Comparison of treatment-emergent extrapyramidal symptoms in patients with bipolar mania or schizophrenia during olanzapine clinical trials

BACKGROUND: Previous research on pharmacotherapy with conventional antipsychotics has suggested that patients with affective disorders have higher rates of treatment-emergent extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) than patients with schizophrenia. It is not known whether this differential vulnerability holds true for treatment with atypical antipsychotics such as olanzapine. The present analysis retrospectively examined olanzapine clinical trial data for incidence of treatment-emergent EPS in patients with either schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. METHOD: Study participants were 4417 patients meeting DSM-III or DSM-IV criteria for either schizophrenia or bipolar mania participating in olanzapine clinical trials through July 31, 2001. Data were pooled across haloperidol-controlled trials and separately across placebo-controlled trials. Measures of EPS included rates of treatment-emergent EPS adverse event by type (i.e., dystonic, parkinsonian, or residual), Simpson-Angus Scale score mean change, rates of treatment-emergent parkinsonism, and rates of anticholinergic use. RESULTS: Consistent with prior research, haloperidol-treated patients with bipolar disorder appeared to be more vulnerable to the development of EPS than those with schizophrenia. However, olanzapine-treated patients with bipolar disorder were no more likely to develop EPS than those with schizophrenia. CONCLUSION: Results support previous research regarding conventional antipsychotics and suggest that olanzapine therapy does not increase the risk of EPS for patients with bipolar disorder.     

A double-blind, placebo-controlled dose-response comparison of intramuscular olanzapine and haloperidol in the treatment of acute agitation in schizophrenia

BACKGROUND: An intramuscular (IM) formulation of olanzapine has been developed because there are no rapid-acting IM atypical antipsychotic drugs currently available in the United States for treating acute agitation in patients with schizophrenia. METHODS: Recently hospitalized acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia (N = 270) were randomized to receive 1 to 3 IM injections of olanzapine (2.5, 5.0, 7.5, or 10.0 mg), haloperidol (7.5 mg), or placebo within 24 hours. A dose-response relationship for IM olanzapine in the reduction of agitation was assessed by measuring the reduction in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale Excited Component (PANSS-EC) scores 2 hours after the first injection. Safety was assessed by recording adverse events and with extrapyramidal symptom scales and electrocardiograms at 24 hours after the first injection. RESULTS: Olanzapine exhibited a dose-response relationship for reduction in agitation (F(1,179)= 14.4; P<.001). Mean PANSS-EC reductions 2 hours after the first injection of olanzapine (2.5 mg = -5.5; 5.0 mg = -8.1; 7.5 mg = -8.7; 10.0 mg = -9.4) were superior to those with placebo (-2.9; P =.01 vs olanzapine at 2.5 mg; P<.001 for each other olanzapine dose) but not with haloperidol (-7.5). A dose of 5.0, 7.5, or 10.0 mg of olanzapine caused a greater reduction in agitation than placebo 30 minutes after the first injection. There were no differences between treatment groups for hypotension, the most frequently reported adverse event, or for clinically relevant changes in the QTc interval. There was a greater incidence of treatment-emergent parkinsonism during treatment with IM haloperidol (16.7%) than with 2.5 (P =.03), 5.0 (P =.03), or 7.5 mg (P =.01) of IM olanzapine (0%) or with placebo (0%) (P =.01). CONCLUSIONS: Intramuscular olanzapine at a dose of 2.5 to 10.0 mg per injection exhibits a dose-response relationship in the rapid treatment of acute agitation in patients with schizophrenia and demonstrates a favorable safety profile.     

Typical and atypical antipsychotics in bipolar depression

BACKGROUND: Symptomatic bipolar patients experience more depressive than manic symptoms, but fewer studies have been designed for bipolar depression than for bipolar mania. Since the antipsychotic agents have been shown to diminish depressive symptoms during the treatment of mania, atypical agents are now being studied for use in bipolar depression. DATA SOURCES: English-language articles published from 1980 through July 2004 and cited in MEDLINE were searched using the keywords antipsychotics, typical antipsychotics, atypical antipsychotics, bipolar depression, bipolar disorder, manic-depressive illness, placebo, and clinical trial. The generic and brand names of individual antipsychotics were also entered as keywords. Peer-reviewed abstracts of placebo-controlled studies assessing acute or long-term efficacy in bipolar depression presented at major scientific meetings were also reviewed. STUDY SELECTION: Use of a depression rating scale was required for inclusion of studies of the atypical antipsychotic agents in our analysis. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-one randomized trials and 13 nonrandomized prospective trials were identified. In the only 2 acute, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of antipsychotics in bipolar depression, the effect size of olanzapine was small (0.32) compared with the effect sizes of quetiapine (0.91-1.09, depending on dose). The effect size in acute mania of olanzapine at week 4 and quetiapine at week 3 was 0.50 and 0.39, respectively. Both olanzapine and quetiapine have been shown to be superior to placebo in the acute treatment of bipolar I depression. In addition, olanzapine has been shown to be more effective than placebo in delaying relapse into bipolar depression. With the exception of a 6-month perphenazine study, there are no other randomized studies of typical antipsychotics that support the conclusion that this class of medication worsens bipolar depression. CONCLUSION: Emerging data suggest that the atypical antipsychotic agents have a role in the acute and long-term treatment of bipolar depression. No convincing data support the impression that the typical antipsychotic agents worsen bipolar depression.     

Assessment of treatment response in mania: commentary and new findings

Background:  Assessment of therapeutic interventions in bipolar disorder is complicated by rapid, complex clinical changes, high placebo-response rates, and varying times to specific levels of clinical recovery that may not be adequately reflected in averaged rating-scale scores particularly in acute mania, calling for improved methods to evaluate treatment responses. Chengappa et al. ( 1 ) propose operational criteria for specific outcomes based on rating-scale data from two placebo-controlled trials of olanzapine in mania.
Methods:  These trials and other recent research were considered in commenting on the design, conduct, analysis and interpretation of experimental therapeutic trials in mania and to optimize olanzapine versus placebo contrasts by systematically varying end-point criteria for mania (YMRS) and depression (HDRS) ratings.
Results:  Olanzapine versus placebo responses were optimally separated at scores of 10 for final paired mania and depression ratings, or 5 for each rating scale considered separately.
Conclusions:  Use of empirically determined end-points derived from standard rating scales used in experimental therapeutics research in mood disorders can improve both outcome-assessment and separation of active treatment from placebo responses in acute mania.     

Analysis of the QTc interval during olanzapine treatment of patients with schizophrenia and related psychosis

BACKGROUND: There may be a temporal association between some antipsychotics and prolongation of the heart-rate-corrected QT interval (QTc) representing a delay in ventricular repolarization. QTc prolongation significantly exceeding normal intra-individual and interindividual variation may increase the risk of ventricular tachydysrhythmias, especially torsade de pointes, and therefore, sudden cardiac death. METHOD: Electrocardiogram recordings obtained as part of the safety assessment of olanzapine in 4 controlled, randomized clinical trials (N = 2,700) were analyzed. These analyses were conducted to characterize any change in QTc temporally associated with olanzapine, compared with placebo, haloperidol, and risperidone, in acutely psychotic patients (DSM-III-R and DSM-IV) and to characterize variability and temporal course of the QTc in this patient population. Changes from baseline to minimum and maximum QTc were tested for significance, and baseline to acute-phase endpoint change in mean QTc was tested for significance within treatments and for differences between olanzapine and comparators. The possibility of a linear relationship between dose of olanzapine and mean change in QTc, as well as incidence of treatment-emergent prolongation of QTc (change from < 430 msec at baseline to > or =430 msec at endpoint), was tested. RESULTS: The incidence of maximum QTc > or = 450 msec during treatment was approximately equal to the incidence of QTc > or =450 msec at baseline. CONCLUSION: Results of these analyses suggest that olanzapine, as therapeutically administered to patients with schizophrenia and related psychoses, does not contribute to QTc prolongation resulting in potentially fatal ventricular arrhythmias.     

Review of olanzapine in the management of bipolar disorders

Olanzapine is an atypical antipsychotic currently with indications for the treatment of schizophrenia, acute mania and the prevention of relapse in bipolar disorder. A growing body of clinical evidence supports these indications. Acute mania trials have demonstrated superior efficacy of olanzapine to placebo, equal or superior efficacy to valproate and superior efficacy in combination therapy with lithium or valproate compared to mood stabilizer monotherapy. Olanzapine demonstrated a modest effect in the treatment of bipolar depression with a substantially enhanced effect in combination with fluoxetine. Maintenance trials showed olanzapine to be more efficacious than placebo in the prevention of manic and depressive relapses and non-inferior to lithium or valproate. Combination of olanzapine with lithium or valproate was also found to be more efficacious than lithium or valproate monotherapy in the prevention of manic relapse in patients with a partial response to monotherapy with lithium or valproate. These trials suggest that olanzapine is a viable option and an invaluable addition to the pharmacological armamentarium in the treatment of bipolar I disorder. However, this can often be mitigated by safety and tolerability concerns with this agent including weight gain and metabolic syndrome that warrants clinician vigilance and discernment that is imperative in today’s clinical practice.     

Atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of mania: a meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials

BACKGROUND: Randomized, controlled trials have demonstrated efficacy for atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of mania in bipolar disorder, either as monotherapy or adjunctive treatment. However, there are no published comparisons of individual atypical antipsychotics for mania. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled monotherapy and adjunctive therapy trials of atypical antipsychotics for acute bipolar mania. Studies published through 2004 were identified using searches of PubMed/MEDLINE with the search terms mania, placebo, and each of the atypical antipsychotics, limited to randomized, controlled clinical trials; review of abstracts from the 2003 meetings of the American College of Neuropsychiatry, American Psychiatric Association, and International Conference on Bipolar Disorder; and consultations with study investigators and representatives of pharmaceutical companies that market atypical antipsychotics. DATA EXTRACTION: Analyses were performed on the changes in Young Mania Rating Scale or Mania Rating Scale total scores from baseline to endpoint, using last observation carried forward and computing the difference in change scores between each drug and its corresponding placebo arm. A random-effects model with fixed drug effects was used to combine the studies and make comparisons of the antipsychotics to each other and to placebo. DATA SYNTHESIS: Data from 12 placebo-controlled monotherapy and 6 placebo-controlled adjunctive therapy trials involving a total of 4304 subjects (including 1750 placebo-treated subjects) with bipolar mania were obtained. Aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone all demonstrated significant efficacy in monotherapy (i.e., all confidence intervals exclude zero). However, after adjusting for multiple comparisons, pairwise comparisons of individual effects identified no significant differences in efficacy among antipsychotics. Magnitude of improvement was similar whether the antipsychotic was utilized as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The 5 newer atypical antipsychotics were all superior to placebo in the treatment of bipolar mania. For monotherapy and add-on therapy, cross-trial comparisons suggest that differences in acute efficacy between the drugs, if any, are likely to be small.     

Pharmacological interventions for acute bipolar mania: a systematic review of randomized placebo-controlled trials

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials in acute bipolar mania to summarize available data on drug treatment of mania. METHODS: We included trials of medications licensed in the USA or UK for the treatment of any phase of bipolar disorder. Outcomes investigated were changes in mania scores, attrition, extrapyramidal effects and weight change. Data were combined through meta-analyses. RESULTS: We included 13 studies (involving 3,089 subjects) and identified 2 studies for each of the following medications: carbamazepine, haloperidol, lithium, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, valproate semisodium and aripiprazole. All drugs showed significant benefit compared with placebo for reduction in mania scores. Compared with placebo, for all antipsychotics pooled, response to treatment (> or =50% reduction in Young Mania Rating Scale scores) was increased more than 1.7 times [relative risk (RR) = 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.54, 1.96]; for all mood stabilizers pooled, response to treatment was doubled (RR 2.01, 95% CI = 1.66, 2.43). Overall withdrawals were 34% fewer (24-43%) with antipsychotics, and 26% fewer (10-39%) with mood stabilizers. However, for carbamazepine, aripiprazole and lithium an increase in risk of withdrawal could not be excluded. Small but significant increases in extrapyramidal side effects occurred with risperidone and aripiprazole. CONCLUSIONS: Antipsychotics and mood stabilizers are significantly more effective than placebo for the treatment of acute mania. Their effect sizes are similar. Small differences between effect sizes may be due to differences in the patients included in the studies or to chance. Carbamazepine and lithium may be more poorly tolerated, and antipsychotics cause more extrapyramidal side effects.     

A naturalistic multicenter study of intramuscular olanzapine in the treatment of acutely agitated manic or schizophrenic patients

BACKGROUND: We conducted a naturalistic, multicenter, 24-hour, nonrandomized, observational study describing for the first time the effectiveness and safety of intramuscular (IM) olanzapine to control agitation and aggression in "real world" patients with psychosis. The data thus obtained was compared with that reported from randomized double-blind clinical trials. METHOD: 92 patients attending psychiatric emergency settings were enrolled. The study subjects were 44 male and 48 female patients with a mean age of 36.5+/-12 years and DSM-IV-TR diagnoses of schizophrenia (48.9%), psychotic disorder not specified (23.9%) or bipolar disorder (27.2%). 10 mg IM olanzapine was administered to all patients. An optional second injection was permitted> or =2 hours later in line with hospital policy. Evaluations (PANSS-EC and CGI-S) were performed at baseline and 2 and 24 hours following the IM injection. RESULTS: Two hours after IM olanzapine was administered, a mean decrease of -9.6 in the PANSS-EC from a baseline score of 26.5 was recorded. At the 24-hour endpoint a statistically and clinically significant reduction in the PANSS-EC scores (11.6+/-5.3) was observed as compared with values at study entry (26.5+/-5.9) and at 2 hours endpoint (16.9+/-9.3), which represent a mean decrease of -14.9 and -5.3, respectively. CONCLUSION: The present naturalistic study provides naturalistic data on the effectiveness of IM olanzapine in the treatment of acute agitation in patients with schizophrenia or bipolar mania that is in line the data obtained in randomized double-blind clinical trials.     

A prospective,observational study of the safety and effectiveness of intramuscular psychotropic treatment in acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia and bipolar mania

This naturalistic, observational pan-European study assessed the safety and early effectiveness of intramuscular (IM) psychotropic treatments in patients with acute agitation suffering from schizophrenia or bipolar mania. One thousand nine hundred and forty of 1945 patients completed the 24-hour observation period after initial IM treatment. Patients from 12 European countries were included (mean age 39 years; 58% male, 66% schizophrenia). IM treatment was at the physician's discretion. The primary objective was to describe the acute tolerability of IM psychotropic therapies in clinical practice, with particular emphasis on EPS. At baseline, 68% of the patients received IM monotherapy, with IM olanzapine most commonly prescribed (36%). During the first 24 hours, 190 (9.8%) patients experienced EPS. The occurrence of EPS was statistically significantly lower in patients treated with IM olanzapine compared to those treated with other IM psychotropic medications (mainly typical antipsychotics and benzodiazepines): acute dystonia: 1.1%, 95% CI 0.5–2.3 and 2.9%, CI 2.0–4.0; akathisia: 2.3%, CI 1.3–3.7 and 5.5%, CI 4.3–6.9; Parkinsonism: 2.9%, CI 1.8–4.4 and 7.8%, CI 6.4–9.4, respectively. Anticholinergic treatment was given to 12% IM olanzapine versus 31% non-olanzapine treated patients. Acute agitation after 24 hours was reduced by 1.68 (95% CI 1.46–1.91) points on the Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S) in IM olanzapine patients and 1.51 (95% CI 1.30–1.73) points in non-olanzapine patients. Additional psychotropic medication was required for 90% of the patients during the first 24 hours of treatment. Results provide naturalistic evidence for low EPS rates and improvement of agitation with IM psychotropic medications during acute states of patients suffering from acute mania or schizophrenia.     

Asenapine versus olanzapine in acute mania: a double‐blind extension study

Objective: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of asenapine versus olanzapine in the extended treatment of bipolar mania. Methods: Patients with bipolar I disorder experiencing acute manic or mixed episodes who completed either of two 3‐week, double‐blind trials with asenapine 5 or 10 mg twice daily, olanzapine 5 to 20 mg once daily, or placebo were eligible for this 9‐week, double‐blind extension study. Patients receiving active medication in the 3‐week trials continued the same regimen; those who had received placebo were blindly switched to asenapine but were assessed for safety outcomes only. The primary efficacy measure was the change from baseline to day 84 on the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score in the per‐protocol population. Results on the primary efficacy outcome were used to determine the noninferiority of asenapine versus olanzapine. Results: A total of 504 patients (placebo/asenapine, n = 94; asenapine, n = 181; olanzapine, n = 229) were enrolled in the extension study. At day 84, the mean (SD) change from baseline in YMRS total score was ?24.4 (8.7) for asenapine and ?23.9 (7.9) for olanzapine. Prespecified statistical analysis for noninferiority indicated no significant difference between asenapine and olanzapine. The overall incidence of treatment‐emergent adverse events was similar across treatment groups (77% placebo/asenapine, 77% asenapine, 78% olanzapine). Clinically significant weight gain occurred in 10%, 19%, and 31% of the placebo/asenapine, asenapine, and olanzapine groups, respectively. Conclusions: Asenapine was efficacious, showed noninferiority to olanzapine, and was well tolerated in the extended treatment of patients experiencing manic symptoms associated with bipolar I disorder.     

Control group bias in randomized atypical antipsychotic medication trials for schizophrenia

CONTEXT: It has been suggested that the need for concurrent placebo control groups in new schizophrenia studies might be minimized by making comparisons with external placebo. This strategy requires an assumption of constancy, that the novel medication will perform the same way in a study with only active controls as it would have in a placebo-controlled trial. OBJECTIVE: To test this constancy assumption in active- and low dose-controlled trials vs placebo-controlled trials of atypical antipsychotic medications. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search of bibliographic databases, conference proceedings, and Food and Drug Administration databases through November 24, 2003. STUDY SELECTION: English-language, randomized, double-blind clinical trials of newer atypical antipsychotic medications in otherwise unselected acutely ill adults with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder that reported baseline and intent-to-treat end point change values for the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. DATA EXTRACTION: Study number, sample size, reported dosage for each arm, trial duration, percentage of men, average age, trial arm treatment completion rate, baseline and within-arm end point change in the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, method of scoring the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, and date of publication were extracted from each study independently by 2 of us (S.W.W. and C.B.B.) each. DATA SYNTHESIS: There were 32 studies comprising 66 risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, and ziprasidone arms including 7264 patients. Random-effects analysis revealed that in atypical antipsychotic medication arms, the degree of improvement was nearly double in active-controlled trials than that seen with the same drugs and dosages in placebo-controlled studies. An effect of design was also observed in low dose-controlled studies vs placebo-controlled studies in ineffective and intermediate antipsychotic medication dose ranges. CONCLUSIONS: The observed control group bias indicates that the constancy assumption does not hold in recent antipsychotic medication trials. These results suggest that caution is indicated when considering active- or low dose-controlled studies requiring comparisons with external placebo as alternatives to placebo-controlled trials for establishing efficacy of new medications for schizophrenia.     

Atypical antipsychotics in bipolar disorder: systematic review of randomised trials

Background

Atypical antipsychotics are increasingly used for treatment of mental illnesses like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, and considered to have fewer extrapyramidal effects than older antipsychotics.

Methods

We examined efficacy in randomised trials of bipolar disorder where the presenting episode was either depression, or manic/mixed, comparing atypical antipsychotic with placebo or active comparator, examined withdrawals for any cause, or due to lack of efficacy or adverse events, and combined all phases for adverse event analysis. Studies were found through systematic search (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library), and data combined for analysis where there was clinical homogeneity, with especial reference to trial duration.

Results

In five trials (2,206 patients) participants presented with a depressive episode, and in 25 trials (6,174 patients) the presenting episode was manic or mixed. In 8-week studies presenting with depression, quetiapine and olanzapine produced significantly better rates of response and symptomatic remission than placebo, with NNTs of 5–6, but more adverse event withdrawals (NNH 12). With mania or mixed presentation atypical antipsychotics produced significantly better rates of response and symptomatic remission than placebo, with NNTs of about 5 up to six weeks, and 4 at 6–12 weeks, but more adverse event withdrawals (NNH of about 22) in studies of 6–12 weeks. In comparisons with established treatments, atypical antipsychotics had similar efficacy, but significantly fewer adverse event withdrawals (NNT to prevent one withdrawal about 10). In maintenance trials atypical antipsychotics had significantly fewer relapses to depression or mania than placebo or active comparator. In placebo-controlled trials, atypical antipsychotics were associated with higher rates of weight gain of ≥7% (mainly olanzapine trials), somnolence, and extrapyramidal symptoms. In active controlled trials, atypical antipsychotics were associated with lower rates of extrapyramidal symptoms, but higher rates of weight gain and somnolence.

Conclusion

Atypical antipsychotics are effective in treating both phases of bipolar disorder compared with placebo, and as effective as established drug therapies. Atypical antipsychotics produce fewer extrapyramidal symptoms, but weight gain is more common (with olanzapine). There is insufficient data confidently to distinguish between different atypical antipsychotics.     

Response to placebo among bipolar I disorder patients experiencing their first manic episode

Background: The first episode of an illness may respond differently to any treatment compared to multiple episodes of the same illness. This study details the treatment response of six first-episode manic patients who participated in a previously reported study of 139 subjects comparing olanzapine to placebo in bipolar I mania (Tohen M, Sanger TM, McElroy SL, Tollefson GD, Chengappa KNR, Daniel DG. Olanzapine versus placebo in the treatment of acute mania. Am J Psychiatry 1999; 156: 702–709).

Methods: Six first-episode subjects participated in a 3-week double-blind, random assignment, parallel group, placebo-controlled study of olanzapine for bipolar mania. The Young Mania Rating Scale (Y-MRS), Clinical Global Impression, and Hamilton Depression ratings were administered weekly. Lorazepam as rescue medication was permitted for the first 10 days.

Results: Five subjects were randomized to placebo and one to olanzapine. Two subjects (40%) with psychotic mania (who also had their first-illness episode) were assigned to placebo and responded with greater than 50% reduction in the Y-MRS score and also remitted in 3 weeks. Another placebo-assigned subject had a 46% reduction in the Y-MRS scores, and two placebo-assigned subjects worsened. The olanzapine-assigned subject had a 44% reduction in the Y-MRS score. In contrast, 34 of 69 (48.6%) multiple-episode olanzapine subjects responded and 14 of 61 (23.0%) of placebo-treated subjects did.

Conclusions: This preliminary data set suggest there may be differences in treatment response between first-illness episode versus multi-episode bipolar manic subjects. Larger numbers of subjects with these illness characteristics are needed to either confirm or refute this suggestion.     

Efficacy of olanzapine and olanzapine-fluoxetine combination in the treatment of bipolar I depression

BACKGROUND: Despite the longer duration of the depressive phase in bipolar disorder and the frequent clinical use of antidepressants combined with antipsychotics or mood stabilizers, relatively few controlled studies have examined treatment strategies for bipolar depression. OBJECTIVE: To examine the use of olanzapine and olanzapine-fluoxetine combination in the treatment of bipolar I depression. DESIGN: Double-blind, 8-week, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Eighty-four sites (inpatient and outpatient) in 13 countries.Patients A total of 833 randomized adults with bipolar I depression with a Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score of at least 20.Intervention Patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo (n = 377); olanzapine, 5 to 20 mg/d (n = 370); or olanzapine-fluoxetine combination, 6 and 25, 6 and 50, or 12 and 50 mg/d (n = 86). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Changes in MADRS total scores using mixed-effects model repeated-measures analyses. RESULTS: During all 8 study weeks, the olanzapine and olanzapine-fluoxetine groups showed statistically significant improvement in depressive symptoms vs the placebo group (P<.001 for all). The olanzapine-fluoxetine group also showed statistically greater improvement than the olanzapine group at weeks 4 through 8. At week 8, MADRS total scores were lower than at baseline by 11.9, 15.0, and 18.5 points in the placebo, olanzapine, and olanzapine-fluoxetine groups, respectively. Remission criteria were met by 24.5% (87/355) of the placebo group, 32.8% (115/351) of the olanzapine group, and 48.8% (40/82) of the olanzapine-fluoxetine group. Treatment-emergent mania (Young Mania Rating Scale score <15 at baseline and > or =15 subsequently) did not differ among groups (placebo, 6.7% [23/345]; olanzapine, 5.7% [19/335]; and olanzapine-fluoxetine, 6.4% [5/78]). Adverse events for olanzapine-fluoxetine therapy were similar to those for olanzapine therapy but also included higher rates of nausea and diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS: Olanzapine is more effective than placebo, and combined olanzapine-fluoxetine is more effective than olanzapine and placebo in the treatment of bipolar I depression without increased risk of developing manic symptoms.     

Placebo effect in randomized, controlled studies of acute bipolar mania and depression.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group clinical trials have been the standard methodology for establishing the efficacy of new treatments for patients with bipolar disorder in manic, mixed, or depressive episodes. We examine the placebo response rate in acute treatment trials of acute mania (and mixed states) and bipolar depression. Also addressed are potential variables associated with placebo response, strategies to minimize placebo response, the optimum duration of placebo-controlled acute treatment trials, possible alternatives to the use of placebo, and the ramifications of these issues with regard to the design of studies in children, adolescents, and older adults with bipolar disorder.     

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

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

A review of aripiprazole in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia or bipolar I disorder

Aripiprazole has been approved by regulatory agencies for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar I disorder. Although it is a dopamine partial agonist, it also has substantial binding affinity for the serotonin 5HT2A receptor. Several double-blind randomized clinical trials have established the efficacy and tolerability of aripiprazole within the dose range of 10–30 mg/day for schizophrenia, and 15–30 mg/day for manic or mixed states associated with bipolar I disorder. Relatively few comparative trials with other second-generation antipsychotics have been published for schizophrenia, with none available for bipolar disorder. The evidence so far suggests that in terms of efficacy for schizophrenia, aripiprazole is superior to placebo and haloperidol (long term), similar to perphenazine and risperidone, and inferior to olanzapine. Its tolerability profile in patients with schizophrenia appears superior to haloperidol, perphenazine, risperidone, and olanzapine. Efficacy in treating manic or mixed states was established in placebo-controlled trials. Among some patients with bipolar disorder, akathisia and gastrointestinal (GI) complaints can emerge at the start of treatment; however, the GI symptoms were time-limited in many instances. Appropriate dosing may also be important in individualizing therapy to improve tolerability, with lower starting doses becoming more important when adding to, or switching from, another antipsychotic. Aripiprazole appears to have a low propensity for weight gain, a favorable metabolic profile, and no association with hyperprolactinemia.     

Aripiprazole: a new atypical antipsychotic drug

Aripiprazole is an atypical antipsychotic agent with an intrinsic dopamineagonist activity of 30 %. Aripiprazole exerts additional partial agonist action on 5-HT (1A) receptors and has antagonist properties at 5-HT (2A) receptors. Controlled studies demonstrated an effectiveness in acute relapse of schizophrenic psychosis, chronical schizophrenic and schizoaffective disorders. Aripiprazole was effective in the treatment of productive psychotic and negative symptoms. Compared to other antipsychotics aripiprazole demonstrated a favourable profile of side effects: only slight changes of body weight, mild extrapyramidal symptoms, no prolactin elevation and no significant changes in QTc interval. The efficacy in the long term treatment of schizophrenia seems to be similar to other antipsychotics (e. g. olanzapine). The first evaluations of studies with patients with bipolar disorders showed a significant efficacy in the treatment of mania.