Olanzapine for injection: new formulation. No advantage in agitated patients

(1) The intramuscular neuroleptic of choice for the treatment of agitated schizophrenic patients and patients with acute mania is haloperidol, at a dose of 5 mg. Olanzapine is now marketed in France for hospital use in both these indications. (2) In two comparative trials in patients with schizophrenia, olanzapine 10 mg was shown to be no better than haloperidol 7.5 mg (a high dose). Control of agitation was satisfactory in three-quarters of patients after a single injection of either neuroleptic. (3) Olanzapine has not been compared with other neuroleptics in the treatment of acute mania. In one trial, olanzapine acted faster than lorazepam for injection (used at a rather low dose). (4) In one trial, patients given olanzapine had a lower incidence of acute dystonia and extrapyramidal symptoms (about 1%) than patients given haloperidol (about 6-7%), but the haloperidol dose (7.5 mg) was higher than recommended in the SPC (5 mg). The incidence of postural hypotension was significantly higher among patients given olanzapine (about 12%) compared with haloperidol (about 3%). (5) In practice, haloperidol remains the intramuscular neuroleptic of choice for the treatment of agitated patients with schizophrenia or acute mania.     

Olanzapine: an atypical antipsychotic for schizophrenia

Olanzapine is a serotonin-dopamine receptor antagonist primarily used in the treatment of psychotic illnesses. It has been shown in numerous large trials to be as equally effective as haloperidol in the acute treatment and maintenance treatment of schizophrenia. However, olanzapine was shown to be more effective than haloperidol in the treatment of negative symptoms and to cause significantly fewer extrapyramidal symptoms. Furthermore, early reports suggest that olanzapine produces less tardive dyskinesia than haloperidol, though longer follow-up data are needed. Current studies have failed to demonstrate the efficacy of olanzapine in the treatment of refractory schizophrenia. One comparison trial of olanzapine versus risperidone has indicated similar efficacy. Clinical trials in acute mania have found olanzapine to be more effective than placebo. However, there is no role for olanzapine monotherapy in bipolar disorder given current studies. Although olanzapine has shown a low rate of extrapyramidal symptoms, it is not without adverse effects. Clinically significant weight gain has been noted with olanzapine in each of the large clinical trials. The degree of weight gain is similar to clozapine and probably greater than that observed with risperidone. The long-term medical consequence of atypical antipsychotic-induced weight gain is not known at this time. While generally considered first-line drugs from an efficacy and adverse effect standpoint, pharmacoeconomic studies are needed to justify the large acquisition cost of olanzapine compared to typical agents.     

Olanzapine: an atypical antipsychotic for schizophrenia

Olanzapine is a serotonin-dopamine receptor antagonist primarily used in the treatment of psychotic illnesses. It has been shown in numerous large trials to be as equally effective as haloperidol in the acute treatment and maintenance treatment of schizophrenia. However, olanzapine was shown to be more effective than haloperidol in the treatment of negative symptoms and to cause significantly fewer extrapyramidal symptoms. Furthermore, early reports suggest that olanzapine produces less tardive dyskinesia than haloperidol, though longer follow-up data are needed. Current studies have failed to demonstrate the efficacy of olanzapine in the treatment of refractory schizophrenia. One comparison trial of olanzapine versus risperidone has indicated similar efficacy. Clinical trials in acute mania have found olanzapine to be more effective than placebo. However, there is no role for olanzapine monotherapy in bipolar disorder given current studies. Although olanzapine has shown a low rate of extrapyramidal symptoms, it is not without adverse effects. Clinically significant weight gain has been noted with olanzapine in each of the large clinical trials. The degree of weight gain is similar to clozapine and probably greater than that observed with risperidone. The long-term medical consequence of atypical antipsychotic-induced weight gain is not known at this time. While generally considered first-line drugs from an efficacy and adverse effect standpoint, pharmacoeconomic studies are needed to justify the large acquisition cost of olanzapine compared to typical agents.     

Olanzapine in bipolar disorder

Olanzapine is currently marketed not only for the treatment of schizophrenia, but also for the treatment of acute mania and the prevention of relapse in patients successfully treated with this drug for a manic episode. A large body of good clinical trials supports these indications. In the mania trials, olanzapine was more efficacious than placebo, equal or more efficacious than valproate and more efficacious than lithium or valproate monotherapy when used in combination with either drug. A trial that compared olanzapine with haloperidol failed to show superiority of the atypical versus the conventional. Olanzapine showed a modest but statistically significant effect in the treatment of bipolar depression; this modest effect was substantially enhanced in combination with fluoxetine. The long-term trials showed that olanzapine was better than placebo in the prevention of manic and depressive relapse and not inferior to lithium or valproate. The combination of olanzapine with lithium or valproate was also more efficacious than lithium or valproate alone in the prevention of manic relapse in patients partially non-responding to monotherapy with lithium or valproate. All these trials suggest that olanzapine may be a valuable drug in the short- and long-term treatment of bipolar I disorder. However, there are some concerns about the safety and tolerability of olanzapine in this population, as far as weight gain and metabolic syndrome are concerned, which may be addressed in future pharmacovigilance studies.     

Olanzapine in bipolar disorder

Olanzapine is currently marketed not only for the treatment of schizophrenia, but also for the treatment of acute mania and the prevention of relapse in patients successfully treated with this drug for a manic episode. A large body of good clinical trials supports these indications. In the mania trials, olanzapine was more efficacious than placebo, equal or more efficacious than valproate and more efficacious than lithium or valproate monotherapy when used in combination with either drug. A trial that compared olanzapine with haloperidol failed to show superiority of the atypical versus the conventional. Olanzapine showed a modest but statistically significant effect in the treatment of bipolar depression; this modest effect was substantially enhanced in combination with fluoxetine. The long-term trials showed that olanzapine was better than placebo in the prevention of manic and depressive relapse and not inferior to lithium or valproate. The combination of olanzapine with lithium or valproate was also more efficacious than lithium or valproate alone in the prevention of manic relapse in patients partially non-responding to monotherapy with lithium or valproate. All these trials suggest that olanzapine may be a valuable drug in the short- and long-term treatment of bipolar I disorder. However, there are some concerns about the safety and tolerability of olanzapine in this population, as far as weight gain and metabolic syndrome are concerned, which may be addressed in future pharmacovigilance studies.     

Olanzapine: an updated review of its use in the management of schizophrenia

Olanzapine, a thienobenzodiazepine derivative, is a second generation (atypical) antipsychotic agent which has proven efficacy against the positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia. Compared with conventional antipsychotics, it has greater affinity for serotonin 5-HT2A than for dopamine D2 receptors. In large, well controlled trials in patients with schizophrenia or related psychoses, olanzapine 5 to 20 mg/day was significantly superior to haloperidol 5 to 20 mg/day in overall improvements in psychopathology rating scales and in the treatment of depressive and negative symptoms, and was comparable in effects on positive psychotic symptoms. The 1-year risk of relapse (rehospitalisation) was significantly lower with olanzapine than with haloperidol treatment. In the first double-blind comparative study (28-week) of olanzapine and risperidone, olanzapine 10 to 20 mg/day proved to be significantly more effective than risperidone 4 to 12 mg/day in the treatment of negative and depressive symptoms but not on overall psychopathology symptoms. In contrast, preliminary results from an 8-week controlled study suggested risperidone 2 to 6 mg/day was superior to olanzapine 5 to 20 mg/day against positive and anxiety/depressive symptoms (p < 0.05), although consistent with the first study, both agents demonstrated similar efficacy on measures of overall psychopathology. Improvements in general cognitive function seen with olanzapine treatment in a 1-year controlled study of patients with early-phase schizophrenia, were significantly greater than changes seen with either risperidone or haloperidol. However, preliminary results from an 8-week trial showed comparable cognitive enhancing effects of olanzapine and risperidone treatment in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Several studies indicate that olanzapine has benefits against symptoms of aggression and agitation, while other studies strongly support the effectiveness of olanzapine in the treatment of depressive symptomatology. Olanzapine is associated with significantly fewer extrapyramidal symptoms than haloperidol and risperidone. In addition, olanzapine is not associated with a risk of agranulocytosis as seen with clozapine or clinically significant hyperprolactinaemia as seen with risperidone or prolongation of the QT interval. The most common adverse effects reported with olanzapine are bodyweight gain, somnolence, dizziness, anticholinergic effects (constipation and dry mouth) and transient asymptomatic liver enzyme elevations. In comparison with haloperidol, the adverse events reported significantly more frequently with olanzapine in > or = 3.5% of patients were dry mouth, bodyweight gain and increased appetite and compared with risperidone, only bodyweight gain occurred significantly more frequently with olanzapine. The high acquisition cost of olanzapine is offset by reductions in other treatment costs (inpatient and/or outpatient services) of schizophrenia. Pharmacoeconomic analyses indicate that olanzapine does not significantly increase, and may even decrease, the overall direct treatment costs of schizophrenia, compared with haloperidol. Compared with risperidone, olanzapine has also been reported to decrease overall treatment costs, despite the several-fold higher daily acquisition cost of the drug. Olanzapine treatment improves quality of life in patients with schizophrenia and related psychoses to a greater extent than haloperidol, and to broadly the same extent as risperidone. CONCLUSIONS: Olanzapine demonstrated superior antipsychotic efficacy compared with haloperidol in the treatment of acute phase schizophrenia, and in the treatment of some patients with first-episode or treatment-resistant schizophrenia. The reduced risk of adverse events and therapeutic superiority compared with haloperidol and risperidone in the treatment of negative and depressive symptoms support the choice of olanzapine as a first-line option in the management of schizophrenia in the acute phase and for the maintenance of treatment response.     

Olanzapine: new preparation. Keep an eye on this neuroleptic

(1) Olanzapine, a neuroleptic, has obtained European marketing authorisation for the treatment of schizophrenia. (2) The clinical file is satisfactory, but in the absence of relevant trials it has not yet been demonstrated that olanzapine has a specific activity on the positive or negative symptoms of schizophrenia. (3) The global efficacy of olanzapine was not significantly different from that of haloperidol in two of the three comparative trials published to date. (4) The only relevant comparative trial fails to demonstrate the superiority of olanzapine over risperidone. (5) Olanzapine has fewer adverse neurological effects than haloperidol, but there is no evidence that it differs from other recent neuroleptics in this respect. (6) Olanzapine can have anticholinergic adverse effects and frequently causes weight gain. (7) Active pharmacovigilance is required, as subclinical cases of elevated transaminase levels, increased blood pressure and QT prolongation were observed in clinical trials (2,500 patients treated).     

Spotlight on olanzapine in bipolar I disorder

Olanzapine is an atypical antipsychotic that is approved in the US and Europe for the oral treatment of acute manic episodes in patients with bipolar I disorder and for maintenance therapy to prevent recurrence in responders. Oral olanzapine is effective in the treatment of bipolar mania, both as single agent therapy and as adjunctive therapy in combination with lithium or valproate semisodium. In the treatment of acute episodes, olanzapine is superior to placebo and at least as effective as lithium, valproate semisodium, haloperidol and risperidone in reducing the symptoms of mania and inducing remission. Additional comparative studies are required to determine the efficacy of olanzapine relative to newer atypical antipsychotics such as quetiapine, ziprasidone and aripiprazole. Olanzapine is also effective at delaying or preventing relapse during long-term maintenance therapy in treatment responders and is currently the only atypical antipsychotic approved for this indication. Current evidence suggests that olanzapine may be more effective than lithium in preventing relapse into mania, but not relapse into depression or relapse overall. Olanzapine is generally well tolerated and, although it is associated with a higher incidence of weight gain than most atypical agents, it has a low incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms. Therefore, oral olanzapine is a useful first-line or adjunctive agent for both the acute treatment of manic episodes and the long-term prevention of relapse into manic, depressive or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder.     

Olanzapine: new indication. Prevention of bipolar disorder: unconvincing trials

(1) Lithium, the standard preventive treatment for patients with bipolar disorder, reduces the number of relapses and suicide attempts. (2) Olanzapine is the first neuroleptic to be approved in France for prevention of relapse in patients with bipolar disorder. Many neuroleptics are already used for this indication but their efficacy has not been established in comparative clinical trials. (3) One placebo-controlled double-blind trial involved 361 patients who were treated just after recovering from a manic episode. The trial was supposed to last 48 weeks, but only 146 patients were treated for more than 8 weeks. Therefore, the trial results, including an observed effect on mania, cannot be interpreted to imply long-term prevention. (4) One double-blind trial compared olanzapine plus a mood stabiliser with placebo plus a mood stabiliser in 344 patients who had recovered from an acute episode. Only 21 patients completed the 12-month trial, and the percentage of patients who had relapses (manic or depressive) did not differ significantly between the groups. (5) In a third double-blind trial, 431 patients in remission from a manic episode after treatment with olanzapine + lithium were treated for 12 months with lithium or olanzapine. This trial suggested that olanzapine was more effective in preventing depressive and manic relapses (30% of patients, compared to 38.8% with lithium), but only 171 patients completed the trial. Most dropouts were due to adverse events (19% with olanzapine, 26% with lithium). The impact of treatment on suicide risk was not studied. (6) In a fourth study, 101 patients in remission from a mixed or manic episode continued their initial treatment with olanzapine or sodium divalproate in double-blind manner for 11 months. The risk of relapse was not significantly different between the groups, but the study sample size was too small to tell whether or not the treatments were equally effective. (7) Trials focusing on prevention of relapse in patients with bipolar disorder confirmed the known adverse effects of olanzapine, including weight gain and QTc prolongation. Olanzapine was associated with more weight gain and sedation than lithium. Hyperglycaemia occurring on olanzapine can cause life-threatening ketoacidosis. (8) Lithium remains the standard treatment for preventing recurrent bipolar disorder. There is no firm evidence that olanzapine is more effective than a mood stabiliser after lithium failure, or that it boosts the efficacy of lithium.     

Olanzapine: a review of its use in the management of bipolar I disorder

Olanzapine is an atypical antipsychotic that is approved in the US and Europe for the oral treatment of acute manic episodes in patients with bipolar I disorder, and for maintenance therapy to prevent recurrence in responders.Oral olanzapine is effective in the treatment of bipolar mania, both as single agent therapy and as adjunctive therapy in combination with lithium or valproate semisodium. In the treatment of acute episodes, olanzapine is superior to placebo and at least as effective as lithium, valproate semisodium, haloperidol and risperidone in reducing the symptoms of mania and inducing remission. Additional comparative studies are required to determine the efficacy of olanzapine relative to newer atypical antipsychotics, such as quetiapine, ziprasidone and aripiprazole. Olanzapine is also effective at delaying or preventing relapse during long-term maintenance therapy in treatment responders, and is currently the only atypical antipsychotic approved for this indication. Current evidence suggests that olanzapine may be more effective than lithium in preventing relapse into mania, but not relapse into depression or relapse overall. Olanzapine is generally well tolerated, and although it is associated with a higher incidence of weight gain than most atypical agents, it has a low incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS). Therefore, oral olanzapine is a useful first-line or adjunctive agent for both the acute treatment of manic episodes and the long-term prevention of relapse into manic, depressive or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder.     

A comparison of olanzapine with haloperidol in cannabis-induced psychotic disorder: a double-blind randomized controlled trial.

Little controlled data exist on the treatment of substance induced psychotic disorders. In this study, 30 patients meeting DSM-IV criteria for cannabis induced psychotic disorder were randomly allocated to receive either olanzapine or haloperidol in a 4-week double-blind clinical trial. There were no significant outcome differences between the two groups on any of the primary outcome measures, the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (haloperidol 25.7; olanzapine 27.1; P = 0.70); Clinical Global Impression (CGI) severity scale (haloperidol 1.8, olanzapine 2.3; P = 0.21) or the CGI improvement scale (haloperidol 1.3, olanzapine 1.7; P = 0.16). The haloperidol group however, developed significantly more extrapyramidal side-effects as measured by the Simpson Angus Scale (haloperidol 11.4, olanzapine 2.5; P = 0.014). Significantly (P = 0.027) more biperidin was used for extrapyramidal side-effects in the haloperidol (7.143 mg) than in the olanzapine (0.357 mg) group. Olanzapine appears to be as effective as haloperidol in the treatment of cannabis induced psychotic disorder, but is associated with a lower rate of extrapyramidal side-effects.     

Valproate as an adjunct to neuroleptic medication for the treatment of acute episodes of mania: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study. European Valproate Mania Study Group

To compare the efficacy of sodium valproate administered as adjunct to neuroleptic medication for patients with acute mania with the efficacy of neuroleptics alone, the authors conducted a 21-day, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial. The study design closely reflected a clinical psychiatric setting in Europe where patients with acute mania commonly receive neuroleptic medication. In this trial, 136 hospitalized patients met the ICD-10 criteria for acute manic episodes; these patients received a fixed dose of 20 mg/kg of body weight of sodium valproate (Orfiril, Desitin Arzneimittel GmbH, Hamburg, Germany) orally, in addition to basic neuroleptic medication, preferably haloperidol and/or perazine. The primary outcome measure was the mean dose of neuroleptic medication (after conversion into haloperidol-equivalents) for the 21-day study period. Severity of symptoms was measured using the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), the Global Assessment Scale, and the Clinical Global Impression Scale. Intent-to-treat analysis was based on 69 patients treated with valproate and 67 patients who received placebo. Groups were comparable with regard to demographic and clinical baseline data. Premature discontinuations occurred in only 13% of the patients. The mean neuroleptic dose declined continuously in the valproate group, whereas only slight variations were observed in the placebo group; the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.0007) for study weeks 2 and 3. The combination of neuroleptic and valproate proved superior to neuroleptics in attempts to alleviate manic symptoms. The proportion of responders (a 50% improvement rate shown on the YMRS) was higher for the combination with valproate than for the group receiving only neuroleptics (70% vs. 46%; p = 0.005). Adverse events consisted of those known for valproate or neuroleptics; the only adverse event was asthenia, which occurred more frequently with the combination therapy. Valproate represents a useful adjunct medication for the treatment of acute manic symptoms. Valproate is beneficial because it allows the administration of fewer neuroleptic medications and produces improved and quicker remission of manic symptoms.     

Sertindole: new drug. Another "atypical" neuroleptic; QT prolongation

(1) The first-line drug for the treatment of schizophrenic disorders is a neuroleptic such as haloperidol. Amisulpride may be preferable when haloperidol causes unacceptable neurological reactions. Overall, the risk-benefit balance of more recent, so-called atypical neuroleptics is no better. (2) Sertindole, a neuroleptic, was first marketed in 1996 in several European countries before being withdrawn two years later because of numerous cardiac adverse effects. It has once again been approved and should soon be available on the French market. (3) Two comparative double-blind trials suggest that a daily sertindole dose of 24 mg is about as effective as 10 mg of haloperidol. Sertindole was no more effective than risperidone in a trial comparing these two drugs. (4) Like other 'atypical' neuroleptics, sertindole has few short-term neurological adverse effects (extrapyramidal syndrome) at the doses used in clinical trials. However, it causes weight gain. Sertindole also has alpha blocking properties, which can cause postural hypotension and reduce ejaculate volume; it also has atropinic effects (constipation, dry mouth, etc.). (5) Sertindole provokes a dose-dependent increase in the QT interval more frequently than haloperidol in comparative trials, and apparently more frequently than other 'atypical' neuroleptics such as risperidone and olanzapine. Sertindole has been suspected of increasing cardiovascular mortality but this has not been established. (6) Sertindole is metabolised by cytochrome P450 isoenzymes CYP 2D6 and CYP 3A4, hence a high risk of pharmacokinetic interactions. (7) In practice, when haloperidol has to be withdrawn because of adverse effects, especially neurological reactions, it is better to continue to resort to amisulpride, for example, with close monitoring of adverse effects, rather than expose patients to the potential dangers of sertindole.     

Clinical and economic outcomes of olanzapine compared with haloperidol for schizophrenia. Results from a randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare, from the payor perspective, the clinical and economic outcomes of olanzapine to those of haloperidol for the treatment of schizophrenia. DESIGN AND SETTING: Clinical, quality-of-life and resource utilisation data were prospectively collected for US-residing patients with schizophrenia who were participating in a multicentre, randomised, double-blind clinical trial comparing olanzapine and haloperidol. Direct medical costs were estimated by assigning standardised prices (1995 values) to the resource utilisation data. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: 817 patients with schizophrenia who had a baseline Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale score (BPRS) > or = 18 (items scored 0 to 6) and/or were no longer tolerating current antipsychotic therapy. INTERVENTIONS: Olanzapine 5 to 20 mg/day (n = 551) or haloperidol 5 to 20 mg/day (n = 266) for 6 weeks. Patients showing a predefined level of clinical response entered a 46-week maintenance phase. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: After acute treatment, BPRS-based clinical improvements were seen in 38 and 27% of olanzapine and haloperidol patients, respectively (p = 0.002). Clinically important improvements on the Quality of Life Scale were achieved during acute treatment in 33% of olanzapine recipients and 25% of haloperidol recipients (p = 0.094). Olanzapine treatment in the acute phase led to significantly lower inpatient ($US5125 vs $US5795, p = 0.038) and outpatient ($US663 vs $US692, p = 0.001) costs, resulting in a significant overall reduction in mean total medical costs of $US388 (p = 0.033). This significant reduction in total costs was found despite olanzapine mean medication costs being significantly greater than haloperidol medication costs ($US326 vs $US15, p < 0.001). No significant differences in clinical improvement were observed in the maintenance phase. Maintenance phase olanzapine mean total medical costs were $US636 lower than haloperidol total costs (p = 0.128). Although olanzapine medication costs were significantly higher than haloperidol medication costs ($US3461 vs $US95, p < 0.001), this difference was offset by significantly lower inpatient ($US8322 vs $US10,662, p = 0.044) and outpatient ($US3810 vs $US5473, p = 0.038) costs. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, olanzapine treatment was more effective than haloperidol in producing clinical response in the acute phase. In addition, olanzapine treatment led to reductions in inpatient and outpatient costs that more than offset olanzapine's higher medication costs relative to haloperidol.     

Outcomes for Latin American versus White patients suffering from acute mania in a randomized, double-blind trial comparing olanzapine and haloperidol

Data from a published double-blind randomized trial comparing olanzapine versus haloperidol in acute mania were used to address the response and tolerability of Latin American patients. Primary efficacy end point was the remission rate (Young Mania Rating Scale score 相似文献   

Olanzapine versus haloperidol in the treatment of acute mania: clinical outcomes,health-related quality of life and work status

We aimed to compare clinical outcomes, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and work status associated with olanzapine and haloperidol treatment in patients with bipolar disorder. This double-blind, randomized controlled trial, comparing flexible dosing of olanzapine (5-20 mg/day, n = 234) to haloperidol (3-15 mg/day, n = 219), consisted of a 6-week acute phase, followed by a 6-week continuation phase. Symptomatic remission rates were similar for olanzapine- and haloperidol-treated patients at weeks 6 and 12. At week 6, significant changes in five dimensions of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) [general health (P = 0.010), physical functioning (P < 0.001), role limitations due to physical problems (P < 0.001), social functioning (P < 0.05) and vitality (P < 0.01)] and the SF-36 physical components summary score were found in favour of olanzapine compared to haloperidol. At week 12, olanzapine treatment maintained the significantly favourable HRQOL changes. At the end of week 12, patients on olanzapine showed significantly greater improvement than haloperidol in work activities impairment and household activities impairment scores on the Streamlined Longitudinal Interview Clinical Evaluation from the Longitudinal Interval Follow-up Evaluation (SLICE/LIFE) activities impairment scores. Subgroup analyses revealed that olanzapine treatment significantly increased a proportion of employed patients and their weekly paid working hours. In conclusion, compared to haloperidol, olanzapine treatment was comparably effective in the remission of bipolar mania and significantly improved HRQOL and work status in patients with bipolar I disorder.     

Divalproex in the treatment of bipolar disorder

Valproate is commonly used as a first-line agent for the treatment of acute bipolar I mania. Its efficacy in the treatment of acute mania has been established in randomized, controlled trials versus placebo, lithium, haloperidol, and olanzapine. Only preliminary data regarding the efficacy of valproate in acute bipolar depression are currently available. The efficacy of valproate in the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder has not been definitively established but most evidence from randomized, controlled trials suggests that it may have comparable efficacy to lithium and olanzapine. The results of randomized, controlled trials of valproate in the treatment of bipolar disorder are reviewed along with their implications for clinical practice.     

Olanzapine versus placebo in acute mania: treatment responses in subgroups

Two double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of olanzapine in acute mania showed significant overall antimanic efficacy, based on reductions in mania ratings. Their subject-level data were pooled to increase statistical power to test for differences in treatment responses among 10 subgroup pairs of interest using generalized estimating equations methods. Similar drug/placebo superiority and responsiveness to olanzapine was found in men versus women, psychotic versus nonpsychotic subjects, and those presenting in mania versus mixed states, and responses were independent of onset age, current age, or prior illness based on episodes, hospitalizations, recent rapid cycling, lifetime substance use, or previous antipsychotic treatment. Olanzapine and placebo responses paralleled closely (r(s) = 0.73). Patients were relatively more responsive to olanzapine who were younger at illness onset, lacked prior substance abuse, and had not previously received antipsychotic treatment (efficacy ratios 1.5-1.7, all P < 0.01). These well-powered comparisons of subgroups of interest indicate broad efficacy of olanzapine in the treatment of acute mania.     

Amisulpride: a review of its use in the management of schizophrenia

Amisulpride (Solian), a substituted benzamide derivative, is a second-generation antipsychotic that preferentially binds to dopamine D2/D3 receptors in limbic rather than striatal structures. High dosages preferentially antagonise postsynaptic D2/D3 receptors, resulting in reduced dopamine transmission, and low dosages preferentially block presynaptic D2/D3 receptors, resulting in enhanced dopamine transmission. Amisulpride (200-1200 mg/day) was at least as effective as haloperidol and as effective as risperidone or olanzapine, in studies of up to 1 year in patients with schizophrenia manifesting predominantly positive symptoms. Amisulpride (50-300 mg/day) was significantly more effective than placebo in studies of up to 6 months in patients manifesting predominantly negative symptoms. Quality of life was also improved significantly more in patients receiving amisulpride than in those receiving haloperidol in 4- and 12-month studies in patients with predominantly mixed symptoms. Amisulpride was generally well tolerated in clinical trials. In patients with predominantly positive symptoms, amisulpride appeared to be better tolerated than haloperidol and was tolerated as well as risperidone and olanzapine. The incidence of extrapyramidal adverse effects with amisulpride was lower than with haloperidol but was generally similar to risperidone or olanzapine. Weight gain with amisulpride was less than that with risperidone or olanzapine and, unlike these agents, amisulpride does not seem to be associated with diabetogenic effects. Plasma prolactin levels are increased during amisulpride therapy and amenorrhoea occurs in about 4% of women. The incidence of adverse events with low dosages of amisulpride (< or = 300 mg/day) in patients with predominantly negative symptoms was similar to that observed with placebo. In conclusion, oral amisulpride (200-1200 mg/day) is at least as effective as haloperidol, and as effective as risperidone or olanzapine, in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia manifesting predominantly positive symptoms. In the treatment of patients manifesting predominantly negative symptoms, low dosages of amisulpride (50-300 mg/day) are significantly more effective than placebo. Amisulpride appears to be better tolerated than haloperidol, causing a lower incidence of extrapyramidal adverse effects and an improved quality of life. Compared with risperidone or olanzapine, amisulpride is more likely to cause hyperprolactinaemia, but has a lower propensity to cause weight gain and does not seem to be associated with diabetogenic effects. Thus, amisulpride is an effective and well tolerated option for the first-line treatment of patients with acute schizophrenia as well as for those requiring long-term maintenance therapy.