The relationship between quality of life and clinical efficacy from a randomized trial comparing olanzapine and ziprasidone.

OBJECTIVE: To examine treatment-specific changes in health-related quality of life (QOL) among patients with schizophrenia and to assess the association between clinical and QOL improvement. METHOD: This post hoc analysis used the findings of a 28-week, randomized, multicenter trial of patients with schizophrenia (DSM-IV) treated with olanzapine (10-20 mg/day) or ziprasidone (80-160 mg/day). Data were collected from August 2001 to December 2002. Efficacy was measured using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). Quality of life was assessed with the generic health self-administered Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey (SF-36) and the disease-specific expert-administered Heinrichs-Carpenter Quality of Life Scale (QLS). Mixed-effects-repeated-measures and last-observation-carried-forward approaches were used to assess the effects of treatment on QOL and the association of clinical outcomes to QOL outcomes. RESULTS: Olanzapine- and ziprasidone-treated patients demonstrated similar improvement from baseline to endpoint on the SF-36 and QLS. All correlations between changes in PANSS scores and the SF-36 were significant (p < .001), ranging from -0.159 to -0.400. All correlations between changes in PANSS scores and the QLS were significant (p < .0001), ranging from -0.286 to -0.603. The correlations between the 2 QOL measures were generally significant but small to moderate in magnitude. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that, in patients with schizophrenia, olanzapine and ziprasidone treatment are associated with significant QOL and clinical improvements. Further, the significant correlation between change scores on the PANSS and QOL measures suggests that treatment-related clinical improvements are associated with improved health-related and disease-specific QOL. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalStudyResults.org identifier 2347.

Olanzapine versus ziprasidone: results of a 28-week double-blind study in patients with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: The efficacy and safety of olanzapine were compared with those of ziprasidone. METHOD: This was a multicenter randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 28-week study of patients with schizophrenia. Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with 10-20 mg/day of olanzapine or 80-160 mg/day of ziprasidone. The primary efficacy measure was the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score. Secondary efficacy and safety measures included Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale subscales as well as mood, quality of life, and extrapyramidal symptom scales. Safety was evaluated by recording treatment-emergent adverse events and measuring vital signs and weight. RESULTS: The study was completed by significantly more olanzapine-treated patients (165 of 277, 59.6%) than ziprasidone-treated patients (115 of 271, 42.4%). At 28 weeks, the olanzapine-treated patients showed significantly more improvement than the ziprasidone-treated patients on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale overall scale and all subscales and on the Clinical Global Impression ratings of severity of illness and improvement. The responder rate was higher for olanzapine than for ziprasidone. Extrapyramidal symptoms were not significantly different between groups in change-to-endpoint analyses, but results favored olanzapine on baseline-to-maximum changes. Weight change was significantly greater with olanzapine (mean=3.06 kg, SD=6.87) than with ziprasidone (mean=-1.12 kg, SD=4.70). Fasting lipid profiles were significantly superior in the ziprasidone group; there was no significant difference in fasting glucose level. CONCLUSIONS: Olanzapine treatment resulted in significantly greater psychopathology improvement and higher response and completion rates than ziprasidone treatment, while ziprasidone was superior for weight change and lipid profile.

Switching to olanzapine from previous antipsychotics: a regional collaborative multicenter trial assessing 2 switching techniques in Asia Pacific.

BACKGROUND: This open-label, multicenter, randomized study compared the efficacy and safety of switching moderately ill Asian patients with schizophrenia from their current regimen of antipsychotic medication to the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine using either a direct switch method or a start-taper switch method. METHOD: Asian inpatients and outpatients with DSM-IV schizophrenia (N = 108) currently treated with predominantly typical antipsychotics were switched to olanzapine (initial dose of 10 mg/day) for 6 weeks. Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: the direct switch group (N = 54) received only olanzapine, while the start-taper switch group (N = 54) received olanzapine and their usual antipsychotic in decreasing doses for the first 2 weeks. A successful switch was defined as completing 6 weeks of therapy without worsening of symptoms (Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale [CGI-S]) or extrapyramidal side effects (Simpson-Angus Scale). Overall efficacy was assessed using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), and safety was assessed by recording adverse events and measuring vital signs. RESULTS: Statistically significant (p < .001) improvements from baseline to endpoint occurred in both switch groups in the CGI-S score and the PANSS total score and subscores. However, no significant differences were observed between the switch groups for any efficacy measure. Both techniques had comparable rates of successful switching (direct switch, 74.1% vs. start-taper switch, 67.9%). The frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between switch groups with no clinically significant differences in any laboratory value or vital sign. Weight gain occurred in both switch groups (p < .001), but the groups were not statistically different from each other. Both switch groups showed statistically significant (p < .01) improvements from baseline to endpoint on the Simpson-Angus Scale and Barnes Akathisia Scale. CONCLUSION: Moderately ill Asian patients with schizophrenia may experience a decrease in symptom severity and improvement in extrapyramidal symptoms when switched from their current medication to olanzapine therapy.

Nizatidine for prevention of weight gain with olanzapine: a double-blind placebo-controlled trial.

Weight gain is associated with treatment with olanzapine and other psychotropic agents. Nizatidine, a histamine H-2 receptor antagonist, has been proposed to have weight-reducing effects. This double-blind trial evaluated the efficacy of nizatidine in limiting weight gain in patients with schizophrenia and related disorders who were treated with olanzapine for up to 16 weeks. After an initial screening period, 175 patients were randomized to receive olanzapine (5-20 mg) with either placebo or nizatidine (150 mg b.i.d. or 300 mg b.i.d.). Significantly less weight gain was observed on average at weeks 3 and 4 with olanzapine+nizatidine 300 mg b.i.d. (P<0.05) compared to olanzapine+placebo, but the difference was not statistically significant at 16 weeks. Nizatidine was well-tolerated and did not adversely affect clinical outcomes. Nizatidine 300 mg b.i.d. may have an early transient effect in limiting the weight gain, but this potential early effect appeared to be diminished or eliminated by 16 weeks.

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a triple reuptake inhibitor GSK372475 in the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder: two randomized, placebo- and active-controlled clinical trials.

GSK372475 is a triple reuptake inhibitor with approximately equipotent inhibition of serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine transporters. Two randomized, placebo- and active-controlled, double-blind studies examined the efficacy and safety of GSK372475 in outpatients (aged 18-64 years) with a diagnosis of major depressive episode associated with major depressive disorder (MDD). Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo, GSK372475 (1-2 mg/d), or active control (Study 1: venlafaxine XR 150-225 mg/d; Study 2: paroxetine 20-30 mg/d). GSK372475 did not significantly differ from placebo on any of the key efficacy endpoints (six-item Bech scale, IDS-Clinician Rated, MADRS) in either study. Both active controls demonstrated significant antidepressant activity compared with placebo on both primary and secondary endpoints. The most common adverse effects (AEs) with GSK372475 were dry mouth, headache, insomnia, and nausea. AEs were more frequent for GSK372475 versus placebo for sleep, anxiety-related, gastrointestinal, and tachycardia events. Increases in mean change from baseline in heart rate and sitting blood pressure were greater for GSK372475 than observed for either placebo or active control groups. Completion rates were lower for GSK372475 (49%, 58%) compared with placebo (67%, 74%), venlafaxine XR (63%), or paroxetine (77%). GSK372475 was neither efficacious nor well tolerated in patients with MDD in two 10-week studies.