Use of atypical antipsychotics in a Veterans Affairs hospital

In a retrospective chart review, efficacy and drug costs were compared in 91 consecutive outpatients receiving risperidone (n=70) or olanzapine (n=21) at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Syracuse, NY. Between-group differences in background characteristics, diagnoses (schizophrenia in more than half of each group) and antipsychotic efficacy [Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scale scores] were not significant. The mean doses were 3.6+/-2.4 mg/day of risperidone and 10.7+/-7.6 mg/day of olanzapine. The VA costs of these mean doses were S3.32/day for risperidone and $6.67/day for olanzapine. Mean duration of treatment was significantly longer for risperidone (21 months) than for olanzapine (13 months). Incidence of parkinsonian symptoms (14% of both risperidone and olanzapine patients) and tardive dyskinesia (3% of risperidone patients and 5% of olanzapine patients) was similar in the two groups. Akathisia tended to occur more often in patients receiving olanzapine than risperidone (14% versus 3%, P=.08). The results of this retrospective survey indicate that, in comparable VA populations of patients with psychotic and other disorders, risperidone and olanzapine are equally efficacious but olanzapine may be more likely to produce akathisia and is twice as expensive as risperidone.     

Variables associated with high olanzapine dosing in a state hospital

BACKGROUND: Olanzapine has a U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved dosing range of 10 to 20 mg/day but is often used at doses exceeding this range. Olanzapine is largely metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 1A2. Smoking, which induces CYP1A2, is expected to increase clearance of olanzapine by 40%; however, dosage adjustment in smokers is not currently recommended. Additionally, female gender is expected to reduce clearance by 30%. Many institutions target high-dose olanzapine prescribers in an effort to reduce unnecessary drug costs. However, factors such as smoking or gender may necessitate increased doses. METHOD: A retrospective review of all patients receiving olanzapine during an inpatient stay at a state psychiatric hospital in Kentucky during 2001 was conducted. Demographic information and smoking status were collected for all patients. Olanzapine doses of > 20 mg/day were considered high doses. RESULTS: Nine percent (48/522) of olanzapine patients were prescribed high doses. The percentages were similar in women and men (10% vs. 9%, p =.69) and in smokers and nonsmokers (9% vs. 9%, p =.82). Moreover, the mean maximum olanzapine dose was also similar in men and women (15.4 +/- 7.2 vs. 14.9 +/- 7.3 mg/day, p =.51). The odds of receiving a high dose of olanzapine were increased 2.1 for patients with a schizophrenia spectrum diagnosis (DSM-IV schizophrenia or other psychotic disorder). The odds of receiving a high dose of olanzapine were increased with each incremental increase in length of stay (intermediate length of stay [8-60 days], OR = 5.6; long-term length of stay [> 60 days], OR = 12.0, relative to acute length of stay [< 8 days]). CONCLUSIONS: Neither gender nor smoking status was associated with receiving a high dose of olanzapine. The association of increased length of stay with high dose suggests that treatment resistance may be an important factor in receiving high daily doses of olanzapine.     

Comparison of Risperidone and Olanzapine in Bipolar and Schizoaffective Disorders

OBJECTIVE: To compare risperidone and olanzapine for efficacy, tolerability, need for concomitant mood stabilizers, and cost of treatment in bipolar and schizoaffective disorders. METHOD: We conducted a retrospective chart review of 36 consecutive outpatients with DSM-IV bipolar or schizoaffective disorder seen in 3 settings who received risperidone or olanzapine for at least 1 month between May and August 1997. RESULTS: The mean +/- SD doses were 3.7 +/- 3.5 mg/day of risperidone and 12.0 +/- 5.4 mg/day of olanzapine. Between-treatment differences in patient characteristics, psychiatric history, Clinical Global Impressions scale ratings, and duration of treatment were not significant. Similar proportions of patients in the 2 groups reported side effects, including extrapyramidal symptoms, akathisia, tardive dyskinesia, and precipitation of mania by the respective drug. Patients in the olanzapine group received a significantly higher dose of concomitant lithium than those receiving risperidone (mean daily lithium doses: risperidone group, 750 +/- 150 mg; olanzapine group, 1211 +/- 186 mg; p =.006). The total daily acquisition cost per patient was $11.84 for olanzapine versus $5.81 for risperidone. CONCLUSION: Olanzapine and risperidone were equally efficacious and safe in the treatment of patients with bipolar or schizoaffective disorder, but treatment costs and dose of concomitant lithium were lower in risperidone-treated patients.     

Comparison of discharge rates and drug costs for patients with schizophrenia treated with risperidone or olanzapine

This study compared the discharge rates and drug costs of 789 patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder who began pharmacotherapy with olanzapine or risperidone between July 1997 and June 1998. Discharge rates 30 days after the start of treatment were 45 percent for the patients treated with risperidone and 32 percent for those treated with olanzapine (p=.001). Daily drug costs during the same period were $6.42 for risperidone and $12.29 for olanzapine (p<.001). For risperidone, lower dosages were associated with higher hospital discharge rates, whereas no significant association was observed for olanzapine. These data suggest that among inpatients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, use of risperidone results in a higher discharge rate and a lower drug cost than use of olanzapine.     

Hospitalization risks in the treatment of bipolar disorder: comparison of antipsychotic medications

OBJECTIVES: This study compared the relative risk for hospitalization of patients with bipolar and manic disorders receiving atypical and typical antipsychotics. METHODS: This retrospective study was based on administrative claims data extracted from the PharMetrics database during 1999 through 2003. Comparisons were made among atypical antipsychotics (risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine or ziprasidone), as well as between each of these versus a combined group of the leading typical antipsychotics. Relative risk for hospitalization was estimated with Cox proportional regression, which adjusted for differences in patient characteristics. RESULTS: Risperidone and olanzapine demonstrated higher risks for hospitalization than quetiapine [hazard ratio (HR) 1.19, p < 0.05 for both], translating into higher annual mental health inpatient charges of $260 per patient. Risperidone and olanzapine also showed higher estimated risks than ziprasidone, which approached the p < 0.05 threshold. Differences between each of the atypicals and the combined typicals were not significant. Patients with putative rapid cycling had a threefold greater risk for hospitalization than other patients with bipolar disorder. In these patients, comparisons among atypical antipsychotics showed that risperidone had a significantly higher hospitalization risk than olanzapine (HR 3.31, p < 0.05), resulting in higher annual mental health inpatient charges of $4,930 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of bipolar and manic disorders, risperidone and olanzapine were associated with a higher risk for hospitalization than quetiapine, and possibly ziprasidone. In the treatment of putative rapid cyclers, olanzapine was associated with a lower risk for hospitalization than risperidone.     

Treatment adherence among patients with bipolar or manic disorder taking atypical and typical antipsychotics

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective claims-based study evaluated treatment adherence among patients with bipolar or manic disorder treated with atypical and typical antipsychotics. METHOD: Claims data for 18,158 antipsychotic treatment episodes in 15,224 commercially insured patients with bipolar or manic disorder (ICD-9-CM criteria), from January 1999 through August 2003, were evaluated. Overall adherence was measured by adherence intensity (medication possession ratio) and treatment duration (length of treatment episodes). Treatment-related factors that may affect medication adherence were also investigated. Pairwise comparisons of the individual atypicals and a combined group of leading typical antipsychotics were undertaken using multiple regression analysis adjusting for differing patient characteristics. RESULTS: Adherence intensity with quetiapine was 3% greater than with the typicals combined (p=.002) and was greater than with risperidone or olanzapine by 4% (p<.001) and 2% (p=.001), respectively. Olanzapine (2%, p<.001) and ziprasidone (3%, p=.001) showed significantly greater adherence intensity than risperidone. Risperidone (p=.002), olanzapine (p=.055), and the typicals (p=.021) demonstrated negative associations between dose and adherence intensity, while quetiapine showed a nonsignificant trend for a positive association (p=.074). Quetiapine and risperidone had significantly longer treatment durations than the typicals combined (1.05 and 1.00 months, respectively, p<.001) and longer treatment durations than olanzapine (0.75 and 0.79 months, respectively, p<.001) or ziprasidone (0.78 months, p=.002 and 0.69 months, p=.003, respectively). Shorter treatment durations were associated with switching to other antipsychotics or remaining on or switching to other psychotropics (e.g., traditional mood stabilizers) only. All of the atypicals except ziprasidone were associated with a significantly lower likelihood of switching compared with the typicals (p<.05). CONCLUSIONS: The claims-based findings of this study suggest that, for bipolar or manic disorder, quetiapine therapy may be associated with better treatment adherence than typical or some atypical antipsychotics. Estimated differences, however, were relatively small, particularly for adherence intensity.     

Comparison of cost, dosage and clinical preference for risperidone and olanzapine

BACKGROUND: Because risperidone and olanzapine have similar efficacy and tolerability in the treatment of schizophrenia, costs, physician experience, and preference become relevant considerations in making treatment decisions. The purpose of this paper is to compare daily treatment costs of risperidone and olanzapine, and to examine psychiatrists' clinical preferences. METHOD: Dosage information was obtained from a national Ministry of Health registry and a national survey of psychiatrists. In addition, psychiatrists' clinical preference of antipsychotic medication and dosage for patient subtypes were examined by the national survey. RESULTS: Data from the registry and national survey estimated the mean daily dose of risperidone to be one-third that of olanzapine, irrespective of patient subtype. Taking into account drug costs and dosage requirements, the average daily retail price was US $6.85 for risperidone and US $13.60 for olanzapine. Psychiatrists preferred risperidone for first-episode psychosis and elderly psychosis, and olanzapine for patients sensitive to EPS. They rated the drugs equally effective on positive and negative symptoms, for chronic patients, for treatment-refractory patients and relapse prevention. CONCLUSIONS: Risperidone has a substantial cost advantage over olanzapine, and was preferred by psychiatrists for more indications.     

Cost evaluation of risperidone compared with olanzapine

This study evaluated costs associated with risperidone and olanzapine treatment for schizophrenia. Data were collected from the Department of Veterans Affairs computerized database nine months before and nine months after patients began continuous treatment with risperidone (N=23) or olanzapine (N=47). Both agents were associated with significant reductions in psychiatric hospitalization costs. Median increases in antipsychotic costs were significantly higher for patients treated with olanzapine ($1,892) than for those treated with risperidone ($733). Mean dosages were 3.5 mg per day for the risperidone group and 18 mg per day for the olanzapine group. Although both treatments were associated with similar reductions in costs of psychiatric inpatient and outpatient care, it was significantly less expensive to prescribe risperidone than olanzapine.     

The Comparative Peripheral Anticholinergic-Like Adverse Event Profiles of Olanzapine and Risperidone

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that reported in vitro muscarinic receptor affinity differences between olanzapine and risperidone would be reflected in peripheral solicited anticholinergic adverse event frequencies. METHOD: Data from a double-blind, randomized trial of olanzapine versus risperidone in 339 patients (age range, 18-65 years) with DSM-IV schizophrenia spectrum acute psychosis were retrospectively analyzed. Subgroups based on the median of the mean daily drug dose were constructed (olanzapine 17 mg; risperidone 6 mg). Mean daily dose of adjunctive anticholinergic medication was compared using ANOVA, and frequencies of treatment-emergent solicited adverse events defined by the Association de Méthodologie et de Documentation en Psychiatrie (AMDP-5) were analyzed using categorical methods. RESULTS: Mean daily anticholinergic dose was significantly higher overall for the risperidone group (0.68 +/- 1.27 mg) than for the olanzapine group (0.27 +/- 0.76 mg) (p =.002). When only patients who did not receive anticholinergic adjunct therapy were considered, no significant differences in the frequency of specific anticholinergic adverse events occurred in olanzapine-treated patients as compared with risperidone-treated patients (p >/=.245). There was also no significant difference between olanzapine and risperidone in the frequency of any anticholinergic adverse event (p =.458). CONCLUSION: At clinically effective doses, olanzapine and risperidone did not differ significantly in frequency of peripheral anticholinergic events. These results support the view that, for olanzapine and risperidone, in vitro anticholinergic receptor binding (K(i) values) may not predict in vivo peripheral events.     

Olanzapine versus risperidone in newly admitted acutely ill psychotic patients

OBJECTIVE: Risperidone and olanzapine are the 2 most widely prescribed second-generation anti-psychotics. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of risperidone and olanzapine using duration of hospitalization as the primary outcome measure. This outcome was selected as it is an indirect measure of how well patients are responding to the medication and represents a "real world" endpoint relevant to practicing hospital psychiatrists. METHOD: The study was done at a large state psychiatric hospital in North Carolina from 2001 to 2003. Subjects were eligible for inclusion if they required treatment with an antipsychotic (e.g., positive symptoms) and were able to provide informed consent. Eighty-five patients entered the study and were randomly assigned to risperidone (N = 40) or olanzapine (N = 45) as their initial antipsychotic. Treatment was naturalistic, and dosing was based on the discretion of the treating physician. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the mean durations of hospitalization for the risperidone group (7.9 days) as compared to the olanzapine group (8.1 days). There were no significant differences in the demographics of either treatment group, but, during the study, risperidone-treated patients used more antihistamines (chi(2) = 4.0, p = .05). Eighty percent of each group (N = 36, olanzapine; N = 32, risperidone) remained on the study medication at discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Risperidone and olanzapine were equally efficacious, suggesting that measures other than "efficacy" (e.g., side effects, cost) should be considered when determining overall "effectiveness" of treatment.     

Treatment with olanzapine, risperidone or typical antipsychotic drugs in Asian patients with schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE: To examine clinical outcomes in Asian patients with schizophrenia receiving monotherapy with olanzapine, risperidone or typical antipsychotics in naturalistic settings. METHOD: In this report, data from the first 12 months of the prospective, observational, 3-year Intercontinental Schizophrenia Outpatient Health Outcomes study are presented for patients from participating Asian countries (Korea, Taiwan and Malaysia) who were started on, or switched to, monotherapy with olanzapine (n = 484), risperidone (n = 287) or a typical antipsychotic drug (n = 127) at baseline. RESULTS: At 12 months, overall reduction in the score of Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness rating scale was greatest with olanzapine (p < 0.001 vs typical agents), followed by risperidone (p = 0.007 vs typical agents) treatment. Olanzapine treatment was found to have significantly better effects than typical agents on negative and depressive symptom scores, and significantly greater improvements than risperidone on negative and cognitive symptoms. The occurrence of extrapyramidal symptoms was least likely with olanzapine (p < 0.001 vs typical agents, and p = 0.012 vs risperidone), while the estimated odds of tardive dyskinesia were greatest in the typical treatment group (p = 0.046 vs olanzapine, and p = 0.082 vs risperidone). Mean weight increase was greater for olanzapine-treated patients compared with the other agents (p = 0.030 vs typical agents and p < 0.001 vs risperidone). The risk of menstrual disturbance was relatively high with risperidone when compared with olanzapine treatment (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this observational study indicate that, in Asian patients with schizophrenia, olanzapine may offer benefits when compared with typical agents or risperidone. However, the significantly greater odds of weight gain should be considered in the clinical management of olanzapine-treated patients.     

Development of an atherogenic metabolic risk factor profile associated with the use of atypical antipsychotics

BACKGROUND: It is important to assess cardiovascular risk factors to properly verify the potential consequences of atypical antipsychotic-related weight gain. The objective of the present study was to evaluate whether 2 atypical antipsychotics differ regarding their impact on the cardiovascular disease risk profile compared with a reference group. METHOD: We conducted a cross-sectional, multicenter study to assess anthropometric indices of obesity and to obtain a comprehensive fasting metabolic risk profile. Either risperidone or olanzapine had to be prescribed as the first and only antipsychotic for a minimum of 6 months. Patients were compared with a reference group of nondiabetic men. Data were collected from August 1999 to August 2001. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients treated with olanzapine (N = 42) or risperidone (N = 45) were evaluated. Olanzapine-treated patients had significantly higher plasma triglyceride concentrations (2.01 +/-1.05 vs. 1.34 +/-0.65 mmol/L, p < or =.05), lower high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol levels (0.92 +/-0.17 vs. 1.04 +/- 0.21 mmol/L, p < or =.05), higher cholesterol/HDL-cholesterol ratios (5.62 +/-1.70 vs. 4.50 +/- 1.44, p < or =.05), higher apolipoprotein B levels (1.07 +/- 0.35 vs. 0.92 +/- 0.27 g/L, p < or =.05), smaller low-density lipoprotein peak particle diameters (252.6 +/-4.1 vs. 255.2 +/-4.3 A, p <.01), and higher fasting insulin concentrations (103.9 +/- 67.6 vs. 87.5 +/- 56.1 pmol/L, p < or =.05) than risperidone-treated patients. Moreover, 33% of olanzapine-treated patients were carriers of 3 atherogenic features of the metabolic syndrome as opposed to a prevalence of only 11% of risperidone-treated patients. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that olanzapine-treated patients are characterized by a more deteriorated metabolic risk factor profile compared with risperidone-treated patients. These observations raise concerns about the potential differential long-term deleterious effects of some antipsychotics, such as olanzapine, on cardiovascular health.     

Risperidone,but not olanzapine,decreases bone mineral density in female premenopausal schizophrenia patients

BACKGROUND: The hyperprolactinemia induced by conventional antipsychotics often leads to osteoporosis. The commonly used atypical antipsychotics risperidone and olanzapine vary in their hyperprolactinemic properties. Therefore, we compared hormone profiles and bone properties in female premenopausal schizophrenia patients treated with either risperidone or olanzapine. METHOD: In a cross-sectional study, consecutive premenopausal, female, DSM-IV schizophrenia patients who were treated with either risperidone (N = 12) or olanzapine (N = 14) for at least 2 years were included. Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry evaluated bone mineral density, and multisite quantitative ultrasound measured bone speed of sound. In addition, profiles of urinary excretion of deoxypyridinoline and circulating levels of hormones and lipids were assessed. RESULTS: Serum prolactin levels were higher in the risperidone-treated group as compared with the olanzapine subjects (123 +/- 144 and 25.9 +/- 25.7, p <.05). Whereas bone mineral density was similar in the treatment groups, bone speed of sound was lower in the risperidone group as compared with the olanzapine-treated group. Expressed as age-adjusted Z score, bone speed of sound at the radius was -0.31 and 0.58, respectively, p <.05, and at the phalanx, -1.41 and 0.04, respectively, p <.05. The bone speed of sound in the risperidone-treated patients inversely correlated with urinary deoxypyridinoline excretion (r = 0.73, p <.05). CONCLUSION: Risperidone treatment, as opposed to olanzapine, for female premenopausal schizophrenia results in hyperprolactinemia and clinically relevant decrease in bone mineral density. The calculated relative risk for fragility fracture of women treated with risperidone as compared to those treated with olanzapine is 1.78 when bone speed of sound was measured at the phalanx and 1.23 when measured at the radius.     

Thirty-five months experience of risperidone long-acting injection in a UK psychiatric service including a mirror-image analysis of in-patient care

OBJECTIVE: To report the use of risperidone long-acting injection (RLAI) in a UK psychiatric service. METHOD: Retrospective case note review of all patients prescribed RLAI over a 35-month period. In the mirror-image analysis patients initiated on RLAI as in-patients had the index admission attributed to previous treatment. RESULTS: Patients prescribed RLAI had significantly higher baseline rates of drug misuse, alcohol misuse, unemployment and forensic markers than control patients prescribed oral antipsychotics. Most patients started RLAI because of poor compliance with oral antipsychotics. Inefficacy accounted for more discontinuations than intolerability. Fifty-eight percent (39/67) of patients were continuing RLAI 12 months after initiation. Mirror-image analysis (n = 74) showed that RLAI was associated with a reduction in the number of admissions (65 vs. 33, P < 0.005) and in total in-patient days (4550 vs. 2188 days, P < 0.005). The mean reduction in in-patient care was 29 days per patient-year of treatment, equivalent to a net financial saving over the acquisition and administration costs of RLAI of pound1172. CONCLUSION: Risperidone long-acting injection was associated with reduced in-patient care and was cost-effective.     

The health economic implications of treatment with quetiapine: an audit of long-term treatment for patients with chronic schizophrenia.

This retrospective, case series audit assessed the clinical and health-economic impact of long-term treatment with quetiapine ('Seroquel'), a new atypical antipsychotic, in patients with chronic schizophrenia.The study design was of a case series format, comprising patients entered from one centre into the open-label extension of a multicentre 6-week efficacy study. Twenty-one patients (15 male, six female; mean age 39 years) were studied, of whom 17 (81%) had been rated as 'partially responsive' to previous antipsychotics. Data on hospitalisations and information on symptoms were collected retrospectively for the 12 months before quetiapine treatment was initiated and for the 12 months after.Quetiapine was effective in reducing psychotic symptoms with mean BPRS scores reducing significantly, from 38 to 21 (P < 0.005). Motor function was also significantly improved with mean Simpson scale scores reducing from 15 to 12 (P < 0.005). Average inpatient days were reduced by 11% in year two (97 compared with 109 days) while the overall costs of treatment, including drug costs, fell by 5% (I pound sterling 20,843 to I pound sterling 19,827).Four patients had been hospitalised for longer than 5 years before starting quetiapine; these chronically institutionalised patients remained in hospital, despite improved clinical outcomes (mean BPRS scores after treatment of 34, compared with 43 before), for the full 12 months of quetiapine treatment. Were the data from this audit to be re-analysed excluding these four patients then average inpatient days would have been reduced by 33% (45 to 30 days) and overall cost of treatment by 19% (I pound sterling 8617 to I pound sterling 7011).This audit suggests that treatment with quetiapine over this 1-year period was associated with both clinical improvements and a decreased usage of inpatient services. The reduction in hospitalisation costs would appear to compensate for the increased cost of drug treatment. Significantly, potential savings appear to be greatest for those patients with a 'revolving door' pattern of repeated readmission.     

Effectiveness of antipsychotic maintenance therapy with quetiapine in comparison with risperidone and olanzapine in routine schizophrenia treatment: results of a prospective observational trial

Objective of this observational trial is to examine the effects of quetiapine in comparison with olanzapine and risperidone on clinical outcomes and quality of life in patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder in routine care. 374 adult persons with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder prescribed antipsychotic maintenance therapy with quetiapine, olanzapine, or risperidone at discharge from inpatient treatment were included. Clinical and psychosocial outcomes were assessed before discharge and at 6, 12, 18, and 24?months. Statistical analyses were conducted by mixed-effects regression models for longitudinal data. The propensity score method was used to control for selection bias. Patients discharged on olanzapine had significantly lower hospital readmissions than those receiving quetiapine or risperidone. The average chlorpromazine equivalent dose of quetiapine was higher than in patients treated with olanzapine or risperidone. No further significant differences between treatment groups were found. Quetiapine and risperidone are less effective in preventing the need for psychiatric inpatient care than olanzapine, and higher chlorpromazine equivalent doses of quetiapine are needed to obtain clinical effects similar to those of olanzapine and risperidone.     

Open-label, 8-week trial of olanzapine and risperidone for the treatment of bipolar disorder in preschool-age children.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate short-term safety and efficacy of atypical antipsychotics in a single-site, prospective, open-label, 8-week study of risperidone and olanzapine monotherapy in preschoolers with bipolar disorder (BPD). METHODS: Risperidone was initiated at an open-label dose of .25 mg/day, increased weekly according to response and tolerability to a maximum does of 2.0 mg/day. Olanzapine was initiated at 1.25 mg/day and increased to no more than 10 mg/day. RESULTS: Thirty-one children aged 4-6 years were treated with olanzapine (n = 15, 6.3 +/- 2.3 mg/day) or risperidone (n = 16, 1.4 +/- .5 mg/day). At study end point (week 8 or last observation carried forward), there was a 18.3 +/- 11.9 point (t = -5.6, p < .001) reduction in risperidone-treated subjects and a 12.1 +/- 10.4 point (t = -4.4, p < .001) reduction in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) scores in olanzapine-treated subjects that did not differ between groups (t = 1.4, p = .2). Response criteria (Clinical Global Impression improvement of "Much" or "Very Much" improved or a YMRS change of >or= 30% or more) indicated no difference in rate of response with risperidone and olanzapine (69% vs. 53%, chi(2)((1)) = .8, p = .4). CONCLUSIONS: This prospective open study suggests that treatment with risperidone or olanzapine may result in a rapid reduction of symptoms of mania in preschool children with BPD. Because of substantial residual symptomatology and adverse effects, however, a pressing need exists to identify additional safe and effective treatments for the management of BPD in this high-risk population.     

Service use and costs of treating schizophrenia with atypical antipsychotics

BACKGROUND: The high acquisition cost of the atypical antipsychotics has prompted their closer clinical and economic evaluation. This study aims to examine the financial implications of using atypical antipsychotics in a defined catchment area sample of patients with schizophrenia. METHOD: Service costs over a 10-month period were compared between groups of patients fulfilling DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia who were taking different atypical antipsychotic agents. RESULTS: All patients studied were taking clozapine (N = 31). risperidone (N = 19), or olanzapine (N = 41). Clozapine was used in more chronic patients, while risperidone and olanzapine were prescribed in both chronic and recently diagnosed cases. After background group differences were controlled for, patients on risperidone treatment incurred the lowest costs. The monthly costs for the clozapine and olanzapine groups were higher than for risperidone by US $246 and US $566, respectively. CONCLUSION: Clozapine was reserved for more severe forms of schizophrenia, but its cost impact was relatively low. Risperidone, as prescribed in ordinary practice, may be more cost-effective than olanzapine.