Risperidone versus haloperidol in psychotic patients with disturbing neuroleptic-induced extrapyramidal symptoms: a double-blind, multi-center trial

BACKGROUND: A randomized, double-blind, multi-center trial was started to compare the severity of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) during risperidone and haloperidol treatment in schizophrenic patients who had disturbing EPS during their previous neuroleptic treatment. Additional objectives of this trial were comparing the antipsychotic effectiveness of the two treatments and the use of antiparkinsonian medication. METHODS: Effects of flexible doses of risperidone and haloperidol were compared in 77 psychotic patients (83% with chronic schizophrenia) with disturbing neuroleptic-induced EPS (risperidone 40 patients, haloperidol 37). The trial was completed by 47 patients: 25 in the risperidone group (12 women, 13 men), and 22 in the haloperidol group (10 women, 12 men). RESULTS: An adequate antipsychotic effect was obtained in most patients by both treatments. The primary aim of this trial was comparing parkinsonism measured with the extrapyramidal syndrome rating scale (ESRS) during treatment with risperidone and haloperidol. Two primary parameters were selected: the change from baseline to the worst score during treatment of ESRS II (parkinsonism) and ESRS VI (clinical global impression of severity of parkinsonism). The CGI of severity of parkinsonism was better with risperidone (P=0.025), while the parkinsonism total score tended to be better with risperidone (P<0. 10). Before the double-blind treatment, 34 (of the 77) had used antiparkinson medication (risperidone 18, haloperidol 16). During the double-blind treatment phase, 21 patients had used antiparkinson medication (risperidone 11, haloperidol 10). The larger reduction of parkinsonism in the risperidone group was not due to a difference in the use of anti-parkinsonian medication. CONCLUSIONS: In this group of schizophrenic patients with disturbing EPS during previous neuroleptic treatment, a stronger reduction of parkinsonism was observed with risperidone than with haloperidol.     

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.     

Double-blind olanzapine vs. haloperidol D2 dopamine receptor blockade in schizophrenic patients: a baseline-endpoint

The aim of this study was to compare in vivo striatal D2 dopamine receptor occupancy induced by olanzapine and haloperidol in schizophrenic patients using a baseline-endpoint [(123)I]IBZM single photon computed emission tomography (SPECT) design. The relationships of striatal D2 receptor occupancy with clinical efficacy and extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) were also assessed. Twenty-seven inpatients with schizophrenia or schizophreniform disorder were included in a 4-week prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel and comparative clinical trial. Thirteen patients were treated with haloperidol (10 mg/day) and 14 with olanzapine (10 mg/day). Ratings of clinical status and EPS were obtained weekly. The percentage of D2 receptor occupancy was estimated by using basal ganglia (striatum)/frontal cortex IBZM uptake ratios obtained from each patient before and after 4 weeks of maintained antipsychotic treatment. Olanzapine led to a mean striatal D2 receptor occupancy of 49% (range 28-69%), which was significantly lower than that induced by haloperidol (mean 64%, range 46-90%). The baseline-endpoint SPECT design used in this study revealed lower antipsychotic D2 occupancy percentage values than those reported in the literature, using other approaches. The degree of striatal D2 receptor occupancy correlated to the EPS, which predominantly appeared in patients on haloperidol. No relationship was found between the striatal D2 receptor occupancy and clinical improvement. Olanzapine induced a lower striatal D2 occupancy than haloperidol. This low striatal D2 occupancy, together with the lower incidence of EPS in olanzapine-treated patients, contributed to confirm the atypical behavior of this new antipsychotic drug. Nevertheless, conclusions based on SPECT-estimated percentages of antipsychotic D2 occupancy should be cautious, since the SPECT design could influence the results. In this regard, SPECT studies including baseline and endpoint examinations should be encouraged.     

Olanzapine versus placebo in the treatment of acute mania. Olanzapine HGEH Study Group.

OBJECTIVE: The primary intent of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of olanzapine and placebo in the treatment of acute mania. METHOD: The design involved a random-assignment, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel group study of 3 weeks' duration. After a 2- to 4-day screening period, qualified patients were assigned to either olanzapine (N = 70) or placebo (N = 69). Patients began double-blind therapy with either olanzapine, 10 mg, or placebo given once per day. After the first day of treatment, the daily dose could be adjusted upward or downward, as clinically indicated, by one capsule (olanzapine, 5 mg/day) within the allowed range of one to four capsules. The primary efficacy measure in the protocol was defined as a change from baseline to endpoint in total score on the Young Mania Rating Scale. Clinical response was defined a priori as a decrease of 50% or more from baseline in Young Mania Rating Scale total score. RESULTS: The olanzapine group experienced significantly greater mean improvement in Young Mania Rating Scale total score than the placebo group. On the basis of the clinical response criteria, significantly more olanzapine-treated patients (48.6%) responded than those assigned to placebo (24.2%). Somnolence, dizziness, dry mouth, and weight gain occurred significantly more often with olanzapine. There were no statistically significant differences between the olanzapine-treated and placebo-treated patients with respect to measures of parkinsonism, akathisia, and dyskinesias. No discontinuations of treatment due to adverse events occurred in the olanzapine treatment group. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this study suggest that compared with placebo, olanzapine has superior efficacy for the symptoms of acute mania.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Factors influencing acute weight change in patients with schizophrenia treated with olanzapine, haloperidol, or risperidone

OBJECTIVE: Clinical factors predicting weight change in patients with schizophrenia and related disorders during acute treatment with the antipsychotic drugs olanzapine, risperidone, and haloperidol were sought through retrospective analyses. METHOD: Six-week body-weight data from 2 trials, study 1 comparing olanzapine and haloperidol (N = 1,369) and study 2 olanzapine and risperidone (N = 268), were analyzed. Effects of 8 clinically relevant covariates--therapy, clinical outcome (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale), baseline body mass index (BBMI), increased appetite, age, gender, race, and dose--on weight were compared. RESULTS: In study 1, olanzapine (vs. haloperidol) therapy, better clinical outcome, lower BBMI, and nonwhite race significantly affected weight gain. Effects of increased appetite and male gender on weight gain were significant for olanzapine but not for haloperidol. In study 2, better clinical outcome, lower BBMI, and younger age significantly affected weight gain. Increased appetite was more frequent during olanzapine treatment than during haloperidol, but not significantly different from risperidone. Significant differences in effect on weight change were found between olanzapine and haloperidol but not between olanzapine and risperidone. No evidence was found that lower antipsychotic drug doses were associated with lower weight gain. CONCLUSION: This report identifies predictive factors of acute weight change in patients with schizophrenia. Similar factors across antipsychotic drugs in predicting greater weight gain included better clinical outcome, low BBMI, and nonwhite race. Factors differing between conventional (haloperidol) and atypical (olanzapine) agents included increased appetite and gender. Choice of atypical antipsychotic drug (olanzapine vs. risperidone) was of minor importance with regard to influence on acute weight gain.     

Expected incidence of tardive dyskinesia associated with atypical antipsychotics

Given the problematic nature of tardive dyskinesia in persons taking conventional antipsychotics, evaluation of newer atypical antipsychotic agents should include a systematic assessment of tardive dyskinesia liability. Results of a prospective double-blind, randomized study of schizophrenic patients who participated in 3 preclinical olanzapine studies and were treated with 5 to 20 mg/day of olanzapine (N = 1192) or haloperidol (N = 522) recently indicated a significantly lower risk of development of tardive dyskinesia with olanzapine treatment than haloperidol treatment. This article discusses the known effects of atypical antipsychotic medications on tardive dyskinesia movements (both withdrawal and persistent) and the incidence rate of tardive dyskinesia among schizophrenic patients undergoing long-term treatment with olanzapine or haloperidol.     

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.     

Relationship of extrapyramidal symptoms to age at onset and drug treatment in middle-aged and elderly schizophrenic patients

The relationship between antipsychotic drugs and dyskinesias and other extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) in schizophrenia is not simple. There is a need to study variables that may influence the occurrence of EPS in schizophrenic patients receiving drugs. The present study examined the relationship of age at onset of illness and treatment to the development of EPS in 122 middle-aged and elderly schizophrenic patients, 84 treated and 38 who had never received antipsychotic drugs. The illness had an early onset (before 45years, EOS) in 68 patients and a late onset (after 45years, LOS) in 54 patients. The patients were evaluated for dyskinesia and parkinsonism using abnormal involuntary movements scale (AIMS) and Simpson-Angus scale. The prevalence of dyskinesia and parkinsonism was similar in all the patient groups. The scores on limb-axial and severity subscales of AIMS were significantly higher in the treated than the untreated patients of the early onset group. This was not so with the late onset patients. The total parkinsonism score was higher among the treated, notably the LOS patients. The development of dyskinesia and parkinsonism in schizophrenia is possibly related to the age at onset of the illness. In late onset forms the ageing of the patient and a possible neurological abnormality related to schizophrenia might enhance the EPS-inducing effect of drugs.     

Extrapyramidal symptoms in substance abusers with and without schizophrenia and in nonabusing patients with schizophrenia

Extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) such as parkinsonism, dystonia, dyskinesia, and akathisia are conditions of impaired motor function, which are associated with chronic antipsychotic treatment in schizophrenia. In addition, EPS is often exacerbated by psychoactive substance (PAS) abuse, which is frequently observed in this population. Few studies, however, have investigated the contribution of PAS abuse on EPS in PAS‐abusers without comorbid psychosis. This study compared the occurrence of EPS in outpatient schizophrenia patients with (DD group; n= 36) and without PAS abuse (SCZ group; n = 41) as well as in nonschizophrenia PAS abusers undergoing detoxification [substance use disorder (SUD) group; n = 38]. Psychiatric symptoms were measured using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and the Calgary Depression Scale for schizophrenia. Extrapyramidal symptoms were evaluated with the Extrapyramidal Symptoms Rating Scale and the Barnes Akathisia Scale. SUD diagnoses were complemented with urine drug screenings. We found that DD patients exhibited significantly more parkinsonism than SCZ patients. Our subanalyses revealed that cocaine and alcohol abuse/dependence was responsible for the increase in parkinsonism in DD patients. Additionally, we found that SUD individuals exhibited significantly more akathisia than SCZ patients. In these latter individuals, subanalyses revealed that alcohol and cannabis abuse/dependence was responsible for the increase in akathisia. Our results suggest that PAS abuse is a contributor to EPS in individuals with and without schizophrenia. © 2010 Movement Disorder Society.     

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.     

Treatment of severe agitation with olanzapine in 166 patients with schizophrenia, schizoaffective, or bipolar I disorder

INTRODUCTION: Agitation is a common phenomenon in schizophrenia or acute mania. Because of the inability of patients to give informed consent in such situations, data from consenting studies are limited. METHODS: This observational prospective 5-day study evaluated the effectiveness of olanzapine in a sample of highly agitated patients with aggression. Primary endpoint was mean change of the PANSS-Excited Component (PANSS-EC) score. RESULTS: Mean PANSS-EC score at baseline was 25.5 points, 60.2% were severely agitated and 41.6% severely aggressive. A significant decrease in PANSS-EC total score (-13.3 points) was observed with rapid dose escalation and an average daily dose of 21.2 mg/day of olanzapine. 40 patients (24.1%) required treatment with another antipsychotic and 21 patients (12.7%) were not treated with olanzapine at day 5. At endpoint, 64.2% of patients were in remission of agitation. PANSS-EC reduction was not significantly different in patients with or without concurrent benzodiazepine use. DISCUSSION: Severe agitation with aggression may be well controlled with olanzapine in many cases, possibly by higher initial and overall doses of olanzapine. Controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings.     

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.     

A comparison of two novel antipsychotics in first episode non-affective psychosis: one-year outcome on symptoms, motor side effects and cognition

The main objective of this study was to compare 1-year outcome on symptoms, extrapyramidal side effects (EPS) , positive and negative symptoms, and domains of cognition in first episode psychosis (FEP) patients. Drug-naive FEP patients, who were similar on a number of characteristics likely to affect outcome, were treated with only one antipsychotic (risperidone or olanzapine) for at least 1 year and compared at baseline and after 1 year of treatment. Differences in outcome were assessed using an analysis of co-variance with change scores between initial assessment and after 1 year of treatment on levels of psychotic, disorganization and psychomotor poverty symptoms, EPS (parkinsonism, akathesia and dyskineisa) and domains of cognition as the dependent variable, respective baseline scores as covariates, and drug group as the independent variable. While patients in both groups showed substantial improvement, there were no significant differences in the magnitude of change in reality distortion, disorganization and psychomotor poverty symptoms. Trends in change in EPS favouring olanzapine and on some domains of cognition (processing speed and executive functions) favouring risperidone failed to reach statistical significance. The failure to confirm previous claims of greater improvement on either risperidone or olanzapine in patients with a first episode of psychosis may be the result of methodological bias introduced by unequal dosing between the two drugs or the use of chronically ill and treatment-refractory patients in previous studies.     

Switching from depot antipsychotic drugs to olanzapine in patients with chronic schizophrenia

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic schizophrenia (DSM-IV criteria) often receive depot antipsychotic medications to assure longer administration and better compliance with their treatment regimen. This study evaluated whether patients stabilized on depot antipsychotic medication could be successfully transitioned to oral olanzapine. METHOD: In a 3-month open-label study, 26 clinically stable patients with schizophrenia taking depot antipsychotics for over 3 years were randomly assigned to continue on their current depot dose or to switch to oral olanzapine. Clinical ratings (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale [PANSS], Global Assessment of Functioning [GAF] scale, and Clinical Global Impressions [CGI] scale) and side effect parameters (Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale [AIMS], Barnes Akathisia Scale, AMDP-5 scale, vital signs, and weight) were obtained monthly. RESULTS: Oral olanzapine patients (N = 13) demonstrated significant clinical improvement over the depot control group (N = 13) from baseline to 3-month endpoint (PANSS total, p =.012; PANSS general, p =.068; PANSS negative, p =.098; CGI-Improvement, p =.007; CGI-Severity, p =.026; GAF, p =.015). Side effect rating scales showed no statistical differences between the 2 groups (AIMS, Barnes Akathisia Scale, AMDP-5, vital signs). The depot control group showed no statistical superiority in any measure except weight change (p =.0005). After 3 months, all olanzapine patients preferred olanzapine to their previous depot medications and chose to continue on olanzapine treatment. CONCLUSION: Clinicians may expect clinical improvement when switching chronically psychotic patients from traditional depot antipsychotic drugs to oral olanzapine. Switching may be completed within a 4-week period with relative compliance being maintained and patients preferring oral olanzapine to their previous depot medications.     

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.     

氟哌啶醇与奥氮平治疗精神分裂症疗效和安全性的随机对照研究

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