Improvement of positive and negative syndrome scale cognitive score associated with olanzapine treatment of acute mania

SUMMARY

Objective: This study analyzed the effect of olanzapine on a psychopathology-based scale assessing abnormal thought processes and examined the relationship between improvement on this scale and mania and depression improvement in acutely manic patients.

Methods: The study sample (N = 254) was pooled from two double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials. Disturbance in thought processes was measured by the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale cognitive component (PANSS-Cognitive) score. Mood severity was measured by the Young-Mania Rating Scale (Y-MRS) and Hamilton Depression Inventory (HAM-D). Last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) changes from baseline to endpoint (Week 3) were presented for patients who had at least one post-baseline assessment.

Results: Olanzapine-treated patients experienced modest but significant improvement in PANSS-Cognitive score (olanzapine: –4.25 n = 124; placebo: –1.69 n = 120, p < 01), regardless of age, gender, mania subtype (pure, mixed), course (rapid or non-rapid cycling), or the presence or absence of psychotic features. PANSS-Cognitive improvement was more highly correlated with mania than depression improvement.

Conclusion: Olanzapine improved abnormal thought processes measured by the PANSS-Cognitive score in patients with acute mania. This improvement in thought processes was significantly associated with improvement in acute mania. More sensitive and specific neuropsychological testing could help clarify whether improvement in thought processes on olanzapine was independent of mania reduction.     

Acute dysphoric mania: treatment response to olanzapine versus placebo

A substantial number of patients with mania have significant concomitant depressive features, and they may respond differently to mood stabilizers than patients with pure mania. This post-hoc analysis explored the response characteristics of olanzapine versus placebo in bipolar I manic patients with dysphoric and nondysphoric mania (differentiated by baseline Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HAM-D] score of >20). Two similar, double-blind, randomized trials comparing olanzapine, 5-20 mg, to placebo were pooled for these analyses (N = 246). Mean changes in Young-Mania Rating Scale (Y-MRS) and HAM-D scores during 3 weeks of treatment were examined. Twenty-eight percent of patients had dysphoric mania (olanzapine, n = 33; placebo, n = 35). Among these patients, olanzapine-treated patients had greater improvement within 1 week than did placebo-treated patients on both mania ratings (Y-MRS: -9.7 vs. -3.0 points; = 0.011) and depressive symptom ratings (HAM-D: -9.9 vs. -5.4 points; = 0.025). Among those manic subjects without prominent depressive symptoms (olanzapine, n = 91; placebo, n = 87), mean Y-MRS improvement from baseline to endpoint with olanzapine (-11.5 points) versus placebo (-6.13 points) was comparable to the improvement seen with olanzapine versus placebo in the dysphoric mania subgroup ( = 0.476, test of interaction). In acutely ill manic patients with significant depressive symptoms, olanzapine demonstrated a broad spectrum of efficacy, effectively treating both manic and depressive symptoms. The magnitude of the antimanic response appears similar, regardless of baseline depressive features. Additional experience with putative mood stabilizers and atypical agents in mixed mania should include an exploration of their efficacy in treating both manic and depressive mood symptoms.     

Olanzapine compared to lithium in mania: a double-blind randomized controlled trial

Neuroleptics are of established efficacy in mania. Controlled data on the use of olanzapine in mania is however, absent. In this study, 30 patients meeting DSM-IV criteria for mania were randomly allocated to receive either olanzapine or lithium in a 4 week double-blind randomized controlled design. There were no significant outcome differences between the two groups on any of the primary outcome measures, the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (lithium 28.2; olanzapine 28.0; P = 0.44); Clinical Global Impression (CGI) improvement scale (lithium 2.75, olanzapine 2.36; P = 0.163) or the Mania Scale (lithium 13.2, olanzapine 10.2; P = 0.315). Olanzapine was however, significantly superior to lithium on the CGI-severity scale at week 4 (lithium 2.83, olanzapine 2.29; P = 0.025). Olanzapine did not differ from lithium in terms of treatment emergent extrapyramidal side-effects as measured by the Simpson-Angus Scale. Olanzapine appears to be at least as effective as lithium in the treatment of mania.     

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   

Switching from other agents to extended-release carbamazepine in acute mania

There is a dearth of available knowledge relating to the efficacy of switching from one psychotropic agent to another in treating patients with acute mania. Methods: This is a post hoc analysis of data from two randomized, placebo-controlled trials of carbamazepine extended-release capsules (CBZ-ERC) in the treatment of mania, to evaluate the efficacy of CBZ-ERC in patients previously nonresponsive to lithium (n 5 40), olanzapine (n 5 38), or valproate (VPA, n 5 77). Results: In patients previously on lithium, Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) scores improved significantly from baseline to end point (27.4 6 SD 3.5 vs. 15.8 6 11.1; P 5 .0002). In patients previously on VPA or olanzapine, YMRS scores significantly improved in both CBZ-ERC- and placebo-treated groups (VPA: CBZ-ERC, P , .0001; placebo, P 5 .0002; olanzapine: CBZ-ERC, P , .0001; placebo, P 5 .0054). Improvement in YMRS was significantly greater in CBZ-ERC-treated patients versus placebo in subjects previously nonresponsive to lithium (CBZ-ERC 11.6 6 10.3 vs. placebo 4.0 6 11.2, P 5 .03), or VPA (CBZ-ERC 10.8 6 11.9 vs. placebo 5.7 6 9.2; P 5 .04), and trending to be greater for those previously nonresponsive to olanzapine (olanzapine 13.2 6 9.3 vs. placebo 7.3 6 9.7, P 5 .06). Conclusions: CBZ-ERC is an effective therapy for bipolar patients previously nonresponsive to lithium or valproate. Medication switch is frequently associated with symptom improvement.     

Combination of mood stabilizers with quetiapine for treatment of acute bipolar disorder: an open label study

OBJECTIVES: The atypical antipsychotics are being increasingly used to control acute manic episodes, and data are emerging to support their mood-stabilizing and antidepressant properties. This study investigated the short-term efficacy of quetiapine as an add-on therapy in the treatment of acute mania. METHOD: This study was a 4-week, open-label, add-on, prospective investigation using quetiapine in addition to mood stabilizers. Data on 18 patients fulfilling DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for bipolar I disorder were analysed. The Young mania rating scale (YMRS), the Hamilton scale for depression (HDRS), the brief psychiatric rating scale (BPRS) and extrapyramidal symptom rating scale (ESRS) were applied at baseline and at weeks 1, 2 and 4. The clinical global impression scale (CGI) was evaluated at baseline and week 4. RESULTS: The addition of quetiapine produced a statistically significant improvement on the YMRS, HDRS, BPRS and CGI score at week 4 from baseline (p<0.005). Quetiapine was well tolerated, with no subjects discontinuing because of side effects. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of quetiapine was associated with a substantial symptomatic improvement in patients with acute mania. Randomized placebo-controlled prospective studies are needed.     

A randomized, 1-year follow-up study of olanzapine and risperidone in the treatment of negative symptoms in outpatients with schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of olanzapine compared with risperidone in negative symptoms, after 1 year of treatment, in schizophrenic outpatients with prominent negative symptoms. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, monitored, open-label, parallel, dose-flexible, 1-year study of outpatients with schizophrenia (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition criteria) with prominent negative symptoms (Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms [SANS] summary score > or =10) previously treated with conventional antipsychotics. Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with an initial dose of olanzapine 10 mg/d or more (n = 120) or risperidone 3 mg/d or more (n = 115). The primary efficacy measure was the SANS summary score. Secondary efficacy measures included Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms, Clinical Global Impression of Severity Scale, Calgary Depression Scale, and Social Functioning Scale. The response rate was defined as 30% or more of improvement in the SANS summary score. RESULTS: The mean dose throughout the study was 12.2 mg/d (+/-5.8 mg/d) for olanzapine and 4.9 mg/d (+/-2.0 mg/d) for risperidone. At 1 year, olanzapine patients showed significantly higher improvement than risperidone patients on the SANS summary (P = 0.015) and on the affective flattening (P = 0.007) and avolition/apathy (P = 0.028) SANS subscales. There were also significant improvements in favor of olanzapine in the Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms summary (P = 0.021), Clinical Global Impression of Severity (P = 0.008), and Social Functioning Scale total (P < 0.001) scores. The response rate was greater (P = 0.001) in the olanzapine cohort (69.2%) than in the risperidone cohort (48.7%). Olanzapine patients reported less extrapyramidal side effects but a higher incidence of clinically important body weight increase than risperidone patients. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term treatment with olanzapine was associated with significantly better improvement in negative symptoms as compared with risperidone-treated schizophrenic outpatients with prominent negative symptoms.     

The efficacy of olanzapine monotherapy for acute hypomania or mania in an outpatient setting

Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the efficacy of olanzapine for treating acute mania or depression symptoms in patients with bipolar disorder. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of this medication in more usual care outpatient settings. A consecutive series of 15 patients entered an open, uncontrolled 8-week trial of olanzapine monotherapy. Inclusion criteria included significant hypomanic or manic symptoms greater than or equal to 15 on the Young Mania Rating Scale and no psychotic symptoms. The majority of patients experienced significant decreases in mania ratings and more limited improvement on depression ratings. Most patients reported adverse events consistent with other studies, but few discontinued due to these complaints. This case series highlights the individual variation in response to a proven medication. Furthermore, it highlights that those medications effective at one end of the mood spectrum may not be equally or simultaneously effective with other symptoms, emphasizing the complexity of treating bipolar illness.     

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.     

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.     

Objective and subjective efficacy as well as tolerability of olanzapine in the acute treatment of 120 patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the objective and subjective efficacy as well as tolerability of olanzapine in acute treatment of schizophrenia spectrum disorders under naturalistic non-selective conditions. Inpatients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders, consecutively admitted over an 18-month period, treated with olanzapine, were included. Diagnoses were made according to ICD-10 criteria based on repeated clinical assessments. Efficacy and tolerability of olanzapine were assessed at baseline and at the end of inpatient acute treatment including Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS), Clinical Global Impression, subjective assessments, UKU and biological investigations. One hundred and twenty non-selected patients who met ICD-10 criteria for schizophrenia (73%), schizophreniform disorder (14%) or schizoaffective disorder (13%) were treated with olanzapine 15.3+/-5.2 mg/day. Baseline severity (PANSS total mean score 102.2) was higher compared to various admittance studies (PANSS total mean score 86-90). In 32% of patients (n=38), olanzapine treatment was discontinued, mainly because of inefficacy for positive (89%, n=34) and/or negative (95%, n=36) symptoms and/or because of adverse events (37%, n=14). Response rates as improvement in PANSS total score (after > or =3 weeks of treatment) of > or =20%, 30% or 40% were 68%, 55% and 35%, respectively. Response rates in post-hoc defined treatment resistant patients were not significantly different from non-refractory patients. Sedation (26%) was the most common side-effect, followed by weight gain (22%). With regards to subjective efficacy, 30% of the patients were not satisfied with the efficacy of olanzapine, while only 6% of the patients reported a not satisfying subjective tolerability. According to duration of olanzapine treatment, the results for patients, who remained in hospital, revealed a faster increase of weight compared to admittance studies (7 kg in 14 weeks versus 7 kg in 38 weeks). Olanzapine has been found to be effective and tolerable, also under naturalistic acute treatment conditions. Compared to previous double-blind admittance studies, patients had a higher severity of illness at entry and a lower > or =40% PANSS total score response rate. By contrast to previous results, mean dose of olanzapine was similar for multiple- and first-episode patients, and weight gain was more severe. The results underline the need of Phase IV studies for the assessment of clinical antipsychotic efficacy and tolerability.     

Olanzapine for schizophrenia refractory to typical and atypical antipsychotics: an open-label, prospective trial

The role of olanzapine in treatment-resistant schizophrenia is still unresolved. This article presents an open-label, prospective, 14-week trial with olanzapine in patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder selected for unambiguous resistance to either clozapine or risperidone and to typical antipsychotics. Forty-three inpatients (mean age, 41.6 years; mean duration of illness, 21.7 years) were enrolled and treated after cross-titration from their previous antipsychotic treatment with olanzapine 10 to 40 mg daily without any concomitant antipsychotic medication. Patients were evaluated with the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), the Clinical Global Impressions Scale, and the Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale. The change with olanzapine treatment was associated with a PANSS total score improvement of 3.7 (SD = 15.6; not significant). There was a significant improvement for the PANSS cognitive and depression/anxiety factors, whereas the PANSS excitement factor worsened. The improvement rate was superior in patients receiving olanzapine doses higher than 20 mg. A total of 16.7% of patients reached response criteria set forth by a previous study. There was a significant decrease in extrapyramidal side effects (t = 2.04; p < 0.05) and statistically significant, yet modest, weight gain. These results indicate that olanzapine is only modestly effective in these severely treatment-resistant patients with schizophrenia. However, a trial with olanzapine can be recommended in these patients before moving to augmentation strategies, given the lack of proven alternatives and the observation that 16.7% of patients reached the response criteria.     

Treatment of severely psychotic inpatients with schizophrenia: olanzapine versus other antipsychotic drugs

Nine hundred and ten schizophrenic inpatients suffering from acute psychotic episodes were included in a naturalistic study. Patients were prescribed treatment with olanzapine (OLZ) or with typical antipsychotic (TYP) drugs. Patients receiving another atypical antipsychotic were excluded. Of the whole sample, 483 (53.4%) were treated with olanzapine and 421 (46.6%) with typical antipsychotics. Three specific subpopulations of greater severity were defined: patients with prominent psychotic symptoms, agitated patients, and patients initially treated with intramuscular (i.m.) medication because of their acute clinical condition. Severity of illness was assessed using the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale for severity, the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and the Nursing Observational Scale for Inpatient Evaluation. Baseline differences were adjusted per data analysis. The mean change from baseline to endpoint of overall symptomatology (total BPRS score) was significantly greater in the olanzapine group compared to the typical antipsychotic-treated group, both in the sample of patients with prominent positive symptoms (P < 0.001) and in the sample of agitated patients (P =0.015). Significant differences were also found in BPRS positive scores, BPRS negative scores and CGI scores in these two populations. Patients who had received previous i.m. drugs showed no statistically significant differences in symptomatic improvement between both treatments groups, except for a more favourable response of BPRS negative subscores in the olanzapine group (P =0.015). The results suggest that olanzapine may be considered as a first line treatment for severely psychotic inpatients with schizophrenia.     

Safety of olanzapine versus conventional antipsychotics in the treatment of patients with acute schizophrenia. A naturalistic study.

BACKGROUND: Conventional antipsychotics although effective in treating acute psychotic and behavioural symptoms are subject to certain limitations due to the high incidence of side effects associated, mainly extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), and insufficient response shown in some cases. EPS are a major factor in neuroleptic non compliance and high relapse rates among patients. This study was designed to assess the safety and effectiveness of olanzapine compared to typical antipsychotics drugs in the treatment of schizophrenic inpatients at acute psychiatric in-patient units. METHOD: Data from 904 patients schizophrenic patients (F20 of ICD10, WHO) were collected in this prospective, comparative, non-randomized, open and observational study. Patients were followed during their entire hospital stay. Safety was assessed through the collection of spontaneous adverse events and a specific extrapyramidal symptoms questionnaire (EPS). Clinical status was measured through the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S), Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI) and the Nursing Observational Scale for In-patient Evaluation (NOSIE). RESULTS: A total of 483 patients received olanzapine (olanzapine group, OG), and 421 received typical antipsychotics (control group, CG). Treatment emergent EPS, or worsening of previous EPS were statistically significantly higher in the CG (P=0.001). Responder rate was statistically greater in the OG (P<0.001). Mean change in BPRS-total, BPRS-negative, BPRS-agitation subscales and PGI was significantly higher in the OG (P<0.001). Mean decrease in CGI, BPRS positive and BPRS depression sub-scales was also significantly lower (P< or =0.05). Mean change in the NOSIE scale was similar between both groups. CONCLUSION: Olanzapine has been shown to be better tolerated in comparison with conventional antipsychotics in a large unselected sample of acutely psychotic schizophrenic in-patients. Its effectiveness may be greater than that of conventional antipsychotics.     

Serum creatine kinase level in unmedicated nonpsychotic, psychotic, bipolar and schizoaffective depressed patients.

Creatine kinase (CK) level was previously found to be increased in the majority of hospitalized acute psychotic patients. We aimed to asses the possible differences in CK level in various forms of depression: major with and without psychotic symptoms, of bipolar depression and schizoaffective depression. Unmedicated hospitalized patients participated: nonpsychotic major depression (n=39), psychotic major depression (n=23), bipolar depression (n=23) and schizoaffective depression (n=24). The severity of depression was assessed by the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (Ham-D) and blood samples were collected in the morning of admission day, prior to any treatment. Ham-D yielded a significantly higher score for psychotic major depression group, compared with all other groups which showed similar score. CK serum level was significantly higher in nonpsychotic major depression than in all other forms of depression. The results indicate a biological difference between the nonpsychotic major depression and the "psychotic" cluster of depressive syndromes.     

An observational study of the effectiveness and safety of intramuscular olanzapine in the treatment of acute agitation in patients with bipolar mania or schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of intramuscular (IM) olanzapine in severely agitated patients. METHODS: This was an open-label multicenter 1-week observational study of IM olanzapine treatment in severely agitated inpatients and psychiatric emergency services with bipolar mania (n = 22) or schizophrenia (n = 52). Mean change from baseline to 2 h post-first injection (LOCF) in agitation was assessed by PANSS-Excited Component (PANSS-EC) (score range: 5-35 points) mean change from baseline to 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 min post-first injection, and visit-wise mean changes from mixed-model repeated measures analysis of variance. Kaplan-Meier survival curve analyses estimated time to categorical response (rating of 相似文献   

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.     

A double-blind, randomized study of olanzapine and olanzapine/fluoxetine combination for major depression with psychotic features

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of olanzapine (OLZ) monotherapy and an olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC) with placebo (PLA) for unipolar major depression with psychotic features. Under a single protocol, two 8-week, double-blind trials were conducted at 27 sites. Patients (n = 124 trial 1, n = 125 trial 2) were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment groups: OLZ (5 to 20 mg/d), PLA, or OFC (olanzapine 5 to 20 mg/d + fluoxetine 20 to 80 mg/d). The primary outcome measure was the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total score. For trial 1, endpoint improvement for the OLZ group (-14.9) was not significantly different from the PLA or OFC groups. The OFC group had significantly greater endpoint improvement (-20.9) than the PLA group (-10.4, P = 0.001); this significant difference was present within 7 days of therapy and maintained at every subsequent visit. The OFC group also had significantly higher response rate (63.6%) than the PLA (28.0%, P = 0.004) or OLZ (34.9%, P = 0.027) groups. For trial 2, there were no significant differences among treatment groups on the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total scores or response rates. The combination exhibited a comparable safety profile with OLZ monotherapy and no significant increases in extrapyramidal symptoms compared with placebo. Patients with major depression with psychotic features treated with OLZ monotherapy did not demonstrate significant depressive symptom improvement compared with placebo in either trial; however, an olanzapine/fluoxetine combination was associated with significant improvement compared with placebo in one trial and was well tolerated.     

A double-blind, randomized comparative trial of amisulpride versus olanzapine for 6 months in the treatment of schizophrenia

Atypical antipsychotics offer advantages over earlier drugs for the treatment of schizophrenia, although few data exist on the relative merits of different atypical antipsychotics. A multicentre, double-blind, randomized trial was performed to compare amisulpride and olanzapine in the treatment of acute schizophrenia. Adult schizophrenic patients with dominant positive symptomatology received amisulpride (200-800 mg/day) or olanzapine (5-20 mg/day) for 6 months. The primary efficacy variable was change from baseline of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) score, assessed with a non-inferiority analysis. The evolution of positive and negative symptomatology, depression, social functioning and quality of life were assessed. Safety evaluation included adverse event reporting, neurological status and body weight. The improvement of BPRS score was 32.7% in the amisulpride group and 33.0% in the olanzapine group; thus, the efficacy of amisulpride was not inferior to that of olanzapine. All other secondary efficacy outcome variables evolved to a similar extent in both groups. Adverse event frequency was similar in both groups. Amenorrhoea was encountered only in the amisulpride group (6.2% of patients), whereas elevations of liver transaminases were more frequent in the olanzapine group (17% versus 3.7% of patients). The incidence and mean extent of clinically relevant weight gain were higher in the olanzapine group (35.1% and 3.9 kg) than in the amisulpride group (20.6% and 1.6 kg). The efficacy of amisulpride is not inferior to that of olanzapine in the treatment of acute schizophrenia. The side-effect profile of the two drugs differed.     

Quetiapine for the continuation treatment of bipolar depression: naturalistic prospective case series from the Stanley Bipolar Treatment Network

Continuation treatment for bipolar disorder often consists of a mood stabilizer and a second-generation antipsychotic. Quetiapine has been shown to be an effective treatment for acute mania and acute bipolar depression, but there are limited data for its use in continuation treatment. This study examined the effectiveness of open-label adjunctive quetiapine therapy for continuation treatment in patients with bipolar disorder.Prospectively collected life chart data from 63 outpatients with bipolar disorders, most recent episodes depressed, manic, or cycling, who received adjunctive quetiapine therapy as part of standard acute treatment were analyzed. Patients had 4 or more weeks of prequetiapine baseline data and at least 2 weeks of quetiapine treatment with no other medication changes. Patients were grouped by baseline symptoms; depression only, mania only, or both mania and depression (cycling group). Owing to small mania and well groups (n=4), differences between depression and cycling groups were examined and mania and well groups excluded. Fifty-five patients were included in the analyses. The primary outcome measure was change in mood severity from baseline to change in treatment regimen, as measured by the NIMH Life Charting Method. Patients received adjunctive quetiapine for a mean of 122 (SD=149) days. Both groups showed significant improvement in depression ratings and time spent depressed by week 10. Both groups showed significant improvement in overall mood. No between-group differences in improvement were found. Adjunctive quetiapine may be useful as continuation treatment in bipolar populations with both pure depressive and cycling symptoms. Further controlled studies are warranted.