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.     

An analysis of safety and tolerability data from controlled, comparative studies of quetiapine in patients with schizophrenia, focusing on extrapyramidal symptoms

AIM: This analysis evaluated the tolerability profile of quetiapine using data from all comparative controlled studies in patients with schizophrenia or related disorders in the AstraZeneca clinical trials database, focusing on extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS). METHODS: Adverse event (AE) data from randomised, double-blind, controlled studies in the AstraZeneca clinical trials database were pooled, allowing comparison of quetiapine (mean daily doses 357-496 mg/day) with placebo, haloperidol (10.4 mg/day), risperidone (5.5 mg/day) or chlorpromazine (552 mg/day). Incidence of EPS-related AEs in relation to quetiapine dose was also analysed using a subset of data from fixed-dose studies. RESULTS: Data from 4956 patients were analysed. Quetiapine was well tolerated, and did not increase EPS-related AEs when compared with placebo (9.6 vs. 10.6%, respectively). The incidence of EPS-related AEs with quetiapine was consistent across the dose range (4.2-13.2% vs. 11.1% with placebo). Patients receiving haloperidol, risperidone and chlorpromazine experienced significantly higher levels of EPS-related AEs than those on quetiapine. The most common quetiapine- associated AEs, with significantly higher incidence than placebo, were sedation, somnolence and orthostatic hypotension. CONCLUSION: Quetiapine is generally well tolerated in patients with schizophrenia or related disorders, with placebo-level EPS-related AEs. Quetiapine has a more favourable EPS profile than haloperidol, chlorpromazine or risperidone.     

Quetiapine or haloperidol as monotherapy for bipolar mania--a 12-week, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial.

METHODS: Patients (n=302) with bipolar I disorder (manic episode) were randomised to 12 weeks' double-blind treatment with quetiapine (flexibly dosed up to 800 mg/day), placebo, or haloperidol (up to 8 mg/day). The primary efficacy outcome variable was change from baseline to Day 21 in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score. RESULTS: YMRS score improved with quetiapine at Day 21 (-12.29 versus -8.32 for placebo; P<0.01). The difference in favor of quetiapine increased by Day 84 (-17.52 versus -9.48; P<0.001). Haloperidol also showed an advantage over placebo at Days 21 and 84 (P<0.001). There was no significant difference in efficacy measures between quetiapine and haloperidol groups at any assessment except Day 21. The only common adverse event with quetiapine was somnolence (12.7%). Extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), including akathisia, occurred at 59.6% with haloperidol, 12.7% with quetiapine, 15.8% with placebo. Most quetiapine responders (84%) received a dose of 400-800 mg/day. CONCLUSIONS: Quetiapine was effective and well tolerated. The efficacy and tolerability profile of haloperidol (including its propensity for EPS) supported study validity.     

Olanzapine versus risperidone. A prospective comparison of clinical and economic outcomes in schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical and economic outcomes associated with olanzapine and risperidone treatment for schizophrenia. DESIGN AND SETTING: An international, multicentre, double-blind, prospective study. To facilitate economic comparisons, our sample was restricted to patients enrolled in US sites. 150 patients with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV) diagnosis of schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or schizophreniform disorder were randomised to therapy with either olanzapine 10 to 20 mg/day (n = 75) or risperidone 4 to 12 mg/day (n = 75) for a maximum of 28 weeks. In addition to tolerability and efficacy assessments, use of health services was assessed at baseline and prospectively, at 8-week intervals and at study completion. Clinically important response, defined as a 40% improvement in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score, maintenance of response and rates of treatment-emergent extrapyramidal symptoms were compared between groups. Direct medical costs were estimated by assigning standardised prices to resource units. Median total, inpatient/outpatient service and medication acquisition costs were compared between treatment groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: The mean modal dosages for the olanzapine and risperidone treatment groups were 17.7 +/- 3.4 mg/day and 7.9 +/- 3.2 mg/day, respectively. Olanzapine-treated patients were more likely to maintain response compared with risperidone-treated patients (p = 0.048). In addition, a smaller proportion of olanzapine-treated patients required anticholinergic therapy compared with risperidone-treated patients (25.3 vs 45.3%; p = 0.016). Total per patient medical costs over the study interval were $US2843 (1997 values) [36%] lower in the olanzapine treatment group than in the risperidone treatment group (p = 0.342). Medication costs were significantly higher for olanzapine-treated patients ($US2513 vs $US1581; p < 0.001), but this difference was offset by a reduction of $US3774 (52%) in inpatient/outpatient service costs for olanzapine-treated patients in comparison with risperidone-treated patients ($US3516 vs $US7291, p = 0.083). Median cost findings were consistent with results observed using other robust measures of central tendency and provide conservative estimates of potential savings that may be obtained from olanzapine therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, olanzapine-treated patients experienced clinical improvements that translated into savings in costs of care for both inpatient and outpatient services. These savings offset the difference in medication acquisition cost between olanzapine and risperidone.     

Efficacy and tolerability of extended release quetiapine fumarate monotherapy in the acute treatment of generalized anxiety disorder: a randomized, placebo controlled and active-controlled study

The main objective of this study was to evaluate efficacy and tolerability of once-daily extended release quetiapine fumarate (quetiapine XR) monotherapy in generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). This was a 8 week randomized, 2-week follow-up, double-blind, placebo-controlled, and active-controlled study. Patients were randomized to quetiapine XR 150 (n=219) or 300 mg/day (n=207); escitalopram, 10 mg/day (n=213); or placebo (n=215). The primary endpoint was the change from randomization at week 8 in Hamilton Anxiety Rating (HAM-A) total score. Week 8 mean HAM-A total score was significantly reduced from randomization with quetiapine XR 150 mg/day (-13.9, P<0.001), 300 mg/day (-12.3, P<0.05) and escitalopram (-12.3, P<0.05) versus placebo (-10.7); significant improvements with quetiapine XR (150 and 300 mg/day) versus placebo (P<0.001) were also shown at day 4. At week 8, significant improvements versus placebo were observed in HAM-A psychic [quetiapine XR (both doses) and escitalopram] and somatic (quetiapine XR 150 mg/day and escitalopram) cluster scores and HAM-A response and remission rates (quetiapine XR 150 mg/day). Most common adverse events were dry mouth, somnolence and sedation (quetiapine XR), headache, and nausea (escitalopram). In patients with GAD, quetiapine XR (150 and 300 mg/day) demonstrated significant efficacy at week 8 with symptom improvement as early as day 4. We concluded that quetiapine XR safety and tolerability results were consistent with the known profile of quetiapine.     

Quetiapine. A review of its use in the management of schizophrenia

Quetiapine (Seroquel), a dibenzothiazepine derivative, is an atypical antipsychotic with demonstrated efficacy in acute schizophrenia. In short-term, randomised, double-blind trials, it was usually more effective than placebo, and was generally effective against both positive and negative symptoms. Overall, quetiapine (up to 750 mg/day) was at least as effective as chlorpromazine (up to 750 mg/day) and had similar efficacy to haloperidol (up to 16 mg/day) in patients with acute schizophrenia in randomised, double-blind trials; it was at least as effective as haloperidol 20 mg/day in patients with schizophrenia unresponsive or partially responsive to previous antipsychotic treatment. Improvements in overall psychopathology and positive and negative symptoms with quetiapine (up to 800 mg/day) were similar to those with risperidone (up to 8 mg/day) or olanzapine (15 mg/day) [interim analysis]. Efficacy was maintained for at least 52 weeks in open-label follow-up studies in adult and elderly patients. Quetiapine improved cognitive function versus haloperidol, and depressive symptoms and hostility/aggression versus placebo. Quetiapine is well tolerated. It is associated with placebo-level incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) across its entire dose range, appears to have a low risk for EPS in vulnerable patient groups (e.g. the elderly, adolescents or patients with organic brain disorders) and has a more favourable EPS profile than risperidone. Irrespective of dose, quetiapine, unlike risperidone and amisulpride, does not elevate plasma prolactin levels compared with placebo, and previously elevated levels may even normalise. Quetiapine appears to have minimal short-term effects on bodyweight and a favourable long-term bodyweight profile. Preliminary studies indicate that there is a high level of patient acceptability and satisfaction with quetiapine. In conclusion, quetiapine has shown efficacy against both positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia, and has benefits in improving cognitive deficits, affective symptoms and aggression/hostility. The beneficial effects of quetiapine have been maintained for at least 52 weeks. Quetiapine was effective and well tolerated in hard-to-treat patients, and may be of particular use in these individuals. It is at least as effective as standard antipsychotics and appears to have similar efficacy to risperidone and olanzapine. The relative risk/benefit profile of quetiapine compared with other atypical antipsychotics requires further research in head-to-head trials, although quetiapine's relatively benign tolerability profile distinguishes it from other commonly used atypical agents, particularly with respect to bodyweight, EPS and plasma prolactin levels. Overall, quetiapine has an excellent risk/benefit profile and is a suitable first-line option for the treatment of schizophrenia.     

A comparison of the effects of quetiapine ('seroquel') and haloperidol in schizophrenic patients with a history of and a demonstrated, partial response to conventional antipsychotic treatment. PRIZE Study Group

Quetiapine ('Seroquel') is a well-tolerated, novel, atypical antipsychotic with consistent efficacy in the treatment of schizophrenia. To date, no clinical studies have evaluated the effect of quetiapine in patients who only partially respond to conventional antipsychotics, yet this type of patient is most frequently seen by psychiatrists. Therefore, this international, multicentre, double-blind study was conducted to compare the efficacy and tolerability of 8 weeks' treatment of quetiapine 600 mg/day with haloperidol 20 mg/day in 288 patients who had a history of partial response to conventional antipsychotics and displayed a partial or no response to 1 month of fluphenazine (20 mg/day) treatment. Patients on quetiapine tended to have greater improvement than those on haloperidol in the primary efficacy measure, mean Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS) score, after 4 weeks' treatment (-9.05, -5.82, respectively, P = 0.061) and at study end (-11.50, -8.87, respectively, P = 0.234). Similarly, there was a trend towards patients on quetiapine demonstrating greater improvements in the secondary efficacy measures (Clinical Global Impression, PANSS subscale and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale scores) [week 4 (baseline) to week 12 (end)], but the difference between treatments did not reach significance. Significantly more patients on quetiapine than on haloperidol showed a clinical response-patient response rates, defined as > 20% reduction in PANSS total score between weeks 4 and 12, were 52.2% for quetiapine and 38.0% for haloperidol (P = 0.043). Patients receiving quetiapine required less anticholinergic medication (P < 0.011), had greater reduction in extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) (P = 0.005) and fewer treatment-emergent EPS-related adverse events compared to those on haloperidol (P < 0.001). Serum prolactin concentrations were elevated at the end of fluphenazine treatment in 73% of patients. Between weeks 4 and 12, elevated serum prolactin concentrations significantly decreased in quetiapine-treated patients compared to those receiving haloperidol (P < 0.001). At the end of quetiapine treatment, 83% of patients had normal prolactin levels while only 21% of patients receiving haloperidol were within the normal range. These results suggest that quetiapine may make a valuable contribution to the management of patients with a history of partial response to conventional antipsychotics.     

Efficacy of quetiapine for the treatment of schizophrenia: a combined analysis of three placebo-controlled trials

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of quetiapine (Seroquel) against specific aspects of schizophrenic symptomatology. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Combined data from three placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomised trials that had previously demonstrated quetiapine's overall clinical effectiveness and tolerability were analysed. Efficacy assessments evaluated were the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) Severity of Illness score, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) factors I-V, BPRS positive symptom cluster score and 18 individual BPRS items. The Simpson-Angus Scale (SAS), the Abnormal Involuntary Movements Scale (AIMS), changes in weight and prolactin concentrations and the recording of adverse events comprised the main tolerability measures. RESULTS: Efficacy assessments were available for a total of 426 quetiapine patients (mean age 36.9 years) with a DSM-IIIR diagnosis of schizophrenia; 502 patients were included in the tolerability analyses. The mean quetiapine dose was 300.5 mg/day with a mean maximum dose of 686.0 mg/day. Quetiapine was efficacious across a broad range of symptoms, including depression, anxiety and hostility. Significant improvements compared with placebo were noted for CGI Severity of Illness (p < 0.001) and in 14 of the 18 individual BPRS items (p < 0.001). Positive symptoms also improved (p < 0.01 at Week 2 and p < 0.001 from Week 3); greater improvements were observed in patients who received at least 400 mg/day quetiapine. Quetiapine was generally well tolerated: 4.0% of patients withdrew from treatment due to adverse events compared with 3.0% of placebo patients. Akathisia occurred in 2.0% and 2.5% of quetiapine and placebo patients, respectively. Similar decreases in prolactin levels for quetiapine (-10.0 microg/L) and placebo (-10.9 microg/L) were noted from baseline to end of treatment. Agitation and headache, the most common adverse events, were comparable in the quetiapine and placebo groups (agitation: 19.3% vs. 20.3%, respectively; headache: 19.1% vs. 17.3%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this combined analysis confirm the individual findings of the three pivotal studies to demonstrate that quetiapine is effective across several domains of schizophrenia, improving positive, negative and depressive symptoms and reducing agitation, aggression and hostility. Similarly, the analysis reiterated the good tolerability profile of quetiapine, particularly in terms of its placebo-like effects on prolactin levels and incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS).     

Effect on lipid profiles of switching from olanzapine to another secondgeneration antipsychotic agent in veterans with schizophrenia

ObjectiveTo compare (1) mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and triglyceride differences after switching from olanzapine to quetiapine, risperidone, or ziprasidone and (2) the mean lipid change between switch patterns.DesignRetrospective, naturalistic, nonequivalent control group design.SettingUnited States between April 1, 2002, and September 30, 2002.Patients1,826 U.S. Veterans Healthcare System enrollees with diagnoses of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorders and receiving a second-generation antipsychotic (SGA) medication.InterventionsAnalysis of data from the Veterans Information Systems and Technology Architecture.Main outcome measuresDifferences in LDL-C, HDL-C, and triglycerides and mean differences between switch patterns. Predictors were the type of switch (e.g., olanzapine to quetiapine) and switch patterns (e.g., olanzapine to quetiapine versus olanzapine to risperidone). Data were analyzed using Pearson’s χ2 and multivariate analysis of covariance with planned comparisons.ResultsAfter adjusting for age, gender, and race/ethnicity, LDL-C decreased significantly among patients switched from olanzapine to ziprasidone (–16.9 mg/dL, P <0.01) and olanzapine to quetiapine (–7.6 mg/dL, P = 0.04) and trended upward in patients switched from olanzapine to risperidone (+6.6 mg/dL, P = 0.12). Triglyceride levels decreased among those switched from olanzapine to ziprasidone (–62.9 mg/dL, P <0.01) and olanzapine to risperidone (–48.5 mg/dL, P <0.01) but not among veterans switched from olanzapine to quetiapine (+7.8 mg/dL, P = 0.54). HDL-C levels did not change significantly when veterans were switched from olanzapine to quetiapine, risperidone, or ziprasidone.ConclusionSwitching SGAs can increase or decrease cardiovascular risk depending on the clinician’s follow-on SGA choice. LDL-C and triglyceride levels decreased significantly among veterans switched from olanzapine to ziprasidone. Switching to quetiapine was associated with a reduction in LDL-C, while switching to risperidone resulted in lower triglyceride levels. Clinicians should use these results when building a patient care plan that includes switching of SGAs.     

Pharmacy cost evaluation of risperidone, olanzapine, and quetiapine for the treatment of schizophrenia in acute care inpatient settings

OBJECTIVE: This study examines total pharmacy cost and usage patterns of schizophrenic patients in acute mental health inpatient settings for three atypical antipsychotics -- risperidone, olanzapine, and quetiapine. Despite the readily available unit cost information for drugs, actual pharmacy costs may deviate significantly from 'labeled costs'. Recent research findings indicate the need for more robust evaluation of such pharmacy costs. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This study used data from non-randomized inpatient retrospective charts from three acute care inpatient mental health facilities. The final pooled sample included 327 patients, of which 120 received risperidone, 153 received olanzapine, and 54 received quetiapine. Medication cost was defined as the average wholesale price (AWP) as listed in the 2001 'Red Book'. Propensity scoring methodology and multinomial regression were employed to reduce treatment selection bias. RESULTS: The observed mean daily antipsychotic drug doses were 4.45 mg (SD 2.44) for risperidone, 14.04 mg (SD 5.55) for olanzapine, and 350.33 mg (SD 228.24) for quetiapine. The corresponding mean daily drug costs were $7.66(SD $4.20) for risperidone, $8.11 (SD $5.29) for quetiapine and, $12.10 (SD $4.79) for olanzepine. Numbers adjusted for treatment selection bias show that the average daily total pharmacy cost of risperidone was $4.35 lower than olanzapine (p < 0.001) and $1.41 lower than quetiapine (p = 0.38). The adjusted average daily pharmacy cost of olanzapine was $4.02 higher than quetiapine (p < 0.001). After statistical adjustment there were no significant differences between study drugs in terms of length of stay or patient functioning. CONCLUSION: This study provides the first US comparison of medication utilization patterns and pharmacy costs for olanzapine, risperidone, and quetiapine administered in acute mental health care inpatient settings. While this study did not estimate the full economic value of the three antipsychotics in these inpatient settings, it demonstrated that the mean daily costs for risperidone were lower than the mean daily costs for olanzapine (p < 0.001) and quetiapine although the later difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.38).     

Acute and continuation risperidone monotherapy in bipolar mania: a 3-week placebo-controlled trial followed by a 9-week double-blind trial of risperidone and haloperidol.

In a randomized, double-blind trial, patients with acute bipolar mania received 1-6 mg/day of risperidone, 2-12 mg/day of haloperidol, or placebo for 3 weeks, followed by double-blind risperidone or haloperidol for 9 weeks. Of 438 patients, 154 were randomized to risperidone, 144 to haloperidol, and 140 to placebo. The mean+/-S.D. modal doses were 4.2+/-1.7 mg/day of risperidone and 8.0+/-3.6 mg/day of haloperidol during the initial 3-week phase and 4.1+/-1.8 and 7.4+/-3.7 mg/day during the 12-week period. At week 3, mean Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score reductions from baseline were significantly greater in patients receiving risperidone than placebo (p<0.001). Differences between risperidone and haloperidol on this efficacy measure were not significant. Further reductions in YMRS scores were seen in patients receiving risperidone or haloperidol during the subsequent 9 weeks. No unexpected adverse events were reported. Extrapyramidal disorder and hyperkinesias, the most commonly reported adverse events with antipsychotic use, occurred less frequently with risperidone than haloperidol. We conclude that risperidone monotherapy was an effective and well-tolerated treatment for bipolar mania and that efficacy was maintained over the long term.     

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.     

A comparison of extrapyramidal symptoms in older outpatients treated with quetiapine or risperidone

OBJECTIVE: To compare the tolerability of quetiapine with risperidone in older outpatients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Post hoc analysis of a subset of older patients (aged 60-80; n = 92) from a randomized, 4-month, multicenter, open-label trial comparing quetiapine and risperidone in an outpatient setting. Participants had various neuropsychiatric disorders associated with psychosis as defined by criteria from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edn). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measure was an extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) checklist, used to assess motor symptoms, including parkinsonism, at baseline and after treatment. The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and the Clinical Global Impression scale were used to assess therapeutic efficacy. RESULTS: Substantial EPS (defined as EPS requiring a dosage adjustment or use of medication to reduce EPS) occurred less often with quetiapine (median dosage, 200 mg/day) than with risperidone (median dosage, 3 mg/day); odds ratio, 0.31 (P < 0.03). Quetiapine was also less likely than risperidone to cause akathisia or hypertonia. Both compounds produced comparable reductions in PANSS scores. CONCLUSIONS: Interpretation of findings in this report is limited by the open-label design of the study and the post hoc nature of this analysis. However, the results suggest that quetiapine, when given within the recommended dosage range, has a benign EPS profile, with potentially greater tolerability and comparable efficacy to risperidone in older outpatients with psychotic disorders.     

Amisulpride improves depressive symptoms in acute exacerbations of schizophrenia: comparison with haloperidol and risperidone.

The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) anxiety/depression subscore has been used to assess affective symptoms in three studies (n = 612) comparing amisulpride (400-800 mg/day, n = 339) with haloperidol (15-20 mg/day, n = 160) and risperidone (8 mg/day, n = 113) in the treatment of acute exacerbations of schizophrenia. At endpoint, the mean improvement in the anxiety/depression subscore showed a significant (P = 0.011) difference in favour of amisulpride (5.6+/-6.1) compared with haloperidol (4.4+/-5.5) and risperidone (3.7+/-4.7). Amisulpride provided a significantly greater improvement compared both to haloperidol and risperidone in more severely depressed patients (BPRS anxiety/depression subscore > or = 16 at baseline, P = 0.001). This significant advantage in favour of amisulpride is seen from the 2nd week of treatment.     

Effect of prenatal administration of haloperidol,risperidone, quetiapine and olanzapine on spatial learning and retention in adult rats

The typical antipsychotic haloperidol and atypical antipsychotics olanzapine, quetiapine and risperidone were administered to pregnant Sprague-Dawley dams in the drinking water from Days 8 to 18 of gestation. When the offspring reached adulthood (2 months), spatial learning and short-term retention were examined using the radial arm maze. Results showed that prenatal administration of haloperidol, risperidone and quetiapine impaired learning but only haloperidol and risperidone disrupted short-term retention.     

Short-term treatment with risperidone or haloperidol in first-episode schizophrenia: 8-week results of a randomized controlled trial within the German Research Network on Schizophrenia

Patients with first-episode schizophrenia appear to respond to lower doses of neuroleptics, and to be more sensitive to developing extrapyramidal side-effects. The authors therefore compared in such patients the efficacy and extrapyramidal tolerability of comparatively low dosages of the atypical neuroleptic risperidone and of the conventional neuroleptic haloperidol. Risperidone was hypothesized to have better extrapyramidal tolerability and efficacy in treating negative symptoms. Patients were randomly assigned under double-blind conditions to receive risperidone (n=143) or haloperidol (n=146) for 8 wk. The primary efficacy criterion was the estimated difference in the mean change in the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS) negative score between treatment groups; secondary efficacy criteria were changes on the PANSS total score and other PANSS subscores, and several other measures of psychopathology and general functioning. The primary tolerability criterion was the difference in baseline-adjusted occurrence rates of extrapyramidal side-effects measured with the Simpson-Angus Scale (SAS) compared between treatment groups. The main hypothesis was that risperidone would be superior in terms of improving negative symptoms and lowering the risk of extrapyramidal symptoms. Secondary tolerability criteria were the other extrapyramidal symptoms, measured with the Hillside Akathisia Scale (HAS) and the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS). The average mean daily doses were 3.8 mg (s.d.=1.5) for risperidone and 3.7 mg (s.d.=1.5) for haloperidol. There were similar, significant improvements in both treatment groups in the primary and secondary efficacy criteria. At week 8 nearly all scores of extrapyramidal side-effects indicated a significantly higher prevalence of extrapyramidal side-effects with haloperidol than with risperidone [SAS: risperidone 36.5% of patients; haloperidol 51.5% of patients; likelihood ratio test, chi2(1)=7.8, p=0.005]. There were significantly fewer drop-outs [risperidone n=55, drop-out rate=38.5%; haloperidol n=79, drop-out rate=54.1%, chi2(1)=7.1, p=0.009] and a longer non-discontinuation time [risperidone: average of 50.8 d to drop-out; haloperidol: average of 44.0 d to drop-out; log rank test, chi2(1)=6.4, p=0.011] in the risperidone group. Risperidone and haloperidol appear to be equally effective in treating negative and other symptoms of first-episode schizophrenia. Risperidone has better extrapyramidal tolerability and treatment retention rate than the equivalent dose of haloperidol in these patients.     

Effect of adjunctive lamotrigine treatment on the plasma concentrations of clozapine, risperidone and olanzapine in patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder

The effect of lamotrigine on the steady-state plasma concentrations of the atypical antipsychotics clozapine, olanzapine, and risperidone was investigated in patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder stabilized on chronic treatment with clozapine (200-500 mg/day; n = 11), risperidone (3-6 mg/day; n = 10) or olanzapine (10-20 mg/day; n = 14)). Lamotrigine was titrated up to a final dosage of 200 mg/day over 8 weeks, and pharmacokinetic assessments were made at baseline and during treatment weeks 6 and 10, at lamotrigine dosages of 100 and 200 mg/day respectively. The plasma concentrations of clozapine, norclozapine, risperidone, and 9-hydroxy-risperidone did not change significantly during treatment with lamotrigine. The mean plasma concentrations of olanzapine were 31 +/- 7 ng/mL at baseline, 32 +/- 7 ng/mL at week 6, and 36 +/- 9 ng/mL at week 10, the difference between week 10 and baseline being statistically significant (P < 0.05). Adjunctive lamotrigine therapy was well tolerated in all groups. These findings indicate that lamotrigine, at the dosages recommended for use as a mood stabilizer, does not affect the plasma levels of clozapine, risperidone, and their active metabolites. The modest elevation in plasma olanzapine concentration, possibly due to inhibition of UGT1A4-mediated olanzapine glucuronidation, is unlikely to be of clinical significance.     

Quetiapine versus olanzapine for the treatment of negative symptoms in patients with schizophrenia

Negative symptoms are considered the most debilitating and refractory aspect of schizophrenia, being associated with poor social, occupational and global outcomes. Conventional antipsychotics have limited efficacy against these symptoms and poor tolerability profiles. Atypical antipsychotics are an alternative treatment, and this 12-week, randomised, flexibly dosed study compared the efficacy, safety and tolerability of quetiapine and olanzapine in this regard. Of the 40 patients who entered the study (32 male; 8 female), 19 were randomised to quetiapine (mean dose 637 mg/day, mean treatment duration 80 days) and 21 to olanzapine (mean dose 16 mg/day, mean treatment duration 78 days). Quetiapine and olanzapine were similarly effective: in each treatment group significant improvements at Week 12 were observed for negative symptom scores on the SANS and the PANSS, and for subscale scores of affective flattening and alogia on the SANS. Both treatments were well tolerated in this patient population, with no worsening of extrapyramidal symptoms in either case. Anxiety and insomnia were the most common adverse events (> or =7% of patients in each group), but were not drug-related. Although this is a small study with limited power, the results support the effectiveness of quetiapine and olanzapine in treating the negative symptoms of schizophrenia.