No abstract

Olanzapine and risperidone, both second-generation antipsychotic agents, represent two different pharmacologic strategies. Although they share some in vitro properties, they differ by virtue of their chemical structure, spectrum of receptor binding affinities, animal neuropharmacology, pharmacokinetics, and in vivo neuroimaging profile. Based on such differences, it was hypothesized that the two compounds would show distinct safety and/or efficacy characteristics. To test this hypothesis, an international, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, 28-week prospective study was conducted with 339 patients who met DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, or schizoaffective disorder. Results of the study indicated that both olanzapine and risperidone were safe and effective in the management of psychotic symptoms. However, olanzapine demonstrated significantly greater efficacy in negative symptoms (Scale for Assessment of Negative Symptoms summary score), as well as overall response rate (> or = 40% decrease in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score). Furthermore, a statistically significantly greater proportion of the olanzapine-treated than risperidone-treated patients maintained their response at 28 weeks based on Kaplan-Meier survival curves. The incidence of extrapyramidal side effects, hyperprolactinemia, and sexual dysfunction was statistically significantly lower in olanzapine-treated than risperidone-treated patients. In addition, statistically significantly fewer adverse events were reported by olanzapine-treated patients than by their risperidone-treated counterparts. Thus, the differential preclinical profiles of these two drugs were also evident in a controlled, clinical investigation. Olanzapine seemed to have a risk-versus-benefit advantage.

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) > or = 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.

The estrogen decrease of the postmenopausal state may be a factor in both the pathogenesis of late-life depression and in therapeutic response. Studies of nondepressed women over 60 given estrogen replacement therapy (ERT) suggest improvement in mood. The authors compared clinical response of elderly depressed women outpatients entering a 6-week, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter trial of fluoxetine (20 mg/day); 72 patients received ERT, and 286 did not. There was a significant interaction between ERT status and treatment effect (P = 0.015). Patients on ERT who received fluoxetine had substantially greater mean Ham-D percentage improvement than patients on ERT who received placebo (40.1% vs. 17.0%, respectively); fluoxetine-treated patients not on ERT did not show benefit significantly greater than placebo-treated patients not on ERT. ERT use may augment fluoxetine response in elderly depressed outpatients and should be considered as a factor in clinical trials in elderly women.

No abstract

No abstract

Olanzapine is a potential new "atypical" antipsychotic agent. The double-blind acute phase of this study compared three dosage ranges of olanzapine (5 +/- 2.5 mg/day [Olz-L], 10 +/- 2.5 mg/day [Olz-M], 15 +/- 2.5 mg/day [Olz-H]) to a dosage range of haloperidol (15 +/- 5 mg/day [Hal]) and to placebo in the treatment of 335 patients who met the DSM-III-R criteria for schizophrenia. In overall symptomatology improvement (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale [BPRS]-total), Olz-M, Olz-H, and Hal were significantly superior to placebo. In positive symptom improvement (BPRS-positive), Olz-M, Olz-H, and Hal were comparable and significantly superior to placebo. In negative symptom improvement (Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms [SANS]-composite), Olz-L and Olz-H were significantly superior to placebo and Olz-H was also significantly superior to Hal. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events included somnolence, agitation, asthenia, and nervousness. No acute dystonia was observed with olanzapine. Treatment-emergent parkinsonism occurred with Olz-H at approximately one-third the rate of Hal, and akathisia occurred with Olz-H at approximately one-half the rate of Hal. Prolactin elevations associated with olanzapine were not significantly greater than those observed with placebo and were also significantly less than those seen with haloperidol.

Sustained response to antipsychotic therapy is an important outcome measure for patients with psychotic disorders. Placebo control in studies of relapse prevention contributes valuable information yet provokes much debate. This study, using placebo as a control, evaluated olanzapine's efficacy in preventing a psychotic relapse. Participants were stable minimally symptomatic outpatients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. The study included 4 phases: (1) 4-day to 9-day screening/evaluation (N = 583), (2) 6-week conversion to open-label olanzapine (N = 493; 10-20 mg/d), (3) 8-week stabilization on olanzapine (N = 458; 10-20 mg/d), and (4) 52-week randomized (2:1), double-blind maintenance with olanzapine (N = 224; 10-20 mg/d) or placebo (N = 102). Primary relapse criteria were clinically significant changes in the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) positive item cluster or rehospitalization due to positive symptoms. Statistical methodology allowed sequential real-time estimation of efficacy across blinded treatment groups and multiple interim analyses, which permitted study termination when efficacy was significantly different between treatments. A significant between-treatment difference emerged 210 days after first patient randomization to double-blind treatment. Thus, 151 (46.3%) of the randomized patients were discontinued early and 34 (10.4%) of the planned patient enrollment were not required. The olanzapine group had a significantly longer time to relapse (P < 0.0001) than the placebo group. The 6-month cumulative estimated relapse rate (Kaplan-Meier) was 5.5% for olanzapine-treated patients versus 55.2% for placebo-treated patients. The design of this study enabled appropriate statistical testing of the primary hypothesis while minimizing exposure of patients to a less effective treatment than olanzapine. In remitted stabilized patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, olanzapine demonstrated a positive benefit-to-risk profile in relapse prevention.