Significant cell uptake of Gd(III)-diphenylphosphoryl-diphenylphosphonium complexes: evidence for a new conformationally-dependent tumour cell targeting vector.

The synthesis, characterisation, and tumour cell uptake of six novel Gd(III)-diphenylphosphoryl-diphenylphosphonium complexes are reported. The propyl-linked Gd(III) complexes can accumulate inside human glioma cells at prodigious levels, approaching 1200%, over the parent triphenylphosphonium salts. DFT and quantum chemical topology analyses support a new type of conformationally-dependent tumour cell targeting vector.

Selective delivery of remarkably high levels of gadolinium to tumour cells using an arsonium salt.

The use of a triphenylarsonium vector for tumour cell-targeting leads to a dramatic increase in Gd3+ uptake in human glioblastoma multiforme cells by up to an order of magnitude over the isosteric triarylphosphonium analogue, with significant implications for 'theranostic' applications involving delivery of this important lanthanoid metal ion to tumour cells.

Salivary levels of total huntingtin are elevated in Huntington's disease patients.

Patients with Huntington's disease (HD), an autosomal-dominant neurodegenerative disease, show substantial variability in age-of-onset, symptom severity and course of illness, warranting the need for biomarkers to anticipate and monitor these features. The HD gene encodes the disease protein huntingtin (Htt), a potentially useful biomarker for this disease. In the current study, we determined whether total Htt protein (normal plus mutant; "tHtt") could be reliably measured in human saliva, a body fluid that is much more accessible compared to cerebral spinal fluid or even blood, and whether salivary levels of tHtt were clinically meaningful. We collected 146 saliva samples from manifest HD patients, early-premanifest individuals, late-premanifest patients, gene-negative family members and normal controls. We found that tHtt protein could be reliably and stably detected in human saliva and that tHtt levels were significantly increased in saliva from HD individuals compared to normal controls. Salivary tHtt showed no gender effects, nor were levels correlated with total protein levels in saliva. Salivary tHtt was significantly positively correlated with age, but not age-of-onset or CAG-repeat length. Importantly, salivary tHtt was significantly correlated with several clinical measures, indicating relevance to disease symptom onset and/or severity. Measurements of salivary tHtt offer significant promise as a relevant, non-invasive disease biomarker for HD, and its use could be implemented into clinical applications.

Clozapine and risperidone in moderately refractory schizophrenia: a 6-month randomized double-blind comparison.

OBJECTIVE: Clozapine remains the only medication indicated for refractory schizophrenia. As new antipsychotic drugs become available, their efficacy compared to clozapine, particularly in moderately ill patients, is of great clinical interest. We compared risperidone, the first of these, to clozapine in partially responsive patients. Further, since participation of patients usually excluded from clinical trials is increasingly important, we broadened inclusion to a wider patient population. METHODS: We compared clozapine (n = 53) to risperidone (n = 54) in a randomized, double-blind, 29-week trial in schizophrenia patients (diagnosed using DSM-IV) at 3 research outpatient clinics. Randomization was stratified by "narrow" or "broad" inclusion criteria. The study was conducted between December 1995 and October 1999. Time to treatment discontinuation for lack of efficacy and time to 20% improvement in the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale psychotic symptom cluster were the primary outcome measures. RESULTS: There were no differences in all-cause discontinuation; clozapine-treated participants were significantly less likely to discontinue for lack of efficacy (15%) than risperidone-treated participants (38%) (Wilcoxon χ(2)1 = 6.10, P = .01). Clozapine resulted in significantly more global improvement (F2,839 = 6.07, P < .01) and asociality improvement (F2,315 = 6.64, P < .01) than risperidone. There was no difference in proportions meeting an a priori criterion of psychosis improvement (risperidone: 57%; clozapine: 71%). Significant adverse effect differences in salivation (F1 = 4.05, P < .05) (F1 = 12.13, P < .001), sweating (F1 = 5.07, P < .05), and tachycardia (F1 = 6.51, P < .05) favored risperidone. CONCLUSIONS: Clozapine-treated partially responsive patients were less likely to discontinue treatment for lack of efficacy and improved more globally than those treated with risperidone, although psychotic symptoms did not differ. These findings suggest that clozapine should not be restricted to the most severely ill, treatment-refractory patients; it should be considered as an alternative for patients who have some response to other antipsychotics, but still experience troubling symptoms.

Polymerizable cationic micelles form cylinders at intermediate conversions.

The structural evolution of micelles of the polymerizable surfactant omega-methacryloyloxyundecyltrimethylammonium bromide (MUTAB) during UV-initiated polymerization in aqueous micellar solution has been followed by small-angle neutron scattering. Although the micelles are short spheroids both before and after polymerization, a significant, distinct population of rodlike micelles develops during the reaction, which accounts for as much as 40 vol % of the micellized surfactant and coexists with the spheroids and dissolved monomer. These coexisting micelle populations are shown to remain in dynamic equilibrium throughout the reaction and can be understood by treating it as a ternary mixture of surfactant, amphiphilic polyelectrolyte, and water.

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.

Structure changes in micelles and adsorbed layers during surfactant polymerization.

We have studied the self-assembled structures formed by the cationic surfactant 11-(methacryloyloxy)undecyltrimethylammonium bromide (MUTAB) using small angle neutron scattering as it undergoes UV-initiated polymerization in bulk solution, and the subsequent adsorbed structures at the mica/solution interface using atomic force microscopy. MUTAB forms spheroidal aggregates in aqueous solution with an axial ratio of 2-3 both before and after polymerization, as previously reported in numerous studies. However, at intermediate conversions the micelles surprisingly form elongated structures up to 200 A long. Except for the unpolymerized MUTAB, which forms a featureless adsorbed layer, the micelle structures are largely retained after adsorption: structures are elongated at 50% conversion and globular at 100% conversion. These results demonstrate that the structure of the unpolymerized micelle is not simply kinetically-trapped during polymerization, but undergoes extensive reorganization as the reaction proceeds. This has implications for attempts to capture micellar structure by polymerization and use it to template nanostructured materials or for encapsulation.

ATRMec1 phosphorylation-independent activation of Chk1 in vivo.

The conserved protein kinase Chk1 is a player in the defense against DNA damage and replication blocks. The current model is that after DNA damage or replication blocks, ATR(Mec1) phosphorylates Chk1 on the non-catalytic C-terminal domain. However, the mechanism of activation of Chk1 and the function of the Chk1 C terminus in vivo remains largely unknown. In this study we used an in vivo assay to examine the role of the C terminus of Chk1 in the response to DNA damage and replication blocks. The conserved ATR(Mec1) phosphorylation sites were essential for the checkpoint response to DNA damage and replication blocks in vivo; that is, that mutation of the sites caused lethality when DNA replication was stalled by hydroxyurea. Despite this, loss of the ATR(Mec1) phosphorylation sites did not change the kinase activity of Chk1 in vitro. Furthermore, a single amino acid substitution at an invariant leucine in a conserved domain of the non-catalytic C terminus restored viability to cells expressing the ATR(Mec1) phosphorylation site-mutated protein and relieved the requirement of an upstream mediator for Chk1 activation. Our findings show that a single amino acid substitution in the C terminus, which could lead to an allosteric change in Chk1, allows it to bypass the requirement of the conserved ATR(Mec1) phosphorylation sites for checkpoint function.

Clinical, functional, and economic ramifications of early nonresponse to antipsychotics in the naturalistic treatment of schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: Early nonresponse to antipsychotics appears to predict subsequent nonresponse to treatment when assessed in randomized controlled trials of predominately acute inpatients treated for schizophrenia. This study assessed the predictive accuracy of early nonresponse to treatment and its clinical, functional, and economic ramifications in the naturalistic treatment of predominately chronic outpatients treated for schizophrenia. METHODS: This post hoc analysis used data from a 1-year, randomized, open-label study of olanzapine, risperidone, and typical antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia. If clinically warranted, patients could switch antipsychotics following 8 weeks of treatment. Patients completing 8 weeks of treatment (n = 443 of 664 enrollees) were included. Patients with early response (> or = 20% improvement from baseline on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale at 2 weeks) were compared with early nonresponders on symptom remission, functionality, perceptions of medication influence, and total health care costs at 8 weeks. RESULTS: Early response/nonresponse at 2 weeks predicted subsequent response/nonresponse at 8 weeks with a high level of accuracy (72%) and specificity (89%). After 8 weeks, early nonresponders were less likely to achieve symptom remission (P < .001), improved less on functional domains (P < .05), perceived medication as less beneficial (P = .004), and incurred total heath care costs over twice that of early responders ($4349 vs $2102, P = .010). CONCLUSIONS: In the usual care of schizophrenia patients, early nonresponse appears to reliably predict subsequent nonresponse to continued treatment with the same medication to be associated with poorer outcomes and higher health care costs. Identifying early nonresponders may minimize prolonging exposure to suboptimal or ineffective treatment strategies.

Outcomes for Latin American versus White patients suffering from acute mania in a randomized, double-blind trial comparing olanzapine and haloperidol.

Data from a published double-blind randomized trial comparing olanzapine versus haloperidol in acute mania were used to address the response and tolerability of Latin American patients. Primary efficacy end point was the remission rate (Young Mania Rating Scale score

Initial symptoms of manic relapse in manic or mixed-manic bipolar disorder: post hoc analysis of patients treated with olanzapine or lithium.

UNLABELLED: A post hoc analysis of Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) item scores was conducted to identify symptoms that may predict impending relapse using prospectively collected data from a double-blind, randomized relapse prevention study of patients treated with olanzapine (N=200, 5-20 mg/d) versus lithium (N=201, 300-1800 mg/d). METHODS: Relapses (YMRS > or = 15, or hospitalization) included in this analysis occurred 3-52 weeks after randomization. Repeated measures logistic regression of increases (> or = 1) in YMRS item scores prior to the visit that preceded relapse was used to estimate the odds of relapse. RESULTS: A total of 31 patients relapsed during the first 3-16 weeks of the study (olanzapine, n=12; lithium, n=19). YMRS items that increased most frequently within a 2-week period preceding relapse were (olanzapine vs. lithium, respectively): increased motor activity/energy (58.3%, 21.1%), irritability (33.3%, 31.6%), decreased need for sleep (25.0%, 10.5%), increased speech (25.0%, 10.5%), and elevated mood (25.0%, 15.8%). YMRS items with significant odds ratios (OR) that predicted relapse in patients treated with olanzapine or lithium, respectively, were: increased motor activity/energy (OR, 35.7; OR, 7.8), irritability (OR, 9.5; OR, 7.8), elevated mood (OR, 8.1; OR, 4.2), and increased sexual interest (OR, 13.7; OR, 7.7). CONCLUSIONS: Early recognition of symptom exacerbation in bipolar mania, particularly increased motor activity-energy may permit clinical interventions to help avert relapse.

Clinical relevance of depressive symptom improvement in bipolar I depressed patients.

BACKGROUND: Gaps remain between rating scale changes obtained in a clinical trial and what those results mean in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To better understand the relevance of results from a clinical trial we examined the relationship between rating scale measures and the clinicians' assessment of illness severity. METHODS: Data from a randomized double-blind 8-week study of bipolar I depression were examined post hoc in patients who received placebo (PLA, n = 355), olanzapine (n = 351) (OLZ, 5 to 20 mg/d), or olanzapine-fluoxetine combination (n = 82) (OFC, 6 and 25, 6 and 50, or 12 and 50 mg/d). Principal components analysis identified related symptoms (factors) from Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) item scores. Regression analysis examined baseline to endpoint changes in factor scores and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scores. Mixed-effects model repeated measures analysis assessed differences between treatment groups. RESULTS: MADRS factors identified were: sadness, negative thoughts, detachment, and neurovegetative symptoms. Factor and CGI scores were significantly reduced from baseline to endpoint (LOCF) in the combination therapy group as compared with placebo (p < .01). Changes in factor scores were highly correlated (p < .001) with changes in the CGI. Over 80% of this treatment effect was attributable to indirect effects of improvements in the MADRS factors, the remaining difference could not be explained even when changes in the YMRS and HAMA scores were included in the analytical model. CONCLUSIONS: The changes in MADRS factors were closely aligned with the clinician's assessment of overall depression severity, which may suggest a high degree of clinical relevance for differences observed between treatments.

Clinical features of bipolar depression versus major depressive disorder in large multicenter trials.

OBJECTIVE: Failure to recognize bipolar disorder in patients who experience a major depressive episode may lead to inappropriate treatment and poorer outcomes. Clinical features that could distinguish bipolar from unipolar depression would facilitate more appropriate treatment selection. METHOD: The authors used data from nonpsychotic outpatients participating in three large multicenter clinical trials conducted in the United States for the treatment of major depressive episodes to compare 477 subjects with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder and 1,074 with major depressive disorder. RESULTS: Bipolar depression was associated with family history of bipolar disorder, an earlier age at onset, a greater previous number of depressive episodes, and eight individual symptom items on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale and the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale. Fears were more common in patients with bipolar disorder, whereas sadness; insomnia; intellectual (cognitive), somatic (muscular), respiratory, genitourinary complaints; and depressed behavior were more common in patients with unipolar depression. A logistic regression model correctly classified 86.9% of the subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Bipolar depression and major depressive disorder exhibit subtle differences in presentation, which may help guide the initial diagnosis.

Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of olanzapine as maintenance therapy in patients with bipolar I disorder responding to acute treatment with olanzapine.

OBJECTIVE: In a placebo-controlled, double-blind study, the authors investigated the efficacy and safety of olanzapine as monotherapy in relapse prevention in bipolar I disorder. METHOD: Patients achieving symptomatic remission from a manic or mixed episode of bipolar I disorder (Young Mania Rating Scale [YMRS] total score < or =12 and 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HAM-D] score or =15, HAM-D score > or =15, or hospitalization). RESULTS: Time to symptomatic relapse into any mood episode was significantly longer among patients receiving olanzapine (a median of 174 days, compared with a median of 22 days in patients receiving placebo). Times to symptomatic relapse into manic, depressive, and mixed episodes were all significantly longer among patients receiving olanzapine than among patients receiving placebo. The relapse rate was significantly lower in the olanzapine group (46.7%) than in the placebo group (80.1%). During olanzapine treatment, the most common emergent event was weight gain; during the open-label phase, patients who received olanzapine gained a mean of 3.1 kg (SD=3.4). In double-blind treatment, placebo patients lost a mean of 2.0 kg (SD=4.4) and patients who continued to take olanzapine gained an additional 1.0 kg (SD=5.2). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to placebo, olanzapine delays relapse into subsequent mood episodes in bipolar I disorder patients who responded to open-label acute treatment with olanzapine for a manic or mixed episode.

Retrospective analysis of diabetes risk in elderly patients with dementia in olanzapine clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the association of established risk factors for treatment-emergent diabetes (TED) among patients over 65 years of age with dementia who received treatment with olanzapine. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of data pooled from seven olanzapine clinical trials, which included patients over 65 years of age with dementia. The association of established risk factors for TED was evaluated using categorical and time-to-event analysis. TED was defined as two casual (fasting or nonfasting) glucose values > or =200 mg/dL at any time after baseline or one casual glucose value > or =200 mg/dL at the final visit, initiation of antidiabetic medication, or new clinical diagnosis of diabetes. RESULTS: Elderly patients subsequently identified with TED (N = 29, 2.1%) had similar baseline body mass indices (24 kg/m(2)) and were similar in age (82 versus 80 years) to those who did not have TED. Cox proportional hazards model identified only elevated casual glucose (> or =140 mg/dL) measure at baseline to be significantly associated with the development of TED (hazard ratio [HR] = 11.2, p <0.0001) in this elderly cohort. Other clinical risk factors, like body mass index > or =25 (HR = 0.86), 7% weight gain (HR = 2.26), and antipsychotic treatment (HR = 1.36) were not significant. CONCLUSION: In elderly patients with dementia enrolled in olanzapine clinical trials, an elevated casual glucose (> or =140 mg/dL) at baseline was the only risk factor significantly associated with subsequent development of TED. Risk of diabetes in these studies was not significantly associated with antipsychotic treatment group assignment.

Olanzapine versus risperidone in the treatment of manic or mixed States in bipolar I disorder: a randomized, double-blind trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare olanzapine and risperidone in the treatment of nonpsychotic acute manic or mixed episodes. METHOD: This 3-week, randomized, controlled, double-blind, parallel multicenter study compared olanzapine (5-20 mg/day; N = 165) and risperidone (1-6 mg/day; N = 164) among hospital inpatients who met DSM-IV criteria for bipolar I disorder, manic or mixed episode, without psychotic features. The study was conducted at 30 sites in the United States between July 2001 and June 2002. The primary outcome measure was the mean change in the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score. Secondary measures included the 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-21), the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), the Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar Version (CGI-BP) severity of illness scale, and the Cognitive Test for Delirium (CTD). Quality of life (Short Form Health Survey [SF-12]), psychological well-being (Psychological General Well-Being [PGWB] inventory), and sexual functioning were also compared. RESULTS: Mean modal doses for olanzapine and risperidone were 14.7 mg/day and 3.9 mg/day, respectively. Between treatments, there was no difference in mean change in the YMRS, MADRS, CTD, PGWB, or SF-12 measures or in remission or response rates. Significantly more olanzapine-treated patients completed the study compared with risperidone patients (78.7% vs. 67.0%; p = .019). Olanzapine-treated patients had greater HAM-D-21 (p = .040) and CGI-BP (p = .026) score improvement across the study. Olanzapine-treated patients experienced greater elevations in liver function enzymes (p < .05) and increase in weight (2.5 kg vs. 1.6 kg; p = .004), while risperidone-treated patients were more likely to experience prolactin elevation (51.73 ng/mL vs. 8.23 ng/mL; p < .001) and sexual dysfunction (total score increase of 1.75 vs. 0.64; p = .049). CONCLUSION: Both olanzapine and risperidone treatment yielded similar improvements in mania. The olanzapine group had significantly greater improvements in secondary measures of severity and depressive symptoms and better study completion rates but experienced more weight gain.

Olanzapine does not enhance cognition in non-agitated and non-psychotic patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's dementia.

OBJECTIVE: This was an exploratory study of olanzapine as potential treatment for improvement in cognition in patients with Alzheimer's disease without prominent psychobehavioral symptoms. METHODS: Non-psychotic/non-agitated patients (n = 268) with Alzheimer's disease, who had baseline Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores of 14-26 were randomized to treatment with olanzapine (2.5 to 7.5 mg/d) or placebo for 26 weeks. The primary objectives were to determine if treatment with olanzapine improved cognition as indexed by the Alzheimer's disease Assessment Scale for Cognition (ADAS-Cog) and the Clinician's Interview-Based Impression of Change (CIBIC) after 26 weeks of therapy. RESULTS: Patients treated with olanzapine vs placebo experienced significant worsening ADAS-Cog scores at weeks 12 (p = 0.03) and 26 (p = 0.004). Changes in CIBIC scores were not significantly different between treatment groups at either assessment. A post hoc analysis revealed that olanzapine-treated patients with more cognitive impairment at baseline (MMSE scores of 14-18) (n = 35) experienced significantly greater deterioration in ADAS-Cog performance than patients in the placebo group (n = 24; p < 0.001); whereas in patients with less cognitive impairment (n = 78, baseline MMSE scores of 23-26) between-group ADAS-Cog changes were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: In this 26-week study non-psychotic/non-agitated patients with Alzheimer's disease treated with olanzapine experienced significant worsening of cognition as compared to placebo.

Rapid versus non-rapid cycling as a predictor of response to olanzapine and divalproex sodium for bipolar mania and maintenance of remission: post hoc analyses of 47-week data.

BACKGROUND: Rapid cycling in bipolar disorder has been associated with greater morbidity. We examine whether rapid cycling affects treatment response to olanzapine or divalproex in acute mania. METHODS: A post hoc analysis of a 47-week, randomized, double-blind study compared olanzapine (5-20 mg/day) to divalproex sodium (500-2500 mg/day) for bipolar manic or mixed episodes (N=251). Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) scores > or = 20 were required for inclusion. Patients were classified at study entry as "rapid cyclers" if they experienced > or = 4 episodes within the last year. A repeated measures analysis of variance was used to analyze YMRS change from baseline. RESULTS: A significant three-way interaction (cycling frequency by medication by visit) was found when modeling change in YMRS total scores. For patients with bipolar I disorder identified as rapid cyclers, mania improvement across the trial did not differ significantly between treatment groups (p=0.181). Among non-rapid cyclers, olanzapine-treated patients had significantly greater YMRS improvement than divalproex-treated patients across the trial (p<0.001) and at most time points. Among olanzapine-treated patients, non-rapid cyclers experienced numerically greater YMRS improvement than rapid cyclers throughout the trial; statistically significant differences occurred at weeks 11, 15 and 39. In contrast, among divalproex-treated patients, YMRS scores were significantly better in rapid cyclers than non-rapid cyclers during the first two study weeks but were comparable thereafter. A similar pattern was seen in Clinical Global Impressions-Mania Severity scores. Hamilton Depression scores in rapid versus non-rapid cycling patients differed at some time points but not over the entire trial and differences by cycling status were not treatment-specific. LIMITATIONS: Apart from the post hoc nature of the analyses, there were high dropout rates in both groups, and cycle frequency was not taken into account. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid cycling patients did less well over long-term treatment than non-rapid cycling patients. Among rapid cycling patients, olanzapine and divalproex appear similarly effective against manic symptoms; however, among non-rapid cycling patients, olanzapine-treated patients experienced superior mania improvement. Olanzapine-treated, non-rapid cyclers experienced greater mania improvement than rapid cyclers. The converse was true of divalproex-treated patients early in treatment.

Olanzapine versus lithium in the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder: a 12-month, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The authors compared the efficacy of olanzapine and lithium in the prevention of mood episode relapse/recurrence. METHOD: Patients with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder (manic/mixed), a history of two or more manic or mixed episodes within 6 years, and a Young Mania Rating Scale total score > or =20 entered the study and received open-label co-treatment with olanzapine and lithium for 6-12 weeks. Those meeting symptomatic remission criteria (Young Mania Rating Scale score < or =12; 21-item Hamilton depression scale score < or =8) were randomly assigned to 52 weeks of double-blind monotherapy with olanzapine, 5-20 mg/day (N=217), or lithium (target blood level: 0.6-1.2 meq/liter) (N=214). RESULTS: Symptomatic relapse/recurrence (score > or =15 on either the Young Mania Rating Scale or Hamilton depression scale) occurred in 30.0% of olanzapine-treated and 38.8% of lithium-treated patients. The noninferiority of olanzapine relative to lithium (primary objective) in preventing relapse/recurrence was met, since the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval on the 8.8% risk difference (-0.1% to 17.8%) exceeded the predefined noninferiority margin (-7.3%). Secondary results showed that compared with lithium, olanzapine had significantly lower risks of manic episode and mixed episode relapse/recurrence. Depression relapse/recurrence occurred in 15.7% of olanzapine-treated and 10.7% of lithium-treated patients. Mean weight gain during open-label co-treatment was 2.7 kg; during double-blind monotherapy, weight gain was significantly greater with olanzapine (1.8 kg) than with lithium (-1.4 kg). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that olanzapine was significantly more effective than lithium in preventing manic and mixed episode relapse/recurrence in patients acutely stabilized with olanzapine and lithium co-treatment. Both agents were comparable in preventing depression relapse/recurrence.

Service utilization and costs of olanzapine versus divalproex treatment for acute mania: results from a randomized, 47-week clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined direct treatment costs based on medication and service use data collected in a 47-week multi-center, double-blind, randomized clinical trial of olanzapine versus divalproex for patients with bipolar disorder and and experiencing acute mania. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients who completed the 3-week acute phase and entered into the 44-week maintenance phase (n = 147) of the trial were included. Service use data were collected at weeks 3, 7, 15, 23, 31, 39 and 47 of the maintenance phase. Analyses were conducted to address potential biases from discontinuation patterns and use of this patient sub-sample. RESULTS: Overall, per patient yearly costs were similar for olanzapine- and divalproex-treated patients ($14 967 vs. $15 801). Psychiatric-related costs accounted for 95.4% and 93.6% of the total costs for olanzapine- and divalproextreated patients, respectively. Study medication costs were significantly higher for olanzapine than for divalproex ($4662 vs. $1755, p < 0.01). However, this was offset by the combined effects of numerically lower costs for several other services with olanzapine treatment. Some of the savings associated with olanzapine treatment compared with divalproex treatment resulted from differences in costs associated with emergency room services ($432 vs. $1346, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Overall per-patient treatment costs were similar for olanzapine and divalproex. Recognizing challenges in analyzing and generalizing cost outcomes from a clinical trial setting, results provide some much-needed comparative economic information regarding these two medication options for treating mania in bipolar disorder.