One-year multicenter, double-masked, placebo-controlled, parallel safety and efficacy study of 2% pirenzepine ophthalmic gel in children with myopia.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the relatively selective M(1)-antagonist, pirenzepine ophthalmic gel (gel), in slowing the progression of myopia in school-aged children. DESIGN: Parallel-group, placebo-controlled, randomized, double-masked study. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred fifty-three healthy children, 6 to 12 years old, with a spherical equivalent (SE) of -0.75 to -4.00 diopters (D) and astigmatism of

An assessment of the independent effects of olanzapine and risperidone exposure on the risk of hyperlipidemia in schizophrenic patients.

BACKGROUND: The newer antipsychotic agents exhibit a superior safety profile compared with conventional antipsychotic agents in terms of extrapyramidal symptoms. Previous studies have suggested an association between olanzapine treatment and hyperlipidemia. We evaluated this association using a large health care database. METHODS: The study was derived from the England and Wales-based General Practice Research Database, composed of 3.5 million subjects followed up between June 1, 1987, and September 24, 2000. A total of 18 309 individuals diagnosed as having schizophrenia were identified. A 6:1 matched nested case-control design was used. Conditional logistic regression was used to derive adjusted odds ratios (ORs), controlling for sex, age, and other medications and disease conditions influencing lipid levels. Antipsychotic drug exposure was defined as the receipt of at least 1 prescription for an antipsychotic medication within the 3 months before the date of diagnosis of hyperlipidemia. RESULTS: There were 1268 incident cases of hyperlipidemia in the cohort, matched to 7598 control subjects. Olanzapine use was associated with nearly a 5-fold increase in the odds of developing hyperlipidemia compared with no antipsychotic exposure (OR, 4.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.44-8.85) (P<.001) and more than a 3-fold increase compared with those receiving conventional agents (OR, 3.36; 95% CI, 1.77-6.39) (P<.001). Risperidone was not associated with increased odds of hyperlipidemia compared with no antipsychotic exposure (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.60-2.11) (P =.72) or conventional antipsychotic exposure (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.44-1.52) (P =.52). CONCLUSIONS: We observed a strong association between olanzapine exposure and hyperlipidemia in schizophrenic patients. The possible metabolic consequences of olanzapine use should be given serious consideration by treating physicians.

A 12-week, double-blind comparison of olanzapine vs haloperidol in the treatment of acute mania.

BACKGROUND: This randomized controlled trial compares the efficacy and safety of olanzapine vs haloperidol, as well as the quality of life of patients taking these drugs, in patients with bipolar mania. METHODS: The design consisted of 2 successive, 6-week, double-blind periods and compared flexible dosing of olanzapine (5-20 mg/d, n = 234) with haloperidol (3-15 mg/d, n = 219). RESULTS: Rates of remission (Young-Mania Rating Scale score of < or =12 and 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score of < or =8 at week 6) were similar for olanzapine- and haloperidol-treated patients (52.1% vs 46.1%, respectively; P =.15). For the subgroup of patients whose index episode did not include psychotic features, rates of remission were significantly greater for the olanzapine group compared with the haloperidol group (56.7% vs 41.6%, P =.04). Relapse into an affective episode (mania and/or depression) occurred in 13.1% and 14.8% of olanzapine- and haloperidol-treated patients, respectively (P =.56). Switch to depression occurred significantly more rapidly with haloperidol than with olanzapine when using survival analysis techniques (P =.04), and significantly more haloperidol-treated patients experienced worsening of extrapyramidal symptoms, as indicated by several measures. Weight gain was significantly greater in the olanzapine group compared with the haloperidol group (2.82 vs 0.02 kg, P<.001). The olanzapine group had significant improvement in quality of life on several dimensions compared with the haloperidol group. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that olanzapine does not differ from haloperidol in achieving overall remission of bipolar mania. However, haloperidol carries a higher rate of extrapyramidal symptoms, whereas olanzapine is associated with weight gain.

Efficacy of olanzapine in acute bipolar mania: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. The Olanzipine HGGW Study Group.

BACKGROUND: We compared the efficacy and safety of olanzapine vs placebo for the treatment of acute bipolar mania. METHODS: Four-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel study. A total of 115 patients with a DSM-IV diagnosis of bipolar disorder, manic or mixed, were randomized to olanzapine, 5 to 20 mg/d (n = 55), or placebo (n = 60). The primary efficacy measure was the Young-Mania Rating Scale (Y-MRS) total score. Response and euthymia were defined, a priori, as at least a 50% improvement from baseline to end point and as a score of no less than 12 at end point in the Y-MRS total score, respectively. Safety was assessed using adverse events, Extrapyramidal Symptom (EPS) rating scales, laboratory values, electrocardiograms, vital signs, and weight change. RESULTS: Olanzapine-treated patients demonstrated a statistically significant greater mean (+/- SD) improvement in Y-MRS total score than placebo-treated patients (-14.8 +/- 12.5 and -8.1 +/- 12.7, respectively; P<.001), which was evident at the first postbaseline observation 1 week after randomization and was maintained throughout the study (last observation carried forward). Olanzapine-treated patients demonstrated a higher rate of response (65% vs 43%, respectively; P =.02) and euthymia (61% vs 36%, respectively; P =. 01) than placebo-treated patients. There were no statistically significant differences in EPSs between groups. However, olanzapine-treated patients had a statistically significant greater mean (+/- SD) weight gain than placebo-treated patients (2.1 +/- 2.8 vs 0.45 +/- 2.3 kg, respectively) and also experienced more treatment-emergent somnolence (21 patients [38.2%] vs 5 [8.3% ], respectively). CONCLUSION: Olanzapine demonstrated greater efficacy than placebo in the treatment of acute bipolar mania and was generally well tolerated.

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.

Efficacy of olanzapine and olanzapine-fluoxetine combination in the treatment of bipolar I depression.

BACKGROUND: Despite the longer duration of the depressive phase in bipolar disorder and the frequent clinical use of antidepressants combined with antipsychotics or mood stabilizers, relatively few controlled studies have examined treatment strategies for bipolar depression. OBJECTIVE: To examine the use of olanzapine and olanzapine-fluoxetine combination in the treatment of bipolar I depression. DESIGN: Double-blind, 8-week, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Eighty-four sites (inpatient and outpatient) in 13 countries. Patients A total of 833 randomized adults with bipolar I depression with a Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score of at least 20. Intervention Patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo (n = 377); olanzapine, 5 to 20 mg/d (n = 370); or olanzapine-fluoxetine combination, 6 and 25, 6 and 50, or 12 and 50 mg/d (n = 86). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Changes in MADRS total scores using mixed-effects model repeated-measures analyses. RESULTS: During all 8 study weeks, the olanzapine and olanzapine-fluoxetine groups showed statistically significant improvement in depressive symptoms vs the placebo group (P<.001 for all). The olanzapine-fluoxetine group also showed statistically greater improvement than the olanzapine group at weeks 4 through 8. At week 8, MADRS total scores were lower than at baseline by 11.9, 15.0, and 18.5 points in the placebo, olanzapine, and olanzapine-fluoxetine groups, respectively. Remission criteria were met by 24.5% (87/355) of the placebo group, 32.8% (115/351) of the olanzapine group, and 48.8% (40/82) of the olanzapine-fluoxetine group. Treatment-emergent mania (Young Mania Rating Scale score <15 at baseline and > or =15 subsequently) did not differ among groups (placebo, 6.7% [23/345]; olanzapine, 5.7% [19/335]; and olanzapine-fluoxetine, 6.4% [5/78]). Adverse events for olanzapine-fluoxetine therapy were similar to those for olanzapine therapy but also included higher rates of nausea and diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS: Olanzapine is more effective than placebo, and combined olanzapine-fluoxetine is more effective than olanzapine and placebo in the treatment of bipolar I depression without increased risk of developing manic symptoms.

Novel antipsychotics and new onset diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The new antipsychotics induce minimal extrapyramidal side effects, probably due to their relatively greater affinity for certain nondopaminergic receptors than their older, conventional counterparts; however, this polyreceptor affinity may be responsible for the development of other adverse effects. One serious adverse effect that may be linked to these effects is non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. METHODS: We summarize 6 new cases of clozapine- and olanzapine-associated diabetes that we have documented in our clinic. We compare our cases to previous reports and tabulate the pertinent similarities among cases. RESULTS: Two of the cases were olanzapine-associated and 4 were clozapine-associated diabetes. Five of our 6 patients had risk factors for diabetes, as have 7 of the 9 previously reported in the literature. Four of our 6 patients, and 2 of the 4 prior cases in which such data were reported, experienced substantial weight gain after starting their antipsychotics. CONCLUSIONS: Novel antipsychotics should be administered with great care to patients with risk factors for diabetes. Although the precise mechanism of the novel antipsychotic-associated diabetes is unclear, we hypothesize that histaminic and possibly serotonergic antagonism induces weight gain, which in turn leads to changes in glucose homeostasis. Additionally, serotonin1A antagonism might decrease pancreatic beta-cell responsiveness, resulting in inappropriately low insulin and hyperglycemia.

Differential sensitivities to risperidone and olanzapine in a human immunodeficiency virus patient.

BACKGROUND: Neuroleptic sensitivity presents a considerable problem for the treatment of psychosis in the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive patient population. As yet, there are few data on the response of these patients to newer atypical antipsychotic medications. METHODS: We present the detailed medication history of a 33-year-old man with AIDS, who had a prior history of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) with both typical antipsychotics and risperidone, and was treated with olanzapine for major depression with psychotic features. RESULTS: The patient developed akathisia in a dose-dependent manner at dosages between 10 and 15 mg daily of olanzapine, but no EPS. Akathisia responded to dose reduction and use of beta-adrenergic blockade. CONCLUSIONS: The AIDS patient may exhibit sensitivity even to newer atypical antipsychotics. The lack of EPS and response to a beta-blocker underscore the different mechanisms causing akathisia and EPS.

Randomized trial of olanzapine versus placebo in the symptomatic acute treatment of the schizophrenic prodrome.

BACKGROUND: The prodromal phase of schizophrenic disorders has been described prospectively. The present study aimed to determine the short-term efficacy and safety of olanzapine treatment of prodromal symptoms compared with placebo. METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomized, parallel-groups, placebo-controlled trial with fixed-flexible dosing conducted at four sites. Sixty patients met prodromal diagnostic criteria, including attenuated psychotic symptoms, as determined by structured interviews. Olanzapine 5-15 mg daily or placebo was prescribed for 8 weeks. RESULTS: In the mixed-effects, repeated-measures analysis, the treatment x time interaction for the change from baseline on the Scale of Prodromal Symptoms total score was statistically significant, and post hoc analyses revealed that the olanzapine-placebo difference reached p<.10 by week 6 and p<.05 at week 8. Ratings of extrapyramidal symptoms remained low in each group and were not significantly different. Olanzapine patients gained 9.9 lb versus.7 lb for placebo patients (p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: This short-term analysis suggests olanzapine is associated with significantly greater symptomatic improvement but significantly greater weight gain than is placebo in prodromal patients. Extrapyramidal symptoms with olanzapine were minimal and similar to those with placebo. Future research over the longer term with more patients will be needed before recommendations can be made regarding routine treatment.

A double-blind, controlled comparison of the novel antipsychotic olanzapine versus haloperidol or placebo on anxious and depressive symptoms accompanying schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Depressive symptoms are a common feature of schizophrenia and may represent a core part of the illness. Where present, it has been associated with greater overall morbidity and mortality. Monotherapy with conventional dopamine antagonists may either worsen or bestow a limited therapeutic benefit. Accordingly the use of adjunctive thymoleptics has been explored. In contrast, olanzapine (OLZ), an atypical antipsychotic agent, offers a distinctive and pleotropic pharmacology suggestive of a broader efficacy profile than conventional neuroleptic agents. METHODS: In a 6-week placebo- and haloperidol (HAL)-controlled trial with 335 randomized subjects with chronic schizophrenia in an acute exacerbation, three fixed dose ranges of OLZ (5, 10, or 15 +/- 2.5 mg) were evaluated versus HAL (10-20 mg) or placebo. RESULTS: Baseline to endpoint change in the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale including the anxiety-depression cluster (items 1, 2, 5, 9) was analyzed. Two dose ranges of OLZ (10 +/- 2.5, 15 +/- 2.5) were superior to placebo (p < 05) in improving mood status, whereas HAL was not. CONCLUSION: Contributions from a more selective mesolimbic dopaminergic profile, D1 or D4 activity, the release of dopamine/norepinephrine in the prefrontal cortex, and/or serotonin 5-HT2A,C antagonism may explain the differential benefit seen with OLZ in the treatment of comorbid anxious and depressive symptoms in schizophrenia.

H(2) antagonist nizatidine may control olanzapine-associated weight gain in schizophrenic patients.

BACKGROUND: Olanzapine is temporally associated, in a number of patients with schizophrenia, with weight gain. H(2) antagonists, like nizatidine, have been shown to control appetite in overweight patients. METHODS: A patient with olanzapine temporally associated weight gain was treated with nizatidine as "add-on" therapy. RESULTS: Nizatidine treatment was associated with good control and subsequent reduction of weight after 4 to 5 weeks of therapy in a patient with repetitive episodes of weight gain during olanzapine treatment. Olanzapine was otherwise well tolerated and effective in controlling psychopathology. CONCLUSIONS: H(2) antagonist treatment with olanzapine may be a valid medical strategy in preventing and/or reducing weight gain in patients with schizophrenia. Controlled studies are recommended to confirm this observation.

Modulation of brain and serum glutamatergic concentrations following a switch from conventional neuroleptics to olanzapine.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests that effects upon glutamatergic transmission may contribute to the therapeutic action of certain atypical antipsychotic agents. METHODS: Glutamate concentrations were measured in serum and were estimated (Glx/Cr) in cingulate cortex by proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) in schizophrenia patients while they were being treated with conventional neuroleptics and then 8 weeks after switching to olanzapine. Serum glutamate concentrations were obtained from 11 subjects, and MRS estimates of Glx/Cr were available from 10 subjects at both time points. RESULTS: Serum glutamate concentrations significantly increased after the switch from conventional agents to olanzapine; brain glutamate (Glx/Cr) did not change significantly; however, brain glutamate (Glx/Cr) concentrations increased significantly in patients who exhibited an improvement in negative symptoms with olanzapine compared with patients with no change or worsening of negative symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Comparisons performed following the switch from conventional agents to olanzapine are consistent with previous studies of clozapine and provide additional preliminary evidence supporting the hypothesis that effects on excitatory amino acid activity may contribute to olanzapine's efficacy for treating negative symptoms.

Double-blind comparison of olanzapine versus clozapine in schizophrenic patients clinically eligible for treatment with clozapine.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of schizophrenic patients who fail to respond to adequate trials of neuroleptic drugs is a major challenge. Clozapine has been one treatment option; however, it is not universally effective and is limited in its use by safety concerns. With the introduction of newer agents, their performance relative to clozapine is of great clinical interest. METHODS: The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of olanzapine versus clozapine among treatment resistant DSM-IV schizophrenic patients. The study was primarily designed to demonstrate the "noninferiority" of olanzapine compared to clozapine after 18 weeks of double-blind treatment. Conclusions were based on the one-sided lower 95% confidence limit about the treatment effect observed from the primary efficacy variable (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale [PANSS] Total). RESULTS: Mean changes from baseline to end point in PANSS Total score, using a last observation carried forward technique, showed that both agents were comparably effective in neuroleptic resistant patients, i.e., demonstrated the "noninferiority" of olanzapine when compared to clozapine. Overall, significantly fewer olanzapine-treated patients (4%) discontinued for an adverse event than their clozapine-treated (14%) counterparts (p =.022). Among spontaneously reported adverse events, increased salivation, constipation, dizziness, and nausea were reported significantly more often among clozapine-treated patients, whereas only dry mouth was reported more often among olanzapine-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Olanzapine was demonstrated to be noninferior to clozapine and better tolerated among resistant schizophrenic patients clinically eligible for treatment with clozapine.

The effects of probenecid on the disposition of risperidone and olanzapine in healthy volunteers.

STUDY DESIGN: The metabolic pathways of most xenobiotics and endogenous compounds can be divided into phase 1 (oxidative, reductive, and hydrolytic) and phase 2 (glucuronidation, sulfate conjugation, glycine and glutathione conjugation, and acetylation and methylation) processes. Oxidative metabolism by the cytochrome P450 system has been intensively investigated compared with glucuronidation and other conjugation pathways. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the disposition of olanzapine or risperidone in healthy volunteers with and without coadministration of the uridine diphosphoglucuronate-glucuronosyltransferase inhibitor probenecid. We hypothesized that olanzapine disposition would be altered as a result of decreased glucuronidation, whereas risperidone disposition would be relatively unaffected. METHODS: Our objective was to investigate whether this interaction would occur in 12 healthy volunteers, aged 22 to 42 years, who participated in a single-dose, randomized, 4-period, double-blind, crossover study receiving a single dose of either 5 mg olanzapine or 1 mg risperidone with and without 500 mg probenecid (8 doses over 4 days). Multiple blood samples were analyzed by means of liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry or HPLC to assess the 48-hour time course of risperidone and olanzapine. Urine was assayed for free and glucuronidated drugs. RESULTS: When olanzapine was administered with probenecid, statistically significant differences were observed between plasma pharmacokinetic parameters compared with olanzapine administered alone (maximum concentration, P <.05; area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to 24 hours, P <.01). Clearance was not significantly different between the treatment phases. Risperidone pharmacokinetic parameters were not significantly different (all parameters, P >.05). CONCLUSION: Inhibition of uridine diphosphoglucuronate-glucuronosyltransferase appeared to influence the disposition of olanzapine but not risperidone. Phase 2 metabolism may significantly influence the disposition of antipsychotic drugs and may be an important aspect of the variability in metabolism, participation in drug-drug interactions, and clinical response to some antipsychotic agents.

Elevation of prolactin levels by atypical antipsychotics.

OBJECTIVE: Atypical antipsychotics are thought not to elevate prolactin levels. The authors examined data suggesting that atypical antipsychotics do elevate prolactin levels but more transiently than typical antipsychotics. METHOD: Prolactin levels in 18 male patients with schizophrenia who were receiving atypical antipsychotics were monitored over the 24-hour period following administration of their daily oral dose of risperidone, olanzapine, or clozapine. RESULTS: The baseline prolactin levels in patients receiving risperidone (mean=27 ng/ml, SD=14) were abnormally high, but baseline prolactin levels in patients receiving olanzapine (mean=9 ng/ml, SD=5) and clozapine (mean=9 ng/ml, SD=5) were not high. All three atypical antipsychotics caused a doubling of prolactin levels over baseline levels 6 hours after medication administration. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that these atypical antipsychotics raise prolactin levels, although the increases with olanzapine did not reach statistical significance. This suggests that the differences in the effects on prolactin levels of atypical and typical antipsychotics are not categorical but lie in the degree and duration of dose-induced prolactin elevation, attributable to the differential binding properties of each drug on pituitary dopamine D(2) receptors.

Blind, controlled, long-term study of the comparative incidence of treatment-emergent tardive dyskinesia with olanzapine or haloperidol.

OBJECTIVE: Tardive dyskinesia is a serious and common complication of neuroleptic treatment. Olanzapine is a novel antipsychotic agent exhibiting regional mesolimbic dopaminergic selectivity and a broad-based pharmacology encompassing serotonin, dopamine, muscarinic, and adrenergic receptor binding affinities. The authors' goal was to compare the incidence of tardive dyskinesia among patients receiving olanzapine and those receiving the conventional dopamine 2 antagonist haloperidol. METHOD: Data were analyzed from three actively controlled and blind long-term responder studies of subjects meeting DSM-III-R criteria for schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, or schizoaffective disorder treated with olanzapine (N = 707, up to 20 mg/day, 237 median days of exposure) or haloperidol (N = 197, up to 20 mg/day, 203 median days of exposure) who did not have evidence of tardive dyskinesia at baseline. All of the subjects had a chronic disease course (mean greater than 10 years), and there were no significant between-treatment group differences in demographic or disease characteristics. The Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale and research diagnostic criteria for tardive dyskinesia were used to define the comparative incidence rates of long-term treatment-emergent tardive dyskinesia. RESULTS: The incidence of newly emergent tardive dyskinesia at any visit after baseline, at the final visit, and at the final two clinical assessments was statistically significantly lower among olanzapine-treated patients than among haloperidol-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support an atypical extrapyramidal symptom profile and the potential of a significantly lower risk of tardive dyskinesia with olanzapine than with haloperidol among patients requiring maintenance antipsychotic treatment.

Olanzapine versus haloperidol treatment in first-episode psychosis.

OBJECTIVE: It has been hypothesized that the morbidity and mortality associated with schizophrenia can be prevented by providing effective treatment during the first episode of psychosis. Hence, the authors examined patients with first-episode psychosis to determine the efficacy and safety of olanzapine and haloperidol treatment. METHOD: A subpopulation of first-episode patients (N=83) from a large prospective, multicenter, international, double-blind, 6-week acute treatment study was evaluated. These patients were selected from a pool of 1,996 patients who had a DSM-III-R diagnosis of schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or schizophreniform disorder and who also met the following criteria: 1) the length of their current psychotic episode had to be 5 or fewer years, and 2) patients had to be 45 years of age or younger at onset of first psychotic symptoms. RESULTS: Compared to haloperidol, olanzapine showed a statistically significantly greater reduction in the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) total and negative scores and in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total and positive scores. Clinical response (defined as 40% or greater improvement in BPRS total score from baseline) was also statistically significantly higher in olanzapine-treated patients (67.2%) than in haloperidol-treated patients (29.2%). Olanzapine-treated patients further showed statistically significant improvements in the Simpson-Angus scale and Barnes Akathisia Scale scores, while haloperidol-treated patients showed a worsening on both measures. Compared to olanzapine-treated multiple-episode patients in the parent study, olanzapine-treated first-episode patients achieved an even statistically significantly higher response. Haloperidol-treated first-episode patients experienced statistically significantly more extrapyramidal symptoms than haloperidol-treated multiple-episode patients. CONCLUSIONS: In patients experiencing first-episode psychosis, olanzapine had a risk-benefit profile significantly superior to that of haloperidol. The study results suggest that novel antipsychotic agents such as olanzapine should be considered as a preferred option in first-episode psychosis, on the basis of both safety and efficacy advantages.

Differential efficacy of olanzapine for deficit and nondeficit negative symptoms in schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: Atypical antipsychotic medications have generally been found to be more effective than conventional antipsychotics in the treatment of negative symptoms. Whether the benefits derived from the atypical agents are the result of improvements in primary versus secondary negative symptoms is unclear. The authors examined the effects of olanzapine on primary and secondary negative symptoms for patients with severe negative symptoms who did or did not have the deficit syndrome. METHOD: Thirty-nine outpatients with schizophrenia and severe negative symptoms were assessed for the presence of the deficit syndrome and entered into a 12-week, open-label study of olanzapine. Positive and negative symptoms, extrapyramidal side effects, quality of life, and level of functioning of the patients were assessed at baseline and endpoint. RESULTS: All 39 patients completed the 12-week protocol; 13 of the patients had deficit negative symptoms, and 26 had nondeficit negative symptoms. Patients who had nondeficit negative symptoms demonstrated improvements in positive and negative symptoms, level of functioning, and extrapyramidal side effects over baseline. In contrast, patients meeting criteria for the deficit syndrome improved significantly over baseline only in extrapyramidal side effects. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that olanzapine is efficacious for secondary negative symptoms in schizophrenia but fail to support the contention that olanzapine has a direct beneficial effect on primary negative symptoms.

Comparative efficacy and safety of atypical and conventional antipsychotic drugs in first-episode psychosis: a randomized, double-blind trial of olanzapine versus haloperidol.

OBJECTIVE: Few long-term studies have compared the efficacy and safety of typical and atypical antipsychotic medications directly in patients with a first episode of psychosis who met the criteria for schizophrenia or a related psychotic disorder. This study compared the acute and long-term effectiveness of haloperidol with that of olanzapine in patients with first-episode psychosis in a large, controlled clinical trial. METHOD: Patients with first-episode psychosis (N=263) were randomly assigned under double-blind conditions to receive haloperidol or olanzapine and were followed for up to 104 weeks. Domains measured included psychopathology, psychosocial variables, neurocognitive functioning, and brain morphology and metabolism. This report presents data from clinical measures of treatment response and safety data from the 12-week acute treatment phase. RESULTS: Haloperidol and olanzapine were associated with substantial and comparable baseline-to-endpoint reductions in symptom severity, which did not differ significantly in last-observation-carried-forward analyses. However, in a mixed-model analysis, olanzapine-treated subjects had significantly greater decreases in symptom severity as measured by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score and negative and general scales and by the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale but not as measured by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale positive scale and by the Clinical Global Impression severity rating. Olanzapine-treated patients experienced a lower rate of treatment-emergent parkinsonism and akathisia but had significantly more weight gain, compared with the haloperidol-treated patients. Overall, significantly more olanzapine-treated subjects than haloperidol-treated subjects completed the 12-week acute phase of the study (67% versus 54%). CONCLUSIONS: As expected on the basis of previous studies, both olanzapine and haloperidol were effective in the acute reduction of psychopathological symptoms in this group of patients with first-episode psychosis. However, olanzapine had several relative advantages in therapeutic response. Although the nature of adverse events differed between the two agents, retention in the study was greater with olanzapine. Retention in treatment is important in this patient population, given their risk of relapse. Longer-term results are needed to determine whether treatment with atypical antipsychotics results in superior outcomes for a first episode of schizophrenia.

A novel augmentation strategy for treating resistant major depression.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment-resistant depression is a significant public health concern; drug switching or augmentation often produce limited results. The authors hypothesized that fluoxetine could be augmented with olanzapine to successfully treat resistant depression. METHOD: An 8-week double-blind study was conducted with 28 patients who were diagnosed with recurrent, nonbipolar, treatment-resistant depression without psychotic features. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of three groups: olanzapine plus placebo, fluoxetine plus placebo, or olanzapine plus fluoxetine. RESULTS: Fluoxetine monotherapy produced minimal improvement on various scales that rate severity of depression. The benefits of olanzapine monotherapy were modest. Olanzapine plus fluoxetine produced significantly greater improvement than either monotherapy on one measure and significantly greater improvement than olanzapine monotherapy on the other measures after 1 week. There were no significant differences between treatment groups on extrapyramidal measures nor significant adverse drug interactions. CONCLUSIONS: Olanzapine plus fluoxetine demonstrated superior efficacy for treating resistant depression compared to either agent alone.