Open-label treatment with olanzapine for patients with borderline personality disorder.

This report presents efficacy and safety outcomes for patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD) treated with olanzapine for up to 24 weeks. In 2 concurrent studies, patients received open-label olanzapine for 12 weeks after 12 weeks of double-blind olanzapine or placebo. Open-label dosing started at 2.5 or 5 mg/d and could be increased up to 20 mg/d (study 1) or 15 mg/d (study 2). The primary efficacy measure was open-label baseline-to-endpoint change in Zanarini Rating Scale for BPD (ZAN-BPD) total score. Of 472 patients who completed the double-blind acute phase, 444 entered and 320 (72.1%) completed 12 weeks of open-label extension treatment. Mean ZAN-BPD total scores at the start of the acute phase were approximately 17, indicating moderate symptom severity. Mean ZAN-BPD total scores ranged from 7.8 to 10.5 at the start of the open-label treatment and decreased to 5.7 to 6.5, indicating mild symptom severity, by the end of the open-label treatment. Patients taking placebo during the acute phase showed increases in weight, prolactin level, and other laboratory values during open-label olanzapine treatment similar in magnitude to increases seen in olanzapine-treated patients during the acute phase. Patients proceeding from olanzapine during the acute phase to open-label olanzapine showed smaller changes in weight and laboratory values. In conclusion, these results suggest that continued therapy with olanzapine may sustain and build upon improvements seen with acute olanzapine treatment of patients with BPD. However, no medication is currently approved for treatment of BPD, and physicians should carefully weigh potential benefits and risks of antipsychotic treatment in this population.

Post-injection delirium/sedation syndrome in patients with schizophrenia treated with olanzapine long-acting injection, I: analysis of cases.

BACKGROUND: An advance in the treatment of schizophrenia is the development of long-acting intramuscular formulations of antipsychotics, such as olanzapine long-acting injection (LAI). During clinical trials, a post-injection syndrome characterized by signs of delirium and/or excessive sedation was identified in a small percentage of patients following injection with olanzapine LAI. METHODS: Safety data from all completed and ongoing trials of olanzapine LAI were reviewed for possible cases of this post-injection syndrome. Descriptive analyses were conducted to characterize incidence, clinical presentation, and outcome. Regression analyses were conducted to assess possible risk factors. RESULTS: Based on approximately 45,000 olanzapine LAI injections given to 2054 patients in clinical trials through 14 October 2008, post-injection delirium/sedation syndrome occurred in approximately 0.07% of injections or 1.4% of patients (30 cases in 29 patients). Symptomatology was consistent with olanzapine overdose (e.g., sedation, confusion, slurred speech, altered gait, or unconsciousness). However, no clinically significant decreases in vital signs were observed. Symptom onset ranged from immediate to 3 to 5 hours post injection, with a median onset time of 25 minutes post injection. All patients recovered within 1.5 to 72 hours, and the majority continued to receive further olanzapine LAI injections following the event. No clear risk factors were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Post-injection delirium/sedation syndrome can be readily identified based on symptom presentation, progression, and temporal relationship to the injection, and is consistent with olanzapine overdose following probable accidental intravascular injection of a portion of the olanzapine LAI dose. Although there is no specific antidote for olanzapine overdose, patients can be treated symptomatically as needed. Special precautions include use of proper injection technique and a post-injection observation period. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID; URL: http://http//www.clinicaltrials.gov/: NCT00094640, NCT00088478, NCT00088491, NCT00088465, and NCT00320489.

Olanzapine for the treatment of borderline personality disorder: variable dose 12-week randomised double-blind placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the prevalence and clinical significance of borderline personality disorder, its treatment remains understudied. AIMS: To evaluate treatment with variably dosed olanzapine in individuals with borderline personality disorder. METHOD: In this 12-week randomised, double-blind trial, individuals received olanzapine (2.5-20 mg/day; n=155) or placebo (n=159) (trial registry: NCT00091650). The primary efficacy measure was baseline to end-point change on the Zanarini Rating Scale for Borderline Personality Disorder (ZAN-BPD) using last-observation-carried-forward methodology. RESULTS: Both olanzapine and placebo groups showed significant improvements but did not differ in magnitude at end-point (-6.56 v. -6.25, P=0.661). Response rates (50% reduction in ZAN-BPD) were 64.7% with olanzapine and 53.5% with placebo (P=0.062); however, time to response was significantly shorter for olanzapine (P=0.022). Weight gain was significantly greater (2.86 v. -0.35 kg, P<0.001), with higher incidence of treatment-emergent abnormal high levels of prolactin for the olanzapine group. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals treated with olanzapine and placebo showed significant but not statistically different improvements on overall symptoms of borderline personality disorder. The types of adverse events observed with olanzapine treatment appeared similar to those observed previously in adult populations.

Effect of comorbid anxiety on treatment response in bipolar depression.

BACKGROUND: This secondary analysis from a randomized double-blind study of acute bipolar depression compared olanzapine monotherapy, olanzapine-fluoxetine combination (OFC) and placebo in patients with or without comorbid anxiety. METHODS: Patients with bipolar disorder and a current depressive episode received olanzapine (5-20 mg/day), OFC (6/25, 6/50, or 12/50 mg/day), or placebo in an 8-week trial. Two populations were defined: comorbid (Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, HAM-A > or =18) or non-comorbid (HAM-A <18) anxiety. Changes in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and HAM-A total scores, and rates of response (> or =50% decrease from baseline to endpoint) and remission (MADRS < or =12 or HAM-A < or =7) were analyzed. RESULTS: Baseline MADRS and YMRS scores were significantly higher in patients with comorbid anxiety relative to those without. Patients without comorbid anxiety were more likely to achieve MADRS response and remission than those with comorbid anxiety (relative risk, RR: 1.21 and 1.29, respectively). Patients with comorbid anxiety had greater rates of response and remission with olanzapine and OFC relative to placebo (response RR:1.45 and 2.14; remission RR:1.96 and 2.32, respectively). Response and remission rates on the HAM-A scale were greater for OFC relative to placebo (RR: 2.00 and 3.20). Weight gain was greater for olanzapine (2.59+/-3.24 kg) and OFC (2.79+/-3.23 kg) relative to placebo, as were baseline to endpoint changes in cholesterol levels (6+/-31 and 10+/-67 mg/dL, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Comorbid anxiety symptoms in patients with bipolar depression have a negative impact on treatment outcome. Olanzapine and, to a greater extent, olanzapine-fluoxetine combination were effective in reducing both depressive and anxiety symptoms in these patients. The significantly greater changes in weight, glucose and cholesterol parameters observed in the olanzapine and olanzapine-fluoxetine combination groups should be entered into the risk-benefit assessment in determining appropriate treatment options for these patients.

A 24-week open-label extension study of olanzapine-fluoxetine combination and olanzapine monotherapy in the treatment of bipolar depression.

OBJECTIVE: Olanzapine-fluoxetine combination has shown efficacy in the acute treatment of depressive episodes in patients with bipolar I disorder. The present analyses examined the efficacy and safety of longer term treatment with olanzapine-fluoxetine combination or olanzapine monotherapy in a 6-month open-label extension study. METHOD: 376 patients with DSM-IV bipolar I disorder, depressed, who completed an acute trial entered the open-label study and received 1 week of olanzapine monotherapy (5-20 mg/day). At all subsequent visits, patients could choose between olanzapine monotherapy or olanzapine-fluoxetine combination (6/25, 6/50, or 12/50 mg/day). Three treatment groups were defined retrospectively according to the medication course taken from week 1: olanzapine, olanzapine-fluoxetine combination, or switched. The efficacy measures were the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar Version, and Young Mania Rating Scale. The study was conducted from July 2000 to May 2002. RESULTS: Among patients who started in remission, MADRS total scores did not change significantly from baseline to endpoint in the olanzapine-fluoxetine combination (0.8) or olanzapine (0.3) groups, but increased slightly in the switched (2.3, p = .02) group. For patients who started in nonremission, MADRS total scores decreased significantly in all groups (olanzapine-fluoxetine combination: -5.7, p = .001; olanzapine: -11.6, p = .004; switched: -6.4, p = .015). The majority of patients who entered the study in nonremission achieved remission (MADRS total score < or = 12) during the trial (olanzapine-fluoxetine combination: 66.7%, olanzapine: 64.7%, switched: 62.5%). The overall rate of depressive relapse was 27.4%, and the overall incidence of mania emergence was 5.9%. CONCLUSIONS: The present findings suggest that long-term treatment with olanzapine-fluoxetine combination may be a useful option for the management of depressive symptoms and carries a low risk of mania emergence.

Long-term weight gain in patients treated with open-label olanzapine in combination with fluoxetine for major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) treated with olanzapine in combination with fluoxetine (OFC) demonstrate robust improvement in their depressive symptoms. Treatment with olanzapine may impact a patient's weight; thus, long-term weight gain and potential predictors (e.g., age and gender) and correlates (e.g., cholesterol and glucose levels) of weight gain were investigated in OFC-treated patients with MDD. METHOD: Outpatients who met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, diagnostic criteria for MDD were included (N = 549) in the current analyses of this 76-week, open-label study (February 2000 to July 2002). Maximum, endpoint, and potentially clinically significant (PCS; > or = 7% increase from baseline) weight gain; time to PCS weight gain; and predictors and correlates of weight change were assessed. Patients were treated once daily with oral olanzapine (6, 12, or 18 mg) plus fluoxetine (25, 50, or 75 mg) capsules. Statistical significance for all tests was based upon p < or = .05. RESULTS: Mean baseline-to-endpoint weight change was 5.6 +/- 6.6 kg (12.3 +/- 14.6 lb). Weight gain plateaued by 52 weeks. Fifty-six percent of patients met criteria for PCS weight gain by 76 weeks, and the median time to PCS weight gain was 16 weeks. Low baseline body mass index (BMI), female gender, younger age, and increased fluoxetine dose were predictors of weight gain; olanzapine dose was not. Patients with early (< or = 6 weeks) rapid PCS weight gain were 4.6 times more likely to gain substantial (> or = 15%) weight long-term (weeks 7-76). Changes to endpoint in total cholesterol and systolic blood pressure values were positively correlated with weight change. CONCLUSION: Long-term (76 weeks) OFC treatment may lead to a large percentage (56%) of patients meeting criteria for PCS weight gain (> or = 7%). The risk of weight gain may be significantly increased for OFC-treated patients who have a low BMI or who are female, younger, or taking high-dose fluoxetine. It is important that prescribers balance the risk of weight gain with the benefit of treatment for individual patients with depression.

Analyses of treatment-emergent mania with olanzapine/fluoxetine combination in the treatment of bipolar depression.

BACKGROUND: Treatment-emergent mania is a potential risk when patients with bipolar disorder are treated with antidepressant agents. These subanalyses compare treatment-emergent mania rates in bipolar I depressed patients treated with olanzapine, placebo, or olanzapine/fluoxetine combination. METHOD: In this 8-week, double-blind investigation, patients with bipolar I depression (DSM-IV criteria) (N = 833, baseline Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score > or = 20) were randomly assigned to olanzapine (5-20 mg/day, N = 370), placebo (N = 377), or olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (6/25, 6/50, or 12/50 mg/day; N = 86). Treatment-emergent mania was evaluated with the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), the Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar Edition (CGI-BP) Severity of Mania scale, and adverse events records. RESULTS: Overall rates of study discontinuation due to mania were low and not significantly different among the therapy groups (p = .358). Incidence of treatment-emergent mania (defined as a YMRS score < 15 at baseline and > or = 15 at any subsequent visit) did not differ significantly among therapy groups (olanzapine 5.7%, placebo 6.7%, olanzapine/fluoxetine combination 6.4%; p = .861). Subjects receiving olanzapine or olanzapine/fluoxetine combination had greater mean decreases in YMRS scores than those receiving placebo (p < .001 for both). Subjects receiving olanzapine or olanzapine/fluoxetine combination also had greater mean decreases in CGI-BP scores than those receiving placebo (p = .040 and p = .003, respectively). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that olanzapine/fluoxetine combination does not present a greater risk of treatment-emergent mania compared to olanzapine or placebo over 8 weeks of acute treatment for bipolar I depression. Due to the cyclical nature of bipolar disorder, patients taking olanzapine/fluoxetine combination for bipolar depression should still be monitored for signs or symptoms of emerging mania.

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.

Long-term antidepressant efficacy and safety of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination: a 76-week open-label study.

BACKGROUND: The olanzapine/fluoxetine combination has demonstrated effectiveness in treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Although this combination is being used by prescribers, this is the first study to examine long-term use. Long-term efficacy and safety were therefore investigated in a group of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) with and without TRD. METHOD: 560 patients who met DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for MDD were enrolled in this 76-week, open-label study (Feb. 2000-July 2002). The Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score was the primary efficacy measure. Safety was assessed via adverse events, vital signs, laboratory analytes, electrocardiography, and extrapyramidal symptom measures. RESULTS: MADRS mean total scores decreased 7 points from baseline (31.6 [N = 552]) at 1/2 week of treatment, 11 points at 1 week of treatment, and 18 points at 8 weeks of treatment. This effect was maintained to endpoint with a mean decrease of 22 points at 76 weeks. Response and remission rates for the total sample were high (62% and 56%, respectively), and the relapse rate was low (15%). Response, remission, and relapse rates for TRD patients (N = 145) were 53%, 44%, and 25%, respectively. The most frequently reported adverse events were somnolence, weight gain, dry mouth, increased appetite, and headache. At endpoint, there were no clinically meaningful changes in vital signs, laboratory analytes, or electrocardiography. There were no significant increases on any measure of extrapyramidal symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The olanzapine/fluoxetine combination showed rapid, robust, and sustained improvement in depressive symptoms in patients with MDD, including patients with TRD. The long-term safety profile of the combination was similar to that of its component monotherapies.

Metabolic parameters in patients treated with olanzapine or other atypical antipsychotics.

The relative risk of changes in metabolic parameters during treatment with atypical antipsychotics has not been fully investigated. Baseline-to-endpoint mean and anytime-categorical changes in metabolic parameters were evaluated in Lilly active comparator-controlled clinical trials. Olanzapine-treated patients gained significantly more baseline-to-endpoint weight versus risperidone- (3.3 kg [N = 713; median exposure [ME, days] = 68] versus 1.8 kg [N = 697; ME = 65], p < 0.001), ziprasidone-(2.8 kg [N = 463; ME = 168] versus -1.3 kg [N = 443; ME = 89], p < 0.001), and aripiprazole-treated patients (3.7 kg [N = 273; ME = 104] versus 0.5 kg [N = 275; ME = 187], p < 0.001). Significantly more olanzapine-treated patients gained ≥ 7% of their baseline weight versus risperidone-(30.6% [N = 713; ME = 169] versus 20.2% [N = 697; ME = 140], p < 0.001), ziprasidone-(30.0% [N = 463; ME = 147] versus 6.5% [N = 443; ME = 165], p < 0.001), and aripiprazole-treated patients (40.3% [N = 273; ME = 170] versus 16.4% [N = 275; ME = 154], p < 0.001). Olanzapine-treated patients had significantly greater baseline-to-endpoint changes in fasting triglycerides compared with ziprasidone- (0.24 mmol/L [N = 365; ME = 168] versus -0.24 mmol/L [N = 316; ME = 140], p < 0.001) and aripiprazole-treated patients (0.28 mmol/L [N = 215; ME = 195] versus -0.19 mmol/L [N = 210; ME = 194], p < 0.001). Olanzapine-treated patients had significantly greater baseline-to-endpoint changes in fasting glucose than ziprasidone-(0.25 mmol/L [N = 379; ME = 168] versus -0.04 mmol/L [N = 333; ME = 133], p = 0.016) and aripiprazole-treated patients (0.27 mmol/L [N = 227; ME = 195] versus 0.04 mmol/L [N = 220; ME = 194], p = 0.048). The study concluded that there are changes with varying frequencies and magnitude in some metabolic parameters in patients treated with olanzapine compared with other atypical antipsychotics.

A dose comparison of olanzapine for the treatment of borderline personality disorder: a 12-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy and safety of olanzapine at low and moderate doses for the treatment of borderline personality disorder. METHOD: In this 12-week randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial, 451 outpatients aged 18-65 years with DSM-IV borderline personality disorder received olanzapine 2.5 mg/d (n = 150), olanzapine 5-10 mg/d (n = 148), or placebo (n = 153). The trial was conducted from February 2004 through January 2006 at 59 community-based and academic study centers in 9 countries (United States, Italy, Poland, Romania, Turkey, Chile, Peru, Argentina, and Venezuela). The primary efficacy measure was mean change from baseline to last-observation-carried-forward endpoint on the Zanarini Rating Scale for Borderline Personality Disorder (ZAN-BPD) total score. Secondary measures included the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, the Modified Overt Aggression Scale, the Global Assessment of Functioning, the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised, and the Sheehan Disability Scale. RESULTS: An overall mean baseline ZAN-BPD total score of 17.2 (SD = 4.9) indicated moderate symptom severity. Only treatment with olanzapine 5-10 mg/d was associated with significantly greater mean change from baseline to endpoint in ZAN-BPD total score relative to placebo (-8.5 vs -6.8, respectively; P = .010; effect size = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.06-0.52). Response rates (response indicated by ≥ 50% decrease from baseline in ZAN-BPD total score) were significantly higher for olanzapine 5-10 mg/d (73.6%) versus olanzapine 2.5 mg/d (60.1%; P = .018) and versus placebo (57.8%; P = .006). Time to response was also significantly shorter for patients taking olanzapine 5-10 mg/d than for placebo-treated patients (P = .028). Treatment-emergent adverse events reported significantly more frequently among olanzapine-treated patients included somnolence, fatigue, increased appetite, and weight increase (all P values < .05). Mean weight change from baseline to endpoint was significantly greater for olanzapine-treated than for placebo-treated patients (olanzapine 2.5 mg/d: 2.09 kg; olanzapine 5-10 mg/d: 3.17 kg; placebo: 0.02 kg; P < .001). The overall completion rate for the 12-week double-blind treatment period was 65.2% (ie, 64.7% for olanzapine 2.5 mg/d, 69.6% for olanzapine 5-10 mg/d, and 61.4% for placebo). CONCLUSIONS: Olanzapine 5-10 mg/d showed a clinically modest advantage over placebo in the treatment of overall borderline psychopathology. This advantage in effectiveness should be weighed against the risk of adverse events (particularly weight gain), which were consistent with the known safety profile of olanzapine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00088036.

Therapeutic options for treatment-resistant depression.

Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) presents major challenges for both patients and clinicians. There is no universally accepted definition of TRD, but results from the US National Institute of Mental Health's (NIMH) STAR*D (Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression) programme indicate that after the failure of two treatment trials, the chances of remission decrease significantly. Several pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments for TRD may be considered when optimized (adequate dose and duration) therapy has not produced a successful outcome and a patient is classified as resistant to treatment. Nonpharmacological strategies include psychotherapy (often in conjunction with pharmacotherapy), electroconvulsive therapy and vagus nerve stimulation. The US FDA recently approved vagus nerve stimulation as adjunctive therapy (after four prior treatment failures); however, its benefits are seen only after prolonged (up to 1 year) use. Other nonpharmacological options, such as repetitive transcranial stimulation, deep brain stimulation or psychosurgery, remain experimental and are not widely available. Pharmacological treatments of TRD can be grouped in two main categories: 'switching' or 'combining'. In the first, treatment is switched within and between classes of compounds. The benefits of switching include avoidance of polypharmacy, a narrower range of treatment-emergent adverse events and lower costs. An inherent disadvantage of any switching strategy is that partial treatment responses resulting from the initial treatment might be lost by its discontinuation in favour of another medication trial. Monotherapy switches have also been shown to have limited effectiveness in achieving remission. The advantage of combination strategies is the potential to build upon achieved improvements; they are generally recommended if partial response was achieved with the current treatment trial. Various non-antidepressant augmenting agents, such as lithium and thyroid hormones, are well studied, although not commonly used. There is also evidence of efficacy and increasing use of atypical antipsychotics in combination with antidepressants, for example, olanzapine in combination with fluoxetine (OFC) or augmentation with aripiprazole. The disadvantages of a combination strategy include multiple medications, a broader range of treatment-emergent adverse events and higher costs. Several experimental pharmaceutical treatment alternatives for TRD are also being explored in combination with antidepressants or as monotherapy. These less studied alternative compounds include pindolol, inositol, CNS stimulants, hormones, herbal supplements, omega-3 fatty acids, S-adenosyl-L-methionine, folic acid, lamotrigine, modafinil, riluzole and topiramate. In summary, despite an increasing variety of choices for the treatment of TRD, this condition remains universally undefined and represents an area of unmet medical need. There are few known approved pharmacological agents for TRD (aripiprazole and OFC) and overall outcomes remain poor. This might be an indication that depression itself is a heterogeneous condition with a great diversity of pathologies, highlighting the need for careful evaluation of individuals with depressive symptoms who are unresponsive to treatment. Clearly, more research is needed to provide clinicians with better guidance in making those treatment decisions--especially in light of accumulating evidence that the longer patients are unsuccessfully treated, the worse their long-term prognosis tends to be.

An integrated analysis of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination in clinical trials of treatment-resistant depression.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC) versus olanzapine or fluoxetine monotherapy across all clinical trials of treatment-resistant depression sponsored by Eli Lilly and Company. METHOD: Efficacy and safety data from 1146 patients with a history of nonresponse during the current depressive episode who subsequently exhibited nonresponse during a 6- to 8-week antidepressant open-label lead-in phase and were randomly assigned to OFC (N = 462), fluoxetine (N = 342), or olanzapine (N = 342) for double-blind treatment were analyzed. All patients had a diagnosis of major depressive disorder as defined by DSM-III or DSM-IV criteria. The dates in which the trials were conducted ranged from May 1997 to July 2005. RESULTS: After 8 weeks, OFC patients demonstrated significantly greater Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale improvement (mean change = -13.0) than fluoxetine (-8.6, p < .001) or olanzapine (-8.2, p < .001) patients, via a mixed-effects model repeated-measures analysis. Remission rates were 25.5% for OFC, 17.3% (p = .006) for fluoxetine, and 14.0% (p < .001) for olanzapine. Adverse events in >or= 10% of OFC patients were weight gain, increased appetite, dry mouth, somnolence, fatigue, headache, and peripheral edema. Random glucose mean change (mg/dL) was +7.92 for the OFC group, +1.62 for the fluoxetine group (p = .020), and +9.91 for the olanzapine group (p = .485). Random cholesterol mean change (mg/dL) was +12.4 for OFC, +2.3 for fluoxetine (p < .001), and +3.1 for olanzapine (p < .001); incidence of treatment-emergent increase from normal to high cholesterol (baseline < 200 mg/dL and >or= 240 subsequently) was significantly higher for the OFC group (10.2%) than for the fluoxetine group (3.1%, p = .017) but not the olanzapine group (8.0%, p = .569). Mean weight change (kg) was +4.42 for OFC, -0.15 for fluoxetine (p < .001), and +4.63 for olanzapine (p = .381), with 40.4% of OFC patients gaining >or= 7% body weight (vs. olanzapine: 42.9%, p = .515; fluoxetine: 2.3%, p < .001). CONCLUSION: Results of this analysis showed that OFC-treated patients experienced significantly improved depressive symptoms compared with olanzapine- or fluoxetine-treated patients following failure of 2 or more antidepressants within the current depressive episode. Safety results for OFC were generally consistent with those for its component monotherapies. The total cholesterol increase associated with OFC was more pronounced than with olanzapine alone.

A randomized, double-blind comparison of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, olanzapine, and fluoxetine in treatment-resistant major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Two parallel, 8-week double-blind studies compared olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, olanzapine, and fluoxetine in outpatients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). METHOD: Treatment-resistant depression was defined as a documented history of current-episode antidepressant failure plus a prospective failure on fluoxetine. Following an 8-week fluoxetine lead-in, 605 nonresponders with DSM-IV major depressive disorder were randomly assigned to olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, olanzapine, or fluoxetine. The primary outcome measure was baseline-to-endpoint mean change on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). The study was conducted from April 2002 to May 2005. RESULTS: After 8 weeks of double-blind treatment, Study 1 revealed no statistically significant therapy differences in MADRS mean change (olanzapine/fluoxetine combination: -11.0, fluoxetine: -9.4, olanzapine: -10.5). In Study 2, olanzapine/fluoxetine combination demonstrated significantly greater MADRS improvement (-14.5) than fluoxetine (-8.6, p < .001) and olanzapine (-7.0, p < .001). Pooled study results revealed significant differences for olanzapine/ fluoxetine combination (-12.7) versus fluoxetine (-9.0, p < .001) and olanzapine (-8.8, p < .001). Pooled remission rates were 27% for olanzapine/ fluoxetine combination, 17% for fluoxetine, and 15% for olanzapine. Adverse events were consistent with previous studies. Cholesterol mean change (mg/dL) was +15.1 for olanzapine/ fluoxetine combination, +0.8 for fluoxetine, and +2.7 for olanzapine. Mean weight change (kg) was +4.9 for olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, +0.4 for fluoxetine, and +5.5 for olanzapine. Nonfasting glucose mean change (mg/dL) was +11.4 for olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, +4.9 for fluoxetine, and +9.9 for olanzapine. CONCLUSION: Patients with TRD (defined as treatment failure on 2 antidepressants) taking olanzapine/fluoxetine combination demonstrated significantly greater improvement in depressive symptoms than patients taking olanzapine or fluoxetine in 1 of 2 studies and in the pooled analysis. When considered within the context of all available evidence, olanzapine/fluoxetine combination is an efficacious therapy for patients with TRD. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00035321.

A randomized, double-blind comparison of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, olanzapine, fluoxetine, and venlafaxine in treatment-resistant depression.

Based on preliminary evidence of its usefulness in treatment-resistant depression (TRD), an olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC) was examined in comparison with olanzapine, fluoxetine, and venlafaxine in a TRD population. In this 12-week double-blind study, 483 subjects with unipolar, nonpsychotic TRD, with historic failure on a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) and prospective failure on open-label venlafaxine, were randomized to an OFC or to an olanzapine, fluoxetine, or venlafaxine monotherapy group. Venlafaxine was continued randomly in the double-blind acute phase to explore the benefits of continuation versus switching therapy. The Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total change score at end point was the primary outcome measure. The OFC group had significantly greater improvement in depressive symptoms by week 1 of treatment (MADRS mean change =-7.2, baseline =29.6), in comparison to olanzapine (-4.8, P=.03), fluoxetine (-4.7, P=.03), or venlafaxine (-3.7, P=.002) groups and maintained its statistical separation from all three monotherapy groups through week 6. At end point, the OFC group was significantly different only from the olanzapine group (-14.1 vs. -7.7, P<.001). Analysis of a subgroup of subjects who had an SSRI failure in their current depressive episode (n=334) revealed statistical separation from both olanzapine and fluoxetine (but not venlafaxine) at end point: OFC (-14.6) versus olanzapine (-9.4, P<.001) versus fluoxetine (-10.7, P=.006) versus venlafaxine (-14.7, P=.98). The OFC had a safety profile comparable to its component monotherapies (i.e., olanzapine and fluoxetine), showed a rapid onset of antidepressant effect, and was effective in this TRD sample. At the study end point, OFC, fluoxetine, venlafaxine, and low-dose OFC all appeared to be similarly effective.