Double-blind, randomized comparison of olanzapine versus fluphenazine in the long-term treatment of schizophrenia

This study was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy and safety of olanzapine compared with fluphenazine in the treatment of patients who met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, fourth edition (DSM-IV) diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. This was a long-term (22-week), randomized, double-blind, parallel clinical trial. Sixty patients (mean age, 35.4 years) were randomly assigned to either olanzapine (n=30) or fluphenazine (n=30). They received treatment at three centers in Croatia during a 22-week study period and were assessed weekly for the first 6 weeks and monthly thereafter. Efficacy was measured using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), the Positive and Negative Syndrome Rating Scale (PANSS) and the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) Severity and Improvement scores. The Hillside Akathisia Scale (HAS), Simpson-Angus Scale (SAS), Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS), vital signs, laboratory tests, and treatment-emergent adverse events were assessed to evaluate safety. The olanzapine group showed significantly greater mean decreases from baseline to endpoint for BPRS total (-25.8 vs. -16.5, P=.035), PANSS total (-45.7 vs. -29.5, P=.037), PANSS positive (-13.0 vs. -7.9, P=.034), and CGI Severity (-2.2 vs. -1.3, P=.031) scores. The olanzapine group showed greater mean decreases on all measures of extrapyramidal symptoms, significantly so for the SAS (-2.1 vs. 1.9, P=.004) and HAS (-3.4 vs. 2.6, P=.028). Patients in the fluphenazine group experienced a higher incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (76.7% vs. 50.0%, P=.032). Weight gain was the most frequently reported adverse event in the olanzapine group (16.7% vs. 0.0%, P=.020). Akathisia (30.0% vs. 10.0%, P=.053) and insomnia (20.0% vs. 0.0%, P=.010) appeared most frequent in the fluphenazine group. Daily use of anticholinergics and benzodiazepines were both significantly greater for the fluphenazine group (P=.003 and.04, respectively). No significant changes were observed in vital signs, ECG, or clinical chemistry. The study indicates that olanzapine has advantages in both efficacy and safety compared to fluphenazine; however, the small sample size limits our ability to draw definitive conclusions.     

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.     

Olanzapine versus divalproex in the treatment of acute mania

OBJECTIVE: The effects of olanzapine and divalproex for the treatment of mania were compared in a large randomized clinical trial. METHOD: A 3-week, randomized, double-blind trial compared flexibly dosed olanzapine (5-20 mg/day) to divalproex (500-2500 mg/day in divided doses) for the treatment of patients hospitalized for acute bipolar manic or mixed episodes. The Young Mania Rating Scale and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale were used to quantify manic and depressive symptoms, respectively. Safety was assessed with several measures. RESULTS: The protocol defined baseline-to-endpoint improvement in the mean total score on the Young Mania Rating Scale as the primary outcome variable. The mean Young Mania Rating Scale score decreased by 13.4 for patients treated with olanzapine (N=125) and 10.4 for those treated with divalproex (N=123). A priori categorizations defined response and remission rates: 54.4% of olanzapine-treated patients responded (> or = 50% reduction in Young Mania Rating Scale score), compared to 42.3% of divalproex-treated patients; 47.2% of olanzapine-treated patients had remission of mania symptoms (endpoint Young Mania Rating Scale < or = 12), compared to 34.1% of divalproex-treated patients. The decrease in Hamilton depression scale score was similar in the two treatment groups. Completion rates for the 3-week study were similar in both groups. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (incidence >10%) occurring more frequently during treatment with olanzapine were dry mouth, increased appetite, and somnolence. For divalproex, nausea was more frequently observed. The average weight gain with olanzapine treatment was 2.5 kg, compared to 0.9 kg with divalproex treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The olanzapine treatment group had significantly greater mean improvement of mania ratings and a significantly greater proportion of patients achieving protocol-defined remission, compared with the divalproex treatment group. Significantly more weight gain and cases of dry mouth, increased appetite, and somnolence were reported with olanzapine, while more cases of nausea were reported with divalproex.     

Olanzapine vs. haloperidol in the treatment of elderly chronic schizophrenia patients

OBJECTIVE: Most of the data supporting the use of atypical antipsychotics (AA) is based on studies in young adult patients. The present study is an open-label naturalistic follow-up study of olanzapine treatment vs. haloperidol for elderly chronic schizophrenia patients. MEHTOD: 20 patients (mean age 72.7+/-5.9 years, mean disease duration 33.1+/-12.0 years) who met the DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia were randomly assigned to olanzapine (n=10) or haloperidol (n=10) treatment during acute exacerbation. Primary outcome measure was rating on the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale and the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS). RESULTS: Between-group differences were computed using analysis of covariance. PANSS Total score decreased from 84 at baseline to 65 after treatment with olanzapine while decreased only from 79 to 74 with haloperidol treatment (F= 6.66, P=.02). PANSS Negative subscale decreased from 19 at baseline to 15 with olanzapine treatment while increased (deteriorated) from 18 to 20 with haloperidol treatment (F=23.37, P=.0003). CGI decreased from baseline with both olanzapine and haloperidol treatments (1.1 vs. 0.4) but the decrease in the olanzapine group was significantly greater (F=4.63, P=.05). Mean weight increased in both groups but without statistical difference between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In elderly chronic schizophrenia patients, olanzapine treatment is superior to haloperidol in reducing negative symptoms as well as less induction of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS).     

Intramuscular olanzapine and intramuscular haloperidol in acute schizophrenia: antipsychotic efficacy and extrapyramidal safety during the first 24 hours of treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the antipsychotic efficacy and extrapyramidal safety of intramuscular (i.m.) olanzapine and i.m. haloperidol during the first 24 hours of treatment of acute schizophrenia. METHOD: Patients (n = 311) with acute schizophrenia were randomly allocated (2:2:1) to receive i.m. olanzapine (10.0 mg, n = 131), i.m. haloperidol (7.5 mg, n = 126), or i.m. placebo (n = 54). RESULTS: After the first injection, i.m. olanzapine was comparable to i.m. haloperidol and superior to i.m. placebo for reducing mean change scores from baseline on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BRPS) Positive at 2 hours (-2.9 olanzapine, -2.7 haloperidol, and -1.5 placebo) and 24 hours (-2.8 olanzapine, -3.2 haloperidol, and -1.3 placebo); the BPRS Total at 2 hours (-14.2 olanzapine,-13.1 haloperidol, and -7.1 placebo) and 24 hours (-12.8 olanzapine, -12.9 haloperidol, and -6.2 placebo); and the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scale at 24 hours (-0.5 olanzapine, -0.5 haloperidol, and -0.1 placebo). Patients treated with i.m. olanzapine had significantly fewer incidences of treatment-emergent parkinsonism (4.3% olanzapine vs 13.3% haloperidol, P = 0.036), but not akathisia (1.1% olanzapine vs 6.5% haloperidol, P = 0.065), than did patients treated with i.m. haloperidol; they also required significantly less anticholinergic treatment (4.6% olanzapine vs 20.6% haloperidol, P < 0.001). Mean extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) safety scores improved significantly from baseline during i.m. olanzapine treatment, compared with a general worsening during i.m. haloperidol treatment (Simpson-Angus Scale total score mean change: -0.61 olanzapine vs 0.70 haloperidol; P < 0.001; Barnes Akathisia Scale global score mean change: -0.27 olanzapine vs 0.01 haloperidol; P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: I.m. olanzapine was comparable to i.m. haloperidol for reducing the symptoms of acute schizophrenia during the first 24 hours of treatment, the efficacy of both being evident within 2 hours after the first injection. In general, more EPS were observed during treatment with i.m. haloperidol than with i.m. olanzapine.     

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.     

Symptomatic remission in schizophrenia patients treated with aripiprazole or haloperidol for up to 52 weeks

BACKGROUND: The Remission in Schizophrenia Working Group (RSWG) has defined criteria for symptomatic remission based on achieving and maintaining a consistently low symptom threshold for at least six consecutive months. This analysis examined symptomatic remission in acutely ill patients with schizophrenia receiving either aripiprazole or haloperidol for one year. METHODS: Pooled data from two 52-week, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, comparative trials of aripiprazole and haloperidol in acutely ill patients with schizophrenia were analyzed. Measures of symptomatic remission were calculated according to RSWG criteria. RESULTS: Remission rates were significantly higher for patients treated with aripiprazole compared with haloperidol (32% vs 22%, respectively; p<0.001, LOCF). Among remitters, aripiprazole-treated patients achieved symptom criteria in a significantly shorter time than haloperidol-treated patients (log rank p=0.0024). For trial completers, remission rates were similarly high in both groups (aripiprazole, 77%; haloperidol, 74%). Regardless of treatment type, remitters received significantly higher global clinical ratings than nonremitters (p<0.0001). Aripiprazole was associated with a significantly lower rate of discontinuations due to adverse events (AEs) than haloperidol (8.0% vs 18.4%, respectively; p<0.001) as well as lower concomitant medication use for extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) (23% vs 57%, respectively; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Acutely ill schizophrenia patients treated with aripiprazole demonstrated a significantly higher rate of symptomatic remission across 52 weeks compared with haloperidol-treated patients. The similar remission rates among trial completers in both treatment groups, combined with fewer AE-related discontinuations and lower EPS medication use in the aripiprazole group, suggest that better tolerability with aripiprazole may have contributed to superior overall remission rates.     

Olanzapine versus divalproex sodium for the treatment of acute mania and maintenance of remission: a 47-week study

OBJECTIVE: Few double-blind trials have compared longer-term efficacy and safety of medications for bipolar disorder. The authors report a 47-week comparison of olanzapine and divalproex. METHOD: This 47-week, randomized, double-blind study compared flexibly dosed olanzapine (5-20 mg/day) to divalproex (500-2500 mg/day) for manic or mixed episodes of bipolar disorder (N=251). The only other psychoactive medication allowed was lorazepam for agitation. The primary efficacy instrument was the Young Mania Rating Scale; a priori protocol-defined threshold scores were > or =20 for inclusion, < or =12 for remission, and > or = 15 for relapse. Analytical techniques included mixed model repeated-measures analysis of variance for change from baseline, Fisher's exact test (two-tailed) for categorical comparisons, and Kaplan-Meier estimates of time to events of interest. RESULTS: Over 47 weeks, mean improvement in Young Mania Rating Scale score was significantly greater for the olanzapine group. Median time to symptomatic mania remission was significantly shorter for olanzapine, 14 days, than for divalproex, 62 days. There were no significant differences between treatments in the rates of symptomatic mania remission over the 47 weeks (56.8% and 45.5%, respectively) and subsequent relapse into mania or depression (42.3% and 56.5%). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurring significantly more frequently during olanzapine treatment were somnolence, dry mouth, increased appetite, weight gain, akathisia, and high alanine aminotransferase levels; those for divalproex were nausea and nervousness. CONCLUSIONS: In this 47-week study of acute bipolar mania, symptomatic remission occurred sooner and overall mania improvement was greater for olanzapine than for divalproex, but rates of bipolar relapse did not differ.     

Divalproex sodium versus olanzapine in the treatment of acute mania in bipolar disorder: health-related quality of life and medical cost outcomes

BACKGROUND: Divalproex sodium is a mood stabilizer used in the United States for the treatment of acute mania associated with bipolar disorder. Recently, olanzapine, an atypical antipsychotic, was approved for the treatment of acute mania. This study compares the clinical, health-related quality of life (HRQL), and economic outcomes of divalproex and olanzapine in the treatment of acute mania associated with bipolar disorder. METHOD: This 12-week, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized clinical trial included 120 subjects with DSM-IV bipolar disorder type I hospitalized for an acute manic episode recruited from 21 U.S. clinical centers. Subjects were randomly assigned to treatment with either divalproex or olanzapine and were followed in hospital for up to 21 days. If after 21 days clinical improvements (based on the Mania Rating Scale [MRS]) were not observed, subjects were discontinued. Subjects showing clinical improvement were treated for up to 12 weeks. HRQL was assessed using the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (Q-LES-Q) after hospital discharge (baseline) and at 6 and 12 weeks. Medical resource use and costs were collected over the 12-week study. RESULTS: A total of 120 subjects (N = 63 divalproex, N = 57 olanzapine) were randomized, and 78 (65%) were followed beyond 21 days. No statistically significant differences between the treatment groups for baseline-to-endpoint MRS or Q-LES-Q scores were observed. Total 12-week outpatient medical costs were significantly lower for the divalproex-treated group (541 US dollars) compared with the olanzapine-treated group (1080 US dollars) (p =.004). There was no significant difference in total medical costs between the 2 groups (divalproex = 13,703 US dollars; olanzapine = 15,180 US dollars; p =.88). CONCLUSION: Divalproex is associated with lower 12-week outpatient costs compared with olanzapine. Divalproex and olanzapine have similar short-term effects on clinical or HRQL outcomes in bipolar disorder subjects.     

Analyses of treatment-emergent mania with olanzapine/fluoxetine combination in the treatment of bipolar depression

BACKGROUND: Treatment-emergent mania is a potential risk when patients with bipolar disorder are treated with antidepressant agents. These subanalyses compare treatment-emergent mania rates in bipolar I depressed patients treated with olanzapine, placebo, or olanzapine/fluoxetine combination. METHOD: In this 8-week, double-blind investigation, patients with bipolar I depression (DSM-IV criteria) (N = 833, baseline Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score > or = 20) were randomly assigned to olanzapine (5-20 mg/day, N = 370), placebo (N = 377), or olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (6/25, 6/50, or 12/50 mg/day; N = 86). Treatment-emergent mania was evaluated with the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), the Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar Edition (CGI-BP) Severity of Mania scale, and adverse events records. RESULTS: Overall rates of study discontinuation due to mania were low and not significantly different among the therapy groups (p = .358). Incidence of treatment-emergent mania (defined as a YMRS score < 15 at baseline and > or = 15 at any subsequent visit) did not differ significantly among therapy groups (olanzapine 5.7%, placebo 6.7%, olanzapine/fluoxetine combination 6.4%; p = .861). Subjects receiving olanzapine or olanzapine/fluoxetine combination had greater mean decreases in YMRS scores than those receiving placebo (p < .001 for both). Subjects receiving olanzapine or olanzapine/fluoxetine combination also had greater mean decreases in CGI-BP scores than those receiving placebo (p = .040 and p = .003, respectively). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that olanzapine/fluoxetine combination does not present a greater risk of treatment-emergent mania compared to olanzapine or placebo over 8 weeks of acute treatment for bipolar I depression. Due to the cyclical nature of bipolar disorder, patients taking olanzapine/fluoxetine combination for bipolar depression should still be monitored for signs or symptoms of emerging mania.     

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.     

Pharmacological interventions for acute bipolar mania: a systematic review of randomized placebo-controlled trials

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials in acute bipolar mania to summarize available data on drug treatment of mania. METHODS: We included trials of medications licensed in the USA or UK for the treatment of any phase of bipolar disorder. Outcomes investigated were changes in mania scores, attrition, extrapyramidal effects and weight change. Data were combined through meta-analyses. RESULTS: We included 13 studies (involving 3,089 subjects) and identified 2 studies for each of the following medications: carbamazepine, haloperidol, lithium, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, valproate semisodium and aripiprazole. All drugs showed significant benefit compared with placebo for reduction in mania scores. Compared with placebo, for all antipsychotics pooled, response to treatment (> or =50% reduction in Young Mania Rating Scale scores) was increased more than 1.7 times [relative risk (RR) = 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.54, 1.96]; for all mood stabilizers pooled, response to treatment was doubled (RR 2.01, 95% CI = 1.66, 2.43). Overall withdrawals were 34% fewer (24-43%) with antipsychotics, and 26% fewer (10-39%) with mood stabilizers. However, for carbamazepine, aripiprazole and lithium an increase in risk of withdrawal could not be excluded. Small but significant increases in extrapyramidal side effects occurred with risperidone and aripiprazole. CONCLUSIONS: Antipsychotics and mood stabilizers are significantly more effective than placebo for the treatment of acute mania. Their effect sizes are similar. Small differences between effect sizes may be due to differences in the patients included in the studies or to chance. Carbamazepine and lithium may be more poorly tolerated, and antipsychotics cause more extrapyramidal side effects.     

Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of olanzapine as maintenance therapy in patients with bipolar I disorder responding to acute treatment with olanzapine

OBJECTIVE: In a placebo-controlled, double-blind study, the authors investigated the efficacy and safety of olanzapine as monotherapy in relapse prevention in bipolar I disorder. METHOD: Patients achieving symptomatic remission from a manic or mixed episode of bipolar I disorder (Young Mania Rating Scale [YMRS] total score < or =12 and 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HAM-D] score or =15, HAM-D score > or =15, or hospitalization). RESULTS: Time to symptomatic relapse into any mood episode was significantly longer among patients receiving olanzapine (a median of 174 days, compared with a median of 22 days in patients receiving placebo). Times to symptomatic relapse into manic, depressive, and mixed episodes were all significantly longer among patients receiving olanzapine than among patients receiving placebo. The relapse rate was significantly lower in the olanzapine group (46.7%) than in the placebo group (80.1%). During olanzapine treatment, the most common emergent event was weight gain; during the open-label phase, patients who received olanzapine gained a mean of 3.1 kg (SD=3.4). In double-blind treatment, placebo patients lost a mean of 2.0 kg (SD=4.4) and patients who continued to take olanzapine gained an additional 1.0 kg (SD=5.2). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to placebo, olanzapine delays relapse into subsequent mood episodes in bipolar I disorder patients who responded to open-label acute treatment with olanzapine for a manic or mixed episode.     

Efficacy of olanzapine in combination with valproate or lithium in the treatment of mania in patients partially nonresponsive to valproate or lithium monotherapy.

BACKGROUND: A 6-week double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted to determine the efficacy of combined therapy with olanzapine and either valproate or lithium compared with valproate or lithium alone in treating acute manic or mixed bipolar episodes. METHODS: The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy of olanzapine (5-20 mg/d) vs placebo when added to ongoing mood-stabilizer therapy as measured by reductions in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) scores. Patients with bipolar disorder (n = 344), manic or mixed episode, who were inadequately responsive to more than 2 weeks of lithium or valproate therapy, were randomized to receive cotherapy (olanzapine + mood-stabilizer) or monotherapy (placebo + mood-stabilizer). RESULTS: Olanzapine cotherapy improved patients' YMRS total scores significantly more than monotherapy (-13.11 vs -9.10; P = .003). Clinical response rates (> or = 50% improvement on YMRS) were significantly higher with cotherapy (67.7% vs 44.7%; P< .001). Olanzapine cotherapy improved 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-21) total scores significantly more than monotherapy (4.98 vs 0.89 points; P< .001). In patients with mixed-episodes with moderate to severe depressive symptoms (DSM-IV mixed episode; HAMD-21 score of > or = 20 at baseline), olanzapine cotherapy improved HAMD-21 scores by 10.31 points compared with 1.57 for monotherapy (P< .001). Extrapyramidal symptoms (Simpson-Angus Scale, Barnes Akathisia Scale, Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale) were not significantly changed from baseline to end point in either treatment group. Treatment-emergent symptoms that were significantly higher for the olanzapine cotherapy group included somnolence, dry mouth, weight gain, increased appetite, tremor, and slurred speech. CONCLUSION: Compared with the use of valproate or lithium alone, the addition of olanzapine provided superior efficacy in the treatment of manic and mixed bipolar episodes.     

Economic comparison of olanzapine versus haloperidol in treatment of schizophrenia in France]

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to provide an economic comparison of olanzapine-treated and haloperidol-treated patients from the subset of French patients who participated in a large, international, randomised clinical trial in schizophrenia. METHODS: Patients were evaluated from randomisation until discontinuation, drop out or completion of the 52-week study. The primary clinical measure was "clinically important response" (derived from BPRS total scores). The secondary measure was "clinically important improvement" (derived from CGI severity of illness scores). The primary economic measure was mean per diem, per patient total direct medical costs. RESULTS: A total of 275 French patients where included in the study. Demographics and other baseline differences between olanzapine- and haloperidol-treated patients were not statistically significant. Olanzapine-treated patients (205 +/- 142 days) experienced significantly (p < 0.001) longer evaluation periods than haloperidol-treated patients (132 +/- 129 days). Olanzapine-treated patients (54%) were significantly (p = 0.03) more likely to experience a clinically important response than haloperidol-treated patients (40%). Olanzapine-treated patients (69%) were significantly (p = 0.02) more likely to experience clinically important improvement than haloperidol-treated patients (54%). The mean per diem, per patient total direct medical cost was statistically lower (p = 0.033) for olanzapine-treated patients (FF619 +/- 509) compared to haloperidol-treated patients (FF756 +/- 478). CONCLUSION: Olanzapine treatment was associated with significantly better clinical outcomes and per diem total direct medical cost than haloperidol treatment. The findings indicate that olanzapine is dominant compared to haloperidol for the treatment of schizophrenia, in the context of analysed data. These findings produce increased relevance in France to the existing evidence supporting olanzapine's cost and effectiveness profiles.     

Comparative efficacy and safety of atypical and conventional antipsychotic drugs in first-episode psychosis: a randomized,double-blind trial of olanzapine versus haloperidol

OBJECTIVE: Few long-term studies have compared the efficacy and safety of typical and atypical antipsychotic medications directly in patients with a first episode of psychosis who met the criteria for schizophrenia or a related psychotic disorder. This study compared the acute and long-term effectiveness of haloperidol with that of olanzapine in patients with first-episode psychosis in a large, controlled clinical trial. METHOD: Patients with first-episode psychosis (N=263) were randomly assigned under double-blind conditions to receive haloperidol or olanzapine and were followed for up to 104 weeks. Domains measured included psychopathology, psychosocial variables, neurocognitive functioning, and brain morphology and metabolism. This report presents data from clinical measures of treatment response and safety data from the 12-week acute treatment phase. RESULTS: Haloperidol and olanzapine were associated with substantial and comparable baseline-to-endpoint reductions in symptom severity, which did not differ significantly in last-observation-carried-forward analyses. However, in a mixed-model analysis, olanzapine-treated subjects had significantly greater decreases in symptom severity as measured by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score and negative and general scales and by the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale but not as measured by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale positive scale and by the Clinical Global Impression severity rating. Olanzapine-treated patients experienced a lower rate of treatment-emergent parkinsonism and akathisia but had significantly more weight gain, compared with the haloperidol-treated patients. Overall, significantly more olanzapine-treated subjects than haloperidol-treated subjects completed the 12-week acute phase of the study (67% versus 54%). CONCLUSIONS: As expected on the basis of previous studies, both olanzapine and haloperidol were effective in the acute reduction of psychopathological symptoms in this group of patients with first-episode psychosis. However, olanzapine had several relative advantages in therapeutic response. Although the nature of adverse events differed between the two agents, retention in the study was greater with olanzapine. Retention in treatment is important in this patient population, given their risk of relapse. Longer-term results are needed to determine whether treatment with atypical antipsychotics results in superior outcomes for a first episode of schizophrenia.     

Efficacy of olanzapine in acute bipolar mania: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. The Olanzipine HGGW Study Group

BACKGROUND: We compared the efficacy and safety of olanzapine vs placebo for the treatment of acute bipolar mania. METHODS: Four-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel study. A total of 115 patients with a DSM-IV diagnosis of bipolar disorder, manic or mixed, were randomized to olanzapine, 5 to 20 mg/d (n = 55), or placebo (n = 60). The primary efficacy measure was the Young-Mania Rating Scale (Y-MRS) total score. Response and euthymia were defined, a priori, as at least a 50% improvement from baseline to end point and as a score of no less than 12 at end point in the Y-MRS total score, respectively. Safety was assessed using adverse events, Extrapyramidal Symptom (EPS) rating scales, laboratory values, electrocardiograms, vital signs, and weight change. RESULTS: Olanzapine-treated patients demonstrated a statistically significant greater mean (+/- SD) improvement in Y-MRS total score than placebo-treated patients (-14.8 +/- 12.5 and -8.1 +/- 12.7, respectively; P<.001), which was evident at the first postbaseline observation 1 week after randomization and was maintained throughout the study (last observation carried forward). Olanzapine-treated patients demonstrated a higher rate of response (65% vs 43%, respectively; P =.02) and euthymia (61% vs 36%, respectively; P =. 01) than placebo-treated patients. There were no statistically significant differences in EPSs between groups. However, olanzapine-treated patients had a statistically significant greater mean (+/- SD) weight gain than placebo-treated patients (2.1 +/- 2.8 vs 0.45 +/- 2.3 kg, respectively) and also experienced more treatment-emergent somnolence (21 patients [38.2%] vs 5 [8.3% ], respectively). CONCLUSION: Olanzapine demonstrated greater efficacy than placebo in the treatment of acute bipolar mania and was generally well tolerated.     

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)     

奥氮平单药与联合碳酸锂治疗双相障碍躁狂发作患者的对照研究

目的:比较奥氮平单药与奥氮平联合碳酸锂治疗双相躁狂或混合发作患者的疗效与安全性. 方法:60例双相障碍Ⅰ型躁狂发作或混合性发作患者随机分为单用药组29例和合用药组31例.分别给予奥氮平单药和奥氮平联合碳酸锂治疗.疗程4周.于基线时,治疗l,2,3和4周,分别采用临床总体印象量表-双相障碍版、Young躁狂量表(YMR...     

A 24-week open-label extension study of olanzapine-fluoxetine combination and olanzapine monotherapy in the treatment of bipolar depression

OBJECTIVE: Olanzapine-fluoxetine combination has shown efficacy in the acute treatment of depressive episodes in patients with bipolar I disorder. The present analyses examined the efficacy and safety of longer term treatment with olanzapine-fluoxetine combination or olanzapine monotherapy in a 6-month open-label extension study. METHOD: 376 patients with DSM-IV bipolar I disorder, depressed, who completed an acute trial entered the open-label study and received 1 week of olanzapine monotherapy (5-20 mg/day). At all subsequent visits, patients could choose between olanzapine monotherapy or olanzapine-fluoxetine combination (6/25, 6/50, or 12/50 mg/day). Three treatment groups were defined retrospectively according to the medication course taken from week 1: olanzapine, olanzapine-fluoxetine combination, or switched. The efficacy measures were the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar Version, and Young Mania Rating Scale. The study was conducted from July 2000 to May 2002. RESULTS: Among patients who started in remission, MADRS total scores did not change significantly from baseline to endpoint in the olanzapine-fluoxetine combination (0.8) or olanzapine (0.3) groups, but increased slightly in the switched (2.3, p = .02) group. For patients who started in nonremission, MADRS total scores decreased significantly in all groups (olanzapine-fluoxetine combination: -5.7, p = .001; olanzapine: -11.6, p = .004; switched: -6.4, p = .015). The majority of patients who entered the study in nonremission achieved remission (MADRS total score < or = 12) during the trial (olanzapine-fluoxetine combination: 66.7%, olanzapine: 64.7%, switched: 62.5%). The overall rate of depressive relapse was 27.4%, and the overall incidence of mania emergence was 5.9%. CONCLUSIONS: The present findings suggest that long-term treatment with olanzapine-fluoxetine combination may be a useful option for the management of depressive symptoms and carries a low risk of mania emergence.