Factors associated with adherence to treatment with olanzapine and other atypical antipsychotic medications in patients with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES: Poor treatment response is an important factor contributing to lack of treatment adherence. The goals of this research were to determine whether improvements in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) symptom domains predict the likelihood of staying on treatment and whether differential responses to treatment with various atypical antipsychotics in specific symptom domains account for differences in discontinuation rates or treatment adherence. METHODS: We conducted a post-hoc analysis of pooled data from 5 randomized, double-blind, 24- to 28-week clinical trials in 1103 olanzapine-treated and 1090 risperidone-, quetiapine-, ziprasidone-, or aripiprazole-treated adult patients with schizophrenia. The 5 PANSS factors were tested as potential predictors of treatment adherence for all treatment groups combined. Treatment differences in the 5 PANSS factors and individual items were assessed between olanzapine and the other atypical antipsychotics combined. Secondary analyses repeated for the 21 Heinrichs Quality of Life Scale (QLS) items. RESULTS: Improvement in PANSS positive factor was the strongest predictor of treatment adherence, irrespective of medication (based on standardized scores, hazard ratio [HR], 1.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], +1.40 to +1.79; P < .001). Improvement in PANSS hostility (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, +1.11 to +1.37; P < .001) and depressive (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, +1.05 to +1.27; P = .002) factors was also a significant predictor; negative and disorganized thoughts factors were not. All QLS items had significant predictive effects. Olanzapine-treated patients showed significantly greater improvements than all other groups at week 24 on all 5 PANSS factors (P = .028 for negative; P < .001 for all others) and on 3 QLS items. CONCLUSION: Significant improvement in positive symptoms, regardless of treatment, followed by significant improvement in hostility and depressive symptoms, may best predict treatment adherence. Olanzapine-treated patients experienced significantly greater improvements in these specific symptoms than patients treated with the other atypical antipsychotics examined. These findings may further explain why olanzapine-treated patients continue treatment more often.

Comparison of metabolic changes in patients with schizophrenia during randomized treatment with intramuscular olanzapine long-acting injection versus oral olanzapine.

Metabolic changes were examined in patients with schizophrenia during treatment with either oral olanzapine or olanzapine long-acting injection (LAI). Data were collected from patients who had been stabilized on oral olanzapine (10, 15, or 20 mg/day) for ≥4 weeks and then randomized to either continued olanzapine oral treatment (n = 322) or LAI (n = 599; 150 mg/2 weeks, 405 mg/4 weeks, or 300 mg/2 weeks) for up to 24 weeks. Mean and categorical changes in metabolic parameters were analyzed. Mean changes in weight, glucose, and most lipids were generally not significantly different between treatment groups. Weight changes over time followed similar patterns and were not significantly different at endpoint between the two treatment-formulation groups. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol decreased significantly less among olanzapine LAI-treated patients. Percentages of patients with potentially clinically significant changes in blood glucose and lipid concentrations were similar for the two treatments. Percentages of patients experiencing adverse events related to weight, diabetes, or dyslipidemia were also not significantly different between treatments. Metabolic changes in patients with schizophrenia appeared generally similar during treatment with oral olanzapine or olanzapine LAI.

Comparison of symptomatic versus functional changes in children and adolescents with ADHD during randomized, double-blind treatment with psychostimulants, atomoxetine, or placebo.

BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis was designed to determine the relationship between reduction of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms and improvement in functioning by examining short-term changes in functional and symptomatic scores in children and adolescents with ADHD. METHODS: Search of atomoxetine's clinical trial database identified four studies involving a symptomatic measure, the ADHD Rating Scale-IV-Parent Version:Investigator-administered and -scored (ADHDRS-IV-Parent:Inv), and a functional measure, the Life Participation Scale for ADHD (LPS). RESULTS: Correlation analysis revealed a moderate-to-strong association between changes in the LPS total versus ADHDRS-IV-Parent:Inv total (r: -.68). The LPS Self-control subscale showed higher correlations than the Happy/Social subscale with the symptomatic measures. Regression analysis also showed high sensitivity for functional measures to changes in symptom severity. Stratified analysis of mean changes in ADHDRS-IV-Parent:Inv scores corresponding to standardized changes in LPS functional scores indicated that a threshold reduction of 16-18 points on the ADHDRS-IV-Parent:Inv total score was needed for functional improvements to become evident. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects' symptomatic improvements appear to be reflected in improvements in their social and behavioral function as measured by the LPS. These initial findings warrant verification by replication with other outcome measures.

Atomoxetine augmentation of cholinesterase inhibitor therapy in patients with Alzheimer disease: 6-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-trial study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the efficacy and tolerability of atomoxetine (ATX) in improving cognitive performance of patients with Alzheimer dementia. DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind, placebo (PLA)-controlled, parallel-groups study, starting with a 5-33-day screening and evaluation period, followed by a 6-month treatment period. SETTING: Eight independent or academic outpatient clinics in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Male or female patients, aged 55 years and older, with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer disease (Mini-Mental State Examination score between 10 and 26) at baseline. INTERVENTION: ATX (25-80 mg/day) or PLA for up to 6 months, added to ongoing cholinesterase-inhibitor therapy. MEASUREMENTS: Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Portion (ADAS-Cog, primary measure), Clinician's Interview-Based Impression of Change score at end point, Neuropsychiatric Inventory, and Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study Inventory-Activities of Daily Living Inventory total score, safety measures (secondary measures). RESULTS: Patients' (N = 92) scores on assessments of cognitive function, global clinical impression, and neuropsychiatric symptoms were not significantly different between treatment groups. Neither group showed significant changes from baseline on the primary measure of efficacy, the ADAS-Cog. The ATX group showed a significantly greater increase of heart rate, and the mean increase in diastolic blood pressure and decrease in weight differed significantly from the decrease in pressure and weight increase in the PLA group. No other clinically meaningful safety results were obtained. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of ATX to ongoing cholinesterase-inhibitor therapy was generally well tolerated but did not significantly improve cognitive function.

CYP2D6 metabolizer status and atomoxetine dosing in children and adolescents with ADHD.

To determine whether physicians can adequately titrate atomoxetine without knowing genotype status for hepatic cytochrome P450 2D6, we pooled data from two open-label studies of atomoxetine in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Patients were assessed weekly up to 10 weeks and doses titrated for efficacy and tolerability at the discretion of investigators (max. 1.8 mg/kg/d). Mean dose was 0.1 mg/kg/d lower in poor metabolizer (PM) patients (n=87) than extensive metabolizers (EMs, n=1239). PMs demonstrated marginally better efficacy on the ADHDRS-IV-Parent:Inv and had comparable safety profiles, except for a 4.0-bpm greater increase in mean pulse rate and a 1.0-kg greater weight loss. Changes from baseline in Fridericia QTc did not differ between groups or correlate with dose in PMs. Results suggest genotyping is unnecessary during routine clinical management, because investigators were able to dose atomoxetine to comparable efficacy and safety levels in EMs and PMs without knowledge of genotype metabolizer status.

Atomoxetine treatment of ADHD in children with comorbid Tourette syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: This study examines changes in severity of tics and ADHD during atomoxetine treatment in ADHD patients with Tourette syndrome (TS). METHOD: Subjects (7-17 years old) with ADHD (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, DSM-IV) and TS were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with placebo (n = 56) or atomoxetine (0.5-1.5 mg/kg/day, n = 61) for approximately 18 weeks. RESULTS: Atomoxetine subjects showed significantly greater improvement on ADHD symptom measures. Treatment was also associated with significantly greater reduction of tic severity on two of three measures. Significant increases were seen in mean pulse rate and rates of treatment-emergent nausea, decreased appetite, and decreased body weight. No other clinically relevant treatment differences were observed in any other vital sign, adverse event, laboratory parameter, or electrocardiographic measure. CONCLUSION: Atomoxetine is efficacious for treatment of ADHD and its use appears well tolerated in ADHD patients with comorbid TS.

Effect of comorbid symptoms of oppositional defiant disorder on responses to atomoxetine in children with ADHD: a meta-analysis of controlled clinical trial data.

RATIONALE: Up to 60% of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) suffer from comorbid affective or behavioral impairments, the most common condition being oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), which occurs in 40-60% of children with ADHD. OBJECTIVES: This post hoc meta-analysis was performed to determine the effect of the presence of comorbid ODD symptoms on clinical outcomes among pediatric and adolescent subjects being treated for ADHD. METHODS: Acute-phase data were analyzed from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in outpatients aged 6-16 and meeting the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition, criteria for ADHD. Subjects received placebo or atomoxetine (max 1.8 mg/kg/day, daily) for 6-8 weeks. Patients were diagnosed with comorbid ODD on structured diagnostic interview (Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-aged Children-Present and Lifetime Versions). RESULTS: Of the 512 subjects studied, 158 were diagnosed with comorbid ODD. Relative to placebo, atomoxetine treatment significantly reduced ADHD symptoms in both ODD-comorbid and noncomorbid subjects irrespective of the comorbidity with ODD. ADHD subjects also showed significant improvements from baseline on most of the psychosocial measures of the child health questionnaire irrespective of the comorbidity with ODD. Reduction in ODD symptoms was highly related to the magnitude of ADHD response. CONCLUSIONS: Atomoxetine treatment significantly reduced ADHD symptoms in both ODD-comorbid and noncomorbid subjects to similar extents, indicating that the presence of comorbid symptoms of oppositionality does not affect clinical outcomes of treatment of ADHD with atomoxetine.

Effect of two different methods of initiating atomoxetine on the adverse event profile of atomoxetine.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of two different methods for initiating atomoxetine in terms of the incidence of early adverse events. METHOD: Data on atomoxetine treatment-emergent adverse events in youths, ages 6 to 18 years, were analyzed from five randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, acute-phase studies. Two studies involve once-daily dosing and titration to 1.2 mg/kg/day over 3 days (fast/once daily, n = 234) and three involve twice-daily dosing and titration to a dose of 1.2 mg/kg/day over at least 2 weeks (slow/twice daily, n = 213). RESULTS: During the first 2 weeks of treatment, fast/once daily titration patients showed higher rates of spontaneously reported adverse events than patients in the slow/twice daily titration group. This included decreased appetite (14.3% versus 8.0%, p = .036) and somnolence (14.3% versus 4.2%, p < .001). Patients in the slow/twice daily group showed higher rates of headache (7.4% versus 16.9%, p = .003). Analysis of the studies' overall acute treatment phases revealed significantly higher rates in the fast/once daily group only for somnolence. No significant differences were seen in completion rates or reasons for discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: When starting atomoxetine, the risk of adverse events within the first few weeks of treatment may be lower if patients are dosed twice daily and titrated to the 1.2 mg/kg/day total daily dose over the first week.

Transition from methylphenidate or amphetamine to atomoxetine in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder--a preliminary tolerability and efficacy study.

BACKGROUND: The primary treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been psychostimulants. Recently developed nonpsychostimulant treatments have allowed certain patients to switch from a psychostimulant to a nonpsychostimulant. However, the outcomes of such switches have not been systematically studied. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this pilot study was to assess treatment tolerance and efficacy during a cross-taper transition from methylphenidate or amphetamine to atomoxetine among children and adolescents with ADHD. METHODS: This pilot study was conducted in patients (aged 6-17 years) with incomplete responses (failure to obtain full reduction/elimination of symptoms) or intolerance of adverse events (AEs) during psychostimulant treatment. Patients continued ongoing psychostimulant treatment during the first week of the study. Transition to atomoxetine began by administering atomoxetine 0.5 mg/kg . d plus full-dose psychostimulant for 1 week, followed in the second week by 1.2 mg/kg . d atomoxetine plus half-dose psychostimulant. Patients remained on 1.2 mg/kg . d atomoxetine monotherapy for the remaining 5 weeks. This stepwise transition was enacted due to the difference in pharmacodynamics between the psychostimulants and atomoxetine. Applying a stepwise cross-titration allowed for better control of ADHD symptoms during the intervening period. Change in ADHD symptoms, as measured by the mean change in the Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Rating Scale-IV-Parent Version: Investigator-administered and -scored (ADHDRS-IV-Parent:Inv), was assessed from baseline to end point. RESULTS: Of the 62 subjects enrolled in the study, 39 (62.9%) were diagnosed as ADHD-combined type. Similar proportions were receiving methylphenidate (51.6%) and amphetamine (48.4%). Slightly more wished to switch due to inadequate response (53.2%) than intolerability (46.8%). Nine subjects discontinued at various times during the course of the study (patient or parent/caregiver decision [4], AE [2], protocol violation [2], and lack of efficacy [1]). Mean (SD) ADHDRS-IV-Parent:Inv total scores (n = 59, last-observation-carried-forward) improved significantly from baseline (visit 2) to an end point (32.1 [10.5] vs 22.6 [14.0]; P < 0.001). Of the 58 subjects answering in the atomoxetine monotherapy phase, 38 (65.5%) reported a preference for atomoxetine treatment over their previous psychostimulant. Tolerability results were as follows: 26 (44.1%) of 59 patients reported >or=1 AE, the most common being somnolence (4 [6.8%]), fatigue (3 [5.1%]), decreased appetite (3 [5.1%]), cough (3 [5.1%]), headache (3 [5.1%]), and contact dermatitis (2 [3.4%]). No clinically severe AEs were reported. Both mean (SD) diastolic (2.4 [7.8] mm Hg; P = 0.031) and systolic (2.4 [7.9] mm Hg; P = 0.029) blood pressures increased significantly from baseline to end point. Electrocardiography revealed a significant increase in mean (SD) heart rate (9.2 [11.6] bpm; P < 0.001) and a corresponding decrease in mean (SD) RR interval (-77.8 [98.2] ms; P < 0.001). Statistically significant, but mild, increases in diastolic pressure and heart rate were observed. CONCLUSION: These children and adolescent patients were successfully switched from methylphenidate or amphetamine to atomoxetine treatment, with resulting improvement in ADHD symptom severity from baseline in this pilot study.

Effects of atomoxetine on growth in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder following up to five years of treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects on growth of long-term pharmacological treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), we present findings from an ongoing 5-year study of the efficacy and safety of treatment with atomoxetine. METHODS: North American patients, 6-17 years old at study entry (N = 1,312) and with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,4th edition (DSM-IV) ADHD, were studied under open-label atomoxetine treatment. Sixty-one were studied up to 5 years. RESULTS: After 1 month's treatment, patients weighed less than expected from their starting percentiles relative to population norms, with a maximum shortfall at 15 months and a return to expected weight by 36 months. Patients were slightly shorter than expected after 12 months, reaching a maximum shortfall at 18 months and returning to expected height by 24 months. Patients in the top quartile for body mass index (BMI) or weight at baseline, and those in the third quartile for height, showed 5-year decreases from expected values. Those below median height at baseline showed increases relative to expected values. CONCLUSIONS: These interim results indicate that continuous atomoxetine treatment for up to 5 years has little or no long-term effect on juvenile growth and final stature for most patients, although persistent decreases from expected may occur in some patients who are larger than average before treatment.

Effects of long-term atomoxetine treatment for young children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this 13-study (seven double-blind/placebo-controlled, six open-label) meta-analysis is to determine the effectiveness and tolerability of long-term atomoxetine treatment among young children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHOD: Data were pooled from 6- and 7-year-olds (N = 272) who met DSM-IV criteria for ADHD, received atomoxetine treatment, and were enrolled in clinical trials of > or =2 years. Of these, 97 subjects reached the 24-month time point, providing data for long-term trend analysis of safety and effectiveness. RESULTS: Effectiveness for most subjects was maintained over long-term treatment, as demonstrated by total scores and total T scores on the Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Rating Scale-IV-Parent Version, investigator administered and scored. During the 2-year period, 25.7% discontinued because of lack of effectiveness, but adverse events were clinically minor and transient, and only 4.0% of children discontinued because of an adverse event. Notable effects on growth were seen during early phases of the study, with attenuation occurring by the 2-year time point. Statistically significant increases in pulse and blood pressure and decreases in cardiac PR interval were seen, but no changes were deemed both statistically significant and clinically meaningful among any vital signs, electrocardiographic measures, or laboratory tests. CONCLUSION: Long-term atomoxetine treatment appears generally well tolerated and effective in the treatment of young children with ADHD.

Efficacy of olanzapine in combination with valproate or lithium in the treatment of mania in patients partially nonresponsive to valproate or lithium monotherapy.

BACKGROUND: A 6-week double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted to determine the efficacy of combined therapy with olanzapine and either valproate or lithium compared with valproate or lithium alone in treating acute manic or mixed bipolar episodes. METHODS: The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy of olanzapine (5-20 mg/d) vs placebo when added to ongoing mood-stabilizer therapy as measured by reductions in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) scores. Patients with bipolar disorder (n = 344), manic or mixed episode, who were inadequately responsive to more than 2 weeks of lithium or valproate therapy, were randomized to receive cotherapy (olanzapine + mood-stabilizer) or monotherapy (placebo + mood-stabilizer). RESULTS: Olanzapine cotherapy improved patients' YMRS total scores significantly more than monotherapy (-13.11 vs -9.10; P = .003). Clinical response rates (> or = 50% improvement on YMRS) were significantly higher with cotherapy (67.7% vs 44.7%; P< .001). Olanzapine cotherapy improved 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-21) total scores significantly more than monotherapy (4.98 vs 0.89 points; P< .001). In patients with mixed-episodes with moderate to severe depressive symptoms (DSM-IV mixed episode; HAMD-21 score of > or = 20 at baseline), olanzapine cotherapy improved HAMD-21 scores by 10.31 points compared with 1.57 for monotherapy (P< .001). Extrapyramidal symptoms (Simpson-Angus Scale, Barnes Akathisia Scale, Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale) were not significantly changed from baseline to end point in either treatment group. Treatment-emergent symptoms that were significantly higher for the olanzapine cotherapy group included somnolence, dry mouth, weight gain, increased appetite, tremor, and slurred speech. CONCLUSION: Compared with the use of valproate or lithium alone, the addition of olanzapine provided superior efficacy in the treatment of manic and mixed bipolar episodes.

Drug-induced psychosis in Parkinson disease: phenomenology and correlations among psychosis rating instruments.

OBJECTIVES: To describe further the phenomenology of drug-induced psychosis (DIP) in patients with Parkinson disease (PD) and assess which items on two common psychosis rating instruments-the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI)-are the best measure of DIP by comparing them with the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGIS). METHODS: Baseline data from two placebo-controlled, double-blind studies of olanzapine in PD patients with DIP were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 157 of 160 patients had hallucinations, with visual hallucinations being the most common (97% of subjects), followed by auditory (48%), tactile (23%), and olfactory (16%). Seventy-six percent of subjects experienced delusions, and all types of delusions occurred with relatively equal frequency. The CGIS correlated with suspiciousness, hallucinatory behavior, unusual thought content, and hostility on the BPRS; and delusions, hallucinations, agitation, aberrant motor behavior, and sleep on the NPI. CONCLUSION: Nonvisual hallucinations and delusions may occur more frequently in DIP than previously thought. These symptoms, plus agitation and hostility, may ultimately be the best measure of DIP in patients with PD.

Olanzapine in the treatment of dopamimetic-induced psychosis in patients with Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Studies in elderly patients demonstrate antipsychotic efficacy and favorable safety profiles for olanzapine. We report results from two placebo-controlled, double-blind studies of olanzapine for treatment of dopamimetic drug-induced psychosis in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). METHODS: Patients were treated with olanzapine or placebo for 4 weeks while dopamimetic therapy was held constant. Olanzapine was initiated at 2.5 mg/day, with 2.5-mg/day increases allowed every 3 to 4 days up to the maximum dose of 15 mg/day. RESULTS: Olanzapine patients showed significant improvements from baseline on positive symptoms and most efficacy measures, but no significant treatment-group differences were observed. Olanzapine performed significantly worse than placebo in both studies on the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) total, Motor, and Activities of Daily Living scales, but not the UPDRS Tremor item or Complications scores. Corrected QT interval, vital signs, and body weight were not significantly different from placebo. CONCLUSIONS: These findings did not demonstrate superior efficacy of olanzapine for treatment of dopamimetic-induced psychosis in PD. The initial dose-titration schedule and mild baseline levels of psychosis may account for these findings. Future studies involving gradual dose titration are needed to explore further olanzapine's optimum use for patients with PD with treatment-related psychosis.

Comparison of rapidly acting intramuscular olanzapine, lorazepam, and placebo: a double-blind, randomized study in acutely agitated patients with dementia.

This double-blind study investigated the efficacy and safety of rapid-acting intramuscular olanzapine in treating agitation associated with Alzheimer's disease and/or vascular dementia. At 2 h, olanzapine (5.0 mg, 2.5 mg) and lorazepam (1.0 mg) showed significant improvement over placebo on the PANSS Excited Component (PANSS-EC) and Agitation-Calmness Evaluation Scale (ACES), and both 5.0 mg olanzapine and lorazepam showed superiority to placebo on the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory. At 24 h, both olanzapine groups maintained superiority over placebo on the PANSS-EC; lorazepam did not. Olanzapine (5.0 mg) and lorazepam improved ACES scores more than placebo. Simpson-Angus and Mini-Mental State Examination scores did not change significantly from baseline. Sedation (ACES > or =8), adverse events, and laboratory analytes were not significantly different from placebo for any treatment. No significant differences among treatment groups were seen in extrapyramidal symptoms or in corrected QT interval at either 2 h or 24 h, and no significant differences among treatment groups were seen in vital signs, including orthostasis. Intramuscular injection of olanzapine may therefore provide substantial benefit in rapidly treating inpatients with acute dementia-related agitation.

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.

Olanzapine versus clozapine in treatment-resistant or treatment-intolerant schizophrenia.

Clozapine has been the gold standard for treatment of patients with refractory schizophrenia but is associated with serious safety liabilities. This has prompted the search for therapeutic alternatives for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of olanzapine versus clozapine in schizophrenic patients who failed to respond adequately to antipsychotic medication or who experienced intolerable adverse effects associated with the medication. This 18-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel study compared treatment with either olanzapine (5-25 mg/day, n=75) or clozapine (100-500 mg/day, n=72) in patients with schizophrenia who were nonresponsive to, or intolerant of, standard acceptable antipsychotic therapy. At the 18-week endpoint, no statistically significant differences were found between olanzapine and clozapine in any efficacy measure used: Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total, positive, negative, or general psychopathology or Clinical Global Impression severity (CGI-S). Response rates based on the criteria of Kane et al. [Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 45 (1988) 789] were also not significantly different between olanzapine-treated (57.9%) and clozapine-treated patients (60.8%). There were no significant differences in measurements of extrapyramidal symptoms or electrocardiography, and no clinically and statistically significant changes were seen in vital signs or laboratory measures in either group. Both treatments were well tolerated. Olanzapine demonstrated similar efficacy to clozapine in patients who had failed previous treatment because of lack of efficacy (treatment resistance) or intolerable side effects (treatment intolerance). Olanzapine therefore presents a safe alternative in the treatment of refractory schizophrenia.

Olanzapine in the acute treatment of bipolar I disorder with a history of rapid cycling.

BACKGROUND: A substantial proportion of patients with bipolar disorder are characterized by a rapidly cycling course and are particularly resistant to conventional treatment. METHODS: This secondary analysis, defined a priori, was conducted on a larger data set from patients with bipolar I disorder to determine the efficacy of a 3-week treatment with the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine (5-20 mg/day, n=19) versus placebo (n=26) in patients with >or=4 episodes in the preceding year. RESULTS: Significantly fewer placebo patients completed treatment (34.6 vs. 73.7%, P=0.016), and more than half discontinued due to lack of efficacy (53.8 vs. 21.1%, P=0.035). Olanzapine reduced Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total scores significantly more than placebo (-13.9 vs. -4.1, P=0.011). Clinical responses, defined as >or=50% improvement in YMRS, were achieved in 58% of olanzapine patients, compared with 28% of placebo patients (P=0.066). Extrapyramidal symptoms were not significantly changed in either group. Somnolence was the most common adverse event in both groups (olanzapine: 52.6%, placebo: 23.1%; P=0.060). No event occurred significantly more frequently with olanzapine than with placebo. No patients discontinued due to an adverse event. LIMITATIONS: The duration of this study was limited to 3 weeks, precluding conclusions about long-term efficacy of olanzapine. Moreover, a sizeable placebo effect was obtained, possibly masking optimal therapeutic effect. Despite these limitations, treatment differences in efficacy were highly significant. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that olanzapine was effective in reducing symptoms of mania and well tolerated in patients with bipolar I disorder with a rapid-cycling course.

Retrospective cohort study of diabetes mellitus and antipsychotic treatment in a geriatric population in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate risk of diabetes among elderly patients during treatment with antipsychotic medications. DESIGN: We conducted a longitudinal, retrospective study assessing the incidence of new prescription claims for antihyperglycemic agents during antipsychotic therapy. SETTING: Prescription claims from the AdvancePCS claim database were followed for 6 to 9 months. PARTICIPANTS: Study participants consisted of patients in the United States aged 60+ and receiving antipsychotic monotherapy. The following cohorts were studied: an elderly reference population (no antipsychotics: n = 1,836,799), those receiving haloperidol (n = 6481) or thioridazine (n = 1658); all patients receiving any conventional antipsychotic monotherapy (n = 11,546), clozapine (n = 117), olanzapine (n = 5382), quetiapine (n = 1664), and risperidone (n = 12,244), and all patients receiving any atypical antipsychotic monotherapy (n = 19,407). MEASUREMENTS: We used Cox proportional hazards regression to determine the risk ratio of diabetes for antipsychotic cohorts relative to the reference population. Covariates included sex and exposure duration. RESULTS: New antihyperglycemic prescription rates were higher in each antipsychotic cohort than in the reference population. Overall rates were no different between atypical and conventional antipsychotic cohorts. Among individual antipsychotic cohorts, rates were highest among patients treated with thioridazine (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.1- 5.7), lowest with quetiapine (95% CI, 1.3-2.9), and intermediate with haloperidol, olanzapine, and risperidone. Among atypical cohorts, only risperidone users had a significantly higher risk (95% CI, 1.05-1.60; P = 0.016) than for haloperidol. Conclusions about clozapine were hampered by the low number of patients. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that diabetes risk is elevated among elderly patients receiving antipsychotic treatment. However, causality remains to be demonstrated. As a group, the risk for atypical antipsychotic users was not significantly different than for users of conventional antipsychotics.

A meta-analysis of the consistency of atomoxetine treatment effects in pediatric patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder from 15 clinical trials across four geographic regions.

OBJECTIVE: Atomoxetine has been approved as a treatment for children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in the United States, throughout Europe, and in other countries. This meta-analysis was to assess the consistency of the treatment effect of atomoxetine across four global geographic regions. METHODS: Data from 15 acute, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials were pooled (2 in Asia, 4 in Europe, 8 in North America, and 1 in Russia), yielding 2569 pediatric patients with ADHD. Improvements during 6-10 weeks of atomoxetine treatment were evaluated using the ADHD Rating Scale-IV or the Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham Scale-Revised. Consistency across regions was assessed by an interaction test and Higgins I(2). Consistency of one region versus other regions was assessed by effect sizes of individual regions and pairwise differences. RESULTS: Patient demographics were generally similar across regions. More patients from Asia met diagnostic criteria for ADHD inattentive subtype and fewer for combined subtype compared with patients from Europe, North America, or Russia. Asian patients had a lower mean baseline ADHD total score and mean hyperactivity/impulsivity subscore. Treatment effects showed marginal inconsistency and moderate heterogeneity among the regions (percentage of patients achieving a 40% decrease from baseline ADHD scores, atomoxetine versus placebo: Asia 39.6%, 24.0%; Europe 40.2%, 12.1%; North America 45.3%, 21.7%; Russia 54.2%, 33.3%). Inconsistency was observed primarily in Asia versus the other regions. Completion rates with atomoxetine were higher in Asia and Russia (94.4% and 94.3%, respectively) than in Europe (84.3%) or North America (80.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Atomoxetine was demonstrated as an effective treatment for ADHD in 15 clinical trials from four global regions. The current meta-analysis has revealed a degree of heterogeneity in treatment efficacy across regions, most notably in the comparison of Asian patients relative to those from the other regions.