Olanzapine in refractory schizophrenia after failure of typical or atypical antipsychotic treatment: an open-label switch study

BACKGROUND: When patients with schizophrenia fail to respond to an atypical antipsychotic, they are sometimes switched to another atypical compound. However, the benefits of such a switch have not been adequately studied. We present an open-label prospective 14-week trial with olanzapine in patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder whose treatment resistance to clozapine, olanzapine, risperidone, and haloperidol had been determined prospectively. METHOD: The subjects were 45 inpatients with DSM-IV schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder who failed to respond to treatment during a 14-week double-blind trial comparing clozapine, olanzapine, risperidone, and haloperidol. The patients had been selected for participation in the double-blind trial on the basis of a history of suboptimal response to previous treatment. Inclusion criteria for the present study were (1) completion of at least 8 weeks of the 14-week double-blind trial, (2) treatment resistance to 1 of the 4 compounds tested as evidenced by a decrease in total PANSS score of less than 20%, and (3) total PANSS score > or = 60. Subjects were cross-titrated from the previous double-blind treatment to open-label olanzapine, 10 to 40 mg/day, and were treated for 14 weeks without concomitant psychotropic medication. Patients were evaluated weekly with the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Clinical Global Impressions scale, and Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale. RESULTS: Open-label olanzapine treatment yielded no significant change in PANSS total, positive subscale, or negative subscale scores. There was a significant improvement for the PANSS cognitive factor (mean +/- SD change = 0.92 +/- 2.27; F = 7.5, df = 1,44; p <.009) and a marginally significant worsening for the excitement factor (mean change = -1.36 +/- 4.64; F = 4.0, df = 1,44; p < .053). Nine percent of patients (N = 4) were classified as responders using the Kane et al. criteria. The worsening in the PANSS excitement factor was significantly associated with the length of illness (t = -2.10, df = 44, p < .04). There was a nonsignificant decrease in extrapyramidal side effects and a significant increase in weight (mean increase = 3.5 +/- 6.2 kg [7.8 +/- 13.8 lb]; F = 5.29, df = 1,42; p <.0005). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that in patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, a switch to olanzapine after treatment failure with an atypical agent or haloperidol may not reduce psychopathology in general, but may improve symptoms related to cognitive function.     

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.     

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.     

Olanzapine vs haloperidol in geriatric schizophrenia: analysis of data from a double-blind controlled trial

OBJECTIVES: To compare the six-week clinical response and safety profile of schizophrenia patients, age > or =60 years, receiving olanzapine (OLZ) vs haloperidol (HAL) in a double blind, randomized trial. METHODS: Double-blind data on patients age > or =60 randomized to 5 mg/d OLZ (n=83) or 5 mg/d HAL (n=34) (Week 1) then flexibly dosed to 5-20 mg/d over six weeks, with a 48-week extension for responders, were analyzed post-hoc. Efficacy indices included the PANSS Total and PANSS Psychosis Core Total (PPCT). Safety measures included the Simpson-Angus Scale (SAS), Barnes Akathisia Scale (BAS), Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS), treatment-emergent adverse events, and laboratory values. Mixed model, repeated measures (MMRM) analyses were applied to all continuous data measured at each visit. Continuous data recorded only at phase completion or termination were analyzed with a fixed effect last observation carried forward (LOCF) model. Frequencies of categorical response data were analyzed using Fisher's exact methods. Differences were tested for significance at Week 6 using a two-sided alpha value of 0.05. RESULTS: HAL group (n=34; age range 60-80) received a mean modal dose 9.4 mg/d while OLZ group (n=83; age range 60-86) received a mean modal dose 11.9 mg/d. At Week 6, OLZ was superior to HAL on both the PANSS Total (p=0.015) and PPCT (p=0.043). Considering safety, OLZ was superior to HAL for the SAS and BAS (p<0.001; p<0.001). No spontaneous adverse event occurred more frequently with OLZ than with HAL. In patients never receiving adjunct anticholinergic therapy, no significant differences were present for anticholinergic-like side effects including blurred vision, dry mouth, constipation, or urinary difficulties. CONCLUSIONS: In elderly schizophrenia patients, olanzapine was more efficacious and better tolerated for extrapyramidal signs than was haloperidol. Olanzapine was equivalent to haloperidol for anticholinergic-like side effects when corrected for anticholingergic agents.     

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.     

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.     

Antipsychotic treatment of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia in geropsychiatric inpatients.

Behavioral/psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) affect caregiver burden and transition from home to hospital or long-term care. The authors examined change in BPSD for dementia patients (from hospital admission to discharge) who were prescribed haloperidol (n= 289), olanzapine (n=209), or risperidone (n=500). Olanzapine was associated with significantly greater overall improvement in BPSD (based on the Psychogeriatric Dependency Rating Scale total score) than risperidone or haloperidol. Olanzapine was significantly superior on measures of active-, verbal-, and passive-aggression and delusions/hallucinations to risperidone or haloperidol, and, on manipulative behavior and noisiness, to risperidone. Results support the effectiveness of olanzapine in improving several BPSD in hospitalized dementia patients.     

Effective resolution with olanzapine of acute presentation of behavioral agitation and positive psychotic symptoms in schizophrenia

Behavioral agitation and prominent positive psychotic symptoms often characterize the acute presentation of schizophrenia. The clinical treatment goal is a rapid control of these symptoms. The relative efficacy of olanzapine, a novel antipsychotic drug, was compared with that of the conventional antipsychotic drug haloperidol. A post hoc analysis conducted on a large multicenter, double-blind, 6-week study of acute-phase patients with DSM-III-R schizophrenia or schizophreniform or schizoaffective disorders treated with olanzapine (5-20 mg/day) or haloperidol (5-20 mg/day) assessed the treatment effects on agitation (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale [BPRS] agitation score) and positive symptoms (BPRS positive symptom score). Overall, olanzapine-treated patients experienced significantly greater improvement in behavioral agitation than did haloperidol-treated patients (last observation carried forward [LOCF]; p < .0002). Both groups showed similar reductions in agitation scores during the first 3 weeks of therapy; olanzapine was associated with significantly greater improvements at weeks 4, 5, and 6 (observed cases [OC]). Similarly, patients with predominantly positive psychotic symptoms experienced significantly greater improvement in BPRS positive symptom scores with olanzapine compared with haloperidol (LOCF; p = .013). In olanzapine-treated patients, improvement in BPRS agitation and positive symptom scores was significantly greater at weeks 4, 5, and 6 (agitation scores, p < or = .01; positive symptom scores, p < .05) (OC). These data suggest that olanzapine may be considered a first-line treatment for the patient in an acute episode of schizophrenia.     

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).     

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.     

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。     

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.     

Olanzapine,risperidone and haloperidol in the treatment of adolescent patients with schizophrenia

Summary. Objectives: To evaluate and compare the drug response and side effects of adolescents with schizophrenia treated with olanzapine, risperidone, and haloperidol. Methods: Forty-three patients were treated with olanzapine (n = 19), risperidone (n = 17) and haloperidol (n = 7) for 8 weeks in an open clinical trial. Clinical improvement was evaluated with the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), and side effects with the Udvalg for Kliniske Undersogelser (UKU) Side Effect Rating Scale. Results: Significant clinical improvement was observed by week 4 for all medications. Olanzapine and haloperidol induced fatigability more frequently than risperidone. Haloperidol was associated with a higher frequency of depression and more severe extrapyramidal symptoms. Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge this is the first study in adolescents to compare the efficacy and side effects of three most commonly prescribed antipsychotic medications. Olanzapine, risperidone and haloperidol appear to be equally effective for the treatment of schizophrenia in adolescent inpatients but have different side effect profiles. Received June 6, 2002; accepted December 3, 2002 Published online February 19, 2003 Authors' address: Dr. A. Apter, Richard E. Feinberg Department of Psychiatry, Schneider Children's Medical Center of Israel, 14 Kaplan St., P.O.Box 559, Petah Tiqwa 49202, Israel, e-mail: eapter@clalit.org.il     

Long-term olanzapine therapy in the treatment of bipolar I disorder: an open-label continuation phase study

BACKGROUND: Olanzapine has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of acute mania in 2 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. We describe the results of the open-label extension from one of these trials. METHOD: In a 3-week, double-blind study of patients with DSM-IV bipolar I disorder, olanzapine was superior to placebo for the treatment of acute manic symptoms. Of the 139 patients who entered the double-blind phase of the 3-week study, 113 patients continued into the 49-week open-label extension. Efficacy measurements including the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), the 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-21), the Clinical Global Impressions scale-Bipolar Version, and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and safety measurements including the Simpson-Angus scale, the Barnes Akathisia Scale, and the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale were completed throughout. The analysis considered all treatment results, starting with the first olanzapine dose. Adjunctive lithium and fluoxetine were allowed during the open-label extension. RESULTS: The mean length of olanzapine treatment was 6.6 months, with a mean modal dose of 13.9 mg/day. A significant mean improvement in the YMRS total score, baseline to endpoint (-18.01, p < .001), was observed. During treatment, 88.3% of patients experienced a remission of manic symptoms (YMRS total score < or =12), and only 25.5% subsequently relapsed (YMRS total score > or = 15). Significant improvement in HAM-D-21 scores was observed (p < .001). Forty-one percent of patients were maintained on olanzapine monotherapy. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events reported were somnolence (46.0%), depression (38.9%), and weight gain (36.3%). CONCLUSION: During up to 1 year of olanzapine therapy, either as monotherapy or in combination with lithium and/or fluoxetine, patients with bipolar disorder demonstrated significant improvement in mania and depression symptoms with a favorable safety profile. Further double-blind, controlled studies are needed to confirm these results.     

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)     

Beneficial effects of ondansetron as an adjunct to haloperidol for chronic, treatment-resistant schizophrenia: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND: Previous studies suggest that the serotonin-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist ondansetron possesses the therapeutic potential for schizophrenia. This study was designed to determine whether ondansetron as an adjunct to haloperidol could enhance the clinical efficacy and reduce the adverse side effects in chronic treatment-resistant schizophrenia. METHODS: Under double-blind, randomized conditions, 121 treatment-resistant inpatients with chronic DSM-IV-diagnosed schizophrenia received haloperidol (4-30 mg/day) combined with either placebo (N=63) or a fixed dose of 8 mg/day of ondansetron (N=58) for 12 weeks. Efficacy was defined as the change from baseline to endpoint in score on overall scale and subscales of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S). Side effects were evaluated using the Treatment Emergent Symptom Scale and Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale. RESULTS: Ondansetron combined with haloperidol produced a significantly greater improvement on PANSS overall scale and subscales for negative symptoms, general psychopathology, and cognition at endpoint compared to placebo with haloperidol, but no between-treatment group difference was observed on the subscale for positive symptoms and CGI-S. The ondansetron-treated group had a significantly higher proportion of patients with a 30% or greater baseline-to-endpoint reduction in PANSS total score than placebo. Patients in adjunctive ondansetron therapy also experienced significantly lower incidence and severity of parkinsonism and akathisia as well as fewer behavioral hyperactivity, cardiac, and gastrointestinal side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Ondansetron is an effective adjunctive agent in enhancing the effectiveness and reducing some adverse side effects of antipsychotic therapy for chronic, treatment-resistant schizophrenia, particularly for negative and cognitive symptoms.     

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.     

A 12-week, double-blind comparison of olanzapine vs haloperidol in the treatment of acute mania

BACKGROUND: This randomized controlled trial compares the efficacy and safety of olanzapine vs haloperidol, as well as the quality of life of patients taking these drugs, in patients with bipolar mania. METHODS: The design consisted of 2 successive, 6-week, double-blind periods and compared flexible dosing of olanzapine (5-20 mg/d, n = 234) with haloperidol (3-15 mg/d, n = 219). RESULTS: Rates of remission (Young-Mania Rating Scale score of < or =12 and 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score of < or =8 at week 6) were similar for olanzapine- and haloperidol-treated patients (52.1% vs 46.1%, respectively; P =.15). For the subgroup of patients whose index episode did not include psychotic features, rates of remission were significantly greater for the olanzapine group compared with the haloperidol group (56.7% vs 41.6%, P =.04). Relapse into an affective episode (mania and/or depression) occurred in 13.1% and 14.8% of olanzapine- and haloperidol-treated patients, respectively (P =.56). Switch to depression occurred significantly more rapidly with haloperidol than with olanzapine when using survival analysis techniques (P =.04), and significantly more haloperidol-treated patients experienced worsening of extrapyramidal symptoms, as indicated by several measures. Weight gain was significantly greater in the olanzapine group compared with the haloperidol group (2.82 vs 0.02 kg, P<.001). The olanzapine group had significant improvement in quality of life on several dimensions compared with the haloperidol group. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that olanzapine does not differ from haloperidol in achieving overall remission of bipolar mania. However, haloperidol carries a higher rate of extrapyramidal symptoms, whereas olanzapine is associated with weight gain.     

Olanzapine augmentation of fluoxetine for refractory generalized anxiety disorder: a placebo controlled study.

BACKGROUND: There has been little systematic study of "next-step" interventions for patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) who remain symptomatic despite initial pharmacotherapy. We present one of the first randomized controlled trials for refractory GAD, comprising double blind augmentation with olanzapine or placebo for patients remaining symptomatic on fluoxetine. METHODS: Patients remaining symptomatic after 6 weeks of fluoxetine (20 mg/day) were randomized to 6 weeks of olanzapine (mean dose 8.7 +/- 7.1 mg/day) or placebo augmentation. RESULTS: Twenty-four of 46 fluoxetine-treated patients were randomized. Olanzapine resulted in a greater proportion of treatment responders based on a Clinical Global Impression-Severity Scale (CGI-S) end point score of 1 or 2 (Fisher's exact test [FET] p < .05) or a 50% reduction in Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA-A) score (FET p < .05). There were no other statistically significant differences for olanzapine compared with placebo augmentation in outcome measures, though rates of remission (HAM-A 相似文献   

Interpreting treatment trials in schizophrenia patients: lessons learned from EUFEST

There are various procedures to account for missing values in clinical trials. Mixed Model and Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) analyses are commonly employed methods. We compared the two methods by reanalysing Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) scores from the European First Episode in Schizophrenia Trial (EUFEST). While the predefined Mixed Model analysis detected no differences between PANSS total score changes in first episode patients treated with haloperidol, amisulpride, quetiapine, olanzapine or ziprasidone over the course of a one year treatment trial, a LOCF analysis revealed significant differences in favor of the new generation antipsychotics over haloperidol. Implications for clinical trial design and the interpretation of such studies are discussed.