The efficacy of a rapid-acting intramuscular formulation of olanzapine for positive symptoms

Rapid tranquilization of acutely psychotic patients with schizophrenia is usually carried out using typical antipsychotic agents. The objective of such treatment is to control agitation, not to treat psychosis, which usually responds only after a few weeks of treatment. An intramuscular formulation of the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine was developed for treatment of agitation in acutely psychotic patients. Studies conducted to assess control of agitation in schizophrenia also investigated the positive symptom efficacy of olanzapine when used to provide rapid tranquilization. This article summarizes the results of 3 clinical trials with intramuscular olanzapine with regard to positive symptom efficacy as measured by the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS; 0-6 scale) positive subscale. In 2 open-label trials, patients treated with intramuscular olanzapine experienced a mean decrease from baseline in BPRS positive subscale score. In 1 double-blind clinical trial of intramuscular olanzapine versus intramuscular haloperidol and intramuscular placebo, the mean decrease from baseline in BPRS positive subscale score for patients treated with intramuscular olanzapine was statistically significant (p < .05). In all 3 studies, positive symptom improvement continued following transition to oral olanzapine. These results suggest that intramuscular olanzapine has positive symptom efficacy early in the course of treatment and may provide a smooth transition to maintenance therapy with oral olanzapine.     

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.     

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)     

Correlation between plasma homovanillic acid levels and the response to atypical antipsychotics in male patients with schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE: The authors investigated the effects of atypical antipsychotic drugs-olanzapine, perospirone, and quetiapine-on plasma homovanillic acid (pHVA) in male patients with chronic schizophrenia. METHODS: In this prospective, open-label study, the subjects were 30 inpatients who were diagnosed according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition, criteria for schizophrenia. The authors switched patients from typical antipsychotic drugs to olanzapine, perospirone, or quetiapine. Each patient gave informed consent for the research. pHVA was assessed before and after switching medications. RESULTS: After the switch, the authors found a significant improvement in psychotic symptoms, nonsignificant improvement in extrapyramidal symptoms, and a nonsignificant reduction in pHVA. In addition, the baseline pHVA correlated positively with the score changes from baseline in the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) total, positive, and negative symptoms in the group with a whole sample and in the olanzapine-treated group, and with the score changes in the BPRS total and positive symptoms in the quetiapine-treated group. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicated that the preswitching pHVA levels could be used to predict changes in the psychotic symptoms of male patients with chronic schizophrenia when switching to atypical antipsychotic drugs.     

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.     

Depression in schizophrenia: comparison of first- and second-generation antipsychotic drugs

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of different antipsychotics on depressive symptoms in schizophrenic patients. The data were drawn from a retrospective, naturalistic, observational study in which 222 subjects diagnosed as being affected by schizophrenia during a re-exacerbation phase received 6 weeks of monotherapy with fluphenazine decanoate, haloperidol decanoate, haloperidol, clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone or l-sulpiride. The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Extrapyramidal Side Effects Rating Scale (EPSE) and Anticholinergic Rating Scale (ACS) were administered at baseline and six weeks after the beginning of the study; depressive symptoms were evaluated using the BPRS items "depressive mood" and "guilt feelings". All of the antipsychotic drugs led to improvements in the depressive dimension, but this was statistically significant only in the case of fluphenazine decanoate, haloperidol, olanzapine, risperidone and l-sulpiride. A clinical improvement in the depressive dimension significantly correlated with the severity of the psychotic picture and its amelioration. Female patients were significantly more likely to show an improvement in depressive symptoms. In conclusion, our findings suggest that atypical antipsychotics as a class do not seem to be more effective on the depressive dimension during the course of schizophrenia than typical ones, at least as far as the collected BPRS data are concerned. The only factor that seemed to influence the improvement in depressive symptoms during our study was gender, as females were significantly more likely to improve although there were no between-gender differences in the baseline severity of the clinical picture.     

Olanzapine vs risperidone in the management of schizophrenia: a randomized double-blind trial in Australia and New Zealand

Improved drug therapy for schizophrenia may represent the best strategy for reducing the costs of schizophrenia and the recurrent chronic course of the disease. Olanzapine and risperidone are atypical antipsychotic agents developed to meet this need. We report a multicenter, double-blind, parallel, 30-week study designed to compare the efficacy, safety, and associated resource use for olanzapine and risperidone in Australia and New Zealand. The study sample consisted of 65 patients who met DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or schizophreniform disorder. Olanzapine-treated patients showed a significantly greater reduction in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) total, and PANSS General Psychopathology scores at endpoint compared to the risperidone-treated patients. Response rates through 30 weeks showed a significantly greater proportion of olanzapine-treated patients had achieved a 20% or greater improvement in their PANSS total score compared to risperidone-treated patients. Olanzapine and risperidone were equivalent in their improvement of PANSS positive and negative scores and Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness scale (CGI-S) at endpoint. Using generic and disease-specific measures of quality of life, olanzapine-treated patients showed significant within-group improvement in most measures, and significant differences were observed in favor of olanzapine over risperidone in Quality of Life Scale (QLS) Intrapsychic Foundation and Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36-item instrument (SF-36) Role Functioning Limitations-Emotional subscale scores. Despite the relatively small sample size, our study suggests that olanzapine has a superior risk:benefit profile compared to risperidone.     

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.     

Olanzapine in Chinese treatment-resistant patients with schizophrenia: an open-label,prospective trial

The role of olanzapine in treatment-resistant schizophrenia has still not been clearly resolved. In addressing this issue, the current report presents an open-label, prospective, 13 week trial with olanzapine use in Chinese schizophrenic patients who were resistant to more than two different classes of antipsychotics during a minimal 4 week treatment period for each antipsychotic drug at adequate dosage. Fifty-one inpatients were recruited after a cross-titration period and given 10-25 mg of olanzapine daily, without any concomitant antipsychotic medication. Patients were evaluated with the Brief Psychotic Rating Scale (BPRS), the Positive and Negative Symptoms Scale, the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI), the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale, the Simpson-Angus scale, and the Barnes Akathisia Scale. The olanzapine-treated patients showed significant improvement in both the positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia by the end of the study. Overall, 20 of 51 (39.2%) responded to 10-25 mg of olanzapine per day as measured by the BPRS and CGI scores. Five patients dropped out due to the worsening of their psychotic symptoms, two patients discontinued owing to poor drug compliance, and the remaining patient complained of a lack of efficacy. Extrapyramidal side-effects were mild, and anticholinergic medications required has decreased. The present open study suggests that olanzapine may be effective and well-tolerated in Chinese treatment-resistant schizophrenic patients. Further double-blinded trials are needed to confirm this result.     

Comparison of risperidone and olanzapine in the control of negative symptoms of chronic schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders in patients aged 50 to 65 years

BACKGROUND: This analysis compares the efficacy of risperidone and olanzapine in controlling negative and positive symptoms of chronic psychosis in older patients. METHOD: Post hoc assessments were made in a subset of risperidone-treated (N = 19) and olanzapine-treated (N = 20) older patients (aged 50 to 65 years) from a large international, multicenter, parallel, double-blind, 28-week study of patients aged 18 to 65 years (N = 339) randomly assigned to receive risperidone (4-12 mg/day) or olanzapine (10-20 mg/day). Assessments were made using repeated-measures analysis. RESULTS: At both 8 weeks and 28 weeks, the magnitude of changes in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) positive symptom subscale scores did not differ between treatment groups (8 weeks: risperidone, -6.5; olanzapine, -6.8, p = .866; 28 weeks: risperidone, -6.5; olanzapine, -7.0; p = .804). However, by the 8-week timepoint, olanzapine had reduced PANSS negative subscale scores significantly more than risperidone (-8.8 vs. -4.9, p = .032). By the 28-week endpoint, olanzapine had continued to maintain significantly greater reduction in baseline-to-endpoint PANSS negative scores (-8.1 vs. -3.5, p = .032) and led to significantly greater reduction in scores on the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS) dimensions of affective flattening (-5.2 vs. -0.6, p = .033) and alogia (-3.8 vs. -0.3, p = .007). Patients in the olanzapine treatment group also demonstrated numerically greater reduction of both SANS summary (-3.7 vs. -1.0, p = .078) and SANS composite scores (-14.1 vs. -4.1, p = .075). CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate that, in older patients with schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders, risperidone and olanzapine have approximately equal efficacy in controlling positive symptoms. However, olanzapine appears to be more efficacious in maintaining control over negative symptoms.     

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.     

Effectiveness and tolerability of olanzapine in the treatment of adolescents with schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders: results from a large, prospective, open-label study

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess effectiveness and tolerability of oral olanzapine treatment of adolescents with schizophrenic disorders. METHOD: Adolescent patients (12-19 years) with schizophrenia, schizoaffective, or schizophreniform disorders according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4(th) edition (DSM-IV) were enrolled in a multicenter, prospective, open-label study. Following a 2- to 9-day washout period, patients initially received 10 mg/day olanzapine. Dose modification was allowed during week 2 (dose range 5-15 mg/day) and during weeks 3-6 (dose range, 5-20 mg/day). Responders (improvement > or =30% on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, BPRS) continued olanzapine for additional 18 weeks. Psychopathology was assessed using BPRS and Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scales; side effects were assessed by adverse event reporting. RESULTS: Out of 96 patients enrolled at 10 sites, 60 (62.5%) met response criteria at week 6. Mean BPRS total scores decreased significantly (p < 0.001) from baseline (39.2 +/- 13.4) to week 6 last observation carried forward (LOCF) (22.2 +/- 14.7). The rate of patients considered markedly ill or worse (CGI-S) decreased from 83.3% (baseline) to 37.5% (week 6, LOCF). The most common reported adverse event was weight gain (30.2%, 29/96). Three patients (3.1%) discontinued due to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of young patients with schizophrenia, schizoaffective, or schizophreniform disorders, olanzapine treatment was associated with marked symptom improvement. As changes in weight and prolactin levels may be greater in adolescent than in adult patients, potential risks and benefits of olanzapine treatment in adolescents should be considered carefully.     

Long-term neurocognitive effects of olanzapine or low-dose haloperidol in first-episode psychosis.

BACKGROUND: Neurocognitive deficits are severe in first-episode psychosis. METHODS: Patients (N = 263) with first-episode psychosis (schizophrenia, schizoaffective, or schizophreniform disorders) were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with olanzapine (mean 11.30 mg/day) or haloperidol (mean 4.87 mg/day) for 104 weeks. A neurocognitive battery was administered at baseline (n = 246) and 12 (n = 167), 24 (n = 126), 52 (n = 89), and 104 (n = 46) weeks during treatment. Weighted principal component and unweighted composite scores were derived from individual tests. RESULTS: Both treatment groups demonstrated significant improvement on both composite scores. On the basis of the weighted composite score, olanzapine had greater improvement than haloperidol only at 12 (p = .014) and 24 (p = .029) weeks. For the unweighted composite, olanzapine had significantly better improvement compared with haloperidol only at week 12 (p = .044). At week 12 only, olanzapine improved performance on the Digit Symbol and Continuous Performance Test significantly more than haloperidol. CONCLUSIONS: Both antipsychotic agents appeared to improve neurocognitive functioning among first-episode psychosis patients with schizophrenia. A significantly greater benefit in terms of neurocognitive improvement was found with olanzapine than with haloperidol at weeks 12 and 24.     

Relation of neurological soft signs to psychiatric symptoms in schizophrenia

INTRODUCTION: Although several studies have identified abnormal rates of neurological soft signs (NSS) as a manifestation of CNS dysfunction in schizophrenia, differences in sample populations have contributed to a discrepancy in empirical findings. Furthermore, little is known about the potential of NSS to predict a clinical response to antipsychotic medications. The present study tests the associations between NSS and schizophrenia symptomatology and examines NSS as a potential marker for predicting treatment response. METHODS: Nineteen unmedicated male schizophrenia patients were treated prospectively with haloperidol for six weeks. The subjects were assessed for pre and post-treatment NSS and schizophrenia symptomatology (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, BPRS). RESULTS: NSS at baseline were significantly associated with baseline symptoms on the Positive, Negative, and Psychological Discomfort BPRS subscales. NSS showed a strong trend toward improvement during six weeks of a prospective haloperidol trial. Hierarchical linear regression analyses indicated that more severe baseline NSS predicted poorer response to haloperidol treatment as measured by post-treatment BPRS Total subscale scores. DISCUSSION: NSS at untreated baseline are associated with baseline symptom severity, and elevated NSS are predictive of a smaller degree of improvement in symptoms after antipsychotic treatment. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that NSS are linked to the neuropathology that underlies schizophrenia symptomatology and course.     

Treatment with olanzapine, risperidone or typical antipsychotic drugs in Asian patients with schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE: To examine clinical outcomes in Asian patients with schizophrenia receiving monotherapy with olanzapine, risperidone or typical antipsychotics in naturalistic settings. METHOD: In this report, data from the first 12 months of the prospective, observational, 3-year Intercontinental Schizophrenia Outpatient Health Outcomes study are presented for patients from participating Asian countries (Korea, Taiwan and Malaysia) who were started on, or switched to, monotherapy with olanzapine (n = 484), risperidone (n = 287) or a typical antipsychotic drug (n = 127) at baseline. RESULTS: At 12 months, overall reduction in the score of Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness rating scale was greatest with olanzapine (p < 0.001 vs typical agents), followed by risperidone (p = 0.007 vs typical agents) treatment. Olanzapine treatment was found to have significantly better effects than typical agents on negative and depressive symptom scores, and significantly greater improvements than risperidone on negative and cognitive symptoms. The occurrence of extrapyramidal symptoms was least likely with olanzapine (p < 0.001 vs typical agents, and p = 0.012 vs risperidone), while the estimated odds of tardive dyskinesia were greatest in the typical treatment group (p = 0.046 vs olanzapine, and p = 0.082 vs risperidone). Mean weight increase was greater for olanzapine-treated patients compared with the other agents (p = 0.030 vs typical agents and p < 0.001 vs risperidone). The risk of menstrual disturbance was relatively high with risperidone when compared with olanzapine treatment (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this observational study indicate that, in Asian patients with schizophrenia, olanzapine may offer benefits when compared with typical agents or risperidone. However, the significantly greater odds of weight gain should be considered in the clinical management of olanzapine-treated patients.     

An open-label randomized comparison of olanzapine versus risperidone in the treatment of childhood-onset schizophrenia

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Childhood-onset schizophrenia (COS) is a clinically severe form of schizophrenia, which causes severe impairment to cognitive, linguistic, and social development. There are few prospective and retrospective open clinical trials of risperidone and olanzapine in COS. In this open-label, randomized, prospective study, we compared the tolerability and effectiveness of risperidone versus olanzapine in the treatment of COS patients. METHODS: The study population consisted of 25 children with COS (mean age 11.09 +/- 1.55 years). After an evaluation, patients received risperidone (0.25-4.5 mg/day, mean dose 1.62 +/- 1.02 mg/day) or olanzapine (2.5-20 mg/day, mean dose 8.18 +/- 4.41 mg/day) for 12 weeks, with weekly evaluations. RESULTS: Both groups showed comparable significant (p < 0.001) within-group improvement from baseline to endpoint (LOCF) in Positive and Negative Symptoms Scale (PANSS) total and subscale scores. Of the olanzapine-treated children, 11 (91.7%) completed the 12 weeks of the study, whereas in the risperidone-treated children only 9 (69.2%) did. No significant differences between risperidone-treated children and olanzapine-treated children were observed on Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale (BAS) and Simpson-Angus Scale (SAS) rating scales. Both treatment groups showed significant (p < 0.001) increase in weight from baseline to endpoint. CONCLUSION: Our open-label, small-scale comparative study suggests that both risperidone and olanzapine appear to be efficacious antipsychotic medications in COS, with a slight nonsignificant advantage of olanzapine in the dropout rate.     

Effectiveness of antipsychotic treatments for schizophrenia: interim 6-month analysis from a prospective observational study (IC-SOHO) comparing olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and haloperidol

BACKGROUND: The Intercontinental Schizophrenia Outpatient Health Outcomes (IC-SOHO) study was designed to provide information regarding use and outcome of antipsychotic treatments in a large, diverse population in real practice settings. METHOD: Outpatients with schizophrenia (ICD-10 or DSM-IV) who initiated or changed to a new antipsychotic entered this 3-year, naturalistic, prospective observational study. Four monotherapy treatment groups were defined according to the antipsychotic prescribed at baseline, namely olanzapine, risperidone, quetiapine, and haloperidol. Efficacy was assessed using the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness rating scale (CGI-S), inclusive of subscales for positive, negative, depressive, and cognitive symptoms. Tolerability was assessed by adverse event questionnaires and weight measurements. Six-month findings are described. RESULTS: At baseline, 5833 participants were prescribed monotherapy and the mean severity of illness was moderate to marked (CGI-S). At 6 months, olanzapine resulted in significantly greater improvements in overall, positive, negative, depressive, and cognitive symptoms compared with quetiapine, risperidone or haloperidol (p <.001). Improvements in overall, negative, and cognitive symptoms were significantly higher for risperidone compared with haloperidol (p <.001), whereas improvements across all symptoms were comparable for quetiapine and haloperidol. Extra-pyramidal symptoms and tardive dyskinesia decreased compared with baseline in the olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone groups but increased in the haloperidol group (p <.001, likelihood of extrapyramidal symptoms with haloperidol compared with olanzapine, quetiapine, or risperidone). Sexual function adverse events were most prominent in the haloperidol and risperidone treatment groups. Weight change was significantly greater for olanzapine compared with the other antipsychotics (p <.001). CONCLUSION: Our results support the previously reported positive impact of atypical antipsychotics, particularly olanzapine, in patients with schizophrenia.     

An integrated analysis of acute treatment-emergent extrapyramidal syndrome in patients with schizophrenia during olanzapine clinical trials: comparisons with placebo,haloperidol, risperidone,or clozapine

BACKGROUND: The frequency and severity of extrapyramidal syndrome (EPS) were evaluated in patients with DSM-III or DSM-IV schizophrenia in the acute phase (- 8 weeks) of randomized, double-blind, controlled trials from the integrated olanzapine clinical trial database. METHOD: This retrospective analysis included 23 clinical trials and 4611 patients from November 11, 1991, through July 31, 2001. Incidences of dystonic, parkinsonian, and akathisia events were compared using treatment-emergent adverse-event data. Categorical analyses of Simpson-Angus Scale and Barnes Akathisia Scale (BAS) scores, use of anticholinergic medications, and baseline-to-endpoint changes in Simpson-Angus Scale and BAS scores were compared. RESULTS: A significantly smaller percentage of olanzapine-treated patients experienced dystonic events than did haloperidol- (p <.001) or risperidone-treated patients (p =.047). A significantly greater percentage of haloperidol-treated patients experienced parkinsonian (p <.001) and akathisia (p <.001) events than did olanzapine-treated patients. Categorical analysis of Simpson-Angus Scale scores showed significantly more haloperidol- (p <.001) or risperidone-treated patients (p =.004) developed parkinsonism than did olanzapine-treated patients. Olanzapine-treated patients experienced significantly greater reductions in Simpson-Angus Scale scores than did haloperidol- (p <.001), risperidone- (p <.001), or clozapine-treated (p =.032) patients. Categorical analysis of BAS scores showed significantly more haloperidol-treated patients experienced treatment-emergent akathisia versus olanzapine-treated patients (p <.001). Significantly greater reductions in BAS scores were experienced during olanzapine treatment versus placebo (p =.007), haloperidol (p <.001), and risperidone (p =.004) treatments. A significantly smaller percentage of olanzapine-treated patients received anticholinergic medications compared with that of haloperidol- (p <.001) or risperidone-treated patients (p =.018). Compared with that in olanzapine-treated patients, the duration of anticholinergic cotreatment was significantly longer among haloperidol- (p <.001) or risperidone-treated patients (p =.040) and significantly shorter among clozapine-treated patients (p =.021). CONCLUSION: This analysis of available data from olanzapine clinical trials lends additional support to olanzapine's favorable EPS profile.     

The effects of olanzapine in reducing the emergence of psychosis among nursing home patients with Alzheimer's disease

BACKGROUND: Elderly patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) commonly exhibit psychotic symptoms, prompting clinicians to administer antipsychotics. This article compares the effects of olanzapine and placebo in the emergence of hallucinations or delusions in AD patients with symptoms of agitation/aggression but little or no psychotic symptomatology at baseline. METHOD: A multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted in nursing home patients with AD according to DSM-IV criteria and symptoms of agitation/aggression and/or psychosis. Patients (N = 206) were randomly assigned to receive either placebo or fixed-dose olanzapine (5, 10, or 15 mg/day) for up to 6 weeks. This article analyzes data from a subgroup of patients (N = 165) with no or minimal delusions and/or hallucinations at baseline as measured by the Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Nursing Home Version (NPI/NH). Three subsets of patients were identified on the basis of their symptoms at baseline: those with no clinically significant hallucinations, those with no clinically significant delusions, and those with no clinically significant delusions or hallucinations. RESULTS: Of the patients without hallucinations or delusions at baseline (N = 75), the placebo-treated patients showed significantly greater development of these symptoms compared with olanzapine-treated patients overall (NPI/NH hallucinations + delusions mean change score, +2.73 vs. +0.27, p = .006). Similarly, of the patients without baseline hallucinations (N = 153), the placebo-treated patients showed greater hallucinations score increases than did olanzapine-treated patients overall (+1.25 vs. +0.33, p = .026), whereas patients without baseline delusions (N = 87) showed no significant treatment effects. Olanzapine had a favorable safety profile in each patient subset. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that, overall, olanzapine effectively attenuated emergence of psychosis in a short-term trial of patients with Alzheimer's disease.     

Olanzapine treatment of residual positive and negative symptoms

OBJECTIVE: Olanzapine has been hypothesized to have superior efficacy in patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia. The authors examined the comparative efficacy and safety of olanzapine and haloperidol in outpatients with partially responsive schizophrenia. METHOD: Sixty-three outpatients with schizophrenia who met retrospective and prospective criteria for either residual positive or residual negative symptoms entered a 16-week double-blind, parallel-groups comparison of olanzapine and haloperidol. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two drugs in their effect on positive or negative symptoms. There were no significant differences between the two treatment groups on measures of social and functional outcome. Olanzapine-treated patients had a significant reduction in extrapyramidal symptoms and subjective measures of stiffness and dry mouth, but the increases in systolic blood pressure and weight in olanzapine-treated patients were significantly greater than they were in haloperidol-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Olanzapine has limited differential benefit for either positive or negative symptoms in patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Although olanzapine is associated with fewer extrapyramidal symptoms, other side effects may offset this benefit.