Levetiracetam in social phobia: a placebo controlled pilot study

While serotonergic antidepressants are now established as first-line pharamcotherapy for generalized social anxiety disorder (SAD), other agents with different mechanisms have shown promise in treating SAD. The aim of this pilot study is to examine the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam (LEV), an anticonvulsant with calcium channel modulating properties, in treating SAD. Adult outpatients meeting DSM-IV criteria for SAD were randomly assigned (2:1) to double-blind treatment with either LEV (500-3000 mg/day) or placebo (PBO) for 7 weeks. The primary outcome measures were the change from baseline in the Brief Social Phobia Scale (BSPS) and response using the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement scale (CGI-I). The mean (SD) BSPS scores at baseline and endpoint were 45.4 (9.7) and 31.2 (19.7) for LEV (n=9), compared to 43.5 (8.4) and 37.8 (19.9) for PBO (n =7) (ITT; ns). Rates of response were 22% for LEV and 14% for PBO using the CGI-I. Using a BSPS response criterion (>30% reduction), response rates were 44% for LEV and 14% for PBO. The effect sizes of LEV relative to PBO were 0.33 for the BSPS and 0.50 for the LSAS. In summary, the results of this study, while negative on the pre-defined measures, suggest promise for LEV as a new treatment of SAD. Further work should be carried out with larger sample sizes and optimal dosing strategies of the drug.     

Prevention of relapse in generalized social phobia: results of a 24-week study in responders to 20 weeks of sertraline treatment

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, tolerability, and effects on quality of life of sertraline, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, in the prevention of relapse of generalized social phobia. Fifty adult outpatients with generalized social phobia who were rated much or very much improved on the Clinical Global Impression Scale of Improvement (CGI-I) after 20 weeks of sertraline treatment (50-200 mg/day) were randomly assigned in a one-to-one ratio to either continue double-blind treatment with sertraline or immediately switch to placebo for another 24 weeks. The initial 20-week study was placebo-controlled, and 15 responders to placebo also continued to receive double-blind placebo treatment in the continuation study. Eighty-eight percent of patients in the sertraline-continuation group and only 40% of patients in the placebo-switch and placebo-responder groups completed the study. In intent-to-treat endpoint analyses, 1 (4%) of 25 patients in the sertraline-continuation group and 9 (36%) of 25 patients in the placebo-switch group had relapsed at study endpoint (chi2 = 8.0, Fisher exact test, p = 0.01). The relative risk (hazards ratio) for relapse associated with placebo-switch relative to sertraline-continuation treatment was 10.2 (95% confidence interval, 1.3-80.7). Mean CGI-Severity, Marks Fear Questionnaire (MFQ) Social Phobia subscale, and Duke Brief Social Phobia Scale (BSPS) total scores were reduced by 0.07, 0.34, and 1.86 in the Sertraline-Continuation group and increased by 0.88, 4.09, and 5.99 in the Placebo-Switch group (all F > 5.3, p < 0.03), respectively. CGI-Severity, MFQ Social Phobia subscale, and BSPS scores also increased in the Placebo-Responder group. Discontinuations because of lack of efficacy were 4% in the sertraline-continuation group, 28% in the placebo-switch group (chi2 = 5.36, Fisher exact test, p = 0.049), relative to sertraline, and 27% in the placebo-responder group. Sertraline was effective in preventing relapse of generalized social phobia. Future research should assess whether improvements may be maintained or further increased by longer periods of treatment or through the addition of cognitive-behavioral techniques.     

Efficacy of pregabalin in generalized social anxiety disorder: results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, fixed-dose study

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of pregabalin for the treatment of generalized social anxiety disorder (SAD). Patients with generalized SAD, who met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (fourth edition) criteria (total N=329), were randomly assigned to 11 weeks of double-blind treatment with fixed daily doses of either pregabalin (300, 450, and 600(mg) or placebo. The treatment with pregabalin (600(mg) was associated with a significantly greater mean reduction in the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale total score, from baseline to endpoint, compared with placebo (-29.8 vs. -19.7; P= 0.0099), whereas reduction on pregabalin (300(mg, -20.2) and pregabalin (450(mg, -25.5) was not significant Treatment with pregabalin (600(mg) was also associated with a significantly greater improvement than placebo on the fear and avoidance subscales of the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale, as well as the majority of other secondary measures. Onset of improvement occurred by week 1 in the pregabalin 600-mg dose group. The most common adverse events on all three doses of pregabalin were somnolence and dizziness. Consistent with a previous study, the results of this study suggest that the 600-mg dose of pregabalin per day may be efficacious in the treatment of SAD.     

Tiagabine for social anxiety disorder

Tiagabine, a selective gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) reuptake inhibitor was evaluated for the treatment of patients with social anxiety disorder (SAD). Adults with SAD received open-label tiagabine 4-16 mg per day for 12 weeks. Intent-to-treat data are available for 54 patients with improvement demonstrated in Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale, Clinician Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) and -Improvement (CGI-I), Social Phobia Inventory, and Sheehan Disability Scale scores. In all, 40.7% (22/54) of the intent to treat sample and 63.0% (17/27) of the completer sample were considered CGI responders (CGI-I score of one or two). Tiagabine was generally well tolerated. Results of this pilot study suggest that tiagabine may be an option for the treatment of patients with SAD. Larger, controlled studies are required to fully elucidate the potential of tiagabine for the treatment of SAD.     

Olanzapine plasma concentrations and clinical response: acute phase results of the North American Olanzapine Trial

Olanzapine is an atypical antipsychotic that is effective in the treatment of schizophrenia. Olanzapine plasma concentrations > or = 9.3 ng/mL (24 hours postdose) have been identified as a predictor of clinical response in acutely ill patients with schizophrenia. The authors report a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis of 12-hour olanzapine concentrations and treatment response from the North American Double-Blind Olanzapine Trial. After a 4- to 7-day placebo lead-in, patients meeting DSM-III-R criteria for schizophrenia were randomly assigned to receive olanzapine, haloperidol, or placebo. Patients who were randomly assigned to receive olanzapine were given daily doses ranging from 2.5 to 17.5 mg/day for up to 6 weeks. Blood samples for the determination of olanzapine plasma concentrations were obtained between 10 and 16 hours (11.7 +/- 1.7 hours) after the last dose was administered. Therapeutic response data and olanzapine concentrations used for analysis were obtained from the endpoint visit for each patient if the patient had been receiving a fixed olanzapine dose for at least the last 2 weeks of the study. Plasma concentrations from previous visits were used if endpoint concentrations were invalid. Response was defined as a > or = 20% reduction in Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) scores and a Clinical Global Impression (CGI) Severity scale score of < or = 3 or a final BPRS score of < or = 35. The final ROC analysis included data from 84 patients and suggested an olanzapine concentration > or = 23.2 ng/mL to be a predictor of therapeutic response. Fifty-two percent of patients with 12-hour olanzapine concentrations > or = 23.2 ng/mL responded, whereas only 25% of patients with concentrations < 23.2 ng/mL responded. Furthermore, an olanzapine concentration > or = 23.2 ng/mL was a predictor of response in the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (> or = 20% decrease and endpoint CGI < or = 3). Olanzapine concentrations were found to be a function of olanzapine dose (in milligrams per day) and gender such that prospective olanzapine dosing is feasible. A 12-hour olanzapine plasma concentration of > 23.2 ng/mL was a predictor of therapeutic response in acutely ill patients with schizophrenia. Males required a higher olanzapine dose to reach this threshold concentration than their female counterparts.     

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.     

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.     

Mirtazapine treatment of social phobia in women: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Social phobia is an anxiety disorder characterized by extreme fear and phobic avoidance of social and performance situations and by a relatively poor health-related quality of life. The goal of this study was to compare the efficacy of mirtazapine versus placebo in the treatment of patients with social phobia. In 2004, we conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of mirtazapine in 66 female subjects from the general population meeting the criteria for social phobia. The subjects were randomly assigned in a 1:1 manner to mirtazapine (n = 33) or placebo (n = 33). The treatment lasted 10 weeks. Seven patients dropped out. Primary outcome measures were self-reported changes on the Social Phobia Inventory, Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale, and Health Survey (SF-36). In comparison with the placebo group and according to the intent-to-treat principle, significant differences on the Social Phobia Inventory and Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale scales (all P < 0.001), as well as on most (5 from 8) scales of SF-36 (all P < 0.001), were observed in the mirtazapine-treated subjects. All patients tolerated mirtazapine relatively well. Mirtazapine appears to be an effective agent in the treatment of social phobia in women and in the improvement of their health-related quality of life.     

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.     

A comparison of the effects of olanzapine and risperidone versus placebo on eating behaviors

To thoroughly investigate the phenomenon of atypical antipsychotic associated weight gain, a feeding laboratory paradigm was developed. This study is a randomized, double-blind, parallel group trial comparing the tolerability and effects of a two-week exposure to olanzapine, risperidone or placebo on weight, resting energy expenditure (REE), and eating behaviors in 48 healthy human subjects. Subjects were randomized to receive olanzapine, risperidone, or placebo and titrated over four days to 10 mg/d, or 4 mg/d, respectively. The mean dose at endpoint was 8.75 mg/day for the olanzapine group and 2.88 mg/d risperidone group. Weight changes were significantly different between groups at midpoint (F = 5.477, df = 2, 44, P = .0001). The olanzapine group demonstrated a significant increase in weight at midpoint (1.59 + 1.80 kg, P = .002) and endpoint (2.25 + 1.62 kg, P = .0001) compared to placebo and at endpoint compared to risperidone (1.05 + 1.15 kg, P = .015). Resting energy expenditures corrected for fat free mass did not reveal any differences between groups. Olanzapine subjects demonstrated significantly more dry mouth and sedation versus placebo while risperidone subjects experienced significantly more sedation, dry mouth, dizziness stuffy nose and restlessness than placebo and more dizziness and stuffy nose versus olanzapine subjects. Thus, a human feeding lab paradigm utilizing a brief exposure to atypical antipsychotics functions as a method to investigate pharmacologically induced weight gain.     

The effect of famotidine addition on olanzapine-induced weight gain in first-episode schizophrenia patients: a double-blind placebo-controlled pilot study.

Olanzapine treatment is associated with substantial weight gain. In this double-blind placebo-controlled study we evaluated whether the H2 antagonist famotidine may prevent/attenuate olanzapine-induced weight gain. Fourteen first-episode DSM-IV schizophrenia patients were randomly allocated to receive either famotidine (40 mg/day, n=7) or placebo (n=7) in addition to olanzapine (10 mg/day) for 6 weeks. All patients completed the trial. Patients in both groups showed a similar increase in body weight (olanzapine/famotidine: 4.8 (3.2) kg and olanzapine/placebo: 4.9 (1.6) kg, respectively; a between-group difference of 0.14 (1.3) kg). Four of seven (57.1%) patients in the olanzapine/famotidine group and three of seven (42.9%) in the olanzapine/placebo group gained at least 7% of their initial body weight, a cut-off for clinically significant weight gain. Famotidine addition was safe and well tolerated and did not interfere with olanzapine's therapeutic effect. In conclusion, famotidine (40 mg/day for 6 weeks) is not effective in preventing/attenuating weight gain in olanzapine-treated first-episode schizophrenia patients.     

Olanzapine in the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder: a pilot study.

Because the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine may be efficacious in treating post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, we conducted a 10-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled evaluation in which 15 patients were randomized 2:1 to either olanzapine or placebo. The initial dosage was 5 mg/day and was titrated to a maximum of 20 mg/day. Eleven patients completed the study. Patients in both groups showed improvement in PTSD symptoms, but no between-group differences in treatment response were observed and a high placebo response rate was found. Both treatments were tolerated well, although the olanzapine treatment group had more weight gain. Olanzapine fared no better than placebo in this preliminary study in the treatment of PTSD. The lack of difference between olanzapine and placebo may in part be due to olanzapine's not being effective in PTSD or, alternatively, a small sample size, a high placebo response in certain forms of PTSD and the chronicity of PTSD symptoms in some patients.     

Predictors of response in generalized social phobia: effect of age of onset

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are the gold standard for the pharmacological treatment of generalized social phobia (GSP). However, little is known about the predictors of response to treatment. Two hundred and four outpatients with GSP were randomized to sertraline (Zoloft) or placebo, for a 20-week double-blind study, with a flexible dose range of sertraline 50 to 200 mg/d. Response was defined as the percentage of patients with a Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale (CGI-I) of 1 (very much improved) or 2 (much improved). Outcome analyses were conducted using regression models including treatment group as a categorical predictor and study visit as a repeated measure. Dependent measures included Marks Fear Questionnaire (MFQ), Brief Social Phobia Scale (BSPS), CGI-I, and Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS). We investigated several possible predictors of response to treatment including DSM-IV comorbidity, age, sex, age of onset of GSP, and duration of illness. Patients with later-onset (especially adult-onset) GSP tend to have a better response to treatment than those with earlier-onset GSP. This result generally appears in our analyses as a 2-way interaction, where the association with response is greatest for patients with adult-onset GSP (in contrast to those with child or adolescent onset). This finding is most robust for symptom measures, but is still apparent for the Sheehan measure of disability at work. This advantage for later-onset GSP can be accounted for neither by severity of illness nor by duration of illness. Superior treatment outcome for later-onset GSP may be mediated by the degree of social and family disability.     

Efficacy of pregabalin in preventing relapse in patients with generalized social anxiety disorder: results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled 26-week study

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pregabalin in preventing relapse in generalized social anxiety disorder (SAD). Patients with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) generalized SAD, who met responder criteria after 10 weeks of open-label treatment with fixed-dose pregabalin (450 mg/day; n=153), were randomly assigned to 26 weeks of double-blind treatment with pregabalin (450 mg/day) or placebo. The primary a-priori outcome of time to relapse was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test. Double-blind treatment with pregabalin was associated with significant delay in time to relapse versus placebo (P=0.035), and with significantly greater maintenance of symptomatic improvement over 26 weeks on the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale total (P=0.012) and subscale scores and on the Marks Fear Questionnaire total phobia (P=0.010) and social phobia (P=0.014) subscales. Pregabalin was generally well tolerated. During the double-blind phase, the adverse events that occurred more frequently with pregabalin compared with placebo were dizziness (11.3 vs. 4.1%) and infection (21.3 vs. 16.4%). The results of this study suggest that pregabalin (450 mg/day) is safe, well tolerated, and has significant relapse-prevention efficacy over 26 weeks in patients with SAD who responded to an initial course of the pregabalin treatment.     

Comparison of rapidly acting intramuscular olanzapine, lorazepam, and placebo: a double-blind, randomized study in acutely agitated patients with dementia.

This double-blind study investigated the efficacy and safety of rapid-acting intramuscular olanzapine in treating agitation associated with Alzheimer's disease and/or vascular dementia. At 2 h, olanzapine (5.0 mg, 2.5 mg) and lorazepam (1.0 mg) showed significant improvement over placebo on the PANSS Excited Component (PANSS-EC) and Agitation-Calmness Evaluation Scale (ACES), and both 5.0 mg olanzapine and lorazepam showed superiority to placebo on the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory. At 24 h, both olanzapine groups maintained superiority over placebo on the PANSS-EC; lorazepam did not. Olanzapine (5.0 mg) and lorazepam improved ACES scores more than placebo. Simpson-Angus and Mini-Mental State Examination scores did not change significantly from baseline. Sedation (ACES > or =8), adverse events, and laboratory analytes were not significantly different from placebo for any treatment. No significant differences among treatment groups were seen in extrapyramidal symptoms or in corrected QT interval at either 2 h or 24 h, and no significant differences among treatment groups were seen in vital signs, including orthostasis. Intramuscular injection of olanzapine may therefore provide substantial benefit in rapidly treating inpatients with acute dementia-related agitation.     

Amantadine for weight gain associated with olanzapine treatment.

Patients with schizophrenia (Sch), schizoaffective, schizophreniform, or bipolar (BP) I disorders [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV)]; not manic or acutely psychotic [Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) total score < or =45]; treated with olanzapine for 1-24 months; and who had gained > or =5% of their initial body weight were examined to determine whether amantadine could attenuate weight gain or promote weight loss. Olanzapine (Olz; 5-20 mg/day) was co-administered with double-blind treatment of 100-300 mg/day amantadine (Olz+Amt, n=60) or placebo (Olz+Plc, n=65). Visit-wise analysis of weight showed that weight change from baseline [last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF)] in the Olz+Amt group was significantly different from the Olz+Plc group at weeks 8 (P=0.042), 12 (P=0.029), and 16 (primary endpoint, mean+/-S.D.: -0.19+/-4.58 versus 1.28+/-4.26 kg, P=0.045). Mean BPRS total score, positive subscale, and anxiety-depression scores improved comparably in both groups, and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score improved in the Olz+Amt group. Overall, amantadine was safe, was well tolerated, and attenuated weight gain or promoted weight loss in some patients who had gained weight during olanzapine therapy.     

Efficacy of the novel anxiolytic pregabalin in social anxiety disorder: a placebo-controlled, multicenter study

Pregabalin is a novel compound in development for the treatment of anxiety disorders. The safety and efficacy of pregabalin for the treatment of social anxiety disorder was evaluated in a double-blind, multicenter clinical trial in which 135 patients were randomized to 10 weeks of double-blind treatment with either pregabalin 150 mg/d. pregabalin 600 mg/d, or placebo. The primary efficacy parameter was change from baseline to end point in the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS) total score. Safety was assessed through clinical and laboratory monitoring, and recording spontaneously reported adverse events. Ninety-four patients (70%) completed the 11-week double-blind treatment phase. LSAS total score was significantly decreased by pregabalin 600 mg/d treatment compared with placebo (P = 0.024, analysis of covariance). Significant differences (P < or = 0.05) between pregabalin 600 mg/d and placebo were seen on several secondary measures including the LSAS subscales of total fear, total avoidance, social fear, and social avoidance, and the Brief Social Phobia Scale fear subscale. Pregabalin 150 mg/d was not significantly better than placebo on any measures. Somnolence and dizziness were the most frequently occurring adverse events among patients receiving pregabalin 600 mg/d. In conclusion, pregabalin 600 mg/d was an effective and well-tolerated treatment of social anxiety disorder.     

Effective open-label treatment of tourette's disorder with olanzapine

Olanzapine is an atypical antipsychotic drug which shows a high antagonistic affinity to the D1, D2 and D4 and the 5-HT2A and 5-HT2c receptors. The goal of our investigation was to assess the efficacy of olanzapine in patients with Tourette's disorder who were either antipsychotic naive or who did not tolerate and/or did not respond to previous antipsychotic treatments in an open-label pilot study. Fourteen patients with a mean (SD 12.4) age of 32.6 years were treated for a period of 6 weeks. Seven patients did not respond to, or did not tolerate, previous neuroleptic treatments and seven patients were antipsychotic naive. All patients received olanzapine in ascending dosage, following a washout period of 1 week. Initial dosage was 10 mg/day with a maximum dosage of 20 mg/day. The Yale Global Tic Severity Scale (YGTSS), Fischer Symptom Check List-Neuroleptika and the Clinical Global Impression Severity Scale (CGI) were used. Two of the 14 patients did not complete the investigation. The mean dosage of olanzapine was 15 mg/day (SD 3.3) at day 42 (end of the study). The YGTSS scores and the CGI significantly decreased over the treatment period. The only side-effect observed was mild sedation which decreased during the course of the investigation and two patients had weight gain of 3-5 kg with increased appetite. In our study, we found that olanzapine was a safe and effective treatment alternative to other antipsychotics. In order to confirm these preliminary results, double-blind placebo controlled trials are warranted.     

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.     

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.