Ziprasidone vs clozapine in schizophrenia patients refractory to multiple antipsychotic treatments: the MOZART study.

This 18-week, randomized, flexible-dose, double-blind, double-dummy trial evaluated ziprasidone as an alternative to clozapine in treatment-refractory schizophrenia patients. Patients had a DSM-IV diagnosis of schizophrenia, a history of resistance and/or intolerance to at least three acute cycles with different antipsychotics given at therapeutic doses, PANSS score >or=80, and CGI-S score >or=4. Patients were randomized to ziprasidone (80-160 mg/day, n=73) or clozapine (250-600 mg/day, n=74). On the primary ITT-LOCF analysis, baseline-to-endpoint decreases in PANSS total scores were similar in the ziprasidone (-25.0+/-22.0, 95% CI -30.2 to -19.8) and clozapine (-24.5+/-22.5, 95% CI -29.7 to -19.2) groups. A progressive and significant reduction from baseline in PANSS total score was observed from day 11 in both study arms. There were also significant improvements on PANSS subscales, CGI-S, CG-I, CDSS, and GAF, without between-drug differences. The two treatment groups had similar rates of early discontinuations due to AEs. AEs were mostly of similar mild-moderate severity in the two groups. There were also no detrimental effects on prolactin, renal and liver function, hematology, and cardiovascular parameters. However, ziprasidone but not clozapine showed a significant reduction of SAS and AIMS scores. Moreover, when compared with clozapine, ziprasidone also had a more favorable metabolic profile, with significant endpoint differences in weight, fasting glucose, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and triglycerides. In conclusion, this trial indicates that both ziprasidone and clozapine, having comparable efficacy coupled with satisfactory general safety and tolerability, may be regarded as valuable options for the short-term treatment of difficult-to-treat schizophrenia patients with a history of multiple resistance and/or intolerance to antipsychotics. The more favorable metabolic profile of ziprasidone may represent an added value that could guide clinicians, at least in the presence of patients at high risk for metabolic disorders.

A randomized double-blind comparison of ziprasidone vs. clozapine for cognition in patients with schizophrenia selected for resistance or intolerance to previous treatment.

BACKGROUND: Recent data have suggested few differences in the cognitive effects of antipsychotic medications. However, assessment of such effects can be complex, due to a number of factors. Clozapine has previously shown greater clinical and lesser cognitive benefits than other atypicals. This study compared the cognitive benefits of clozapine and ziprasidone in schizophrenia patients (n=130) with a history of either failure to respond to or intolerance of previous adequate antipsychotic treatments. METHODS: Patients were randomized (double-blind) to either clozapine or ziprasidone in a single country (Italy), multi-site trial. The cognitive assessments examined episodic memory (RAVLT), executive functioning (Stroop test), and processing speed (Trail-making test (TMT) Parts A and B). RESULTS: Analyses found statistically significant within-group improvements for ziprasidone in learning and delayed recall on the RAVLT and on TMT Parts A and B. Clozapine-treated patients improved on the RAVLT, but not on the TMT. A composite cognitive score improved from baseline in both groups, but the improvements were significantly larger in the ziprasidone group (p=.029). IMPLICATIONS: These results indicated that cognitive functioning improved following treatment with ziprasidone in patients with a history of either treatment resistance or intolerance, and that the effects are comparable or greater than those observed with clozapine. One interpretation of these findings is that clozapine treatment interferes with the performance benefits associated with practice.

A harmonized and efficient clinical research environment would benefit patients and enhance European competitiveness. Commentary.

The forthcoming implementation of the European Clinical Trial Regulation (Regulation (EU) No. 536/2014), which is expected to facilitate the conduct of clinical trials across the European Union, will require National Authorities to create the best conditions for the implementation of the new Regulation through national guidelines, so that sponsors may reconsider Europe as a prime location for planning clinical trials. During a meeting titled "Innovation in Clinical Research", an expert panel discussed potential local advances fostering competitiveness of European clinical research with representatives of the pharmaceutical industry, patient organisations and Italian regulatory agency in view of the forthcoming implementation of (EU) No. 536/2014 on clinical trials of medicinal products. In this article we summarise the findings of the meeting, describe features characterising clinical research patterns and offer some suggestions on the possible involvement of all stakeholders in order to foster research innovation and allow the timely access to novel medicines for patients.

Ziprasidone vs clozapine in schizophrenia patients refractory to multiple antipsychotic treatments: the MOZART study.

This 18-week, randomized, flexible-dose, double-blind, double-dummy trial evaluated ziprasidone as an alternative to clozapine in treatment-refractory schizophrenia patients. Patients had a DSM-IV diagnosis of schizophrenia, a history of resistance and/or intolerance to at least three acute cycles with different antipsychotics given at therapeutic doses, PANSS score >or= 80, and CGI-S score >or= 4. Patients were randomized to ziprasidone (80-160 mg/day, n = 73) or clozapine (250-600 mg/day, n = 74). On the primary ITT-LOCF analysis, baseline-to-endpoint decreases in PANSS total scores were similar in the ziprasidone (- 25.0 +/- 22.0, 95% CI - 30.2 to - 19.8) and clozapine (- 24.5 +/- 22.5, 95% CI - 29.7 to - 19.2) groups. A progressive and significant reduction from baseline in PANSS total score was observed from day 11 in both study arms. There were also significant improvements on PANSS subscales, CGI-S, CG-I, CDSS, and GAF, without between-drug differences. The two treatment groups had similar rates of early discontinuations due to AEs. AEs were mostly of similar mild-moderate severity in the two groups. There were also no detrimental effects on prolactin, renal and liver function, hematology, and cardiovascular parameters. However, ziprasidone but not clozapine showed a significant reduction of SAS and AIMS scores. Moreover, when compared with clozapine, ziprasidone also had a more favorable metabolic profile, with significant endpoint differences in weight, fasting glucose, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and triglycerides. In conclusion, this trial indicates that both ziprasidone and clozapine, having comparable efficacy coupled with satisfactory general safety and tolerability, may be regarded as valuable options for the short-term treatment of difficult-to-treat schizophrenia patients with a history of multiple resistance and/or intolerance to antipsychotics. The more favorable metabolic profile of ziprasidone may represent an added value that could guide clinicians, at least in the presence of patients at high risk for metabolic disorders.