Olanzapine versus haloperidol in the treatment of patients with chronic schizophrenia: Results of the Japan multicenter, double-blind olanzapine trial

This randomized double-blind trial was conducted to test the efficacy and safety of olanzapine in Japanese patients with schizophrenia. Importantly, this study also represents the first large clinical trial of olanzapine conducted in an Asian population. Patients (n = 182) were randomly assigned to treatment with olanzapine or haloperidol over a period of 8 weeks. The primary analyses included: (i) a test of non-inferiority of olanzapine compared with haloperidol in efficacy using the Final Global Improvement Rating (FGIR); and (ii) comparison between the treatment groups in extrapyramidal symptom severity using the Drug-Induced Extrapyramidal Symptoms Scale (DIEPSS). Olanzapine was comparable to haloperidol in efficacy in treating positive symptoms and significantly superior in treating negative symptoms. Extrapyramidal symptom severity was significantly improved for olanzapine-treated patients versus haloperidol-treated patients. Olanzapine was shown to be more effective and better tolerated than haloperidol in the treatment of Japanese patients suffering from chronic schizophrenia.     

Comparative efficacy of olanzapine and haloperidol for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: There is relatively little information regarding the efficacy of newer atypical antipsychotic drugs for patients with schizophrenia who are treatment-resistant to neuroleptic agents. Several lines of evidence suggest that a clinical trial of olanzapine in this population is warranted. METHODS: A subpopulation of patients (n = 526) meeting treatment-resistant criteria selected from a large, prospective, double-blind, 6-week study assessing the efficacy and safety of olanzapine and haloperidol were examined. Both last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) and completers (observed cases) analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Olanzapine demonstrated significantly greater mean improvement from baseline in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) negative symptoms, comorbid depressive symptoms assessed by the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, akathisia as measured by Barnes Akathisia Scale, and extrapyramidal symptoms as measured by Simpson-Angus Extrapyramidal Rating Scale with both LOCF and completers analyses. In addition, olanzapine was significantly superior to haloperidol for Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale total (p = .006), PANSS total (p = .005), and PANSS positive symptoms (p = .017) in completers of the 6-week study. Significantly greater response rates were observed in olanzapine-treated (47%) than haloperidol-treated (35%) patients in the LOCF analysis (p = .008), but significance was not reached in the completers analysis (p = .093). Mean doses (+/- SD) of olanzapine and haloperidol were 11.1 +/- 3.4 mg/day and 10.0 +/- 3.6 mg/day, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Olanzapine was superior to haloperidol for key symptom domains and parkinsonian side effects. Implications of these data for the therapeutics of this severely ill subgroup are discussed.     

Olanzapine versus clozapine in treatment-resistant or treatment-intolerant schizophrenia

Clozapine has been the gold standard for treatment of patients with refractory schizophrenia but is associated with serious safety liabilities. This has prompted the search for therapeutic alternatives for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of olanzapine versus clozapine in schizophrenic patients who failed to respond adequately to antipsychotic medication or who experienced intolerable adverse effects associated with the medication. This 18-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel study compared treatment with either olanzapine (5-25 mg/day, n=75) or clozapine (100-500 mg/day, n=72) in patients with schizophrenia who were nonresponsive to, or intolerant of, standard acceptable antipsychotic therapy. At the 18-week endpoint, no statistically significant differences were found between olanzapine and clozapine in any efficacy measure used: Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total, positive, negative, or general psychopathology or Clinical Global Impression severity (CGI-S). Response rates based on the criteria of Kane et al. [Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 45 (1988) 789] were also not significantly different between olanzapine-treated (57.9%) and clozapine-treated patients (60.8%). There were no significant differences in measurements of extrapyramidal symptoms or electrocardiography, and no clinically and statistically significant changes were seen in vital signs or laboratory measures in either group. Both treatments were well tolerated. Olanzapine demonstrated similar efficacy to clozapine in patients who had failed previous treatment because of lack of efficacy (treatment resistance) or intolerable side effects (treatment intolerance). Olanzapine therefore presents a safe alternative in the treatment of refractory schizophrenia.     

Cocaine abuse in schizophrenic patients treated with olanzapine versus haloperidol

Comorbid cocaine abuse adversely affects clinical outcomes in schizophrenia. Using a prospective, randomized, parallel group design (N = 24), we tested the hypothesis that patients with schizophrenia treated with olanzapine have reduced cocaine craving and abuse compared with those treated with haloperidol. In addition, we examined whether this differential effect correlated with reductions in extrapyramidal symptoms, positive and negative symptoms, and/or depression. There were no significant differences overall in proportions of positive drug screens between treatment groups; no differences in positive, negative, or depressive symptoms; and few differences between treatment conditions in extrapyramidal symptoms. However, craving for cocaine was rated significantly lower by patients treated with haloperidol compared with patients treated with olanzapine. Important study limitations include a small sample size and high attrition rates. Larger controlled studies are necessary to determine optimal antipsychotic therapy for patients with schizophrenia and comorbid cocaine abuse.     

A comparison of the efficacy and safety of olanzapine and risperidone in the treatment of elderly patients with schizophrenia: an open study of six months duration

BACKGROUND: Following an earlier study in which elderly patients with schizophrenia had their typical antipsychotic medication changed to olanzapine or risperidone, the 61 patients were followed for up to a further six months to see if either treatment was superior in terms of efficacy or side effects. AIMS: To determine whether either olanzapine or risperidone was superior in terms of efficacy or side effects when treating schizophrenia in late life. METHODS: Psychiatric symptoms, side effects and quality of life were rated every six weeks for 24 weeks of open label comparative treatment using standard measures. Group differences were examined using analysis of covariance and within-group changes over time were assessed using paired t-tests. RESULTS: There were 34 olanzapine and 32 risperidone patients who entered the study, but intention to treat data was only available for 61 of the 66 patients. There were no clinical or demographic differences between the groups. Parkinsonism, positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia improved in both groups both from baseline switch to olanzapine or risperidone and during the six month follow-up after completion of crossover. No significant differences were seen between groups on most measures. However, patients treated with olanzapine showed a significantly greater improvement in quality of life from baseline compared to risperidone patients. CONCLUSIONS: Both drugs were well tolerated and their use was associated with fewer symptoms of schizophrenia and less adverse effects than were seen when the patients were taking a typical antipsychotic at baseline. Olanzapine appears to have particular benefit with regard to quality of life.     

A novel augmentation strategy for treating resistant major depression

OBJECTIVE: Treatment-resistant depression is a significant public health concern; drug switching or augmentation often produce limited results. The authors hypothesized that fluoxetine could be augmented with olanzapine to successfully treat resistant depression. METHOD: An 8-week double-blind study was conducted with 28 patients who were diagnosed with recurrent, nonbipolar, treatment-resistant depression without psychotic features. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of three groups: olanzapine plus placebo, fluoxetine plus placebo, or olanzapine plus fluoxetine. RESULTS: Fluoxetine monotherapy produced minimal improvement on various scales that rate severity of depression. The benefits of olanzapine monotherapy were modest. Olanzapine plus fluoxetine produced significantly greater improvement than either monotherapy on one measure and significantly greater improvement than olanzapine monotherapy on the other measures after 1 week. There were no significant differences between treatment groups on extrapyramidal measures nor significant adverse drug interactions. CONCLUSIONS: Olanzapine plus fluoxetine demonstrated superior efficacy for treating resistant depression compared to either agent alone.     

Effects of atypical antipsychotics on the syndromal profile in treatment-resistant schizophrenia

BACKGROUND: There has been considerable support for the observation that atypical antipsychotics have a broader range of therapeutic effects than traditional antipsychotics. We are exploring whether this expanded clinical efficacy can also be seen in patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia. METHOD: The subjects were 157 treatment-resistant inpatients diagnosed with DSM-IV schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. They were randomly assigned to treatment with clozapine, olanzapine, risperidone, or haloperidol in a 14-week double-blind trial and rated with a standard measure of clinical antipsychotic efficacy (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale [PANSS]). Factor analysis at baseline and endpoint together with changes in 5 PANSS-derived factors were examined. Data were gathered from June 1996 to December 1999. RESULTS: The underlying PANSS factor structure, as indicated by the factor loadings, was essentially identical at baseline and endpoint. At baseline, the excitement factor was followed by the positive, negative, cognitive, and depression/anxiety factors, explaining 49.4% of the total variance. At endpoint, the positive factor was followed by the negative, excitement, cognitive, and depression/anxiety factors, explaining 55.5% of the total variance. The endpoint data indicated statistically significant (p <.05) improvements over time on the positive factor for all 3 atypicals, but not for haloperidol. The negative factor showed significant improvement for clozapine and olanzapine, with significant worsening for haloperidol. Clozapine, olanzapine, and risperidone were superior to haloperidol on the negative factor, while clozapine was also superior to risperidone. The cognitive factor showed significant improvement for all atypicals, as did the depression/anxiety factor. Only clozapine showed improvement on the excitement factor and was superior to both haloperidol and risperidone. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with atypical antipsychotics did not substantially change the underlying PANSS 5-factor structure. However, antipsychotic treatment with all 3 atypical medications was associated with significant improvements on 3 of 5 syndromal domains (positive, cognitive, and depression/anxiety) of schizophrenia. Clozapine and olanzapine also showed improvement on the negative factor. Only clozapine was associated with improvement on the excitement domain. This finding confirms that atypicals are associated with improvement of an expanded spectrum of symptoms in treatment-resistant patients.     

Eight-year follow-up of olanzapine therapy in a previous treatment-refractory schizophrenic patient: a case report

The introduction of atypical antipsychotic drugs during the 1990s represented a great step forward in the treatment of schizophrenia and other psychoses. These drugs might more effectively prevent relapse because of their effectiveness against a wider range of schizophrenic symptoms, as well as their improved tolerability, which leads to improved medication compliance. Olanzapine, a thienobenzodiazapine, is an antipsychotic drug with high affinity for the serotonergic receptors 5-HT 2 and 5-HT 6 and high affinity for dopaminergic receptors, mainly D2, D3 and D4, and with a lower propensity to cause extrapyramidal symptoms or increasing prolactin levels. The long-term efficacy and safety of olanzapine for treating treatment-refractory schizophrenia is still being investigated. The authors present a case of a 43-year-old man suffering from chronic treatment-resistant schizophrenia with both positive and negative symptoms, who was successfully treated with olanzapine for 8 years. (Int J Psych Clin Pract 2002; 6: 211-214 )     

International multisite double-blind trial of the atypical antipsychotics risperidone and olanzapine in 175 elderly patients with chronic schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: The authors compared the effects of the two most commonly used atypical antipsychotics, risperidone and olanzapine, in elderly patients with schizophrenia. METHODS: In an 8-week, international, double-blind study, patients (outpatients, hospital inpatients, and residents of nursing or boarding homes) were randomly assigned to receive risperidone (1 mg to 3 mg/day) or olanzapine (5 mg to 20 mg/day). The main outcome measures were changes in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total scores and rates of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS). RESULTS: Subjects were 175 patients age 60 years or over with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. The mean duration of illness was 36.5 years. Median doses were 2 mg/day of risperidone and 10 mg/day of olanzapine. PANSS total scores and four of the five PANSS factor scores (positive symptoms, negative symptoms, disorganized thoughts, and anxiety/depression) improved significantly at all time-points and at endpoint in both groups; between-treatment differences were not significant. EPS-related adverse events were reported by 9.2% of patients in the risperidone group and 15.9% in the olanzapine group; the between-treatment difference was not significant. Total scores on the Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale were reduced in both groups at endpoint; between-treatment differences were not significant. Clinically relevant weight gain was seen in both groups, but was significantly less frequent in risperidone patients than in olanzapine patients. CONCLUSIONS: Stable elderly patients with chronic schizophrenia receiving appropriate doses of risperidone or olanzapine over an 8-week period experienced significant reductions in the severity of psychotic and extrapyramidal symptoms, with a relatively low risk of side effects.     

The effects of olanzapine on the 5 dimensions of schizophrenia derived by factor analysis: combined results of the North American and international trials

BACKGROUND: The choice of drug to treat a patient with schizophrenia is one of the most critical clinical decisions. Controversy exists on the differential efficacy of olanzapine. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: Raw data from all 4 registrational double-blind, random-assignment studies of olanzapine compared with placebo or haloperidol were obtained from Eli Lilly and Company for this meta-analysis. METHOD: Analysis of covariance of the intent-to-treat last-observation-carried-forward endpoint scores was used to assess efficacy on Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total scores and the 5 factors derived by factor analysis (negative symptoms, positive symptoms, disorganized thoughts, impulsivity/hostility, and anxiety/depression). RESULTS: Olanzapine produced a statistically significantly greater reduction in schizophrenic symptoms than haloperidol (p < .05) on total scores on the BPRS and PANSS on each of the 5 factors as well as on almost all items. Olanzapine induced a response at a rate equal to that induced by haloperidol in the first few weeks, but by the end of the study produced a greater percentage of responders. Compared with haloperidol, olanzapine produced a somewhat greater response on symptoms responsive to haloperidol, but a markedly better response on symptoms unresponsive to haloperidol. This difference favoring olanzapine occurred to an equal degree in all subgroups examined. The incidence of parkinsonism or akathisia following olanzapine treatment was extremely low and not statistically distinguishable from placebo. CONCLUSION: Olanzapine produced a greater improvement than haloperidol particularly by benefiting a much larger number of items or factors. Extrapyramidal side effects and akathisia during olanzapine treatment were statistically indistinguishable from effects seen with placebo.     

奥氮平治疗难治性精神分裂症临床观察

目的：评价奥氮平对难治性精神分裂症的疗效与不良反应。方法：对难治性精神分裂症80例换用奥氮平治疗24周。用阳性症状和阴性症状量表(PANSS)评定疗效，用副反应量表(TESS)及锥体外系副反应量表(ESRS)评定不良反应。结果：PANSS量表总分及各分量表评分疗后均有显著下降。最常见的不良反应是体重增加。结论：奥氮平对难治性精神分裂症疗效肯定，不良反应较轻。     

Comparative effect of atypical and conventional antipsychotic drugs on neurocognition in first-episode psychosis: a randomized, double-blind trial of olanzapine versus low doses of haloperidol

OBJECTIVE: The effect of antipsychotic medication on neurocognitive function remains controversial, especially since most previous work has compared the effects of novel antipsychotic medications with those of high doses of conventional medications. This study compares the neurocognitive effects of olanzapine and low doses of haloperidol in patients with first-episode psychosis. METHOD: Patients with a first episode of schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or schizophreniform disorder (N=167) were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with olanzapine (mean modal dose= 9.63 mg/day) or haloperidol (mean modal dose=4.60 mg/day) for the 12-week acute phase of a 2-year study. The patients were assessed with a battery of neurocognitive tests at baseline and 12 weeks after beginning treatment. RESULTS: An unweighted neurocognitive composite score, composed of measures of verbal fluency, motor functions, working memory, verbal memory, and vigilance, improved significantly with both haloperidol and olanzapine treatment (effect sizes of 0.20 and 0.36, respectively, no significant difference between groups). A weighted composite score developed from a principal-component analysis of the same measures improved to a significantly greater degree with olanzapine, compared with haloperidol. Anticholinergic use, extrapyramidal symptoms, and estimated IQ had little effect on the statistical differentiation of the medications, although duration of illness had a modest effect. The correlations of cognitive improvement with changes in clinical characteristics and with side effects of treatment were significant for patients who received haloperidol but not for patients who received olanzapine. CONCLUSIONS: Olanzapine has a beneficial effect on neurocognitive function in patients with a first episode of psychosis. However, in a comparison of the effects of olanzapine and low doses of haloperidol, the difference in benefit is small.     

Atypical antipsychotic agents in the treatment of violent patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder

CONTEXT: Violent behavior of patients with schizophrenia prolongs hospital stay and interferes with their integration into the community. Finding appropriate treatment of violent behaviors is of primary importance. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of 2 atypical antipsychotic agents, clozapine and olanzapine, with one another and with haloperidol in the treatment of physical assaults and other aggressive behaviors in physically assaultive patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 12-week trial. Physically assaultive subjects with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder who were inpatients in state psychiatric facilities were randomly assigned to treatment with clozapine (n = 37), olanzapine (n = 37), or haloperidol (n = 36). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number and severity of physical assaults as measured by the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS) physical aggression score and the number and severity of all aggressive events as measured by the MOAS overall score. Psychiatric symptoms were assessed through the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). RESULTS: Clozapine was superior to both olanzapine and haloperidol in reducing the number and severity of physical assaults as assessed by the MOAS physical aggression score and in reducing overall aggression as measured by the MOAS total score. Olanzapine was superior to haloperidol in reducing the number and severity of aggressive incidents on these 2 MOAS measures. There were no significant differences among the 3 medication groups in improvement of psychiatric symptoms as measured by the PANSS total score and the 3 PANSS subscales. CONCLUSIONS: Clozapine shows greater efficacy than olanzapine and olanzapine greater efficacy than haloperidol in reducing aggressive behavior. This antiaggressive effect appears to be separate from the antipsychotic and sedative action of these medications.     

氟哌啶醇与奥氮平治疗精神分裂症疗效和安全性的随机对照研究

目的比较氟哌啶醇与奥氮平治疗精神分裂症的疗效及安全性。方法将符合精神分裂症诊断标准的住院患者按照1:2比例随机分为氟哌啶醇(n=120)和奥氮平治疗组(n=252),进行为期6周的治疗观察;于基线及治疗2、4、6周末评定阳性和阴性症状量表(positive and negative syndrom scale,PANSS),锥体外系副反应量表(rating scale for extrapyramdal side effects,RSESE)、静坐不能评定量表(barnes akathisia rating scale,BARS)和异常不自主运动量表(abnormal involuntary movement scale,AIMS);计算体质量指数(body mass index,BMI);基线及治疗4、6周末测定空腹血糖、血脂和肝功能等指标。结果氟哌啶醇组与奥氮平组基线PANSS总分差异无统计学意义;第6周末氟哌啶醇组PANSS总分低于奥氮平组(53.31±1.64 vs.58.05±1.02),减分率高于后者(60.63±2.86%vs.52.45±1.80%),均P<0.05;两组有效率(66.7%vs.62.7%)差异无统计学意义。第6周末氟哌啶醇组BMI较基线的变化值(0.08±0.20 kg/m2vs.0.91±0.12 kg/m2)、谷丙转氨酶异常病例数比例(16.98%vs.28.07%)均低于奥氮平组(P<0.05);第4周末氟哌啶醇组甘油三酯较基线的变化值低于奥氮平组(0.24±0.12 mmol/L vs.0.57±0.07 mmol/L),P<0.05。氟哌啶醇组锥体外系不良反应发生率(73.3%)明显高于奥氮平组(10.71%),P<0.05。结论在精神分裂症急性期,氟哌啶醇治疗有效率与奥氮平相当,对体重、血脂、转氨酶的影响较小,但锥体外系不良反应发生率较高。     

Subjective experience and D2 receptor occupancy in patients with recent-onset schizophrenia treated with low-dose olanzapine or haloperidol: a randomized,double-blind study

OBJECTIVE: The authors tested the hypothesis that a dopamine D(2) receptor occupancy level between 60% and 70% in patients with recent-onset schizophrenia would result in optimal subjective experience. In addition, they sought preliminary evidence on whether subjective experience is better with low-dose olanzapine than with low-dose haloperidol. METHOD: Subjects (N=24) who met DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with either olanzapine, 7.5 mg/day, or haloperidol, 2.5 mg/day. Subjective experience, psychopathology, and extrapyramidal symptoms were assessed at baseline and at endpoint. After 6 weeks, D(2) receptor occupancy was assessed with [(123)I]iodobenzamide single photon emission computed tomography. RESULTS: The two study groups were similar at baseline. After 6 weeks, patients receiving olanzapine had a significantly lower mean dopamine D(2) receptor occupancy (51.0%, range=36%-67%) than those given haloperidol (65.5%, range=45%-75%). Receptor occupancy between 60% and 70% was associated with optimal subjective experience, and subjective experience improved significantly in the haloperidol group. CONCLUSIONS: A level of D(2) receptor occupancy between 60% and 70% is optimal for subjective experience of patients with recent-onset schizophrenia. Substantial interindividual variation in D(2) receptor occupancy was seen at fixed low-dose levels of olanzapine and haloperidol. Olanzapine, 7.5 mg/day, showed no superior subjective response over haloperidol, 2.5 mg/day. Olanzapine may need to be dosed higher than 7.5 mg/day for most patients with recent-onset schizophrenia, and haloperidol needs to be individually titrated in the very low dose range to reach optimal occupancy.     

Suicide and undetermined death by drowning

INTRODUCTION : To compare the efficacy and safety of olanzapine and haloperidol in partial-responder paranoid schizophrenic patients. METHOD : In this multi-centre, double-blind study, 28 patients with DSM-IV paranoid schizophrenia were randomized to receive 14 weeks treatment with either olanzapine or haloperidol at flexible doses. The pre- and post-treatment assessment included the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS), the CGI, the Simpson-Angus Rating Scale, and the Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale. RESULTS : The two treatment groups showed similar improvement on the BPRS positive symptoms subscale, while the improvement of BPRS negative symptoms subscale was significant only in the olanzapine group (ANOVA with repeated measures, group effect: F=5.89, P =0.023). Only the olanzapine-treated patients experienced a significant improvement of negative symptoms as rated by the SANS (ANOVA with repeated measures, group effect: F=6.81, P =0.016). No significant differences were found between the two groups on the Simpson and Angus Rating Scale scores, but a significant difference was found in the Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale scores: no patient in the olanzapine-treated group experienced akathisia, while a few patients in the haloperidol-treated group showed this side-effect, thus resulting in a significant group effect detected by the ANOVA (F=4.23, P =0.05). CONCLUSIONS : These preliminary results suggest that olanzapine is superior to haloperidol in the treatment of partial-responder paranoid schizophrenic patients, and also shows a better tolerability profile. Further investigations, including different diagnostic subgroups, are still needed to further clarify the clinical profile of olanzapine. (Int J Psych Clin Pract 2002; 6: 107-111)     

奥氮平与氯氮平治疗难治性精神分裂症对照研究

目的评价奥氮平治疗难治性精神分裂症的疗效及安全性。方法将64例难治性精神分裂症患者随机分为研究组和对照组,分别予以奥氮平和氯氮平治疗8周,采用PANSS量表和TESS量表评定疗效和不良反应。结果奥氮平组治疗前后PANSS减分率为39.3%,有效率为72.8%;氯氮平组治疗前后PANSS减分率为36.6%,有效率为59.4%。奥氮平组未见严重的不良反应。结论奥氮平与氯氮平治疗难治性精神分裂症均有良好疗效,奥氮平的副作用小,病人依从性好。     

A prospective,open-label trial of olanzapine in adolescents with schizophrenia

BACKGROUND: Olanzapine is an atypical antipsychotic that has efficacy in adults with psychotic disorders. This preliminary study examined the effectiveness of olanzapine in adolescents with schizophrenia or its related conditions. METHOD: Adolescents aged 12-17 years (inclusive) with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, schizoaffective, or schizophreniform disorder were enrolled in this 8-week, open-label, outpatient study. The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), the Clinical Global Impressions Scale (CGI), and the Children's Global Assessment Scale (CGAS) were administered as outcome measures. Extrapyramidal side effects were assessed at each visit. Olanzapine was initiated at a dose of 2.5 mg/day and could be increased to a maximum total daily dose of 20 mg. RESULTS: Sixteen participants with a mean age of 13.8 (SD = 1.5) years were treated. Significant improvements were found in the PANSS, CGI severity, and CGAS scores. Reductions in both positive and negative symptoms were found. Increased appetite and sedation were the most frequently reported side effects. Two subjects required treatment for extrapyramidal side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Psychotic symptoms significantly improved during study. Overall, olanzapine was well tolerated. Future studies are needed to confirm these findings, to assess long-term treatment outcomes, and to compare the effectiveness of olanzapine with that of other antipsychotics.     

奥氮平合用氯硝西泮治疗精神分裂症急性精神运动性兴奋的研究

目的：观察奥氮平合并氯硝西泮治疗精神分裂症急性精神运动性兴奋的疗效与不良反应。方法：65例精神分裂症急性期兴奋患者,随机分为口服奥氮平合并肌内注射氯硝西泮组（奥氮平组）34例和肌内注射氟哌啶醇组（氟哌啶醇组）31例治疗,疗程7 d。以阳性与阴性症状量表兴奋激越项目（PANSS-EC）和治疗中出现的症状量表（TESS）评定疗效和不良反应。结果：奥氮平组与氟哌啶醇组疗效相当,差异无显著性（P〉0.05）。两组急性兴奋症状均获明显改善,氟哌啶醇组不良反应发生率高于奥氮平组（P〈0.05）。结论：奥氮平合并氯硝西泮可有效治疗精神分裂症患者急性期精神运动性兴奋,疗效与氟哌啶醇相当,不良反应明显少于氟哌啶醇。     

Olanzapine and haloperidol in first episode psychosis: two-year data

Few studies have assessed the comparative efficacy and safety of atypical and typical antipsychotic medications in patients within their first episode of psychosis. This study examined the effectiveness of the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine and the typical antipsychotic haloperidol in patients experiencing their first episode of a schizophrenia-related psychotic disorder over a 2-year treatment period. Two hundred and sixty-three patients were randomized to olanzapine or haloperidol in a doubleblind, multisite, international 2-year study. Clinical symptoms and side effects were assessed at baseline and longitudinally following randomization for the duration of the study. Olanzapine and haloperidol treatment were both associated with substantial and comparable reductions in symptom severity (the primary outcome measure) over the course of the study. However, the treatment groups differed on two secondary efficacy measures. Patients were less likely to discontinue treatment with olanzapine than with haloperidol: mean time (in days) in the study was significantly greater for those treated with olanzapine compared to haloperidol (322.09 vs. 230.38, p<0.0085). Moreover, remission rates were greater in patients treated with olanzapine as compared to those treated with haloperidol (57.25% vs. 43.94%, p<0.036). While extrapyramidal side effects were greater in those treated with haloperidol, weight gain, cholesterol level and liver function values were greater in patients treated with olanzapine. The data from this study suggest some clinical benefits for olanzapine as compared to haloperidol in first episode patients, which must be weighed against those adverse effects that are more likely with olanzapine.