Antipsychotic switching versus augmentation among early non-responders to risperidone or olanzapine in acute-phase schizophrenia.

PURPOSE: We examined whether augmentation with olanzapine would be superior to switching to olanzapine among early non-responders (ENRs) to risperidone, and whether augmentation with risperidone would be superior to switching to risperidone among ENRs to olanzapine. We performed a rater-blinded, randomized clinical trial at psychiatric emergency sites. Eligible patients were newly admitted patients with acute schizophrenia. ENRs to the initial antipsychotic (Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement Scale: ≥ 4 at 2 weeks) were allocated to receive either augmentation with or switching to the other antipsychotic (RIS+OLZ vs. RIS-OLZ; OLZ+RIS vs. OLZ-RIS) RESULTS: Sixty patients who completed 2 weeks of risperidone treatment were divided into 33 early responders (RIS-ER) and 27 ENRs (RIS+OLZ, n=14; RIS-OLZ, n=13). Although time to treatment discontinuation for any cause was significantly shorter in RIS+OLZ group (54.1 days [95% confidence interval, 41.3-67.0]) than in RIS-ER group (68.7 [61.2-76.2]; P=0.050), it was not significantly shorter in RIS-OLZ group (58.5 [43.1-73.9]) than in RIS-ER group (P=0.19). Sixty patients who completed 2 weeks of olanzapine treatment were divided into 36 early responders (OLZ-ER) and 24 ENRs (OLZ+RIS, n=11; OLZ-RIS, n=13). Although time to treatment discontinuation for any cause was significantly shorter in OLZ-RIS group (56.1days [40.7-71.5]) than in OLZ-ER group (74.9 [68.5-81.3]; P=0.008), it was not significantly shorter in OLZ+RIS group (64.6 [49.6-79.6]) than in OLZ-ER group (P=0.20). CONCLUSION: Despite the lack of pharmacokinetic investigation of dose adequacy in this study, it is possible that switching to olanzapine among ENRs to risperidone might have a small advantage over augmentation with olanzapine, while augmentation with risperidone might have a small advantage over switching to risperidone among ENRs to olanzapine. Further research is required before it would be appropriate to modify routine practice in the direction of these findings.

The possibility that requiring high-dose olanzapine cannot be explained by pharmacokinetics in the treatment of acute-phase schizophrenia.

We examined clinical characteristics including serum olanzapine concentrations for acute schizophrenia patients who required above conventional doses. We performed a rater-blinded, randomized clinical trial in 12 psychiatric emergency sites. Eligible patients were 18-64 years old and met diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia, acute schizophrenia-like psychotic disorder, or schizoaffective disorder. A total of 42 patients were randomly assigned by means of sealed envelopes to receive risperidone (3-12 mg/day; n=20) and olanzapine (10-40 mg/day; n=22), with follow-up at 8 weeks. The Negative score of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale was significantly higher in patients who required high doses than in patients who responded to conventional doses. Serum olanzapine concentrations at the time of oral 20mg/day could be obtained from 5 out of 7 patients who subsequently required high-dose olanzapine. All values were more than 30 ng/mL after 11-16 h from dosing to sample collection, and the mean value was 47.876 (S.D. 21.546) ng/mL. Such concentrations are appropriate with respect to a therapeutic range of 20-50 ng/mL. The present study has shown evidence that the reason for requiring high-dose olanzapine cannot be explained by pharmacokinetics in the treatment of acute-phase schizophrenia.

Difference in early prediction of antipsychotic non-response between risperidone and olanzapine in the treatment of acute-phase schizophrenia.

PURPOSE: We examined whether early response/non-response to risperidone according to the Clinical Global Impressions-improvement scale (CGI-I) at 2 weeks could predict subsequent response. This prediction was also applied to olanzapine. We then investigated whether early non-responders (ENRs) to risperidone or olanzapine who switched to the other showed significantly greater improvement, compared with those staying on the initial antipsychotic. We performed a rater-blinded, randomized controlled trial in 18 psychiatric emergency sites. Eligible patients were newly admitted patients with acute schizophrenia. Early response was defined as CGI-I ≤ 3 following 2 weeks of treatment. The primary outcome measure was achievement of remission and ≥ 50% improvement in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale at 4 weeks. RESULTS: At 4 weeks, 53% of risperidone early responders (ERs) went into remission, whereas only 9% of ENRs staying on risperidone (n=11) did (P=0.016). Similarly, at 4 weeks, 81% of risperidone ERs achieved ≥ 50% response, whereas only 9% of ENRs staying on risperidone achieved ≥ 50% response (P < 0.0001). In contrast, 58% of olanzapine ERs (n=33) went into remission, whereas 38% of ENRs staying on olanzapine (n=8) did at 4 weeks (P=0.44). Similarly, 61% of olanzapine ERs achieved ≥ 50% response, whereas 25% of ENRs staying on olanzapine achieved ≥ 50% response (P=0.12). The negative likelihood ratio for the prediction of ≥ 50% response at 4 weeks by early response status to risperidone at 2 weeks was 0.057. CONCLUSION: In newly admitted patients with acute schizophrenia, non-response to risperidone using CGI-I at 2 weeks can predict subsequent response. It looks like there is significant response to olanzapine that doesn't occur until 4 weeks. Thus, clinicians may want to switch to another drug earlier when risperidone is the first drug, and later when olanzapine is the first drug.