Belief Salience
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03754062
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- MOBS / HR-16/17-0603
- Conditions
- Haloperidol, Placebo, L-DOPA
- Phase
- Phase 1
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- King's College LondonUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Medical Research Council
- Study start
- 1 Jun 2017 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 Sep 2019 (actual)
- Study completion
- 1 Sep 2019 (actual)
- First posted
- 27 Nov 2018 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
To provide an initial test of the hypothesis that dopamine mediates the motivational salience of stimuli beyond simple stimulus-reinforcement associations, the researchers propose to undertake a study of the modulation of a) levels of agreement or disagreement with; b) the perceived self- relevance; and c) the perceived interest of propositions expressing beliefs and values in healthy male volunteers using Ii) a dopamine antagonist (the D2-blocker haloperidol), and (ii) a dopamine precursor L-Dopa to increase CNS dopamine transmission.
The researchers will also administer the Salience Attribution Task (SAT) which will allow researchers to assess reward-learning processing of simple stimuli using a reaction-time game. This task was utilised by Roiser et al in order to explore whether delusions in medicated patients with schizophrenia were related to impairments in associative learning. The authors hypothesised that associative learning was influenced by D2 receptor blockade. The researchers extend this approach to examine the effect of dopamine modulation on the SAT as a measure of associative learning, a basic neuropsychological process that may be involved in the attribution of salience to beliefs.
Finally, the researchers will ask participants to perform a within-subjects dictator game to understand the influence of dopaminergic manipulation of the live attribution of harm intention to partners. The task has been previously validated online. Participants will play against 3 partners in a random order in each drug condition. Each partner will play the participant for 6 trials. One partner will always be fair, one will always be unfair, and one will be 50% unfair. We aim to understand whether potentiating dopamine has an additive effect on the harm intention attributions toward partners, regardless of the behaviour of the partner.
Detailed description
Delusions in psychiatry are viewed as a form of aberrant belief. Consequently it is important to understand the cognitive and neural processes involved in beliefs to provide insights into how these processes go awry in the formation of delusions. Beliefs have been defined as 'a disposition to express, assent to, or otherwise act in accordance with some proposition'. Some beliefs are widely held within a given society (e.g the earth revolves around the sun; eating humans is wrong), whereas others vary in association with subcultural and individual differences (e.g God created the universe; abortion is wrong). Similarly, the conviction or agreement with which an individual's beliefs and values are held may change over time, to the extent that some beliefs and values may be lost, and others acquired. Also, the perceived relevance of beliefs and values to oneself may vary. For example, beliefs that the 'earth revolves around the sun' and that 'global warming is occurring' may both be held with conviction, but the latter may be perceived as having higher relevance to the self in terms of risk, and potential life-style changes. Hence, self-relevance is a dimension of beliefs that is potentially dissociable from the conviction (level of agreement) with which a belief is held. Further, some propositions expressing beliefs and values may be regarded as more interesting than others. This raises the question of what neurobiological processes contribute to the sense of conviction for, and perceived self-relevance and interest of beliefs and values?
The mesolimbic dopamine system is a candidate neural system implicated in mediating the motivational salience of perceptions and ideas, 'whereby events and thoughts come to grab attention, drive action, and influence goal-directed behaviour because of their association with reward or punishment'. In human studies, haloperidol has been used to show that dopamine activity influences action-value estimates represented in the striatum during instrumental conditioning, as would be expected from earlier studies of feedback-based learning. Still other data suggest that brain regions rich in dopaminergic inputs play a role in processing the salience of rewarding events. What is not known is if these dopaminergic rich regions also modulate the motivational salience of more complex 'stimuli' including ideas and beliefs.
Main hypothesis:
Prediction 1:
At a neurobiological level, the hypothesis is that the mesolimbic dopamine system is recruited to tag representations (ideas and beliefs) as motivationally salient. Potentiation of dopamine transmission should increase salience of beliefs (as indicated by increases in agreement, self-relevance and interest toward propositions within science, paranormal, politics, moral, and religious themes in the Beliefs and Values Inventory while attenuation of dopamine transmission should be associated with decreased salience. Answers of items within themes will be summed to create summary scores that will be split by agreement, interest, and self-relevance dimensions.
Prediction 2:
Potentiating dopamine be associated with increased attribution of harmful intent to partners across all trials (but trait paranoia will not be associated with variation in attributions of self-interest) of a within-subjects dictator game.
Prediction 3:
Attribution of harmful intent to different dictators will follow a dose-response relationship (fair < partially fair < unfair) across all ranges of dopamine potentiation. However, L-Dopa conditions will have a higher baseline of average harmful intent. There will be no interaction between dopamine manipulations and dictator fairness on attribution of harmful intent.
If these hypotheses receive empirical support, it would be relevant to understanding the role of the dopamine system in normal cognitive processes involved in expressing or acting in accordance with beliefs. It would also be relevant to determining the role of dopamine dysregulation in psychosis (in delusion formation). Also, reduced levels of the meaningfulness of experience following antipsychotic administration (as indexed by reduced agreement for and perceived self- relevance and interest of beliefs and values) would identify a potential reason for non-compliance with antipsychotic treatment.
Supplementary hypotheses:
There will be an interaction between condition (placebo, dopamine blockade, dopamine potentiation) x dimension (agreement, self-relevance, interest), whereby self-relevance and interest are affected more by dopamine modulation than agreement. This might explain why patients with delusions who are given antipsychotics will continue to say that they believe 'x,' but don't think about it as much, and cease to act upon it.
Aims:
To provide an initial test of the hypothesis that dopamine mediates the motivational salience of stimuli beyond simple stimulus-reinforcement associations, we propose to undertake a study of the modulation of a) levels of agreement or disagreement with; b) the perceived self- relevance; and c) the perceived interest of propositions expressing beliefs and values in healthy male volunteers using i) a dopamine antagonist (the D2-blocker haloperidol), and (ii) a dopamine precursor L-Dopa to increase CNS dopamine transmission.
The researchers will also administer the Salience Attribution Task (SAT) which will allow the researchers to assess reward-learning processing of simple stimuli using a reaction-time game. This task was utilised by Roiser et al. in order to explore whether delusions in medicated patients with schizophrenia were related to impairments in associative learning. The authors hypothesised that associative learning was influenced by D2 receptor blockade. We extend this approach to examine the effect of dopamine modulation on the SAT as a measure of associative learning, a basic neuropsychological process that may be involved in the attribution of salience to beliefs.
Finally, the researchers will ask participants to perform a within-subjects dictator game to understand the influence of dopaminergic manipulation of the. Participants will play against 3 partners in a random order in each drug condition. Each partner will play the participant for 6 trials. One partner will always be fair, one will always be unfair, and one will be 50% unfair. We aim to understand whether potentiating dopamine has an additive effect on the harm intention attributions toward partners, regardless of the behaviour of the partner.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, investigator)
- Number of arms
- 3
- Model description
- Placebo x Haloperidol x LDOPA
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Placebo | Placebo comparator | Drug: Placebo - CapPlacebo control |
| Haloperidol 3mg | Experimental | Drug: HaloperidolHaloperidol |
| L-Dopa 150 mg & Domperidone 10mg | Experimental | Drug: L-dopaL-Dopa |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 65 years
- Sex
- Male only
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Healthy males between the ages of 18-65
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- History or current psychiatric or neurological illness, history or current serious medical diagnosis, BMI outside of normal/healthy range, smoker over 5 cigarettes per day, recent use of drugs, non-english speaker.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Placebo - CapAdministration of Placebo by pill. | Drug | Placebo |
| L-dopaAdministration of L-dopa by pill. | Drug | L-Dopa 150 mg & Domperidone 10mg |
| HaloperidolAdministration of Haloperidol by pill. | Drug | Haloperidol 3mg |
Primary outcome
Beliefs and Values Inventory (BVI)
Time frame: 12 Months
Change in score between conditions on the BVI. Scores will be summed by item totals within theme (paranormal, religion, morality, politics, and science) and dimension (agreement, self-relevance, and interest).
Salience Attribution Test (SAT)
Time frame: 12 Months
Change in attribution of explicit and implicit salience between conditions on the SAT.
Within-subjects dictator game
Time frame: 12 Months
Participants will play against three different partners, each for six trials. In each trial, the player's partner will have the option to either split or take 10p from the player, so that the player either ends up with 5p or 0p. Players will play against one partner that will always split the money, one that will always take all of the money, and one that will 50% of the time split the money. After each trial, the player will be asked on a scale of 1-100 (1 being not at all and 100 being completely): 1. How much do you think your partner was driven by a desire to increase their own bonus, and 2. How much do you think your partner was driven by a desire to reduce your bonus. Total of a. and b. will be added up for each style of partner for each arm.
2 secondary outcomes
Big-5 Personality Questionnaire
Time frame: 6 Months
Brief Oxford-Liverpool Inventory of Experiences and Feelings
Time frame: 6 Months
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 10 Oct 2019.
- Results publication: PubMed 20057930Schmidt K, Roiser JP. Assessing the construct validity of aberrant salience. Front Behav Neurosci. 2009 Dec 23;3:58. doi: 10.3389/neuro.08.058.2009. eCollection 2009.
- Results publication: PubMed 12505794Kapur S. Psychosis as a state of aberrant salience: a framework linking biology, phenomenology, and pharmacology in schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry. 2003 Jan;160(1):13-23. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.160.1.13.
- Results publication: PubMed 16929307Pessiglione M, Seymour B, Flandin G, Dolan RJ, Frith CD. Dopamine-dependent prediction errors underpin reward-seeking behaviour in humans. Nature. 2006 Aug 31;442(7106):1042-5. doi: 10.1038/nature05051. Epub 2006 Aug 23.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. Share anonymised data after collection on the Open Science Framework.
Related trials for Haloperidol
Active, not recruitingPhase 2/3
Haloperidol With or Without Chlorpromazine in Treating Delirium in Patients With Advanced, Metastatic, or Recurrent Cancer
Advanced Malignant Neoplasm, Delirium
Not yet recruitingEarly Phase 1
Haloperidol For Outpatient Symptom Management in Patients Diagnosed With Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome in the Emergrency Department
Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome
Active, not recruitingPhase 2
Haloperidol and Lorazepam for Delirium in Patients With Advanced Cancer
Advanced Cancers
Active, not recruitingPhase 2/3
Haloperidol and Lorazepam in Controlling Symptoms of Persistent Agitated Delirium in Patients With Advanced Cancer Undergoing Palliative Care
Delirium, Locally Advanced Malignant Neoplasm
RecruitingPhase 4
Do Antipsychotics Block Insulin Action in the Brain: is it a Class Effect?
Brain Insulin Sensitivity, Healthy Controls
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 1 study testing L-dopa and Haloperidol in people with Haloperidol and Placebo, run by King's College London at 1 site in United Kingdom.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 10 Oct 2019. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United Kingdom. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. Some participants in this study may receive a placebo. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 1 studies test a treatment in a small group of people for the first time or in a new way, mainly to check safety and find the right dose.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Beliefs and Values Inventory (BVI) (time frame: 12 Months). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT03754062, which also lists 3 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 10 Oct 2019.