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.     

Efficacy of olanzapine and ziprasidone for the treatment of schizophrenia: a systematic review

It is difficult to determine the relative efficacy of atypical antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia, based on the available literature. The purpose of this article is to review and compare the efficacy of two atypical antipsychotics: olanzapine and ziprasidone.This review focused on randomised trials in which these two antipsychotics were compared with placebo, conventional antipsychotics and each other. Common efficacy measures were the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and Schedule for Assessment of Negative Symptoms. When sufficient data were available, the mean treatment effect (with 95% confidence intervals) was computed and presented.Olanzapine was consistently found to be significantly superior to placebo and comparable with, or superior to, haloperidol for the treatment of overall, positive and negative schizophrenic symptoms. Ziprasidone appears to have significantly greater efficacy than placebo for overall and negative symptoms, but it remains uncertain whether ziprasidone is comparable in efficacy with conventional antipsychotics such as haloperidol. Two unpublished clinical trials have directly compared olanzapine and ziprasidone. One of these trials found no significant efficacy differences between the two drugs, whereas the results of the other study favoured olanzapine.Compared with ziprasidone, olanzapine has a larger body of evidence supporting its efficacy, and a greater proportion of findings for olanzapine have been published, allowing for greater scrutiny of results. Both drugs appear to be superior to placebo for the treatment of overall and negative symptoms of schizophrenia, but olanzapine generally compares more favourably with conventional antipsychotics. Firm conclusions regarding the comparison between olanzapine and ziprasidone require additional published trials on ziprasidone, particularly in direct comparison with olanzapine.     

Antipsychotic drugs for elderly patients with schizophrenia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Elderly patients with schizophrenia are a particularly vulnerable group often excluded from clinical trials. Currently there is no evidence-synthesis about the efficacy and safety of antipsychotics in this subgroup.We reviewed all randomized-controlled-trials, about antipsychotics in elderly schizophrenics (last search Dec 12, 2017). Pairwise meta-analyses were conducted. The primary outcome was overall symptoms. Secondary outcomes included positive symptoms, negative symptoms, response, dropouts, quality of life, social functioning and side-effects.We included 29 references from 18 unique randomized-controlled-trials with 1225 participants published from 1958 to 2009. The definition of “elderly” was very heterogeneous across the studies (minimum age 46–65, mean age 57–73). There were evidence gaps for most drugs in many outcomes. In terms of efficacy paliperidone was associated with fewer dropouts due to inefficacy than placebo in the only placebo-controlled-trial. Olanzapine was superior to haloperidol in overall symptoms, negative symptoms and response, and it was associated with fewer dropouts than risperidone. Risperidone and haloperidol produced more prolactin increase than olanzapine, and olanzapine was associated with less use of antiparkinson medication than haloperidol.Although we found no marked differences of the effects of these drugs in the elderly, the evidence presented was based on very few usually small studies. To examine specifically whether there are differences in efficacy and side-effects in elderly, which differs in meaningful ways from the general population, studies in patients who are defined by critiera as truly geriatric, which incorporates older age together with multimorbidity and fraility dimensions, may be more informative.     

Olanzapine: new indication. New indication in acute mania: just another neuroleptic

(1) Lithium is the first-line treatment for patients with acute mania. For patients with psychosis or intense agitation, an oral neuroleptic can be added (haloperidol or chlorpromazine, the best-assessed drugs of this class). (2) The licensed indications for oral olanzapine, a neuroleptic, explicitly mention the treatment of acute mania. (3) The clinical evaluation dossier on olanzapine in this setting (10 mg to 15 mg/day) is not particularly impressive. In particular, clinical trials included patients with a variety of associated psychotic symptoms. (4) The only comparative trial against another neuroleptic, haloperidol at a high starting dose (10 mg), showed that olanzapine was no more effective. The same applies to a trial comparing olanzapine with disodium valproate. (5) One placebo-controlled trial tested olanzapine as an additional treatment in patients who did not respond adequately to lithium or valproate disodium. Olanzapine potentiated the antimanic effects of the original treatment but also increased the incidence of adverse effects. (6) In patients with acute mania, the main adverse effects of olanzapine are drowsiness, weight gain, dizziness, and dry mouth. In the trial comparing olanzapine with haloperidol, olanzapine caused fewer extrapyramidal side effects but more weight gain than haloperidol. (7) Olanzapine costs 20 times more than haloperidol in France. (8) In practice, olanzapine is just another neuroleptic approved for the treatment of acute mania in patients with psychotic symptoms and agitation. There is no evidence that olanzapine has the best risk-benefit ratio in this category.     

Olanzapine: new preparation. Keep an eye on this neuroleptic

(1) Olanzapine, a neuroleptic, has obtained European marketing authorisation for the treatment of schizophrenia. (2) The clinical file is satisfactory, but in the absence of relevant trials it has not yet been demonstrated that olanzapine has a specific activity on the positive or negative symptoms of schizophrenia. (3) The global efficacy of olanzapine was not significantly different from that of haloperidol in two of the three comparative trials published to date. (4) The only relevant comparative trial fails to demonstrate the superiority of olanzapine over risperidone. (5) Olanzapine has fewer adverse neurological effects than haloperidol, but there is no evidence that it differs from other recent neuroleptics in this respect. (6) Olanzapine can have anticholinergic adverse effects and frequently causes weight gain. (7) Active pharmacovigilance is required, as subclinical cases of elevated transaminase levels, increased blood pressure and QT prolongation were observed in clinical trials (2,500 patients treated).     

The effect of olanzapine treatment on monoamine metabolite concentrations in the cerebrospinal fluid of schizophrenic patients.

The mechanism of action of both typical antipsychotics and the atypical antipsychotic, clozapine, may be related to the (changing) interaction of dopamine and serotonin in schizophrenia. This study examined the effect of olanzapine in schizophrenic patients on cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) metabolites of dopamine (homovanillic acid, HVA) and serotonin (5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid, 5-HIAA). Twenty-three male schizophrenic patients, who were drug-free for at least 2 weeks (mean drug-free period of 35 days +/- 43; median 16 days), underwent a lumbar puncture (LP). Patients were subsequently treated with olanzapine 10 mg/day for 6 weeks, after which the LP was repeated. CSF was assayed for HVA and 5-HIAA concentrations. Psychiatric symptoms were rated once a week. Olanzapine significantly increased HVA concentrations and the HVA/5-HIAA ratio while 5-HIAA concentrations were not altered. These changes did not significantly correlate with treatment response. A negative correlation was found between HVA concentrations and negative symptoms after olanzapine treatment. In conclusion, olanzapine treatment increases HVA concentrations and the HVA/5-HIAA ratio in CSF of schizophrenic patients, but these changes are unrelated to its clinical efficacy.     

Olanzapine. A pharmacoeconomic review of its use in schizophrenia.

Olanzapine is an atypical antipsychotic agent which is at least as effective as the conventional agent haloperidol and the atypical agent risperidone. Olanzapine may be superior to haloperidol in some respects, including treatment of negative symptoms. A major advantage of olanzapine over haloperidol is its lower risk of extrapyramidal symptoms. Olanzapine improves quality of life and other aspects of functioning to a greater extent than haloperidol, and improves quality of life to at least the same extent as risperidone. However, olanzapine has a high acquisition cost compared with conventional antipsychotics. Despite this, most pharmacoeconomic analyses indicate that treatment with olanzapine does not significantly increase, and may even decrease, the overall direct treatment costs of schizophrenia, compared with haloperidol. Total direct medical costs calculated from prospective resource utilisation data were lower with olanzapine than with haloperidol by $US388 (1995 values) per patient over 6 weeks and by $US55 per patient per month during 46 weeks extended treatment. In a mixed effects linear model of the same data, total costs over 1 year were $US10,301 (1996 values) per patient lower with olanzapine than haloperidol, and olanzapine was associated with 18.3 more symptom-free days per patient. Compared with risperidone, mean total direct medical costs over 28 weeks were $US493 (1995 values) per patient lower with olanzapine. In a Markov model of 5 years' treatment, olanzapine was associated with more time in a disability-free state than haloperidol at a total cost per patient that was lower by $US1539 (1995 values), 816 Pounds (1995/1996 values), 977 Dutch guilders (NLG; 1995 values) and 2296 Deutschmarks in US, UK, Dutch and German analyses, respectively. In a similar Spanish analysis, the overall total cost was higher with olanzapine, giving an incremental cost effectiveness for olanzapine of 32,516 pesetas (1995 values) per month of disability-free time gained. When risperidone was a comparator, the total cost per patient was $US1875 and NLG202 lower with olanzapine in US and Dutch analyses, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The high acquisition cost of olanzapine is offset by reductions in other treatment costs in patients with schizophrenia. Compared with haloperidol, the drug improved patient outcome and quality of life, while overall direct treatment costs were generally not increased, or even decreased. Olanzapine has also been reported to decrease overall treatment costs compared with risperidone, but confirmation is required. Olanzapine is a cost-effective alternative to conventional agents for the treatment of moderately to severely ill patients with longstanding schizophrenia.     

Amisulpride: a review of its use in the management of schizophrenia

Amisulpride (Solian), a substituted benzamide derivative, is a second-generation antipsychotic that preferentially binds to dopamine D2/D3 receptors in limbic rather than striatal structures. High dosages preferentially antagonise postsynaptic D2/D3 receptors, resulting in reduced dopamine transmission, and low dosages preferentially block presynaptic D2/D3 receptors, resulting in enhanced dopamine transmission. Amisulpride (200-1200 mg/day) was at least as effective as haloperidol and as effective as risperidone or olanzapine, in studies of up to 1 year in patients with schizophrenia manifesting predominantly positive symptoms. Amisulpride (50-300 mg/day) was significantly more effective than placebo in studies of up to 6 months in patients manifesting predominantly negative symptoms. Quality of life was also improved significantly more in patients receiving amisulpride than in those receiving haloperidol in 4- and 12-month studies in patients with predominantly mixed symptoms. Amisulpride was generally well tolerated in clinical trials. In patients with predominantly positive symptoms, amisulpride appeared to be better tolerated than haloperidol and was tolerated as well as risperidone and olanzapine. The incidence of extrapyramidal adverse effects with amisulpride was lower than with haloperidol but was generally similar to risperidone or olanzapine. Weight gain with amisulpride was less than that with risperidone or olanzapine and, unlike these agents, amisulpride does not seem to be associated with diabetogenic effects. Plasma prolactin levels are increased during amisulpride therapy and amenorrhoea occurs in about 4% of women. The incidence of adverse events with low dosages of amisulpride (< or = 300 mg/day) in patients with predominantly negative symptoms was similar to that observed with placebo. In conclusion, oral amisulpride (200-1200 mg/day) is at least as effective as haloperidol, and as effective as risperidone or olanzapine, in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia manifesting predominantly positive symptoms. In the treatment of patients manifesting predominantly negative symptoms, low dosages of amisulpride (50-300 mg/day) are significantly more effective than placebo. Amisulpride appears to be better tolerated than haloperidol, causing a lower incidence of extrapyramidal adverse effects and an improved quality of life. Compared with risperidone or olanzapine, amisulpride is more likely to cause hyperprolactinaemia, but has a lower propensity to cause weight gain and does not seem to be associated with diabetogenic effects. Thus, amisulpride is an effective and well tolerated option for the first-line treatment of patients with acute schizophrenia as well as for those requiring long-term maintenance therapy.     

Olanzapine for injection: new formulation. No advantage in agitated patients

(1) The intramuscular neuroleptic of choice for the treatment of agitated schizophrenic patients and patients with acute mania is haloperidol, at a dose of 5 mg. Olanzapine is now marketed in France for hospital use in both these indications. (2) In two comparative trials in patients with schizophrenia, olanzapine 10 mg was shown to be no better than haloperidol 7.5 mg (a high dose). Control of agitation was satisfactory in three-quarters of patients after a single injection of either neuroleptic. (3) Olanzapine has not been compared with other neuroleptics in the treatment of acute mania. In one trial, olanzapine acted faster than lorazepam for injection (used at a rather low dose). (4) In one trial, patients given olanzapine had a lower incidence of acute dystonia and extrapyramidal symptoms (about 1%) than patients given haloperidol (about 6-7%), but the haloperidol dose (7.5 mg) was higher than recommended in the SPC (5 mg). The incidence of postural hypotension was significantly higher among patients given olanzapine (about 12%) compared with haloperidol (about 3%). (5) In practice, haloperidol remains the intramuscular neuroleptic of choice for the treatment of agitated patients with schizophrenia or acute mania.     

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.     

奥氮平与齐拉西酮治疗青少年精神分裂症疗效的对比研究

目的比较奥氮平与齐拉西酮治疗青少年精神分裂症的疗效及其不良反应。方法将60例青少年精神分裂症患者随机平分为两组。以奥氮平和齐拉西酮治疗,疗程8周。采用阳性与阴性症状量表(PANSS)及治疗中出现的不良反应例数评定疗效以及不良反应。结果奥氮平和齐拉西酮治疗青少年精神分裂症患者总体疗效相当,两药不良反应均较小,但奥氮平在语言表达流畅性方面明显优于齐拉西酮;齐拉西酮的体重增加方面则低于奥氮平。结论奥氮平与齐拉西酮治疗青少年精神分裂症均有效,奥氮平在治疗精神分裂症患者的阴性症状效果更好。     

Olanzapine: an atypical antipsychotic for schizophrenia

Olanzapine is a serotonin-dopamine receptor antagonist primarily used in the treatment of psychotic illnesses. It has been shown in numerous large trials to be as equally effective as haloperidol in the acute treatment and maintenance treatment of schizophrenia. However, olanzapine was shown to be more effective than haloperidol in the treatment of negative symptoms and to cause significantly fewer extrapyramidal symptoms. Furthermore, early reports suggest that olanzapine produces less tardive dyskinesia than haloperidol, though longer follow-up data are needed. Current studies have failed to demonstrate the efficacy of olanzapine in the treatment of refractory schizophrenia. One comparison trial of olanzapine versus risperidone has indicated similar efficacy. Clinical trials in acute mania have found olanzapine to be more effective than placebo. However, there is no role for olanzapine monotherapy in bipolar disorder given current studies. Although olanzapine has shown a low rate of extrapyramidal symptoms, it is not without adverse effects. Clinically significant weight gain has been noted with olanzapine in each of the large clinical trials. The degree of weight gain is similar to clozapine and probably greater than that observed with risperidone. The long-term medical consequence of atypical antipsychotic-induced weight gain is not known at this time. While generally considered first-line drugs from an efficacy and adverse effect standpoint, pharmacoeconomic studies are needed to justify the large acquisition cost of olanzapine compared to typical agents.     

Olanzapine: an atypical antipsychotic for schizophrenia

Olanzapine is a serotonin-dopamine receptor antagonist primarily used in the treatment of psychotic illnesses. It has been shown in numerous large trials to be as equally effective as haloperidol in the acute treatment and maintenance treatment of schizophrenia. However, olanzapine was shown to be more effective than haloperidol in the treatment of negative symptoms and to cause significantly fewer extrapyramidal symptoms. Furthermore, early reports suggest that olanzapine produces less tardive dyskinesia than haloperidol, though longer follow-up data are needed. Current studies have failed to demonstrate the efficacy of olanzapine in the treatment of refractory schizophrenia. One comparison trial of olanzapine versus risperidone has indicated similar efficacy. Clinical trials in acute mania have found olanzapine to be more effective than placebo. However, there is no role for olanzapine monotherapy in bipolar disorder given current studies. Although olanzapine has shown a low rate of extrapyramidal symptoms, it is not without adverse effects. Clinically significant weight gain has been noted with olanzapine in each of the large clinical trials. The degree of weight gain is similar to clozapine and probably greater than that observed with risperidone. The long-term medical consequence of atypical antipsychotic-induced weight gain is not known at this time. While generally considered first-line drugs from an efficacy and adverse effect standpoint, pharmacoeconomic studies are needed to justify the large acquisition cost of olanzapine compared to typical agents.     

Risperidone versus haloperidol in the treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic inpatients with schizophrenia: a randomized double-blind study.

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of risperidone and haloperidol in treatment-resistant chronic schizophrenic patients. Subjects (n = 78) who met DSM-III criteria for schizophrenia were randomly assigned to receive 6 mg/day of risperidone or 20 mg/day of haloperidol for 12 weeks. Clinical efficacy was determined using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), and side-effects with the Treatment Emergent Symptom Scale (TESS). Risperidone produced a mean 39.8 +/- 24.1% reduction in total PANSS score compared to a mean 28.3 + 19.4% reduction in the haloperidol group (P < 0.05). Analysis of changes for the three subscores of the PANSS revealed that the general psychopathology and negative subscores were significantly improved in the risperidone group compared to the haloperidol group. As for the side-effects, the risperidone group showed a significantly lower TESS total score, as well as nervous system symptoms subscore and cardiovascular symptoms subscore, compared to the haloperidol group. Risperidone appears to be a more effective and better tolerated antipsychotic drug in treatment-refractory Chinese schizophrenia than haloperidol.     

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.     

Fluvoxamine augmentation of antipsychotics improves negative symptoms in psychotic chronic schizophrenic patients: a placebo-controlled study

The efficacy and safety of adding fluvoxamine to antipsychotic treatment in schizophrenic patients with mixed positive and negative symptoms was examined. Fifty-three patients selected for persistent negative and positive symptoms who were receiving antipsychotic treatment were randomly allocated to additional fluvoxamine (50-100 mg/day) or placebo in a double-blind manner. Fluvoxamine was associated with significant improvement in negative symptoms (Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms) compared to placebo. The combination was well tolerated. Fluvoxamine augmentation of antipsychotics is safe in chronic schizophrenic patients with mixed positive and negative symptoms and may ameliorate negative symptoms in such patients.     

Olanzapine: a review of its use in the management of bipolar I disorder

Olanzapine is an atypical antipsychotic that is approved in the US and Europe for the oral treatment of acute manic episodes in patients with bipolar I disorder, and for maintenance therapy to prevent recurrence in responders.Oral olanzapine is effective in the treatment of bipolar mania, both as single agent therapy and as adjunctive therapy in combination with lithium or valproate semisodium. In the treatment of acute episodes, olanzapine is superior to placebo and at least as effective as lithium, valproate semisodium, haloperidol and risperidone in reducing the symptoms of mania and inducing remission. Additional comparative studies are required to determine the efficacy of olanzapine relative to newer atypical antipsychotics, such as quetiapine, ziprasidone and aripiprazole. Olanzapine is also effective at delaying or preventing relapse during long-term maintenance therapy in treatment responders, and is currently the only atypical antipsychotic approved for this indication. Current evidence suggests that olanzapine may be more effective than lithium in preventing relapse into mania, but not relapse into depression or relapse overall. Olanzapine is generally well tolerated, and although it is associated with a higher incidence of weight gain than most atypical agents, it has a low incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS). Therefore, oral olanzapine is a useful first-line or adjunctive agent for both the acute treatment of manic episodes and the long-term prevention of relapse into manic, depressive or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder.     

Haloperidol in schizophrenic children: early findings from a study in progress.

This report presents preliminary findings in an ongoing double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the safety and efficacy of haloperidol in hospitalized schizophrenic children. The subjects are diagnosed schizophrenic by DSM-III-R criteria and admitted to the Bellevue Hospital Children's Inpatient Psychiatric Unit. The study is 10 weeks in duration and employs a crossover design. After a 2-week placebo baseline period, the subjects enter double-blind treatment for 8 weeks, by random assignment receiving either haloperidol for 4 weeks followed by placebo for 4 weeks, or alternatively, placebo for 4 weeks followed by haloperidol for 4 weeks. Dosage, regulated individually, ranges from 0.5 to 10.0 mg/day. To date, of an anticipated 20 subjects, 12 have completed the study. These children, 9 boys and 3 girls, were ages 5.5 to 11.75 years upon study entry. Haloperidol was superior to placebo for reduction of target symptoms with optimal haloperidol dose of 0.5 to 3.5 mg/day (0.02-0.12 mg/kg/day).     

Spotlight on olanzapine in bipolar I disorder

Olanzapine is an atypical antipsychotic that is approved in the US and Europe for the oral treatment of acute manic episodes in patients with bipolar I disorder and for maintenance therapy to prevent recurrence in responders. Oral olanzapine is effective in the treatment of bipolar mania, both as single agent therapy and as adjunctive therapy in combination with lithium or valproate semisodium. In the treatment of acute episodes, olanzapine is superior to placebo and at least as effective as lithium, valproate semisodium, haloperidol and risperidone in reducing the symptoms of mania and inducing remission. Additional comparative studies are required to determine the efficacy of olanzapine relative to newer atypical antipsychotics such as quetiapine, ziprasidone and aripiprazole. Olanzapine is also effective at delaying or preventing relapse during long-term maintenance therapy in treatment responders and is currently the only atypical antipsychotic approved for this indication. Current evidence suggests that olanzapine may be more effective than lithium in preventing relapse into mania, but not relapse into depression or relapse overall. Olanzapine is generally well tolerated and, although it is associated with a higher incidence of weight gain than most atypical agents, it has a low incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms. Therefore, oral olanzapine is a useful first-line or adjunctive agent for both the acute treatment of manic episodes and the long-term prevention of relapse into manic, depressive or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder.     

Minimum effective doses of haloperidol for the treatment of first psychotic episode: a comparative study with risperidone and olanzapine

Minimum doses of haloperidol might show similar efficacy and side-effects compared to atypical antipsychotics. The objectives of this study were to compare the efficacy of minimum doses of haloperidol with standard doses of risperidone and olanzapine on a 6-month open trial in first psychotic episode patients and to examine the effect of compliance on their outcome. Forty-two patients were recruited and started on flexible doses of these drugs. Olanzapine was given with no cost to the patients. Efficacy and side-effects were monitored every 3 months using standardized assessments. Thirty patients completed the study. All treatment groups showed improvement in positive, negative and depressive symptoms. There were no differences in side-effects among them. The haloperidol group required higher doses of anticholinergics. The rate of treatment discontinuation was higher in the risperidone group due to the direct cost. Minimum doses of haloperidol might prove to be a good choice of treatment for patients with a first episode of psychosis.