A naturalistic multicenter study of intramuscular olanzapine in the treatment of acutely agitated manic or schizophrenic patients

BACKGROUND: We conducted a naturalistic, multicenter, 24-hour, nonrandomized, observational study describing for the first time the effectiveness and safety of intramuscular (IM) olanzapine to control agitation and aggression in "real world" patients with psychosis. The data thus obtained was compared with that reported from randomized double-blind clinical trials. METHOD: 92 patients attending psychiatric emergency settings were enrolled. The study subjects were 44 male and 48 female patients with a mean age of 36.5+/-12 years and DSM-IV-TR diagnoses of schizophrenia (48.9%), psychotic disorder not specified (23.9%) or bipolar disorder (27.2%). 10 mg IM olanzapine was administered to all patients. An optional second injection was permitted> or =2 hours later in line with hospital policy. Evaluations (PANSS-EC and CGI-S) were performed at baseline and 2 and 24 hours following the IM injection. RESULTS: Two hours after IM olanzapine was administered, a mean decrease of -9.6 in the PANSS-EC from a baseline score of 26.5 was recorded. At the 24-hour endpoint a statistically and clinically significant reduction in the PANSS-EC scores (11.6+/-5.3) was observed as compared with values at study entry (26.5+/-5.9) and at 2 hours endpoint (16.9+/-9.3), which represent a mean decrease of -14.9 and -5.3, respectively. CONCLUSION: The present naturalistic study provides naturalistic data on the effectiveness of IM olanzapine in the treatment of acute agitation in patients with schizophrenia or bipolar mania that is in line the data obtained in randomized double-blind clinical trials.     

Intramuscular Olanzapine – a UK case series of early cases

Background  

Clinical trials assessing efficacy and safety of Intramuscular (IM) Olanzapine in acute schizophrenia and acute mania have previously been undertaken in studies required for drug registration in patients who were required to give informed consent. These patients may have less severe forms of psychosis than patients treated in routine practice. Data derived from naturalistic practice following the launch of IM olanzapine may be helpful for clinicians in assessing efficacy and safety of IM olanzapine. The PANSS-EC scale used in the clinical studies may represent a tool that could be used in routine clinical practice.     

A double-blind, placebo-controlled dose-response comparison of intramuscular olanzapine and haloperidol in the treatment of acute agitation in schizophrenia

BACKGROUND: An intramuscular (IM) formulation of olanzapine has been developed because there are no rapid-acting IM atypical antipsychotic drugs currently available in the United States for treating acute agitation in patients with schizophrenia. METHODS: Recently hospitalized acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia (N = 270) were randomized to receive 1 to 3 IM injections of olanzapine (2.5, 5.0, 7.5, or 10.0 mg), haloperidol (7.5 mg), or placebo within 24 hours. A dose-response relationship for IM olanzapine in the reduction of agitation was assessed by measuring the reduction in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale Excited Component (PANSS-EC) scores 2 hours after the first injection. Safety was assessed by recording adverse events and with extrapyramidal symptom scales and electrocardiograms at 24 hours after the first injection. RESULTS: Olanzapine exhibited a dose-response relationship for reduction in agitation (F(1,179)= 14.4; P<.001). Mean PANSS-EC reductions 2 hours after the first injection of olanzapine (2.5 mg = -5.5; 5.0 mg = -8.1; 7.5 mg = -8.7; 10.0 mg = -9.4) were superior to those with placebo (-2.9; P =.01 vs olanzapine at 2.5 mg; P<.001 for each other olanzapine dose) but not with haloperidol (-7.5). A dose of 5.0, 7.5, or 10.0 mg of olanzapine caused a greater reduction in agitation than placebo 30 minutes after the first injection. There were no differences between treatment groups for hypotension, the most frequently reported adverse event, or for clinically relevant changes in the QTc interval. There was a greater incidence of treatment-emergent parkinsonism during treatment with IM haloperidol (16.7%) than with 2.5 (P =.03), 5.0 (P =.03), or 7.5 mg (P =.01) of IM olanzapine (0%) or with placebo (0%) (P =.01). CONCLUSIONS: Intramuscular olanzapine at a dose of 2.5 to 10.0 mg per injection exhibits a dose-response relationship in the rapid treatment of acute agitation in patients with schizophrenia and demonstrates a favorable safety profile.     

Effects of intramuscular olanzapine vs. haloperidol and placebo on QTc intervals in acutely agitated patients

Prolongation of the QTc interval has been reported during treatment with oral antipsychotic agents and may be more pronounced during parenteral administration. Pooled QTc interval data from acutely agitated patients across four double-blind trials were compared. Databases included: placebo-controlled [two schizophrenia, one bipolar mania trials (n=565)]; haloperidol-controlled [two schizophrenia trials (n=482)]; geriatric placebo-controlled [1 dementia trial (n=204)]. Patients received 1-3 injections of intramuscular (IM) olanzapine (2.5-10 mg/injection), IM haloperidol (7.5 mg/injection), or IM placebo. At 2 and 24 h after IM olanzapine treatment, the mean QTc interval decreased approximately 3 ms from baseline in the placebo- and haloperidol-controlled databases. When there was a statistically significant difference between IM olanzapine and IM placebo, QTc intervals decreased during treatment with IM olanzapine and increased with IM placebo. The incidences of prolonged (endpoint >/=99th percentile of healthy adults or >/=500 ms) or lengthened (increase >/=60 ms) QTc intervals during treatment with IM olanzapine (<3% placebo- and haloperidol-controlled databases, <12% geriatric placebo-controlled database) were never significantly greater than with comparators. These data suggest that IM olanzapine has a favorable QTc interval profile in acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia, bipolar mania, or dementia.     

Intramuscular olanzapine and intramuscular haloperidol in acute schizophrenia: antipsychotic efficacy and extrapyramidal safety during the first 24 hours of treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the antipsychotic efficacy and extrapyramidal safety of intramuscular (i.m.) olanzapine and i.m. haloperidol during the first 24 hours of treatment of acute schizophrenia. METHOD: Patients (n = 311) with acute schizophrenia were randomly allocated (2:2:1) to receive i.m. olanzapine (10.0 mg, n = 131), i.m. haloperidol (7.5 mg, n = 126), or i.m. placebo (n = 54). RESULTS: After the first injection, i.m. olanzapine was comparable to i.m. haloperidol and superior to i.m. placebo for reducing mean change scores from baseline on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BRPS) Positive at 2 hours (-2.9 olanzapine, -2.7 haloperidol, and -1.5 placebo) and 24 hours (-2.8 olanzapine, -3.2 haloperidol, and -1.3 placebo); the BPRS Total at 2 hours (-14.2 olanzapine,-13.1 haloperidol, and -7.1 placebo) and 24 hours (-12.8 olanzapine, -12.9 haloperidol, and -6.2 placebo); and the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scale at 24 hours (-0.5 olanzapine, -0.5 haloperidol, and -0.1 placebo). Patients treated with i.m. olanzapine had significantly fewer incidences of treatment-emergent parkinsonism (4.3% olanzapine vs 13.3% haloperidol, P = 0.036), but not akathisia (1.1% olanzapine vs 6.5% haloperidol, P = 0.065), than did patients treated with i.m. haloperidol; they also required significantly less anticholinergic treatment (4.6% olanzapine vs 20.6% haloperidol, P < 0.001). Mean extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) safety scores improved significantly from baseline during i.m. olanzapine treatment, compared with a general worsening during i.m. haloperidol treatment (Simpson-Angus Scale total score mean change: -0.61 olanzapine vs 0.70 haloperidol; P < 0.001; Barnes Akathisia Scale global score mean change: -0.27 olanzapine vs 0.01 haloperidol; P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: I.m. olanzapine was comparable to i.m. haloperidol for reducing the symptoms of acute schizophrenia during the first 24 hours of treatment, the efficacy of both being evident within 2 hours after the first injection. In general, more EPS were observed during treatment with i.m. haloperidol than with i.m. olanzapine.     

Double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison of intramuscular olanzapine and intramuscular haloperidol in the treatment of acute agitation in schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: The authors evaluated the comparative efficacy and safety of intramuscular olanzapine, intramuscular haloperidol, and intramuscular placebo for the treatment of acute agitation in schizophrenia. METHOD: Hospitalized patients with schizophrenia received one to three injections of intramuscular olanzapine, 10 mg, intramuscular haloperidol, 7.5 mg, or intramuscular placebo over a 24-hour period. Agitation was measured with the excited component of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and two additional scales. RESULTS: According to scores on the excited component of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, both intramuscular olanzapine and intramuscular haloperidol reduced agitation significantly more than intramuscular placebo 2 and 24 hours following the first injection. Intramuscular olanzapine reduced agitation significantly more than intramuscular haloperidol 15, 30, and 45 minutes following the first injection. No patients treated with intramuscular olanzapine experienced acute dystonia, compared with 7% of those who were treated with intramuscular haloperidol. No significant QT(c) interval changes were observed in any patients. CONCLUSIONS: Intramuscular olanzapine represents a rapid, effective, and safe treatment for acute agitation in schizophrenia.     

Safety and effectiveness of olanzapine in monotherapy: a multivariate analysis of a naturalistic study

BACKGROUND: This study investigated safety and effectiveness of olanzapine in monotherapy compared with conventional antipsychotics in treatment of acute inpatients with schizophrenia. METHOD: This was a prospective, comparative, nonrandomized, open-label, multisite, observational study of Spanish inpatients with an acute episode of schizophrenia. Data included safety assessments with an extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) questionnaire and the report of spontaneous adverse events, plus clinical assessments with the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness (CGI-S). A multivariate methodology was used to more adequately determine which factors can influence safety and effectiveness of olanzapine in monotherapy. RESULTS: 339 patients treated with olanzapine in monotherapy (OGm) and 385 patients treated with conventional antipsychotics (CG) were included in the analysis. Treatment-emergent EPS were significantly higher in the CG (p<0.0001). Response rate was significantly higher in the OGm (p=0.005). Logistic regression analyses revealed that the only variable significantly correlated with treatment-emergent EPS and clinical response was treatment strategy, with patients in OGm having 1.5 times the probability of obtaining a clinical response and patients in CG having 5 times the risk of developing EPS. CONCLUSION: In this naturalistic study olanzapine in monotherapy was better-tolerated and at least as effective as conventional antipsychotics.     

Belgian Schizophrenia Outcome Survey – Results of a 2-year naturalistic study in patients stabilised on monotherapy with olanzapine,risperidone or haloperidol

ObjectivesThis Schizophrenia Outcome Survey compared medical costs, psychopathology and adverse events in outpatients for 2 years following hospitalisation for an acute schizophrenic episode.MethodsAdults stabilised with haloperidol, olanzapine or risperidone entered this observational study ≤1 month after discharge and were assessed at baseline, 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months using Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Clinical Global Impression (CGI), Global Assessment of Functioning and adverse events reporting.ResultsAmong 323 patients (haloperidol 32, olanzapine 149, risperidone 142), baseline characteristics were similar in the olanzapine and risperidone groups, except for more first episodes in the risperidone group (p = 0.01). Haloperidol patients were more often single and institutionalised, less educated, had more residual schizophrenia, were longer hospitalised in the previous year, took more corrective and psychotropic drugs and had more extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) and gynaecomastia (all significantly). Sixty-eight percent of patients completed a 2-year follow-up. In all groups, CGI and GAF improved during the first 3 months (both p < 0.0001) while BPRS deteriorated in the first year (all within group changes p < 0.05, between group changes NS) before it stabilised. There were no significant differences in hospitalisations and no change in social profile. At the last visit, 66% of haloperidol (p < 0.01), 35% of olanzapine (NS) and 39% (NS) of risperidone patients had ≥1 EPS; 69% (p < 0.013), 40 and 44%, respectively, had ≥1 sexual problem (NS). Mean weight gain was 0.4 (NS), 2.6 (p < 0.05) and 2.6 kg (p < 0.05), respectively.ConclusionsIn this naturalistic study, treatment allocation might have introduced a bias in the interpretation of efficiency results, but olanzapine and risperidone caused less EPS than haloperidol during 2 years of outpatient follow-up.     

Comparison of treatment-emergent extrapyramidal symptoms in patients with bipolar mania or schizophrenia during olanzapine clinical trials

BACKGROUND: Previous research on pharmacotherapy with conventional antipsychotics has suggested that patients with affective disorders have higher rates of treatment-emergent extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) than patients with schizophrenia. It is not known whether this differential vulnerability holds true for treatment with atypical antipsychotics such as olanzapine. The present analysis retrospectively examined olanzapine clinical trial data for incidence of treatment-emergent EPS in patients with either schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. METHOD: Study participants were 4417 patients meeting DSM-III or DSM-IV criteria for either schizophrenia or bipolar mania participating in olanzapine clinical trials through July 31, 2001. Data were pooled across haloperidol-controlled trials and separately across placebo-controlled trials. Measures of EPS included rates of treatment-emergent EPS adverse event by type (i.e., dystonic, parkinsonian, or residual), Simpson-Angus Scale score mean change, rates of treatment-emergent parkinsonism, and rates of anticholinergic use. RESULTS: Consistent with prior research, haloperidol-treated patients with bipolar disorder appeared to be more vulnerable to the development of EPS than those with schizophrenia. However, olanzapine-treated patients with bipolar disorder were no more likely to develop EPS than those with schizophrenia. CONCLUSION: Results support previous research regarding conventional antipsychotics and suggest that olanzapine therapy does not increase the risk of EPS for patients with bipolar disorder.     

Intramuscular olanzapine in patients with borderline personality disorder: an observational study in an emergency room

OBJECTIVE: Despite the frequency of borderline personality disorder (BPD) in patients with acute agitation in emergency departments (EDs), there are few data about the use of intramuscular (IM) psychotropics in those patients. This is the first open-label study with olanzapine in this setting. METHOD: Measures were collected prospectively for patients with acute agitation in ED. Consent was obtained subsequently and diagnosis ascertained using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV. A group of 25 patients with severe agitation and BPD received olanzapine 10 mg IM. Efficacy and safety data are available at baseline, 2 h postinjection and at discharge. RESULTS: Significant reductions of agitation associated with good tolerance were observed 2 h after the first IM olanzapine. Sixteen percent of patients required a second IM olanzapine. CONCLUSIONS: Randomized, placebo-controlled studies are needed to confirm the efficacy of IM olanzapine in patients with acute agitation and BPD.     

Quality of life in schizophrenia: a multicenter, randomized, naturalistic, controlled trial comparing olanzapine to first-generation antipsychotics

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of olanzapine for treating schizophrenia and to assess if olanzapine promotes a better quality of life than first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs). METHOD: Multicenter, naturalistic, randomized controlled study, comparing olanzapine with FGAs, at hospitalization and during a 9-month follow-up. Outcome assessors were blind to the allocated drug. The dose of antipsychotic was determined by doctors according to their clinical practice routines. Data collection was performed from April 1999 to August 2001. RESULTS: 197 patients with DSM-IV-diagnosed schizophrenia were allocated to olanzapine (N = 104) and FGA (N = 93). Patients taking olanzapine showed greater improvements in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) negative symptoms (mean difference = 2.3, 95% CI = 0.6 to 4.1) and general psychopathology (mean difference = 4.0, 95% CI = 0.8 to 7.2) sub-scales and fewer incidences of tardive dyskinesia (RR = 2.4, 95% CI = 1.4 to 4.2, p < .0001). Olanzapine was also associated with greater improvement in a number of health-related quality-of-life outcomes on the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form Health Survey, including physical functioning (mean difference = 6.6, 95% CI = 1.2 to 11.9), physical role limitations (mean difference = 13.7, 95% CI = 3.0 to 24.3), and emotional role limitations (mean difference = 12.1, 95% CI = 0.7 to 23.5). Patients taking olanzapine gained significantly more weight during the trial than patients taking FGAs, with a correspondent endpoint increase in the body mass index (BMI) of 28.7 versus 25.3 (p < .001). CONCLUSION: Compared with FGAs, olanzapine has advantages in terms of improvements of negative symptoms and quality of life. It is also associated with fewer incidences of tardive dyskinesia and greater increases in weight and BMI. These findings are highlighted by the naturalistic approach adopted in this trial.     

Treatment of severe agitation with olanzapine in 166 patients with schizophrenia, schizoaffective, or bipolar I disorder

INTRODUCTION: Agitation is a common phenomenon in schizophrenia or acute mania. Because of the inability of patients to give informed consent in such situations, data from consenting studies are limited. METHODS: This observational prospective 5-day study evaluated the effectiveness of olanzapine in a sample of highly agitated patients with aggression. Primary endpoint was mean change of the PANSS-Excited Component (PANSS-EC) score. RESULTS: Mean PANSS-EC score at baseline was 25.5 points, 60.2% were severely agitated and 41.6% severely aggressive. A significant decrease in PANSS-EC total score (-13.3 points) was observed with rapid dose escalation and an average daily dose of 21.2 mg/day of olanzapine. 40 patients (24.1%) required treatment with another antipsychotic and 21 patients (12.7%) were not treated with olanzapine at day 5. At endpoint, 64.2% of patients were in remission of agitation. PANSS-EC reduction was not significantly different in patients with or without concurrent benzodiazepine use. DISCUSSION: Severe agitation with aggression may be well controlled with olanzapine in many cases, possibly by higher initial and overall doses of olanzapine. Controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings.     

Lurasidone compared to other atypical antipsychotic monotherapies for adolescent schizophrenia: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis

This network meta-analysis assessed the efficacy and tolerability of lurasidone versus other oral atypical antipsychotic monotherapies in adolescent schizophrenia. A systematic literature review identified 13 randomized controlled trials of antipsychotics in adolescents with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. A Bayesian network meta-analysis compared lurasidone to aripiprazole, asenapine, clozapine, olanzapine, paliperidone extended-release (ER), quetiapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone. Outcomes included Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S), weight gain, all-cause discontinuation, extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), and akathisia. Results were reported as median differences for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for binary outcomes, along with 95% credible intervals (95% CrI). Lurasidone was significantly more efficacious than placebo on the PANSS (− 7.95, 95% CrI − 11.76 to − 4.16) and CGI-S (− 0.44, 95% CrI − 0.67 to − 0.22) scores. Lurasidone was associated with similar weight gain to placebo and statistically significantly less weight gain versus olanzapine (− 3.62 kg, 95% CrI − 4.84 kg to − 2.41 kg), quetiapine (− 2.13 kg, 95% CrI − 3.20 kg to − 1.08 kg), risperidone (− 1.16 kg, 95% CrI − 2.14 kg to − 0.17 kg), asenapine (− 0.98 kg, 95% CrI − 1.71 kg to − 0.24 kg), and paliperidone ER (− 0.85 kg, 95% CrI − 1.57 kg to − 0.14 kg). The odds of all-cause discontinuation were significantly lower for lurasidone than aripiprazole (OR = 0.28, 95% CrI 0.10–0.76) and paliperidone ER (OR = 0.25, 95% CrI 0.08–0.81) and comparable to other antipsychotics. Rates of EPS and akathisia were similar for lurasidone and other atypical antipsychotics. In this network meta-analysis of atypical antipsychotics in adolescent schizophrenia, lurasidone was associated with similar efficacy, less weight gain, and lower risk of all-cause discontinuation compared to other oral atypical antipsychotics.

     

Early symptom change and prediction of subsequent remission with olanzapine augmentation in divalproex-resistant bipolar mixed episodes

Potential predictors of remission in mixed bipolar I disorder were identified using early Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) improvement criteria in divalproex-resistant patients randomized to olanzapine augmentation (olanzapine + divalproex; N = 101) in a 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. In a post-hoc analysis, receiver operating characteristics of 1-point decreases in the CGI-S total score after 2, 4, 7, and 14 days were examined as predictors of endpoint (Week 6 or last observation) remission of depression and/or mania as defined by 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-21) and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score ≤8. Based on a 1-point improvement in CGI-S as a predictor of remission, all odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were statistically significant for depression or mania remission criteria. ORs for mixed symptom remission with a decrease ≥1 in CGI-S scores at Day 2 for olanzapine augmentation were (6.727; CI: 2.382, 18.997; p < .001) with negative predictive value = 89.5% and positive predictive value = 44.2%. Changes in HDRS-21 and YMRS individual item scores after 2 days of augmentation as predictors of endpoint remission identified that decreases in HDRS-21 symptom item scores (early, middle, and/or late insomnia; paranoid; agitation; and somatic/gastrointestinal) predicted depressive symptom remission at endpoint, and decreases in YMRS item scores (language-thought disorder and irritability) were associated with manic symptom remission at endpoint. Because remission with augmentation therapy may occur in as few as one in ten individuals who lack very early symptom reduction, lack of early improvement may indicate a need to expediently reassess treatment strategy.     

The utility of intramuscular ziprasidone in the management of acute psychotic agitation.

Many psychiatric illnesses, including chronic schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and dementia, are characterized by episodes of acute agitation, making administration of oral agents difficult or impossible. Ziprasidone, the first atypical antipsychotic available in both intramuscular (IM) and oral formulations, has demonstrated significant control of acute agitation within 15 minutes, as seen in two 24-hour studies in patients with schizophrenia. Improvement was maintained for > or = 4 hours, and a low incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms, akathisia, and dystonia as well as no excessive sedation were observed Also, two 7-day studies (n = 132 and n = 306) and one 6-week study (n = 567) of sequential IM/oral ziprasidone versus IM/oral haloperidol in patients with psychotic disorders found IM ziprasidone more effective than IM haloperidol within 3 days of IM treatment; both drugs produced further comparable improvements in efficacy parameters after transition to oral therapy. IM ziprasidone was associated with a lower incidence of movement disorders than was haloperidol in all of these studies. Overall, discontinuations were similar for IM ziprasidone and haloperidol in the comparative trials, including the sequential IM/oral studies. However, in the 6-week sequential IM/oral trial, the rate of discontinuation due to adverse events was twice as high among haloperidol vs ziprasidone patients. This report focuses on the pharmacology, clinical efficacy, and tolerability of IM ziprasidone, and provides an overview of the utility of other commonly used antipsychotics in the management of acute psychotic agitation.     

Neurological deterioration in acute ischemic stroke: potential predictors and associated factors in the European cooperative acute stroke study (ECASS) I

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The present study was undertaken to identify potential predictors of and factors associated with early and late progression in acute stroke. We performed secondary analysis of the clinical, biochemical, and radiological data recorded in the acute phase of stroke patients enrolled in the European Cooperative Acute Stroke Study (ECASS) I. METHODS: Early progressing stroke (EPS) was diagnosed when there was a decrease of > or = 2 points in consciousness or motor power or a decrease of > or = 3 points in speech scores in the Scandinavian Neurological Stroke Scale from baseline to the 24-hour evaluation, and late progressing stroke (LPS) was diagnosed when 1 of these decreases occurred between the 24-hour evaluation and the evaluation at day 7. Using logistic regression analyses, we looked for baseline variables that predicted EPS and LPS and for factors measured after the early or late acute phase and associated with the 2 clinical courses. RESULTS: Of the 615 patients studied, 231 (37.5%) worsened during the first 24 hours after inclusion. The overall incidence of EPS was 37% in the placebo group and 38% in the recombinant tissue plasminogen activator group (P=0.68, Fisher's Exact Test). Focal hypodensity (odds ratio [OR], 1.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3 to 2.9) and hyperdensity of the middle cerebral artery sign (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1 to 3.1) on baseline computed tomography, longer delay until treatment (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1. 4) and history of coronary heart disease (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2. 8) and diabetes (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.0 to 3.1) were independent prognostic factors for EPS. Extent of hypodensity >33% in the middle cerebral artery territory (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.6 to 4.0) and brain swelling (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1 to 3.2) on CT at 24 hours but not hemorrhagic transformation of cerebral infarct nor decrease in systolic blood pressure within the first 24 hours after treatment were associated with EPS in multivariate analyses. LPS was observed in 20.3% of patients. Older age, a low neurological score, and brain swelling at admission independently predicted late worsening. CONCLUSION: In the setting of a multicenter trial, EPS and LPS are mainly related to computed tomographic signs of cerebral edema. Treatment with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator, hemorrhagic transformation, and moderate changes in systolic blood pressure did not influence the early clinical course.     

Effective resolution with olanzapine of acute presentation of behavioral agitation and positive psychotic symptoms in schizophrenia

Behavioral agitation and prominent positive psychotic symptoms often characterize the acute presentation of schizophrenia. The clinical treatment goal is a rapid control of these symptoms. The relative efficacy of olanzapine, a novel antipsychotic drug, was compared with that of the conventional antipsychotic drug haloperidol. A post hoc analysis conducted on a large multicenter, double-blind, 6-week study of acute-phase patients with DSM-III-R schizophrenia or schizophreniform or schizoaffective disorders treated with olanzapine (5-20 mg/day) or haloperidol (5-20 mg/day) assessed the treatment effects on agitation (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale [BPRS] agitation score) and positive symptoms (BPRS positive symptom score). Overall, olanzapine-treated patients experienced significantly greater improvement in behavioral agitation than did haloperidol-treated patients (last observation carried forward [LOCF]; p < .0002). Both groups showed similar reductions in agitation scores during the first 3 weeks of therapy; olanzapine was associated with significantly greater improvements at weeks 4, 5, and 6 (observed cases [OC]). Similarly, patients with predominantly positive psychotic symptoms experienced significantly greater improvement in BPRS positive symptom scores with olanzapine compared with haloperidol (LOCF; p = .013). In olanzapine-treated patients, improvement in BPRS agitation and positive symptom scores was significantly greater at weeks 4, 5, and 6 (agitation scores, p < or = .01; positive symptom scores, p < .05) (OC). These data suggest that olanzapine may be considered a first-line treatment for the patient in an acute episode of schizophrenia.     

Safety and effectiveness of olanzapine versus conventional antipsychotics in the acute treatment of first-episode schizophrenic inpatients

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and effectiveness of olanzapine compared to typical antipsychotics in the treatment of first-episode schizophrenics in acute psychiatric inpatient wards. METHODS: Data were collected from a prospective, comparative, nonrandomized, open, observational study of 904 inpatients with schizophrenia. One hundred and fifty-eight patients fulfilled the criteria for first-episode schizophrenia, defined as (1) the International Classification of Diseases: Mental and Behavioral Disorders, 10th ed. (ICD-10) diagnosis of schizophrenia, (2) antipsychotic nai;ve, and (3) a course of illness of less than 5 years. Eighty-nine (56.3%) of these patients were assigned to the olanzapine treatment group (OLZ) and 69 (43.7%) to the control group that received treatment with conventional antipsychotics (CON). Safety was evaluated in terms of the spontaneous adverse events reported and a specific questionnaire for extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS). Clinical status was measured by means of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S). Clinical response was defined as the baseline-endpoint decrease in BPRS>40% plus an endpoint BPRS<18 or an endpoint CGI相似文献   

Olanzapine vs. haloperidol in the treatment of elderly chronic schizophrenia patients

OBJECTIVE: Most of the data supporting the use of atypical antipsychotics (AA) is based on studies in young adult patients. The present study is an open-label naturalistic follow-up study of olanzapine treatment vs. haloperidol for elderly chronic schizophrenia patients. MEHTOD: 20 patients (mean age 72.7+/-5.9 years, mean disease duration 33.1+/-12.0 years) who met the DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia were randomly assigned to olanzapine (n=10) or haloperidol (n=10) treatment during acute exacerbation. Primary outcome measure was rating on the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale and the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS). RESULTS: Between-group differences were computed using analysis of covariance. PANSS Total score decreased from 84 at baseline to 65 after treatment with olanzapine while decreased only from 79 to 74 with haloperidol treatment (F= 6.66, P=.02). PANSS Negative subscale decreased from 19 at baseline to 15 with olanzapine treatment while increased (deteriorated) from 18 to 20 with haloperidol treatment (F=23.37, P=.0003). CGI decreased from baseline with both olanzapine and haloperidol treatments (1.1 vs. 0.4) but the decrease in the olanzapine group was significantly greater (F=4.63, P=.05). Mean weight increased in both groups but without statistical difference between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In elderly chronic schizophrenia patients, olanzapine treatment is superior to haloperidol in reducing negative symptoms as well as less induction of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS).     

Pharmacological interventions for acute bipolar mania: a systematic review of randomized placebo-controlled trials

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials in acute bipolar mania to summarize available data on drug treatment of mania. METHODS: We included trials of medications licensed in the USA or UK for the treatment of any phase of bipolar disorder. Outcomes investigated were changes in mania scores, attrition, extrapyramidal effects and weight change. Data were combined through meta-analyses. RESULTS: We included 13 studies (involving 3,089 subjects) and identified 2 studies for each of the following medications: carbamazepine, haloperidol, lithium, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, valproate semisodium and aripiprazole. All drugs showed significant benefit compared with placebo for reduction in mania scores. Compared with placebo, for all antipsychotics pooled, response to treatment (> or =50% reduction in Young Mania Rating Scale scores) was increased more than 1.7 times [relative risk (RR) = 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.54, 1.96]; for all mood stabilizers pooled, response to treatment was doubled (RR 2.01, 95% CI = 1.66, 2.43). Overall withdrawals were 34% fewer (24-43%) with antipsychotics, and 26% fewer (10-39%) with mood stabilizers. However, for carbamazepine, aripiprazole and lithium an increase in risk of withdrawal could not be excluded. Small but significant increases in extrapyramidal side effects occurred with risperidone and aripiprazole. CONCLUSIONS: Antipsychotics and mood stabilizers are significantly more effective than placebo for the treatment of acute mania. Their effect sizes are similar. Small differences between effect sizes may be due to differences in the patients included in the studies or to chance. Carbamazepine and lithium may be more poorly tolerated, and antipsychotics cause more extrapyramidal side effects.