Rational design of a combination medication for the treatment of obesity.

Existing obesity therapies are limited by safety concerns and modest efficacy reflecting a weight loss plateau. Here, we explore combination therapy with bupropion (BUP), a putative stimulator of melanocortin pathways, and an opioid antagonist, naltrexone (NAL), to antagonize an inhibitory feedback loop that limits sustained weight reduction. In vitro electrophysiologic experiments were conducted to determine the extent to which BUP+NAL stimulated hypothalamic pro-opiomelanocortin (POMC) neurons in mouse brain. A subsequent study further characterized the effect of combination BUP+NAL treatment on food intake in lean and obese mice. Finally, a randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trial in obese adult subjects was conducted. Randomization included: BUP (300 mg) + NAL (50 mg), BUP (300 mg) + placebo (P), NAL (50 mg) + P or P+P for up to 24 weeks. BUP+NAL stimulated murine POMC neurons in vitro and caused a greater reduction in acute food intake than either monotherapy, an effect consistent with synergism. Combined BUP+NAL provided sustained weight loss without evidence of an efficacy plateau through 24 weeks of treatment. BUP+NAL completers diverged from NAL+P (P < 0.01) and P+P (P < 0.001) at week 16 and from BUP+P by week 24 (P < 0.05). The combination was also well tolerated. Translational studies indicated that BUP+NAL therapy produced synergistic weight loss which exceeded either BUP or NAL alone. These results supported the hypothesis that NAL, through blockade of beta-endorphin mediated POMC autoinhibition, prevents the classic weight loss plateau observed with monotherapies such as BUP. This novel treatment approach (BUP+NAL) holds promise for the treatment of obesity.\

Time-lapse mapping of cortical changes in schizophrenia with different treatments.

Using time-lapse maps, we visualized the dynamics of schizophrenia progression, revealing spreading cortical changes that depend on the type of antipsychotic treatment. Dynamic, 4-dimensional models of disease progression were created from 4 repeated high-resolution brain magnetic resonance imaging scans of 36 first-episode schizophrenia patients (30 men/6 women; mean age: 24.2 +/- 5.1 SD years) randomized to haloperidol (HAL) (n = 15) or olanzapine (OLZ) treatment (n = 21), imaged at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months (144 scans). Based on surface-based cortical models and point-by-point measures of gray matter volume, we generated time-lapse maps for each treatment. Disease trajectories differed for atypical versus typical neuroleptic drugs. A rapidly advancing parietal-to-frontal deficit trajectory, in HAL-treated patients, mirrored normal cortical maturation but greatly intensified. The disease trajectory advanced even after symptom normalization, involving the frontal cortex within 12 months with typical drug treatment. Areas with fastest tissue loss shifted anteriorly in the first year of psychosis. This trajectory was not seen with OLZ. Whether this association reflects either reduced neurotoxicity or neuroprotection cannot be addressed with neuroimaging; changes may relate to glial rather than neural components. These maps revise current models of schizophrenia progression; due to power limitations, the findings require confirmation in a sample large enough to model group x time interactions.

Zonisamide prevents olanzapine-associated hyperphagia, weight gain, and elevated blood glucose in rats.

Olanzapine (OLZ), one of the second-generation atypical antipsychotics (SGAs), has shown relative advantages in patient adherence and outcomes. However, OLZ has also been associated with a higher incidence of weight gain than most other SGAs. Excessive weight gain may in turn contribute to long-term health concerns for some individuals. Zonisamide (ZNS), a medication approved in the United States as an adjunct in the management of epilepsy, has a diverse pharmacological profile, including sodium channel blockade, monoamine enhancement, and inhibition of carbonic anhydrase. ZNS has also been reported to cause weight loss in both humans and rodents. We hypothesized that this profile might be beneficial when co-administered with OLZ. To test this hypothesis, we evaluated the effects of OLZ on body weight, as well as the pathways known to regulate feeding behavior and arousal in the Sprague-Dawley rat. As indicated via c-Fos expression, we found an OLZ-induced activation in the nucleus accumbens and orexin neurons in the lateral hypothalamus. An OLZ-associated development of hyperphagia, weight gain and elevated blood glucose in the rat was also found. These outcomes were attenuated and reversed in the presence of concomitant ZNS. These results suggest the hypothesis that ZNS may effectively treat or prevent weight gain or metabolic changes associated with the SGAs. Future studies of this combination in patients through appropriately designed human clinical studies are encouraged.

Efficacy and tolerability of an mGlu2/3 agonist in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder.

LY354740, a potent and selective mGlu (metabotropic glutamate receptor)2/3 agonist, has shown efficacy in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). LY544344 is a LY354740 prodrug that increases LY354740 bioavailability. This 8-week study was designed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of LY544344 in the treatment of GAD. Participants had a diagnoses of GAD, baseline Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale anxiety subscale scores > or = 10, and moderate illness severity. Patients were randomized to double-blind treatment with LY544344 16 mg b.i.d. (n = 28), LY544344 8 mg b.i.d. (n = 36), or placebo (n = 44). LY544344 16 mg b.i.d.-treated patients showed significantly greater improvement from baseline in Hamilton Anxiety and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scores, as well as response and remission rates compared with placebo-treated patients. LY544344 was well tolerated and there were no significant differences in the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events among the three treatment groups. However, the trial was discontinued early based on findings of convulsions in preclinical studies. In conclusion, the findings of this study support the potential efficacy of mGlu2/3 receptor agonist agents in the treatment of GAD. Additional studies will be needed to further assess the toxicological and clinical profile of LY354740/LY544344.

Onset of antidepressant effect of olanzapine and olanzapine/fluoxetine combination in bipolar depression.

OBJECTIVES: The current analysis investigated the onset of antidepressant effect of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination. METHODS: Data for these post hoc analyses were obtained from a clinical trial comparing olanzapine, placebo, and olanzapine/fluoxetine combination in bipolar depression (BD). Subjects were 833 patients with a DSM-IV diagnosis of bipolar I disorder, depressed. The Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale measured depressive symptoms. Multiple analytic methods were applied, including traditional (mean differences) analysis, pattern analysis, survival analysis of sustained response, mixed-effects regression, and area-under-the-curve analysis. RESULTS: Traditional analysis showed significantly greater improvement in depression scores at week 1 for olanzapine/fluoxetine combination versus placebo (-9.55 versus -5.08, p < 0.001) and for olanzapine versus placebo (-8.31 versus -5.08, p < 0.001). Pattern analysis revealed olanzapine/fluoxetine combination had a significantly greater percentage of early persistent responders than placebo or olanzapine (32.4% versus 12.7%, p < 0.001; and 18.3%, p < 0.05, respectively). Survival analysis showed a significantly shorter time to sustained response for the combination versus placebo (p < 0.001), for olanzapine versus placebo (p = 0.04), and for the combination versus olanzapine (p = 0.03). Mixed-effects regression analysis revealed a significant therapy-by-time interaction (p < 0.001). Early area-under-the-curve analysis revealed a significantly greater percentage of improvement for the combination versus placebo (26.7% versus 13.9%, p < 0.001) and for olanzapine versus placebo (22.0% versus 13.9%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Based on consistent results from related methods of measuring onset, olanzapine/fluoxetine combination demonstrated rapid onset of antidepressant effect (within 7 days) compared to placebo that was sustained over 8 weeks of treatment in a sample of BD patients. Using multiple statistical techniques may help profile a drug's onset of effect.

Ecological studies of antidepressant treatment and suicidal risks.

Ongoing discussion of potential benefits and risks of antidepressant treatment with respect to suicidal behaviors includes many ecological, or population-based, correlational studies of temporal or regional trends in suicide rates and rates of usage of modern antidepressants including serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SRIs). Since this body of research has not been compiled and evaluated, we used computerized literature searching to identify 19 relevant published studies. They yielded heterogeneous findings: only 8/19 found significant inverse correlations between rising sales of modern antidepressants in the 1990 s and falling suicide rates not anticipated in the 1980s. Average reductions in suicide rates in the 1990 s (10.7%) and 1980s (10.0%) differed little in 11 studies with data from both eras. Reduction of suicide rates in the 1990 s was unrelated to geographic region, population size, units of analysis, publication year, or growth in antidepressant usage, but was greater with higher initial suicide rates, in men, and in older persons. In the same decade, suicides rates decreased in only half of 79 large countries. Overall, these findings yield limited and inconsistent support for the hypothesis that increased use of modern antidepressants might limit suicide risk, and no evidence that the risk increased. Suicidal risk is determined by complex factors, including access to clinical services, in general, and more comprehensive treatment of depression, in particular. Overall, as with findings from randomized trials and cohort or case-control studies, evidence of specific antisuicidal effects of antidepressant treatment from ecological analyses remains elusive.

Duloxetine versus escitalopram and placebo in the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder: onset of antidepressant action, a non-inferiority study.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of a non-inferiority study is to test whether a new treatment has at least as much efficacy as an established treatment. The purpose of this non-inferiority study was to compare the speed of onset of antidepressant efficacy for duloxetine (a dual serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor) and escitalopram (a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active comparator-controlled study, in which patients (> or = 18 years) meeting DSM-IV criteria for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) received duloxetine 60 mg once daily (QD; N = 273), escitalopram 10 mg QD (N = 274), or placebo (N = 137) for 8 weeks. The primary objective was to compare the onset of antidepressant efficacy, by testing the hypothesis that the percentage of duloxetine-treated patients achieving onset criteria at Week 2 was not inferior to that in the escitalopram group. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Onset of efficacy was defined as a 20% decrease from baseline on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD(17)) Maier subscale that was maintained or exceeded at all subsequent visits. RESULTS: Probabilities of meeting onset criteria at Week 2 for duloxetine- and escitalopram-treated patients were 42.6% versus 35.2%, respectively (treatment difference = 7.4%; 95% confidence interval, -1.3% to 16.2%; p = 0.097). Both drugs showed significant improvement compared with placebo (p < or = 0.05) on the primary efficacy measure (Maier subscale) at Week 1 and endpoint (Week 8). No differences were found between duloxetine, escitalopram, and placebo rates of remission or response at 8 weeks. Adverse events that occurred significantly more frequently among duloxetine-treated patients when compared with those receiving escitalopram were nausea, dry mouth, vomiting, yawning, and irritability. The rate of discontinuation due to adverse events did not differ significantly between treatment groups. LIMITATIONS: Given the difficulties in constructing appropriate dose comparisons, the results of this study should be interpreted specific to the doses tested and not extrapolated to the drug as a whole. This study employed a fixed-dose design; flexible-dose designs are more likely to find a difference between antidepressants and placebo. CONCLUSION: In this study, both duloxetine and escitalopram showed significantly greater improvement on the primary efficacy measure than placebo over the 8-week acute treatment period, while no differences were observed between drugs or between drugs and placebo on response and remission rates at 8 weeks. Escitalopram at a starting dose of 10 mg QD was better tolerated than duloxetine at a starting dose of 60 mg QD. This study met its pre-defined primary objective of assessing if duloxetine was non-inferior to escitalopram in antidepressant onset efficacy, and the results show that duloxetine is at least as fast as (non-inferior to) escitalopram.

Long-term neurocognitive effects of olanzapine or low-dose haloperidol in first-episode psychosis.

BACKGROUND: Neurocognitive deficits are severe in first-episode psychosis. METHODS: Patients (N = 263) with first-episode psychosis (schizophrenia, schizoaffective, or schizophreniform disorders) were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with olanzapine (mean 11.30 mg/day) or haloperidol (mean 4.87 mg/day) for 104 weeks. A neurocognitive battery was administered at baseline (n = 246) and 12 (n = 167), 24 (n = 126), 52 (n = 89), and 104 (n = 46) weeks during treatment. Weighted principal component and unweighted composite scores were derived from individual tests. RESULTS: Both treatment groups demonstrated significant improvement on both composite scores. On the basis of the weighted composite score, olanzapine had greater improvement than haloperidol only at 12 (p = .014) and 24 (p = .029) weeks. For the unweighted composite, olanzapine had significantly better improvement compared with haloperidol only at week 12 (p = .044). At week 12 only, olanzapine improved performance on the Digit Symbol and Continuous Performance Test significantly more than haloperidol. CONCLUSIONS: Both antipsychotic agents appeared to improve neurocognitive functioning among first-episode psychosis patients with schizophrenia. A significantly greater benefit in terms of neurocognitive improvement was found with olanzapine than with haloperidol at weeks 12 and 24.

Course and predictors of weight gain in people with first-episode psychosis treated with olanzapine or haloperidol.

BACKGROUND: Substantial weight gain is common with many atypical antipsychotics. AIMS: To evaluate the extent, time course and predictors of weight gain and its effect on study retention among people with first-episode psychosis treated with olanzapine or haloperidol. METHOD: Survival analysis assessed time to potentially clinically significant weight gain (> or =7%) and the effect of weight gain on study retention. Weight gain during the 2-year study was summarised using last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF), observed cases and study completion approaches. RESULTS: After 2 years of treatment, LOCF mean weight gain was 10.2 kg (s.d.=10.1) for olanzapine (n=131) and 4.0 kg (s.d.=7.3) for haloperidol (n=132); observed cases mean weight gain was 15.4 kg (s.d.=10.0) for olanzapine and 7.5 kg (s.d.=9.2) for haloperidol. Change in body mass index was significantly predicted only by treatment group (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Olanzapine was associated with significantly greater weight gain than haloperidol, with both leading to greater weight gain than previously described.

Olanzapine/fluoxetine combination for treatment-resistant depression: a controlled study of SSRI and nortriptyline resistance.

BACKGROUND: This 8-week, double-blind, multicenter study was undertaken to replicate, in a larger sample of patients with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder (MDD; DSM-IV criteria), the results of a pilot study of the olanzapine/fluoxetine combination. METHOD: The study was begun in August 1999. The primary entry criterion was a history of failure to respond to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). Patients (N = 500) who subsequently failed to respond to nortriptyline during an open-label lead-in phase were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatment groups: olanzapine (6-12 mg/day) plus fluoxetine (25-50 mg/day) combination, olanzapine (6-12 mg/day), fluoxetine (25-50 mg/day), or nortriptyline (25-175 mg/day). The primary outcome measure was baseline-to-endpoint mean change in score on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). RESULTS: At the 8-week study endpoint, MADRS total scores decreased by a mean 8.7 points from baseline (28.5) with the olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, 7.0 points from baseline (28.4) with olanzapine (p = .08), 8.5 points from baseline (28.4) with fluoxetine (p = .84), and 7.5 points from baseline (28.8) with nortriptyline (p = .30), with no significant differences among the therapies. The olanzapine/fluoxetine combination was associated with significantly (p < or = .05) greater improvement (decrease) in MADRS scores than olanzapine at weeks 2, 4, 6, and 7; than fluoxetine at weeks 2 through 5; and than nortriptyline at weeks 1 through 4. A post hoc analysis of a subgroup of patients who had an SSRI treatment failure during their current MDD episode (N = 314) revealed that the olanzapine/fluoxetine combination group had a significantly (p = .005) greater decrease in MADRS scores than the olanzapine group at endpoint. Safety data for the olanzapine/fluoxetine combination were similar to those for its component monotherapies. CONCLUSIONS: The olanzapine/fluoxetine combination did not differ significantly from the other therapies at endpoint, although it demonstrated a more rapid response that was sustained until the end of treatment. The results raised several methodological questions, and recommendations are made regarding the criteria for study entry and randomization.

Weight gain as a prognostic indicator of therapeutic improvement during acute treatment of schizophrenia with placebo or active antipsychotic.

Treatment-emergent weight gain may be a general marker of therapeutic improvement, even when improvements occur in the absence of active antipsychotic treatment. To investigate the association between treatment-emergent weight gain and therapeutic improvement across placebo and active treatments, and to examine the association between reported treatment-emergent weight changes and the treatments' reported efficacy. Data from a randomized, double-blind trial comparing treatment of schizophrenia with placebo and olanzapine were used to correlate weight change and change in psychopathology. Additionally, we correlated effect sizes of the efficacy of clozapine, olanzapine, risperidone, haloperidol and placebo (reported in meta-analytical reviews), with their reported weight changes. Weight gain significantly correlated with clinical improvements for placebo and olanzapine. The correlation between treatments' efficacy and corresponding weight changes was high (r 0.88, p 0.05). Treatment-emergent weight gain appears to be an important marker of symptom reduction, and may not be exclusively attributable to pharmacological perturbations.

Antipsychotic drug effects on brain morphology in first-episode psychosis.

BACKGROUND: Pathomorphologic brain changes occurring as early as first-episode schizophrenia have been extensively described. Longitudinal studies have demonstrated that these changes may be progressive and associated with clinical outcome. This raises the possibility that antipsychotics might alter such pathomorphologic progression in early-stage schizophrenia. OBJECTIVE: To test a priori hypotheses that olanzapine-treated patients have less change over time in whole brain gray matter volumes and lateral ventricle volumes than haloperidol-treated patients and that gray matter and lateral ventricle volume changes are associated with changes in psychopathology and neurocognition. DESIGN: Longitudinal, randomized, controlled, multisite, double-blind study. Patients treated and followed up for up to 104 weeks. Neurocognitive and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) assessments performed at weeks 0 (baseline), 12, 24, 52, and 104. Mixed-models analyses with time-dependent covariates evaluated treatment effects on MRI end points and explored relationships between MRI, psychopathologic, and neurocognitive outcomes. SETTING: Fourteen academic medical centers (United States, 11; Canada, 1; Netherlands, 1; England, 1). PARTICIPANTS: Patients with first-episode psychosis (DSM-IV) and healthy volunteers. INTERVENTIONS: Random allocation to a conventional antipsychotic, haloperidol (2-20 mg/d), or an atypical antipsychotic, olanzapine (5-20 mg/d). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Brain volume changes assessed by MRI. RESULTS: Of 263 randomized patients, 161 had baseline and at least 1 postbaseline MRI evaluation. Haloperidol-treated patients exhibited significant decreases in gray matter volume, whereas olanzapine-treated patients did not. A matched sample of healthy volunteers (n = 58) examined contemporaneously showed no change in gray matter volume. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with first-episode psychosis exhibited a significant between-treatment difference in MRI volume changes. Haloperidol was associated with significant reductions in gray matter volume, whereas olanzapine was not. Post hoc analyses suggested that treatment effects on brain volume and psychopathology of schizophrenia may be associated. The differential treatment effects on brain morphology could be due to haloperidol-associated toxicity or greater therapeutic effects of olanzapine.

Onset of action for duloxetine 60 mg once daily: double-blind, placebo-controlled studies.

BACKGROUND: It is widely believed that most antidepressant medications exhibit a delay of 2-4 weeks before clinically relevant improvement can be observed among patients. During this latency period, patients continue to be symptomatic and functionally impaired. Thus, time to onset of effect is an important attribute of a new pharmacotherapy. We assessed the onset of effect for duloxetine, utilizing analytical methods previously recommended in the literature. METHOD: Efficacy data were pooled from two identical, but independent, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 9-week clinical trials of duloxetine (60 mg QD). Efficacy measures included the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD(17)), HAMD(17) subscales (Maier, core, and anxiety), and the Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S) and Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scales. In each individual study, duloxetine demonstrated statistically significant advantages over placebo on multiple outcomes. The present analysis utilized pooled data to more accurately and fully characterize the onset of effect for duloxetine. RESULTS: Median times to sustained improvements of 10% and 20% in the HAMD(17) total score among duloxetine-treated patients were 14 days and 21 days, respectively, compared with 34 days and 49 days, respectively, for placebo-treated patients (p < 0.001 for both results). The median time to sustained 30% improvement in HAMD(17) total score was 35 days for duloxetine-treated patients, while the median time for placebo-treated patients was not estimable since less than half of the patients met this criterion by the end of the trial. For duloxetine-treated patients, median times to sustained 10%, 20%, and 30% improvements on the Maier subscale of the HAMD(17) were the same as those for the HAMD(17) total score: 14, 21, and 35 days, respectively. However, in other analyses, changes in core emotional symptoms as measured by subscales of the HAMD(17) were somewhat faster than changes in overall symptomatology. The probabilities of achieving a sustained 30% improvement (Maier subscale) at Week 1 for duloxetine- and placebo-treated patients were 16.2% vs. 4.8%, respectively (p < 0.001). The corresponding probabilities of sustained improvement at Weeks 2 and 3 for duloxetine were 32.5% and 45.4%, respectively, compared to 12.8% and 21.4% for placebo ((p < 0.001 for both comparisons). CONCLUSION: The absence of an active comparator limits the conclusions which can be drawn regarding the rapidity of onset of clinically meaningful improvement. However, results from the present investigation may be useful to clinicians in consideration of treatment options for individual patients.

The prevalence of tardive dyskinesia after a nine month naturalistic randomized trial comparing olanzapine with conventional treatment for schizophrenia and related disorders.

AIMS OF THE STUDY: To assess the impact of olanzapine versus conventional neuroleptic therapy among subjects with schizophrenia on ratings of tardive dyskinesia (TD). METHOD: The naturalistic study was conducted in three psychiatric hospitals in Brazil. Patients had a diagnosis of schizophrenia and related disorders (DSMIV) and with a BPRS score>24. Patients were evaluated by means of the PANSS scale for symptomatology (Kay et al. 1986), the Clinical Global Impression, The UKU side effect rating scale (Lingjaerde et al. 1987), and the Tardive Dyskinesia AIMS scale (Guy et al. 1976). Patients were seen by the treating physician routinely while hospitalized and then monthly on an out-patient basis. All scale assessments were repeated after 9 months of discharge. RESULT: The sample was comprised of 190 patients (99 in the olanzapine and 91 in the standard treatment), with a completion rate of 88.2% for olanzapine and 84.9% for the conventional treatment (p=0.385, n. s.). The mean change from baseline in the PANSS total score favored olanzapine regarding negative symptoms (2.3, 95% C. I. 0.6-4.1, p<0.001); and general psychopathology (4.0, 95% C.I. 0.8-7.2, p<0.02) factors. TD was defined by applying Morgenstern & Glazer (1993) and Schooler & Kane (1982) criteria, on the basis of the AIMS scale. Both results favored olanzapine at the end of the follow-up (Morgenstern & Glazer: 25.6% versus 56.3%; Schooler & Kane: 16.3% versus 45.2%). At the end of the follow-up, by using the overall rating of the AIMS scale, the presence of TD was 2.3% for olanzapine (2/87), and 16.7% (12/72) for the conventional treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this open label naturalistic trial showed that olanzapine had an impact on negative symptoms, decreased general psychopathology and reduced the risk of tardive dyskinesia.

A double-blind, randomized study of olanzapine and olanzapine/fluoxetine combination for major depression with psychotic features.

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of olanzapine (OLZ) monotherapy and an olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC) with placebo (PLA) for unipolar major depression with psychotic features. Under a single protocol, two 8-week, double-blind trials were conducted at 27 sites. Patients (n = 124 trial 1, n = 125 trial 2) were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment groups: OLZ (5 to 20 mg/d), PLA, or OFC (olanzapine 5 to 20 mg/d + fluoxetine 20 to 80 mg/d). The primary outcome measure was the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total score. For trial 1, endpoint improvement for the OLZ group (-14.9) was not significantly different from the PLA or OFC groups. The OFC group had significantly greater endpoint improvement (-20.9) than the PLA group (-10.4, P = 0.001); this significant difference was present within 7 days of therapy and maintained at every subsequent visit. The OFC group also had significantly higher response rate (63.6%) than the PLA (28.0%, P = 0.004) or OLZ (34.9%, P = 0.027) groups. For trial 2, there were no significant differences among treatment groups on the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total scores or response rates. The combination exhibited a comparable safety profile with OLZ monotherapy and no significant increases in extrapyramidal symptoms compared with placebo. Patients with major depression with psychotic features treated with OLZ monotherapy did not demonstrate significant depressive symptom improvement compared with placebo in either trial; however, an olanzapine/fluoxetine combination was associated with significant improvement compared with placebo in one trial and was well tolerated.

Comparative effect of atypical and conventional antipsychotic drugs on neurocognition in first-episode psychosis: a randomized, double-blind trial of olanzapine versus low doses of haloperidol.

OBJECTIVE: The effect of antipsychotic medication on neurocognitive function remains controversial, especially since most previous work has compared the effects of novel antipsychotic medications with those of high doses of conventional medications. This study compares the neurocognitive effects of olanzapine and low doses of haloperidol in patients with first-episode psychosis. METHOD: Patients with a first episode of schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or schizophreniform disorder (N=167) were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with olanzapine (mean modal dose= 9.63 mg/day) or haloperidol (mean modal dose=4.60 mg/day) for the 12-week acute phase of a 2-year study. The patients were assessed with a battery of neurocognitive tests at baseline and 12 weeks after beginning treatment. RESULTS: An unweighted neurocognitive composite score, composed of measures of verbal fluency, motor functions, working memory, verbal memory, and vigilance, improved significantly with both haloperidol and olanzapine treatment (effect sizes of 0.20 and 0.36, respectively, no significant difference between groups). A weighted composite score developed from a principal-component analysis of the same measures improved to a significantly greater degree with olanzapine, compared with haloperidol. Anticholinergic use, extrapyramidal symptoms, and estimated IQ had little effect on the statistical differentiation of the medications, although duration of illness had a modest effect. The correlations of cognitive improvement with changes in clinical characteristics and with side effects of treatment were significant for patients who received haloperidol but not for patients who received olanzapine. CONCLUSIONS: Olanzapine has a beneficial effect on neurocognitive function in patients with a first episode of psychosis. However, in a comparison of the effects of olanzapine and low doses of haloperidol, the difference in benefit is small.

Double-blind, randomized comparison of olanzapine versus fluphenazine in the long-term treatment of schizophrenia.

This study was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy and safety of olanzapine compared with fluphenazine in the treatment of patients who met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, fourth edition (DSM-IV) diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. This was a long-term (22-week), randomized, double-blind, parallel clinical trial. Sixty patients (mean age, 35.4 years) were randomly assigned to either olanzapine (n=30) or fluphenazine (n=30). They received treatment at three centers in Croatia during a 22-week study period and were assessed weekly for the first 6 weeks and monthly thereafter. Efficacy was measured using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), the Positive and Negative Syndrome Rating Scale (PANSS) and the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) Severity and Improvement scores. The Hillside Akathisia Scale (HAS), Simpson-Angus Scale (SAS), Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS), vital signs, laboratory tests, and treatment-emergent adverse events were assessed to evaluate safety. The olanzapine group showed significantly greater mean decreases from baseline to endpoint for BPRS total (-25.8 vs. -16.5, P=.035), PANSS total (-45.7 vs. -29.5, P=.037), PANSS positive (-13.0 vs. -7.9, P=.034), and CGI Severity (-2.2 vs. -1.3, P=.031) scores. The olanzapine group showed greater mean decreases on all measures of extrapyramidal symptoms, significantly so for the SAS (-2.1 vs. 1.9, P=.004) and HAS (-3.4 vs. 2.6, P=.028). Patients in the fluphenazine group experienced a higher incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (76.7% vs. 50.0%, P=.032). Weight gain was the most frequently reported adverse event in the olanzapine group (16.7% vs. 0.0%, P=.020). Akathisia (30.0% vs. 10.0%, P=.053) and insomnia (20.0% vs. 0.0%, P=.010) appeared most frequent in the fluphenazine group. Daily use of anticholinergics and benzodiazepines were both significantly greater for the fluphenazine group (P=.003 and.04, respectively). No significant changes were observed in vital signs, ECG, or clinical chemistry. The study indicates that olanzapine has advantages in both efficacy and safety compared to fluphenazine; however, the small sample size limits our ability to draw definitive conclusions.

Comparison of risperidone and olanzapine in the control of negative symptoms of chronic schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders in patients aged 50 to 65 years.

BACKGROUND: This analysis compares the efficacy of risperidone and olanzapine in controlling negative and positive symptoms of chronic psychosis in older patients. METHOD: Post hoc assessments were made in a subset of risperidone-treated (N = 19) and olanzapine-treated (N = 20) older patients (aged 50 to 65 years) from a large international, multicenter, parallel, double-blind, 28-week study of patients aged 18 to 65 years (N = 339) randomly assigned to receive risperidone (4-12 mg/day) or olanzapine (10-20 mg/day). Assessments were made using repeated-measures analysis. RESULTS: At both 8 weeks and 28 weeks, the magnitude of changes in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) positive symptom subscale scores did not differ between treatment groups (8 weeks: risperidone, -6.5; olanzapine, -6.8, p = .866; 28 weeks: risperidone, -6.5; olanzapine, -7.0; p = .804). However, by the 8-week timepoint, olanzapine had reduced PANSS negative subscale scores significantly more than risperidone (-8.8 vs. -4.9, p = .032). By the 28-week endpoint, olanzapine had continued to maintain significantly greater reduction in baseline-to-endpoint PANSS negative scores (-8.1 vs. -3.5, p = .032) and led to significantly greater reduction in scores on the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS) dimensions of affective flattening (-5.2 vs. -0.6, p = .033) and alogia (-3.8 vs. -0.3, p = .007). Patients in the olanzapine treatment group also demonstrated numerically greater reduction of both SANS summary (-3.7 vs. -1.0, p = .078) and SANS composite scores (-14.1 vs. -4.1, p = .075). CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate that, in older patients with schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders, risperidone and olanzapine have approximately equal efficacy in controlling positive symptoms. However, olanzapine appears to be more efficacious in maintaining control over negative symptoms.

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of olanzapine in the prevention of psychotic relapse.

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.

Efficacy of olanzapine and olanzapine-fluoxetine combination in the treatment of bipolar I depression.

BACKGROUND: Despite the longer duration of the depressive phase in bipolar disorder and the frequent clinical use of antidepressants combined with antipsychotics or mood stabilizers, relatively few controlled studies have examined treatment strategies for bipolar depression. OBJECTIVE: To examine the use of olanzapine and olanzapine-fluoxetine combination in the treatment of bipolar I depression. DESIGN: Double-blind, 8-week, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Eighty-four sites (inpatient and outpatient) in 13 countries. Patients A total of 833 randomized adults with bipolar I depression with a Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score of at least 20. Intervention Patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo (n = 377); olanzapine, 5 to 20 mg/d (n = 370); or olanzapine-fluoxetine combination, 6 and 25, 6 and 50, or 12 and 50 mg/d (n = 86). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Changes in MADRS total scores using mixed-effects model repeated-measures analyses. RESULTS: During all 8 study weeks, the olanzapine and olanzapine-fluoxetine groups showed statistically significant improvement in depressive symptoms vs the placebo group (P<.001 for all). The olanzapine-fluoxetine group also showed statistically greater improvement than the olanzapine group at weeks 4 through 8. At week 8, MADRS total scores were lower than at baseline by 11.9, 15.0, and 18.5 points in the placebo, olanzapine, and olanzapine-fluoxetine groups, respectively. Remission criteria were met by 24.5% (87/355) of the placebo group, 32.8% (115/351) of the olanzapine group, and 48.8% (40/82) of the olanzapine-fluoxetine group. Treatment-emergent mania (Young Mania Rating Scale score <15 at baseline and > or =15 subsequently) did not differ among groups (placebo, 6.7% [23/345]; olanzapine, 5.7% [19/335]; and olanzapine-fluoxetine, 6.4% [5/78]). Adverse events for olanzapine-fluoxetine therapy were similar to those for olanzapine therapy but also included higher rates of nausea and diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS: Olanzapine is more effective than placebo, and combined olanzapine-fluoxetine is more effective than olanzapine and placebo in the treatment of bipolar I depression without increased risk of developing manic symptoms.