An in vitro analysis of disintegration times of different formulations of olanzapine orodispersible tablet: a preliminary report.

BACKGROUND: Orodispersible tablets (ODTs) are tablet or wafer forms of medication that disintegrate in the mouth, aided only by saliva. ODTs rely on different fast dissolve/disintegration manufacturing technologies. OBJECTIVES: Disintegration time differences for several olanzapine ODT forms were investigated. Risperdal M-Tab(®) was included as a non-olanzapine ODT comparator. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Eleven olanzapine ODT examples and orodispersible risperidone strengths were evaluated in vitro for formulation composition, manufacturing method, disintegration and dissolution characteristics, and formulation differences in comparison with freeze dried Zydis(®) ODT. Automated dissolution test equipment captured ODT dissolution rates by measuring real-time release of active ingredient. A high-speed video camera was used to capture tablet disintegration times in warm simulated saliva. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The main outcome measure was the disintegration and dissolution characteristics of the ODT formulations. RESULTS: The ODT manufacturing method was associated with time to disintegrate; the fastest were freeze dried tablets, followed by soft compressed tablets and then hard/dense tablets. Olanzapine Zydis(®) was the only ODT that completely disintegrated in less than 4 s for all strengths (5, 10, 15, and 20 mg), followed by 5-mg Prolanz FAST(®) (12 s) and then risperidone ODT 4 mg (40 s). Reasons for slow dissolution of the olanzapine generics may include low product potency, excipient binding, excipient solubility, active ingredient particle size and incomplete disintegration. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in the formulation and manufacturing process of olanzapine ODTs appear to have a strong influence on the disintegration time of the active compound; differences that may potentially impact their use in clinical practice.

Real-world use patterns of olanzapine long-acting injection in the United States: comparison to the recommended dosing strategy.

OBJECTIVE: Recommended doses for olanzapine long-acting injection (olanzapine LAI) are 150 mg/2 weeks, 210 mg/2 weeks, 300 mg/2 or 4 weeks, and 405 mg/4 weeks. This analysis evaluated the dosing and interval patterns to compare the actual dosing patterns with the recommended dosing strategy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: These data, from March 2010 through September 2011, were collected as part of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy mandatory patient registry that captures all post-approval olanzapine injections in the US. This registry includes both active and inactive (60 + days since last injection) patients. RESULTS: All patients with at least one olanzapine injection were included (n = 1694). The mean number of injections received was 6.6 (range of 1-40). The most frequent numbers of injections were one (26.3%) and two (12.9%). For the 11,228 olanzapine injections, the most common doses were 300 mg and 405 mg, accounting for 92.9% of injections. Although the most common time intervals between injections was about 14 days for 150 mg, 210 mg, and 300 mg, and about 28 days for 405 mg, the intervals ranged from less than 10 to more than 60 days for all doses. Among active patients (48.2% of registry), 68.2% had >120 days of treatment with any dose, and the number of days since the last injection was around 2 weeks or less for 61.2% of patients, around 3 weeks for 16.5% of patients, and around 4 weeks for 7.1% of patients. Among inactive patients (51.8% of registry), 48.6% had <30 days of treatment. For the pattern of the first five injections, most patients (70.9%) received four subsequent injections of the same dose as their initial injection. CONCLUSIONS: This registry will continue to change. There is a broad range in time between injections. Most patients continue to receive the same initial dose instead of switching to a maintenance dose. This may suggest that some clinicians are not reassessing the dose after the initial starting dose because the patient was stabilized on olanzapine oral before beginning olanzapine long-acting injection. The study is limited by a database that does not include reasons for dose and dosing interval decisions or reasons for delaying or discontinuing treatment.

Weight change by baseline BMI from three-year observational data: findings from the Worldwide Schizophrenia Outpatient Health Outcomes Database.

The aim was to explore weight and body mass index (BMI) changes by baseline BMI in patients completing three years of monotherapy with various first- and second-generation antipsychotics in a large cohort in a post hoc analysis of three-year observational data. Data were analyzed by antipsychotic and three baseline BMI bands: underweight/normal weight (BMI <25 kg/m²), overweight (25-30 kg/m²) and obese (>30 kg/m²). Baseline BMI was associated with subsequent weight change irrespective of the antipsychotic given. Specifically, a smaller proportion of patients gained ≥7% baseline bodyweight, and a greater proportion of patients lost ≥7% baseline bodyweight with increasing baseline BMI. For olanzapine (the antipsychotic associated with highest mean weight gain in the total drug cohort), the percentage of patients gaining ≥7% baseline weight was 45% (95% CI: 43-48) in the underweight/normal weight BMI cohort and 20% (95% CI: 15-27) in the obese BMI cohort; 7% (95% CI: 6-8) of the underweight/normal cohort and 19% (95% CI: 13-27) of the obese cohort lost ≥7% baseline weight. BMI has an association with the likelihood of weight gain or loss and should be considered in analyses of antipsychotic weight change.

Clinical consequences of switching from olanzapine to risperidone and vice versa in outpatients with schizophrenia: 36-month results from the Worldwide Schizophrenia Outpatients Health Outcomes (W-SOHO) study.

BACKGROUND: With many atypical antipsychotics now available in the market, it has become a common clinical practice to switch between atypical agents as a means of achieving the best clinical outcomes. This study aimed to examine the impact of switching from olanzapine to risperidone and vice versa on clinical status and tolerability outcomes in outpatients with schizophrenia in a naturalistic setting. METHODS: W-SOHO was a 3-year observational study that involved over 17,000 outpatients with schizophrenia from 37 countries worldwide. The present post hoc study focused on the subgroup of patients who started taking olanzapine at baseline and subsequently made the first switch to risperidone (n=162) and vice versa (n=136). Clinical status was assessed at the visit when the first switch was made (i.e. before switching) and after switching. Logistic regression models examined the impact of medication switch on tolerability outcomes, and linear regression models assessed the association between medication switch and change in the Clinical Global Impression-Schizophrenia (CGI-SCH) overall score or change in weight. In addition, Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox-proportional hazards models were used to analyze the time to medication switch as well as time to relapse (symptom worsening as assessed by the CGI-SCH scale or hospitalization). RESULTS: 48% and 39% of patients switching to olanzapine and risperidone, respectively, remained on the medication without further switches (p=0.019). Patients switching to olanzapine were significantly less likely to experience relapse (hazard ratio: 3.43, 95% CI: 1.43, 8.26), extrapyramidal symptoms (odds ratio [OR]: 4.02, 95% CI: 1.49, 10.89) and amenorrhea/galactorrhea (OR: 8.99, 95% CI: 2.30, 35.13). No significant difference in weight change was, however, found between the two groups. While the CGI-SCH overall score improved in both groups after switching, there was a significantly greater change in those who switched to olanzapine (difference of 0.29 points, p=0.013). CONCLUSION: Our study showed that patients who switched from risperidone to olanzapine were likely to experience a more favorable treatment course than those who switched from olanzapine to risperidone. Given the nature of observational study design and small sample size, additional studies are warranted.

Weight change from 3-year observational data: findings from the worldwide schizophrenia outpatient health outcomes database.

BACKGROUND: Weight change data from randomized clinical trials are often of limited duration and trials do not always report a full range of clinically relevant categorical end points. METHOD: We conducted a post hoc analysis of data from the observational Worldwide Schizophrenia Outpatient Health Outcomes database (2000-2005) on weight change in 4,626 patients completing 3 years of antipsychotic monotherapy with amisulpride, clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and oral and depot first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs). Reported outcomes included mean and categorical weight changes and the trajectories of different measures of weight change. RESULTS: Mean weight gain was lowest with amisulpride (1.8 kg; 95% CI, 0.2-3.3) and highest with olanzapine (4.2 kg; 95% CI, 3.9-4.5). Weight change for all antipsychotics was most rapid during the first 6 months; subsequent weight change was slower but did not plateau. All drugs showed considerable individual variation in weight change. The proportion losing ≥7% of their baseline bodyweight was highest with quetiapine (10%; 95% CI, 7%-16%) and lowest with depot FGAs (5%; 95% CI, 3%-10%). Between 7% and 15% of patients moved into an overweight or obese body mass index (kg/m2)category (≥25). CONCLUSIONS: The degree of weight gain varied between antipsychotics. All antipsychotics were associated with significant (≥7%) weight loss and gain from baseline. The mean rate of weight gain was maximal during the first 6 months but continued over 3 years without a plateau in this specific cohort. Patients should receive regular monitoring of weight throughout treatment.

Regional differences in treatment response and three year course of schizophrenia across the world.

Data from the Worldwide-Schizophrenia Outpatient Health Outcomes (W-SOHO) study was used to determine the frequency of response and describe the course of disease in outpatients with schizophrenia in different regions of the world. The W-SOHO study was a 3-year, prospective, observational study that included over 17,000 outpatients with schizophrenia from 37 countries classified into six regions (Northern Europe, Southern Europe, Latin America, East Asia, Central & Eastern Europe, North Africa & Middle East). Cox proportional-hazards regression was employed to assess the factors associated with response. Multinomial logistic regression was used to assess the correlates of disease course. We found that approximately two-thirds of the patients (66.4%) achieved response during the 3-year follow up. Response rates varied across regions, and were highest in North Africa & Middle East (84.6%) and Latin America (78.6%) and lowest in Southern Europe (62.1%) and East Asia (60.9%). There were significant differences between the regions in the proportion of patients experiencing continuous remission, remission plus relapse and a persistent symptomatic course, and between the regions in the duration of remission. Overall, Latin America, East Asia, and North Africa & Middle East had more favorable outcomes because they had the largest proportion of people who achieved continuous remission, the longest time in remission and lowest percentage with a persistent symptomatic course. Having good social functioning at baseline was consistently associated with better clinical outcome. These results seem to indicate that patients from Latin America, East Asia, North Africa & Middle East may have a more favorable disease course than patients from European nations.

Orally disintegrating olanzapine review: effectiveness, patient preference, adherence, and other properties.

Orally disintegrating olanzapine (ODO) is a rapid-dissolving formulation of olanzapine which disintegrates in saliva almost immediately, developed as a convenient and adherence-enhancing alternative to the standard olanzapine-coated tablet (SOT). Clinical studies, which form the basis of this review, have shown ODO and SOT to have similar efficacy and tolerability profiles. However, ODO appears to have a number of advantages over SOT in terms of adherence, patient preference, and reduction in nursing burden. Overall, the existing clinical data suggests that compared to SOT, ODO is not only well-suited for difficult-to-treat, agitated, and/or nonadherent patients but, due to its potential ability to improve adherence and greater patient preference, may also be an appropriate formulation for the majority of patients for which olanzapine is the antipsychotic of choice.

Understanding and teaching key concepts and tools of evidence-based medicine: perspectives of a clinician-researcher pharmaceutical physician.

Clinical practice benefits from research to inform good decision making. Evidence-based medicine (EBM) helps physicians integrate experience and individual expertise with the best evidence. Various philosophical concepts, including "primum non nocere," are balanced to achieve this. The tools of EBM, such as number needed to treat, are easy to calculate and to use. Other valuable tools include number needed to harm, attributable risk, and likelihood of being helped or harmed. It is also important to distinguish between relative risk and absolute risk to avoid drawing the wrong conclusions. With the right teaching techniques to grab attention and encourage active participation, real examples can be used to impart practical skills that the clinician can employ in translating research findings into something that helps the individual patient.

Cross-national clinical and functional remission rates: Worldwide Schizophrenia Outpatient Health Outcomes (W-SOHO) study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that schizophrenia may have a better outcome for individuals living in low- and middle-income countries compared with affluent settings. AIMS: To determine the frequency of symptom and functional remission in out-patients with schizophrenia in different regions of the world. METHOD: Using data from the Worldwide-Schizophrenia Outpatient Health Outcomes (W-SOHO) study we measured clinical and functional remission in out-patients with schizophrenia in different regions of the world, and examined sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with these outcomes. The 11 078 participants analysed from 37 participating countries were grouped into 6 regions: South Europe, North Europe, Central and Eastern Europe, Latin America, North Africa and Middle East, and East Asia. RESULTS: In total, 66.1% achieved clinical remission during the 3-year follow-up (range: 60.1% in North Europe to 84.4% in East Asia) and 25.4% achieved functional remission (range: 17.8% in North Africa and Middle East to 35.0% in North Europe). Regional differences were not explained by participants' clinical characteristics. Baseline social functioning, being female and previously untreated were consistent predictors of remission across regions. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcomes of schizophrenia seem to be worse in Europe compared with other regions. However, functional remission follows a different pattern.

Treatment discontinuation and clinical outcomes in the 1-year naturalistic treatment of patients with schizophrenia at risk of treatment nonadherence.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to improve physicians' understanding of the treatment circumstances and needs of outpatients with schizophrenia at risk of nonadherence, by naturalistically assessing antipsychotic treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, and health care service use in this little-studied patient population. METHODS: In this one-year, prospective, multicenter, noninterventional, observational study, patients considered at risk of nonadherence by their physicians were switched from their primary oral antipsychotic to another oral or a depot antipsychotic at study entry. All cause treatment discontinuation (antipsychotic switch, augmentation, or discontinuation) during the study was assessed using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses and descriptive statistics. Patients' illness severity, quality of life, attitude towards medication, patient-reported adherence, and health care resource utilization were assessed during the study. RESULTS: Of the 406 enrolled patients, 43 (10.6%) were switched to depot and 363 (89.4%) were switched to oral antipsychotics at study entry. During the study, 99 (24.4%) patients switched, augmented, or discontinued their antipsychotic (all cause treatment discontinuation). Of the 99 patients who switched, augmented, or discontinued their antipsychotic, 8 (18.6%) were taking depot and 91 (25.0%) were taking oral antipsychotics. These patients were switched to either depot (n = 15) or oral (n = 78) antipsychotics, or discontinued their antipsychotic medication (n = 6). Inadequate response was the most frequently reported reason for medication discontinuation. During the study, patients' clinical and functional status improved significantly and service use was low. Most patients considered themselves to be adherent at study entry, and this favorable self-perception increased during the study (from 68.5% to 88.1%). CONCLUSION: Although identified as at risk of nonadherence, few patients in this naturalistic study discontinued their prescribed antipsychotic medication during the study. The discrepancy between the physicians' perception of their patient's medication adherence and the patients' self-perceived adherence highlights the need to better understand the underlying reasons for this phenomenon.

Weight Gain Risk Factor assessment checklist: overview and recommendation for use.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with mental illness are at risk for weight gain. Evidence-based risk assessment checklists have the potential to identify patients at risk early in treatment and improve patient outcomes. METHODS: The 16-item Weight Gain Risk Factor (WGRF-16) checklist has been developed as a simple brief assessment of key weight gain risk factors during antipsychotic treatment. It consists of factors that were collected on the basis of published research on predictors to be assessed at initiation of, and early in treatment with antipsychotics. RESULTS: The factors in the WGRF-16 checklist included age, sex, body mass index, race, appetite, energy intake, a diagnosis of undifferentiated schizophrenia, early clinical response, comorbiditites, social activity, patient insight, housing conditions, weight satisfaction, eating habits, and physical activity level. The WGRF-16 is designed to be repeated 2-3 weeks after initiation of treatment to help to predict an individual's risk of clinically significant weight gain (>7%) during long-term treatment. Further research is required to assess the predictive validity of the checklist. CONCLUSIONS: The WGRF-16 checklist is not intended to replace other required monitoring of patients with severe mental disorders but is a facilitator of weight monitoring in conjunction with clinical guidelines.

Dose-associated changes in safety and efficacy parameters observed in a 24-week maintenance trial of olanzapine long-acting injection in patients with schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: In a recently published 24-week maintenance study of olanzapine long-acting injection (LAI) in schizophrenia (Kane et al., 2010), apparent dose-associated changes were noted in both efficacy and safety parameters. To help clinicians balance safety and efficacy when choosing a dose of olanzapine LAI, we further studied these changes. METHODS: Outpatients with schizophrenia who had maintained stability on open-label oral olanzapine for 4 to 8 weeks were randomly assigned to "low" (150 mg/2 weeks; N = 140), "medium" (405 mg/4 weeks; N = 318), or "high" (300 mg/2 weeks; N = 141) dosages of olanzapine LAI for 24 weeks. Potential relationships between dose and several safety or efficacy measures were examined via regression analysis, the Jonckheere-Terpstra test (continuous data), or the Cochran-Armitage test (categorical data). RESULTS: Safety parameters statistically significantly related to dose were mean weight change (low: +0.67 [SD = 4.38], medium: +0.89 [SD = 3.87], high: +1.70 [SD = 4.14] kg, p = .024; effect size [ES] = 0.264 high vs. low dose), mean change in prolactin (low: -5.61 [SD = 12.49], medium: -2.76 [SD = 19.02]), high: +3.58 [SD = 33.78] µg/L, p = .001; ES = 0.410 high vs. low dose), fasting triglycerides change from normal at baseline to high (low: 3.2%, medium: 6.0%, high: 18.9%, p = .001; NNT = 7 high vs. low dose) and fasting high-density lipoprotein cholesterol change from normal at baseline to low (low: 13.8%, medium: 19.6%, high: 30.7%, p = .019; NNT = 6 high vs. low dose). Efficacy measures significantly related to dose included Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score mean change (low: +2.66 [SD = 14.95], medium: -0.09 [SD = 13.47], high: -2.19 [SD = 13.11], p <.01; ES = 0.356 high vs. low dose), relapse rate (low: 16%, medium: 10%, high: 5%, p = .003; NNT = 9 high vs. low dose), all-cause discontinuation rate (low: 36%, medium: 30%, high: 24%, p = .037; NNT = 9 high vs. low dose), and rate of discontinuation due to efficacy-related reasons (low: 20%, medium: 14%, high: 6%, p <.001). Time to all-cause discontinuation (p = .035) and time to relapse (p = .005) were also significantly related to dose. CONCLUSIONS: Analyses of several safety and efficacy parameters revealed significant associations with dose of olanzapine LAI, with the highest dose generally showing greater efficacy as well as greater adverse changes in metabolic safety measures. When considering olanzapine LAI, as with all antipsychotics, it is important to carefully consider the potential benefits and risks for an individual patient. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00088491.

Baseline characteristics and initial treatment decisions for patients with schizophrenia at risk of treatment nonadherence.

In this year-long, prospective observational study, sociodemographic, clinical, and functional characteristics were assessed in outpatients with schizophrenia from Australia, Mexico, Romania, and Taiwan who were switched from their primary oral antipsychotic to another oral or depot antipsychotic at study entry because of physician-perceived nonadherence risks. Patients (N = 406) rated their quality of life and functioning level as low. Few patients (10.6%, 43/406) were switched to depot antipsychotics, with country-specific differences (P < 0.001). Although illness severity was similar between subgroups, the depot switch subgroup had: a documented history of nonadherence (32.6% versus oral: 4.7%); recent alcohol (48.8% versus 23.2%; P < 0.001) or illicit drug use (16.3% versus 5.0%; P = 0.010); recent depot antipsychotic (20.7% versus 7.5%; P = 0.030) and mood stabilizer use (51.7% versus 26.3%; P = 0.008); poorer attitudes towards medication (P = 0.004); and poorer illness awareness (P = 0.041). Findings indicate that even when a risk of nonadherence has been identified, few patients with schizophrenia receive depot antipsychotics, despite being prime candidates for depot therapy. Findings suggest physicians may select depot therapy based on previous nonadherence, substance use, recent depot antipsychotic and mood stabilizer use, poor attitudes towards medications, and poor illness awareness.

The potential role of appetite in predicting weight changes during treatment with olanzapine.

BACKGROUND: Clinically significant weight gain has been reported during treatment with atypical antipsychotics. It has been suggested that weight changes in patients treated with olanzapine may be associated with increased appetite. METHODS: Data were used from adult patients for whom both appetite and weight data were available from 4 prospective, 12- to 24-week clinical trials. Patients' appetites were assessed with Eating Behavior Assessment (EBA, Study 1), Platypus Appetite Rating Scale (PARS, Study 2), Eating Inventory (EI, Study 3), Food Craving Inventory (FCI, Study 3), and Eating Attitude Scale (EAS, Study 4). RESULTS: In Studies 1 (EBA) and 4 (EAS), patients who reported overall score increases on appetite scales, indicating an increase in appetite, experienced the greatest overall weight gains. However, in Studies 2 (PARS) and 3 (EI, FCI), patients who reported overall score increases on appetite scales did not experience greater weight changes than patients not reporting score increases. Early weight changes (2-4 weeks) were more positively correlated with overall weight changes than early or overall score changes on any utilized appetite assessment scale. No additional information was gained by adding early appetite change to early weight change in correlation to overall weight change. CONCLUSIONS: Early weight changes may be a more useful predictor for long-term weight changes than early score changes on appetite assessment scales. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: This report represents secondary analyses of 4 clinical studies. Studies 1, 2, and 3 were registered at http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/home, under NCT00190749, NCT00303602, and NCT00401973, respectively. Study 4 predates the registration requirements for observational studies that are not classified as category 1 observational studies.

Relative association of treatment-emergent adverse events with quality of life of patients with schizophrenia: post hoc analysis from a 3-year observational study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the relative association of adverse events with health-related quality of life (HRQL) in patients (N = 16 091) with schizophrenia, treated with antipsychotic medication. METHODS: In this post hoc analysis of data from two 3-year observational studies, a mixed effects model with repeated measures was used to evaluate the association between HRQL (EuroQoL visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS)) and pre-specified covariates including: severity of illness, extrapyramidal symptoms, tardive dyskinesia, sexual dysfunction, and clinically significant weight gain (> 7% increase from baseline after > or = 3 months of treatment). RESULTS: Mean EQ-VAS increased from 47.8 +/- 21.7 at baseline to 72.4 +/- 18.4 after 36 months. The rank order of the negative association of adverse events with HRQL was: sexual dysfunction (effect estimate -4.04; 95% CI -4.30 to -3.79), extrapyramidal symptoms (effect estimate -2.09; 95% CI -2.43 to -1.75), and tardive dyskinesia (effect estimate -0.89; 95% CI -1.46 to -0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Differences were observed in the direction and magnitude of the association between each adverse event and HRQL. Recognition of the relative association of adverse events with HRQL may contribute to improved adherence of patients with schizophrenia to antipsychotic therapy.

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.

Number needed to treat or harm analyses of olanzapine for maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder.

The number-needed-to-treat (NNT) or the number-needed-to-harm (NNH) analysis was performed on olanzapine and comparators for all known controlled clinical studies of olanzapine for bipolar maintenance treatment or relapse prevention to assess safety and efficacy. Studies compared olanzapine (n = 225) and placebo (n = 136) for 12 months, olanzapine (n = 217) and lithium (n = 214) for 12 months, and olanzapine plus lithium or valproate (n = 72) and placebo plus lithium or valproate (n = 64) for 18 months. For prevention of all-cause treatment discontinuation, the NNT was 7 to 8. For 9 of 11 efficacy and disposition measures examined, beneficial outcomes were more common with olanzapine than placebo. Beneficial outcomes were more common with olanzapine than lithium for 7 measures and more common for olanzapine plus lithium or valproate than placebo plus lithium or valproate for 1 measure. The NNHs of 5 to 8 for a weight gain of 7% or higher and 10 to 11 for the increase in body mass index category to overweight or obese during maintenance treatment indicated that these outcomes were more common for olanzapine or olanzapine plus mood stabilizers than for the comparators. All efficacy and disposition measures showing significant differences between groups for 12 to 18 months have NNTs favoring olanzapine or olanzapine plus lithium or valproate over placebo, lithium, or placebo plus lithium or valproate. However, the NNHs favor these comparators for avoidance of weight gain and of increase in body mass index category to overweight or obese. Clinicians should consider these and other potential benefits and risks in using maintenance treatments for patients with a bipolar disorder.

Antipsychotic switching: results from a one-year prospective, observational study of patients with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: The Health Outcomes of a Canadian Community Cohort (HOCCC) study is a 1-year prospective observational study of outpatients with schizophrenia or related psychotic disorders. The purpose of the study was to compare effectiveness of antipsychotic treatment as measured by 1-year treatment completion rates. DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients (N = 929) were enrolled if in the course of usual clinical practice they switched to a second-generation antipsychotic (SGA). Observational data were collected for up to 1 year. The primary analysis compared 1-year treatment-completion rates for the olanzapine cohort with the other SGA cohort (quetiapine, risperidone, clozapine), using a chi-squared test. RESULTS: Of 929 patients enrolled, 64.8% (516/796) of evaluable patients completed 1 year of treatment. There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of treatment completers between the olanzapine cohort (67.4%, 256/380) and the other SGA cohort (62.5%, 260/416). Treatment-completion rates were risperidone 62.0% (127/205), quetiapine 63.7% (123/193) and clozapine 55.6% (10/18). Antipsychotic polypharmacy was common. Patients treated with olanzapine or risperidone had significantly higher increases in BMI than quetiapine-treated patients. There were no major differences between olanzapine monotherapy and pooled other SGA monotherapy groups in status of extrapyramidal symptoms from baseline to endpoint. CONCLUSIONS: Olanzapine and other SGAs exhibited similar rates of 1-year treatment completion. Further study of medication combinations is needed, given their perceived clinical value, and the high frequency of antipsychotic polypharmacy in clinical practice. LIMITATIONS: As most patients received several psychotropics and power was reduced in monotherapy analyses, comparisons between cohorts must be interpreted cautiously. Comparisons between individual antipsychotics were post hoc and not powered a priori. Accuracy and completeness of adverse event information for drugs other than olanzapine is limited.

Intramuscular olanzapine versus short-acting typical intramuscular antipsychotics: comparison of real-life effectiveness in the treatment of agitation.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of intramuscular (IM) olanzapine and typical IM antipsychotics in naturalistically treated acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia or acute mania. METHODS: During the acute phase, 2011 inpatients (including emergency settings) were assessed at 2, 24 and 72 h, and 7 days following initial injection and on oral antipsychotic transition. Mean change in agitation was assessed via Positive and Negative Symptom Scale-Excited Component (PANSS-EC) and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) scores. Response (> or = 40% reduction in baseline PANSS-EC score) was analysed using logistic regression. RESULTS: Significantly greater decreases in PANSS-EC and CGI-S scores were observed in patients receiving IM olanzapine (n = 1294) as their first injection compared with patients receiving other IM antipsychotics (n = 717) (P<0.05; 2 h: effect size 0.1); IM haloperidol treatment (all assessments, P<0.05); and IM zuclopenthixol treatment (2 h, P<0.001). Higher response rates were observed with IM olanzapine compared with other IM antipsychotics at 24 and 72 h, and 7 days (P<0.05). IM olanzapine was associated with fewer extrapyramidal side effects compared with other assessed IM antipsychotics. CONCLUSIONS: IM olanzapine provided somewhat more effective control of acute agitation than other assessed IM antipsychotics.

Orally disintegrating olanzapine and potential differences in treatment-emergent weight gain.

Several papers and communications have reported possible weight reduction or less weight gain when patients start or switch to orally disintegrating olanzapine, as contrasted with standard oral olanzapine tablets. In this paper, the current literature is reviewed and hypothesized mechanisms of action are discussed. The data are still preliminary and mechanisms of action are not well understood. Randomized controlled trials are needed to further evaluate change in weight during treatment with orally disintegrating olanzapine.