Case reports of postmarketing adverse event experiences with olanzapine intramuscular treatment in patients with agitation.

OBJECTIVE: Agitation is a medical emergency with increased risk for poor outcome. Successful treatment often requires intramuscular (IM) psychotropics. Safety data from the first 21 months of olanzapine IM, approved in the United States for the treatment of agitation associated with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, are presented. METHOD: A Lilly-maintained safety database was searched for all spontaneous adverse events (AEs) reported in temporal association with olanzapine IM treatment. RESULTS: The estimated worldwide patient exposure to olanzapine IM from January 1, 2004, through September 30, 2005, was 539,000; 160 cases containing AEs were reported from patients with schizophrenia (30%), bipolar disorder (21%), unspecified psychosis (10%), dementia (8%), and depression (5%). Many reported concomitant treatment with benzodiazepines (39%) or other antipsychotics (54%). The most frequently reported events involved the following organ systems: central nervous (21%), cardiac (12%), respiratory (6%), vascular (6%), and psychiatric (5%). Eighty-three cases were considered serious, including 29 fatalities. In these fatalities, concomitant benzodiazepines or other antipsychotics were reported in 66% and 76% of cases, respectively. The most frequently reported events in the fatal cases involved the following organ systems: cardiovascular (41%), respiratory (21%), general (17%), and central nervous (10%). The majority of fatal cases (76%) included comorbid conditions and potentially clinically significant risk factors for AEs. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should use care when treating agitated patients, especially when they present with concurrent medical conditions and are treated with multiple medications, which may increase the risk of poor or even fatal outcomes. Clinicians should use caution when using olanzapine IM and parenteral benzodiazepines simultaneously.

A multiattribute model for evaluating the benefit-risk profiles of treatment alternatives.

The assessment of the benefits and risks associated with a medicine's use requires careful consideration of a wealth of information of varying format and quality, ranging from efficacy and safety data derived from randomized clinical trials to statistical results from health outcomes studies to spontaneously reported adverse events. Contrary to the expectations of patients, physicians, and regulators, the literature offers little guidance as to how to strike an appropriate balance between benefit and risk. Although a qualitative listing of a medicine's benefits and risks is useful, much could be gained from a systematic and transparent process to evaluate a medicine's pre- and postmarketing performance. The authors propose a representational model based on multicriteria decision analysis that can incorporate both evaluative judgments from different perspectives (e.g., physician, patient) and quantitative data to inform tradeoffs between multiple benefit and multiple risk elements in a logically consistent and transparent manner. The model is designed to highlight the relative merits and deficits of treatment alternatives in well-defined and specific contexts. It is intended to serve as a common platform to facilitate focused benefit-risk tradeoff discussions between scientists, physicians, regulatory authorities, and pharmaceutical companies, and to assist in the communication of clear and consistent messages regarding those tradeoffs.

Duloxetine: meta-analyses of suicidal behaviors and ideation in clinical trials for major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: Uncertainty regarding relationships of antidepressant treatment and suicidality encouraged systematic review of data on suicidal behaviors and ideation from Phase II and III clinical trials of duloxetine for major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: We evaluated all completed duloxetine trials in MDD with data lock by February 2, 2004. We compared incidence of suicide-related events with duloxetine versus placebo in controlled trials, using Mantel-Haenszel incidence difference (MHID) and exposure time-adjusted rate difference (MHRD) methods, and analyzed changes in Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD) Item-3 (suicidality) scores. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the incidence of suicide-related events with duloxetine versus placebo in 12 placebo-controlled trials (duloxetine, 1812; placebo, 1184 [corrected] patients). The MHID for suicide-related behaviors was -0.03% (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.48 to 0.42) and MHRD -0.002 (95% CI, -0.02 to 0.02). Changes in HAMD Item-3 suicidality scores showed more improvement with duloxetine (MHID, 9.56%; 95% CI, 4.50 to 14.6; P < 0.001) and less worsening of suicidal ideation with duloxetine (MHID, -4.25%; 95% CI, -6.55 to -1.95; P < 0.001). Other Item-3 findings showed no consistent pattern; a slightly higher proportion of duloxetine-treated patients with a change from 0 (absent) to 3 was balanced against a higher proportion of placebo-treated patients changing from 0 to 2. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of an increased risk of suicidal behaviors or ideation during treatment with duloxetine compared with placebo in MDD patients. HAMD Item-3 suicidality scores had more improvement and less worsening of suicidal ideation with duloxetine than placebo.

A review of treatment-emergent adverse events during olanzapine clinical trials in elderly patients with dementia.

OBJECTIVE: Olanzapine and other antipsychotics are not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat behavioral disturbances associated with dementia, but they are often prescribed to these patients. Although antipsychotics may be efficacious in this population, elderly patients with dementia may be particularly vulnerable to adverse events. This article reviews the safety of olanzapine in elderly patients with dementia. DATA SOURCES: Data from 6 studies comparing olanzapine to placebo, risperidone, or conventional antipsychotics in elderly patients with dementia were analyzed for mortality, cerebrovascular adverse events (CVAEs), and other adverse events. These trials represent all Lilly olanzapine-comparator trials in this population. The data included integration of 5 double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (olanzapine, N = 1184; placebo, N = 478; median age = 79 years; 1 study also compared olanzapine with risperidone, N = 196) and an open-label study comparing olanzapine (N = 150) with conventional antipsychotics (N = 143). DATA SYNTHESIS: Incidence of mortality was significantly higher in olanzapine- (3.5%) than in placebo-treated patients (1.5%; p = .024). There were no significant differences in the crude incidence of mortality between olanzapine- (2.9%) and risperidone- (2.0%) or olanzapine- (14.8%) and conventional antipsychotic-treated patients (16.1%; p = .871). Risk factors associated with mortality in olanzapine-treated patients included age >/= 80, concurrent benzodiazepine use, treatment-emergent sedation, or treatment-emergent pulmonary conditions. Incidence of CVAEs was approximately 3 times higher in olanzapine- (1.3%) than in placebo-treated patients (0.4%). There were no significant differences in the incidence of CVAEs between olanzapine- (2.5%) and risperidone- (2.0%; p = 1.0) or olanzapine- (3.4%) and conventional antipsychotic-treated patients (4.3%; p = .765). CONCLUSION: These findings should be considered if prescribers elect to treat behavioral disturbances associated with dementia in the elderly with olanzapine or other antipsychotics.

Comparison of treatment-emergent extrapyramidal symptoms in patients with bipolar mania or schizophrenia during olanzapine clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Previous research on pharmacotherapy with conventional antipsychotics has suggested that patients with affective disorders have higher rates of treatment-emergent extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) than patients with schizophrenia. It is not known whether this differential vulnerability holds true for treatment with atypical antipsychotics such as olanzapine. The present analysis retrospectively examined olanzapine clinical trial data for incidence of treatment-emergent EPS in patients with either schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. METHOD: Study participants were 4417 patients meeting DSM-III or DSM-IV criteria for either schizophrenia or bipolar mania participating in olanzapine clinical trials through July 31, 2001. Data were pooled across haloperidol-controlled trials and separately across placebo-controlled trials. Measures of EPS included rates of treatment-emergent EPS adverse event by type (i.e., dystonic, parkinsonian, or residual), Simpson-Angus Scale score mean change, rates of treatment-emergent parkinsonism, and rates of anticholinergic use. RESULTS: Consistent with prior research, haloperidol-treated patients with bipolar disorder appeared to be more vulnerable to the development of EPS than those with schizophrenia. However, olanzapine-treated patients with bipolar disorder were no more likely to develop EPS than those with schizophrenia. CONCLUSION: Results support previous research regarding conventional antipsychotics and suggest that olanzapine therapy does not increase the risk of EPS for patients with bipolar disorder.

Amantadine for weight gain associated with olanzapine treatment.

Patients with schizophrenia (Sch), schizoaffective, schizophreniform, or bipolar (BP) I disorders [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV)]; not manic or acutely psychotic [Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) total score < or =45]; treated with olanzapine for 1-24 months; and who had gained > or =5% of their initial body weight were examined to determine whether amantadine could attenuate weight gain or promote weight loss. Olanzapine (Olz; 5-20 mg/day) was co-administered with double-blind treatment of 100-300 mg/day amantadine (Olz+Amt, n=60) or placebo (Olz+Plc, n=65). Visit-wise analysis of weight showed that weight change from baseline [last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF)] in the Olz+Amt group was significantly different from the Olz+Plc group at weeks 8 (P=0.042), 12 (P=0.029), and 16 (primary endpoint, mean+/-S.D.: -0.19+/-4.58 versus 1.28+/-4.26 kg, P=0.045). Mean BPRS total score, positive subscale, and anxiety-depression scores improved comparably in both groups, and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score improved in the Olz+Amt group. Overall, amantadine was safe, was well tolerated, and attenuated weight gain or promoted weight loss in some patients who had gained weight during olanzapine therapy.

An integrated analysis of acute treatment-emergent extrapyramidal syndrome in patients with schizophrenia during olanzapine clinical trials: comparisons with placebo, haloperidol, risperidone, or clozapine.

BACKGROUND: The frequency and severity of extrapyramidal syndrome (EPS) were evaluated in patients with DSM-III or DSM-IV schizophrenia in the acute phase (- 8 weeks) of randomized, double-blind, controlled trials from the integrated olanzapine clinical trial database. METHOD: This retrospective analysis included 23 clinical trials and 4611 patients from November 11, 1991, through July 31, 2001. Incidences of dystonic, parkinsonian, and akathisia events were compared using treatment-emergent adverse-event data. Categorical analyses of Simpson-Angus Scale and Barnes Akathisia Scale (BAS) scores, use of anticholinergic medications, and baseline-to-endpoint changes in Simpson-Angus Scale and BAS scores were compared. RESULTS: A significantly smaller percentage of olanzapine-treated patients experienced dystonic events than did haloperidol- (p <.001) or risperidone-treated patients (p =.047). A significantly greater percentage of haloperidol-treated patients experienced parkinsonian (p <.001) and akathisia (p <.001) events than did olanzapine-treated patients. Categorical analysis of Simpson-Angus Scale scores showed significantly more haloperidol- (p <.001) or risperidone-treated patients (p =.004) developed parkinsonism than did olanzapine-treated patients. Olanzapine-treated patients experienced significantly greater reductions in Simpson-Angus Scale scores than did haloperidol- (p <.001), risperidone- (p <.001), or clozapine-treated (p =.032) patients. Categorical analysis of BAS scores showed significantly more haloperidol-treated patients experienced treatment-emergent akathisia versus olanzapine-treated patients (p <.001). Significantly greater reductions in BAS scores were experienced during olanzapine treatment versus placebo (p =.007), haloperidol (p <.001), and risperidone (p =.004) treatments. A significantly smaller percentage of olanzapine-treated patients received anticholinergic medications compared with that of haloperidol- (p <.001) or risperidone-treated patients (p =.018). Compared with that in olanzapine-treated patients, the duration of anticholinergic cotreatment was significantly longer among haloperidol- (p <.001) or risperidone-treated patients (p =.040) and significantly shorter among clozapine-treated patients (p =.021). CONCLUSION: This analysis of available data from olanzapine clinical trials lends additional support to olanzapine's favorable EPS profile.