Olanzapine versus placebo in acute mania: treatment responses in subgroups

Two double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of olanzapine in acute mania showed significant overall antimanic efficacy, based on reductions in mania ratings. Their subject-level data were pooled to increase statistical power to test for differences in treatment responses among 10 subgroup pairs of interest using generalized estimating equations methods. Similar drug/placebo superiority and responsiveness to olanzapine was found in men versus women, psychotic versus nonpsychotic subjects, and those presenting in mania versus mixed states, and responses were independent of onset age, current age, or prior illness based on episodes, hospitalizations, recent rapid cycling, lifetime substance use, or previous antipsychotic treatment. Olanzapine and placebo responses paralleled closely (r(s) = 0.73). Patients were relatively more responsive to olanzapine who were younger at illness onset, lacked prior substance abuse, and had not previously received antipsychotic treatment (efficacy ratios 1.5-1.7, all P < 0.01). These well-powered comparisons of subgroups of interest indicate broad efficacy of olanzapine in the treatment of acute mania.     

Treatment of bipolar I rapid cycling patients during dysphoric mania with olanzapine

The simultaneous presentation of manic and depressive symptoms in the same patient is fairly common. The terms and have been used as equivalents to mixed states. Pharmacotherapy is less effective in this group of patients. The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness and safety of olanzapine as an add-on therapy in patients with bipolar disorder with a rapid cycling course during a dysphoric mania episode. Thirteen patients treated with mood stabilizers for at least 1 year and diagnosed with a mixed episode were included in an open trial. All had at least 4 episodes in the last year. Patients with organic diseases, including altered thyroid function, were excluded from the research. Patients were evaluated at inclusion and at day 28. Response was defined as a decrease of 50% in the Young Mania Rating Scale and the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression concomitant with a Clinical Global Impression improvement of 1 or 2. All patients completed the study. The doses of olanzapine were 16.15 +/- 5.82 mg/day. There was a reduction in the manic and depressive symptoms in all patients. Ten of the 13 patients were considered to have responded to the treatment according to the response definition. Adverse effects included somnolence (23.08%) and weight gain (0.81 +/- 1.96 kg in women, 2.20 +/- 2.28 kg in men). Our results suggest that olanzapine combined with mood stabilizers is safe and effective in the treatment of the manic and the depressive symptoms of dysphoric mania with a rapid cycling course.     

Relationship of mania symptomatology to maintenance treatment response with divalproex, lithium, or placebo.

Euphoric and mixed (dysphoric) manic symptoms have different response patterns to divalproex and lithium in acute mania treatment, but have not been studied in relationship to maintenance treatment outcomes. We examined the impact of initial euphoric or dysphoric manic symptomatology on maintenance outcome. Randomized maintenance treatment with divalproex, lithium, or placebo was provided for 372 bipolar I patients, who met improvement criteria during open phase treatment for an index manic episode. The current analysis grouped patients according to the index manic episode subtype (euphoric or dysphoric), and evaluated the impact on maintenance treatment outcome. The rate of early discontinuation due to intolerance during maintenance treatment was higher for initially dysphoric patients (N=249) than euphoric patients (N=123; 15.7 vs 7.3%, respectively; p=0.032). Both lithium (23.2%) and divalproex (17.1%) were associated with more premature discontinuations due to intolerance than placebo (4.8%; p=0.003 and 0.02, respectively) in the initially dysphoric patients. Among initially euphoric patients, treatment with lithium was associated with significantly more premature discontinuations due to intolerance compared to placebo (18.2 vs 0%; p=0.03), and divalproex was significantly (p=0.05) more effective than lithium, but not placebo in delaying time to a depressive episode. Initial euphoric mania appeared to predispose to better outcomes on indices of depression and overall function with divalproex maintenance than with either placebo or lithium. Dysphoric mania appeared to predispose patients to more side effects when treated with either divalproex or lithium during maintenance therapy.     

Olanzapine versus placebo: results of a double-blind,fixed-dose olanzapine trial

Olanzapine is a potential new atypical antipsychotic agent. This double-blind, acute phase study compared two doses of olanzapine [1 mg/day (Olz1.0); 10 mg/day (Olz10.0)] with placebo in the treatment of 152 patients who met the DSM-III-R criteria for schizophrenia and had a Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS)-total score (items scored 0–6) 24. In overall symptomatology improvement [BPRS-total score and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS)-total score], Olz10.0 was statistically significantly superior to placebo. In positive symptom improvement (PANSS-positive score, BPRS-positive score), Olz10.0 was statistically significantly superior to placebo. In negative symptom improvement (PANSS-negative score), Olz10.0 was statistically superior to placebo. Olz 1.0 was clinically comparable to placebo in all efficacy comparisons. The only adverse event to show an overall statistically significant incidence difference was anorexia (reported for 10% of placebo-treated and 0% of Olz10.0-treated patients). The Olz10.0-treated patients improved over baseline with respect to parkinsonian and akathisia symptoms, and these changes were comparable with those observed with placebo. There were no dystonias associated with Olz10.0 treatment. At endpoint, the incidence of patients with elevated prolactin values did not differ statistically significantly between placebo-treated and Olz10.0-treated patients. Olanzapine appears to be not only safe and effective, but a promising atypical antipsychotic candidate.This study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company The HGAP Study Group: Alan Green, Massachusetts Mental Health Center, Boston, Mass.; Sharon Dott, Department of Psychiatry, U.T.M.B., Galveston, Texas; Greg Pfister and Luisito Roxas, Psychiatry Clinic, St Alexius Medical Center, Bismarck, North Dakota; Joyce Small, Department of Psychiatry, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Ind.; Marshall Thomas, Colorado Psychiatric Hospital, Denver, Co.; Donna Ames, VA Medical Center, West Los Angeles, Brentwood Division, Los Angeles, Calif.; Nina Schooler and Robert Baker, Special Studies Division, Mayview State Hospital, Bridgeville, Pa.; Robert Levine, New York, N.Y.; Louis Fabre, Fabre Research Clinic, Inc., Houston, Texas; Robert Friedel, University of Alabama Birmingham Clinical Research, Birmingham, Alabama; Allen Safferman and Jeffrey Lieberman, Hillside Hospital, A Division of Long Island Jewish Medical Center, Glen Oaks, N.Y.; Stephen Stahl, Institute for Psychopharmacology Research, San Diego, Calif.     

Quetiapine versus placebo in combination with lithium or divalproex for the treatment of bipolar mania

Quetiapine (QTP) combined with lithium (Li) or divalproex (DVP) for the treatment of mania was evaluated in 2 double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. Patients were randomized to 3 or 6 weeks of treatment with QTP plus Li/DVP or placebo (PBO) plus Li/DVP. Quetiapine was dosed up to 800 mg/d; Li was dosed to achieve serum concentrations of 0.7-1.0 mEq/L and DVP to 50-100 microg/mL. A total of 402 patients were randomized: 197 to QTP + Li/DVP and 205 to PBO + Li/DVP. The mean quetiapine dose in responders was 492 (+/-204) mg/d. Improvement in the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) at day 21 in the QTP + Li/DVP group (-15.29) was statistically superior to the PBO + Li/DVP group (-12.19) (P < 0.05). A statistically significant difference in favor of quetiapine was observed within the first week (P < 0.05). Significantly more QTP + Li/DVP patients achieved a response (> or =50% decrease in the YMRS) at day 21 (QTP + Li/DVP, 55.7%; PBO + Li/DVP, 41.6%;P < 0.01). Improvements in Clinical Global Impression-Bipolar Severity of Illness scores by day 21 were also significantly greater in QTP + Li/DVP-treated patients (-1.59) versus PBO + Li/DVP (-1.19) (P < 0.01). Common adverse events (> or =5% and twice that in the PBO + Li/DVP group) in the QTP + Li/DVP group were somnolence, dry mouth, and asthenia. Quetiapine combined with Li/DVP was not associated with extrapyramidal symptoms (including akathisia) or emergent depression. More QTP + Li/DVP-treated patients completed the trial, and there was no difference in discontinuation rates due to adverse events between the two groups. Quetiapine, in combination with lithium or divalproex, is well tolerated and has superior efficacy to lithium or divalproex alone in the treatment of bipolar mania.     

Service utilization and costs of olanzapine versus divalproex treatment for acute mania: results from a randomized, 47-week clinical trial

OBJECTIVE: This study examined direct treatment costs based on medication and service use data collected in a 47-week multi-center, double-blind, randomized clinical trial of olanzapine versus divalproex for patients with bipolar disorder and and experiencing acute mania. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients who completed the 3-week acute phase and entered into the 44-week maintenance phase (n = 147) of the trial were included. Service use data were collected at weeks 3, 7, 15, 23, 31, 39 and 47 of the maintenance phase. Analyses were conducted to address potential biases from discontinuation patterns and use of this patient sub-sample. RESULTS: Overall, per patient yearly costs were similar for olanzapine- and divalproex-treated patients ($14 967 vs. $15 801). Psychiatric-related costs accounted for 95.4% and 93.6% of the total costs for olanzapine- and divalproextreated patients, respectively. Study medication costs were significantly higher for olanzapine than for divalproex ($4662 vs. $1755, p < 0.01). However, this was offset by the combined effects of numerically lower costs for several other services with olanzapine treatment. Some of the savings associated with olanzapine treatment compared with divalproex treatment resulted from differences in costs associated with emergency room services ($432 vs. $1346, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Overall per-patient treatment costs were similar for olanzapine and divalproex. Recognizing challenges in analyzing and generalizing cost outcomes from a clinical trial setting, results provide some much-needed comparative economic information regarding these two medication options for treating mania in bipolar disorder.     

Long-term treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder after an acute response: a comparison of fluoxetine versus placebo

Few controlled studies have evaluated the long-term continuation of pharmacotherapy for relapse prevention in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). This study assessed efficacy and safety of fluoxetine versus placebo in preventing relapse of OCD during a 52-week period in responders to short-term administration of fluoxetine. Patients who met DSM-IV criteria for OCD and had a Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale score > or = 19 were treated with single-blind fluoxetine 20, 40, or 60 mg/day (based on physician assessment of response and tolerability). After 20 weeks, responders were randomly assigned to receive continued treatment with fluoxetine or placebo and were monitored for relapse for up to 52 weeks. Of 130 patients who entered the study, 71 (55%) were randomly assigned to receive fluoxetine (N = 36) or placebo (N = 35). Patients who received fluoxetine had numerically lower relapse rates compared with those who received placebo, although the difference was not significant (Kaplan-Meier 1-year relapse rates: fluoxetine, 20.6%; placebo, 31.9%; one-tailed p value = 0.137). In additional analyses evaluating patients on the basis of fluoxetine dose at randomization, patients who continued treatment with fluoxetine 60 mg/day (N = 52) had significantly lower rates of relapse than those who were switched to placebo (Kaplan-Meier 1-year relapse rates: fluoxetine, 17.5%; placebo, 38.0%; one-tailed p value = 0.041). Those who responded to the acute treatment phase with 40 (N = 18) or 20 (N = 1) mg/day had low overall rates of relapse, and the difference between continued fluoxetine and placebo treatment for these patients was not significant. For responders to the 60 mg/day dosage, those patients who continued treatment with fluoxetine were provided greater protection against relapse than those patients switched to placebo.     

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.     

Pattern of response to divalproex, lithium, or placebo in four naturalistic subtypes of mania.

We investigated effects of antimanic treatments on specific aspects of mania, prediction of response, and the existence of naturalistic subgroups of patients with different treatment response in 179 inpatients randomized to antimanic treatment with lithium, divalproex, or placebo. Psychiatric symptom ratings were conducted by clinicians and nurses before and during treatment. Factor analysis using physician and nurse rating scales, followed by a cluster analysis, yielded anxious-depressive, psychotic, classic, and irritable subtypes. We compared: (1) treatment effects on factor scores; (2) responses to treatment across subtypes; and (3) pattern of symptom change with each treatment. The anxious-depressed subtype did not respond to any treatment; the psychotic and classic subtypes responded similarly to lithium and to divalproex; and the irritable-dysphoric subtype responded better to divalproex than to lithium. Overall, divalproex improved impulsivity and hostility significantly more than placebo, and lithium or divalproex improved hyperactivity more than placebo. These data suggest that there are naturalistic subtypes of manic episodes with different responses to treatment.     

Comparison of mania patients suitable for treatment trials versus clinical treatment

It remains uncertain whether bipolar disorder (BPD) patients in randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) are sufficiently representative of clinically encountered patients as to guide clinical-therapeutic practice. We complied inclusion/exclusion criteria by frequency from reports of 21 RCTs for mania, and applied them in a pilot study of patients hospitalized for DSM-IV BPD manic/mixed states to compare characteristics and clinical responses of patients who did versus did not meet exclusion criteria. From 27 initially identified inclusion/exclusion criteria ranked by citation frequency, we derived six inclusion, and 10 non-redundant-exclusion factors. Of 67 consecutive patients meeting inclusion criteria, 15 (22.4%) potential "research subjects" met all 10 exclusion criteria. The remaining 52 "clinical patients" differed markedly on exclusion criteria, including more psychiatric co-morbidity, substance abuse, involuntary hospitalization, and suicide attempts or violence, but were otherwise similar. In both groups responses to clinically determined inpatient treatments were similar, including improvement in mania ratings. Based on applying reported inclusion/exclusion criteria for RCTs to a pilot sample of hospitalized-manic patients, those likely to be included in modern RCTs were similar to patients who would be excluded, most notably in short-term antimanic-treatment responses. The findings encourage further comparisons of subjects included/excluded from RCTs to test potential clinical generalizability of research findings. The pilot study is limited in numbers and exposure times with which to test for the minor differences between "research subjects" and "clinical patients."     

A comparison of the effects of olanzapine and risperidone versus placebo on ghrelin plasma levels

To thoroughly investigate the phenomenon of atypical antipsychotic-associated weight gain, a feeding laboratory paradigm was developed that included obtaining plasma levels of the orexigenic peptide ghrelin that is associated with appetite and eating. This study is a randomized, double-blind, parallel group trial comparing the effects of a 2-week exposure to olanzapine, risperidone, or placebo on plasma ghrelin area under the plasma-time curve (AUC) in 28 healthy human subjects. Subjects were randomized to receive olanzapine, risperidone, or placebo and titrated over 4 days to 10 mg/d or 4 mg/d, respectively. The mean dose at end point was 8.6 + 1.8 mg/d for the olanzapine group and 2.8 + 0.8 mg/d for the risperidone group. Weight changes were significantly different between groups at end point (F2,44 = 10.193; P = 0.0001). The olanzapine group demonstrated a significant increase in weight at end point (2.25 + 1.84 kg) compared with placebo (0.13 + 1.05 kg; P = 0.007). Because of the small subject number, the comparisons between olanzapine and risperidone and risperidone and placebo did not reach statistical significance, although olanzapine's mean weight gain was numerically greater than that of risperidone (2.25 + 1.84 kg vs 1.10 + 0.99 kg) and risperidone's mean weight gain was numerically larger than placebo (1.10 + 0.99 kg vs 0.13 + 1.05 kg). The baseline adjusted Bonferroni corrected contrast of end point ghrelin AUC demonstrated a significant difference between groups (F2,24 = 4.40; P = 0.024), and the post hoc analysis revealed a significant decrease in ghrelin AUC for the olanzapine group in comparison with the risperidone group (P = 0.021) but not between risperidone and placebo or olanzapine and placebo. Ghrelin AUC values did not change significantly from baseline to end point in either of the other 2 groups. The difference between groups approached but did not reach significance (F2,23 = 3.299; P = 0.055) when body mass index change was included as a covariate, suggesting that the difference in ghrelin AUC change followed the change in body weight. Sedation associated with both active drugs (P = 0.006) and "stuffy nose" associated with risperidone (P = 0.020) were the only statistically different adverse reactions when compared with placebo. Thus, a human feeding laboratory paradigm using a brief exposure to atypical antipsychotics functions as a method to investigate pharmacologically induced weight gain and its association with changes in the orexigenic peptide ghrelin. This rejects the hypothesis that ghrelin levels are elevated by the antipsychotic and that this is a potential cause of the weight gain phenomenon.     

Moderators of placebo response to antipsychotic treatment in patients with schizophrenia: a meta-regression

Abstract Rationale. Variation in placebo response within and among clinical trials involving patients with schizophrenia can substantially affect conclusions about the efficacy of new antipsychotic medications. Therefore, it is of great importance to identify factors that moderate response to placebo in such trials. Objective. The objective of this meta-regression analysis was to estimate the effect of potential moderators of placebo response in randomized, short-term clinical trials involving patients with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or schizophreniform disorder. Methods. Mean placebo response and potential moderators were extracted from 35 placebo-controlled, randomized trials of antipsychotic medications in patients with schizophrenia. Placebo response was defined as the absolute change in the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale total score. Fixed-effects meta-regression was used to investigate between-trial variation in placebo response. Results. Trial duration accounted for a substantial proportion of the between-trial variation in response (27%), with greater improvement on placebo observed in shorter trials. Other variables showed insufficient variation across trials to permit any inferences regarding their relationships with placebo response. Conclusions. Placebo-controlled trials of short duration (<6–8 weeks) are vulnerable to substantial placebo response. Recruiting patients with more severe pathology to mitigate placebo response does not appear to offer benefits and may even be counterproductive. Meta-analyses based on individual patient data offer the potential for much more detailed and inferentially sound exploration of factors affecting placebo response and are highly recommended. Electronic Publication     

Improvement of Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale cognitive score associated with olanzapine treatment of acute mania

OBJECTIVE: This study analyzed the effect of olanzapine on a psychopathology-based scale assessing abnormal thought processes and examined the relationship between improvement on this scale and mania and depression improvement in acutely manic patients. METHODS: The study sample (N = 254) was pooled from two double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials. Disturbance in thought processes was measured by the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale cognitive component (PANSS-Cognitive) score. Mood severity was measured by the Young-Mania Rating Scale (Y-MRS) and Hamilton Depression Inventory (HAM-D). Last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) changes from baseline to endpoint (Week 3) were presented for patients who had at least one post-baseline assessment. RESULTS: Olanzapine-treated patients experienced modest but significant improvement in PANSS-Cognitive score (olanzapine: -4.25 n = 124; placebo: -1.69 n = 120, p < 01), regardless of age, gender, mania subtype (pure, mixed), course (rapid or non-rapid cycling), or the presence or absence of psychotic features. PANSS-Cognitive improvement was more highly correlated with mania than depression improvement. CONCLUSION: Olanzapine improved abnormal thought processes measured by the PANSS-Cognitive score in patients with acute mania. This improvement in thought processes was significantly associated with improvement in acute mania. More sensitive and specific neuropsychological testing could help clarify whether improvement in thought processes on olanzapine was independent of mania reduction.     

Escitalopram versus placebo in the treatment of dysthymic disorder

Numerous studies have assessed the acute efficacy of antidepressants, including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, in treating dysthymic disorder; however, escitalopram, the S-enantiomer of citalopram, has not been studied. Thirty-six outpatients with Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R-diagnosed dysthymic disorder, aged 23-65 years (mean±SD=44.7±11 years), were randomly assigned to double-blind escitalopram (maximum dose 20?mg/day) versus placebo for 12 weeks. Inclusion criteria included age 18-65 years and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) score≥12. We hypothesized that escitalopram would be superior to placebo in the HDRS-24 item total score at week 12. We also hypothesized the superiority of escitalopram over placebo for secondary measures, including the percentage of participants classified as responders and remitters, as well as social functioning (Social Adjustment Scale), clinical global impression-improvement, Global Assessment of Functioning Scale. Participants' baseline HDRS-24 averaged 23.4±5.9. Final HDRS-24 scores at last observation carried forward did not differ significantly between escitalopram-treated (mean±SD=10.88±5.83) and placebo-treated individuals (mean±SD=16.4±6.34) (F=2.82, degrees of freedom=1,32, P=0.10). Significant differences favoring active medication were found on the Social Adjustment Scale and the Clinical Global Impression Severity and Global Assessment of Functioning Scale, but not in the percentages of responders or remitters. A larger study sample or higher escitalopram dose may show more significant placebo-medication differences.     

Improvement of positive and negative syndrome scale cognitive score associated with olanzapine treatment of acute mania

SUMMARY

Objective: This study analyzed the effect of olanzapine on a psychopathology-based scale assessing abnormal thought processes and examined the relationship between improvement on this scale and mania and depression improvement in acutely manic patients.

Methods: The study sample (N = 254) was pooled from two double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials. Disturbance in thought processes was measured by the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale cognitive component (PANSS-Cognitive) score. Mood severity was measured by the Young-Mania Rating Scale (Y-MRS) and Hamilton Depression Inventory (HAM-D). Last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) changes from baseline to endpoint (Week 3) were presented for patients who had at least one post-baseline assessment.

Results: Olanzapine-treated patients experienced modest but significant improvement in PANSS-Cognitive score (olanzapine: –4.25 n = 124; placebo: –1.69 n = 120, p < 01), regardless of age, gender, mania subtype (pure, mixed), course (rapid or non-rapid cycling), or the presence or absence of psychotic features. PANSS-Cognitive improvement was more highly correlated with mania than depression improvement.

Conclusion: Olanzapine improved abnormal thought processes measured by the PANSS-Cognitive score in patients with acute mania. This improvement in thought processes was significantly associated with improvement in acute mania. More sensitive and specific neuropsychological testing could help clarify whether improvement in thought processes on olanzapine was independent of mania reduction.     

Fluoxetine versus Vitex agnus castus extract in the treatment of premenstrual dysphoric disorder

Clinical trials have demonstrated that serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs) and the extract of Vitex agnus castus are effective for the treatment of premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD). However, to the best of our knowledge, there has been no study comparing the efficacy of the SRIs with Vitex agnus castus (AC) extract. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy of fluoxetine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), with that of the AC extract, a natural choice. After a period of 2 screening months to screen the patients for suitability, 41 patients with PMDD according to DSM-IV were recruited into the study. The patients were randomized to fluoxetine or AC for 2 months of single-blind, rater- blinded and prospective treatment period. The outcome measures included the Penn daily symptom report (DSR), the Hamilton depression rating scale (HAM-D), and the clinical global impression-severity of illness (CGI-SI) and -improvement (CGI-I) scales. At endpoint, using the clinical criterion for improvement, a similar percentage of patients responded to fluoxetine (68.4%, n = 13) and AC (57.9%, n = 11). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups with respect to the rate of responders. This preliminary study suggests that patients with PMDD respond well to treatment with both fluoxetine and AC. However, fluoxetine was more effective for psychological symptoms while the extract diminished the physical symptoms.     

阿立哌唑与奥氮平治疗精神分裂症的系统评价

目的 比较阿立哌唑与奥氮平治疗精神分裂症的疗效及不良反应的差异.方法 检索国内关于阿立哌唑与奥氮平对照研究治疗精神分裂症的文献,应用固定效应模型法的方差倒置法,对查阅到8篇进行评估.结果 阿立哌唑与奥氮平的疗效无显著性差异[x2=0.17,P>0.05,OR=0.93,95%CI(0.66～1.30)],阿立哌唑组发生失眠、震颤、头痛、兴奋或激越、静坐不能不良反应,较奥氮平组多,有显著性差异(P<0.01);奥氮平组发生体质量增加不良反应比阿立哌唑组多;有显著性差异(P<0.001).结论 奥氮平与阿立哌唑的疗效相当,但奥氮平不良反应的发生率较低.