Benefits of Streamlined Point-of-Care Trial Designs: Lessons Learned From the UK RECOVERY Study.

This Viewpoint discusses the benefits of streamlined point-of-care trial designs in clinical research, using lessons learned from the UK RECOVERY study of dexamethasone dosing for patients with COVID-19 and hypoxia.

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.

Heterogeneity of the risk of suicidal behavior in bipolar-spectrum disorders.

OBJECTIVES: The risk of suicidal behavior is substantially elevated in major affective disorders (AD). In bipolar disorder (BD), as many as 15% of patients may commit suicide and family history of suicide is recognized as one of the most important risk factors. Lithium reduces the rates of suicidal behavior in BD, especially in patients who achieve full mood stabilization. Yet even patients who continue experiencing mood episodes do benefit from anti-suicidal properties of lithium. These observations raise questions about the nature of the relationship between the neurobiological mechanisms of BD and suicide, namely whether they are shared or independent. METHODS: We studied the distribution of suicides and suicide attempts in 539 subjects from 78 families of probands with major AD, all responders to lithium prophylaxis. A Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to assess the contribution of several independent variables to the risks of AD, BD, and suicidal behavior. RESULTS: The lifetime prevalence of BD was significantly greater among first-degree relatives of suicide than non-suicide probands (22% versus 11%) and the prevalence of BD in families was associated with an increased risk of developing mood disorder and subsequently committing or attempting suicide (p = 0.003). Families fell into 1 of 3 groups, corresponding to a low (<0.1%), intermediate (17.8%), and high (87.8%) risk for suicide in affectively ill subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Suicidal behavior is distributed unevenly in families of probands with BD, aggregating in a subset of families. Our results also suggest that partially overlapping sets of genetic factors may underlie BD and suicide.

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 double-blind, randomized trial to evaluate the pharmacokinetics and tolerability of 30 or 40 mg/d oral olanzapine relative to 20 mg/d oral olanzapine in stable psychiatric subjects.

BACKGROUND: Prescription monitoring in the United States suggests that oral olanzapine is prescribed in doses that exceed the approved range of 5 to 20 mg/d. OBJECTIVE: In this double-blind, randomized study, the pharmacokinetics and tolerability of higher-dose (30 or 40 mg/d) olanzapine were examined relative to the highest approved dose (20 mg/d) among non-treatment-resistant patients with psychiatric illnesses. METHODS: After a 10-day period in which all patients were stabilized on 20 mg/d olanzapine, 37 patients with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or bipolar I disorder were randomized to receive treatment with olanzapine 20 mg/d for 20 days (group A, n=12), 30 mg/d for 10 days followed by 40 mg/d for 10 days (group B, n=11), or 40 mg/d for 20 days (group C, n=14). On days 10, 20, and 30, blood samples were collected before dosing and at 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 14, 18, and 24 hours after dosing. Plasma olanzapine concentrations were assayed using high-performance liquid chromatography with electrochemical detection. Tolerability was assessed by spontaneously reported treatment-emergent adverse events; changes from baseline in vital signs, electrocardiograms, and standard laboratory test values; incidences of categorically defined treatment-emergent akathisia and parkinsonism; and 2-hour standard oral glucose tolerance tests. RESULTS: Of the 53 subjects who entered the study, 16 were excluded (7 because entry criteria were not met, 6 because of subject's decision, and 3 for other reasons). Subjects were primarily men (group A, 75%; group B, 55%; group C, 79%), approximately 40 years old (mean [SD] age: group A, 40.6 [8.6]; group B, 37.9 [8.6]; group C, 39.4 [9.2] years), and black (group A, 83%; group B, 55%; group C, 64% [the remainder were white]). Mean (SD) baseline weight was 84.0 (17.5) kg for group A, 82.1 (12.0) kg for group B, and 100.9 (23.3) kg for group C. By day 20, dose-proportional increases were observed in plasma olanzapine Cmax,ss and AUC. Geometric mean (percent coefficient of variation) values for groups A, B, and C at day 20 were as follows: Cmax,ss 57.8 (40.2), 75.6 (86.7), and 94.1 (50.2) ng/mL, respectively; and AUC: 997 (38.5), 1220 (88.0), and 1630 (53.9) ng . h/mL, respectively. The most frequently reported adverse events were weight gain (group A, 2/12 [17%]; group B, 3/11 [27%]; group C, 2/14 [14%]) and sedation (group A, 3/12 [25%]; group B, 2/11 [18%]; group C, 2/14 [14%]). Mean (SD) weight gain from baseline to end point was 3.5 (2.81) kg for group A, 3.0 (3.15) kg for group B, and 3.1 (2.22) kg for group C. Changes in glucose tolerance, vital signs, or laboratory parameters did not appear to be dose dependent. During double-blind therapy, 7 subjects experienced akathisia (spontaneously reported, n=3 [group C]; categorically defined, n=3 [group B]; both, n=1 [group C]). Of the subjects with categorically defined akathisia, 2 had a history of akathisia and the other had a score of 1 (questionable) on the Barnes Akathisia Scale at baseline. No cases of parkinsonism were observed at any time. CONCLUSIONS: Among these subjects with psychiatric illnesses, olanzapine at doses of 30 and 40 mg/d displayed a pharmacokinetic profile consistent with that of 20 mg/d. Higher-dose olanzapine exhibited a tolerance profile similar to that of 20 mg/d; however, akathisia may be more likely to occur at higher doses, particularly in subjects with a history of akathisia.

Cross-sectional comparison of fasting lipids in normoglycemic patients with schizophrenia during chronic treatment with olanzapine, risperidone, or typical antipsychotics.

We compared fasting lipids and other metabolic parameters in 211 normoglycemic patients meeting the DSM-IV diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder undergoing continuous treatment with olanzapine, risperidone, or typical antipsychotics for at least 1 year. Blood samples were obtained after an 11-hour (+/-1 h) observed fast. Olanzapine-treated patients had significantly higher mean fasting triglyceride levels (2.3 +/- 1.8 mmol/L) than risperidone- (1.7 +/- 0.9 mmol/L, P = 0.022), but not typical antipsychotic-treated patients (1.8 +/- 1 mmol/L). There were no significant differences in total low-density (LDL-C) or high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. Apolipoprotein-B and very low density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were significantly higher in the olanzapine- versus risperidone-treated patients, but there were no significant differences between olanzapine- and typical antipsychotic-treated patients. Treatment groups did not differ significantly in LDL particle size, the prevalence of an "atherogenic" lipid profile, or estimated insulin sensitivity. Although interpretation of this study is limited by the cross-sectional study design, it provides additional insight concerning the relationship between antipsychotic use and plasma lipid parameters in this population.

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.

Diabetes mellitus and antipsychotic treatment in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment-emergent diabetes has been reported during exposure to conventional and atypical antipsychotics. This retrospective cohort study explored the UK General Practice Research Database (GPRD) to determine hazard ratios of diabetes for patients prescribed antipsychotics. METHODS: A Cox proportional hazard regression model using age, gender, and obesity (BMI > 30 kg/m2) was used to determine the hazard ratio (HR) of diabetes development in conventional antipsychotic (N = 59,089), atypical antipsychotic (N = 9053), individual antipsychotic, and general patient population cohorts (N = 1,491,548). RESULTS: Compared with the general GPRD patient population, patients exposed to conventional or atypical antipsychotics had a higher risk of developing diabetes (atypical antipsychotic cohort: HR = 2.9, CI = 2.0-4.4; and conventional antipsychotic cohort: HR = 1.9, CI = 1.6-2.3). The risk of developing diabetes during thioridazine, risperidone, or olanzapine treatment was significantly higher compared with the general GPRD patient population. CONCLUSION: Consistent with other epidemiology studies, this study supports an increased risk of developing diabetes during treatment with antipsychotics.

Olanzapine versus ziprasidone: results of a 28-week double-blind study in patients with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: The efficacy and safety of olanzapine were compared with those of ziprasidone. METHOD: This was a multicenter randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 28-week study of patients with schizophrenia. Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with 10-20 mg/day of olanzapine or 80-160 mg/day of ziprasidone. The primary efficacy measure was the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score. Secondary efficacy and safety measures included Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale subscales as well as mood, quality of life, and extrapyramidal symptom scales. Safety was evaluated by recording treatment-emergent adverse events and measuring vital signs and weight. RESULTS: The study was completed by significantly more olanzapine-treated patients (165 of 277, 59.6%) than ziprasidone-treated patients (115 of 271, 42.4%). At 28 weeks, the olanzapine-treated patients showed significantly more improvement than the ziprasidone-treated patients on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale overall scale and all subscales and on the Clinical Global Impression ratings of severity of illness and improvement. The responder rate was higher for olanzapine than for ziprasidone. Extrapyramidal symptoms were not significantly different between groups in change-to-endpoint analyses, but results favored olanzapine on baseline-to-maximum changes. Weight change was significantly greater with olanzapine (mean=3.06 kg, SD=6.87) than with ziprasidone (mean=-1.12 kg, SD=4.70). Fasting lipid profiles were significantly superior in the ziprasidone group; there was no significant difference in fasting glucose level. CONCLUSIONS: Olanzapine treatment resulted in significantly greater psychopathology improvement and higher response and completion rates than ziprasidone treatment, while ziprasidone was superior for weight change and lipid profile.

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.

Retrospective analysis of risk factors in patients with treatment-emergent diabetes during clinical trials of antipsychotic medications.

AIMS: In this retrospective analysis, we assessed the short-term risk of treatment-emergent diabetes (TED) among patients with schizophrenia during clinical trials of antipsychotic medications. METHOD: From a non-diabetic cohort of patients with schizophrenia (n=5013), the relationship between baseline non-fasting glucose measurement, presence at baseline of risk factors for diabetes, weight gain and therapy assignment on the risk of treatment-emergent diabetes were assessed. RESULTS: At the baseline assessment, about a third of patients identified with TED during treatment had non-fasting glucose levels over 7.8 mmol/l and two-thirds had multiple diabetes risk factors. Both baseline non-fasting glucose level and the presence of multiple pre-existing diabetes risk factors appeared to have a major impact on the risk of developing diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, risk factors for diabetes in patients with schizophrenia overlap those in the general population. The results also suggest that many patients identified with TED might have had pre-existing glycaemic abnormalities or a high baseline burden of diabetes risk factors.

Evaluation of insulin sensitivity in healthy volunteers treated with olanzapine, risperidone, or placebo: a prospective, randomized study using the two-step hyperinsulinemic, euglycemic clamp.

The primary objective of this study was to evaluate insulin sensitivity in healthy subjects treated with olanzapine or risperidone. Subjects were randomly assigned to single-blind therapy with olanzapine (10 mg/d), risperidone (4 mg/d), or placebo for approximately 3 wk. Insulin sensitivity was assessed pre- and posttreatment using a 2-step, hyperinsulinemic, euglycemic clamp. Glucose and insulin responses were also assessed by a mixed meal tolerance test. Of the 64 subjects randomized, 22, 14, and 19 in the olanzapine, risperidone, and placebo groups, respectively, completed the study procedures. There were no significant within-group changes in the glucose disposal rate or the insulin sensitivity index for the active therapy groups. Further, the results of the mixed meal tolerance test did not demonstrate clinically significant changes in integrated glucose metabolism during treatment with these medications. In summary, this study did not demonstrate significant changes in insulin sensitivity in healthy subjects after 3 wk of treatment with olanzapine or risperidone.

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.

A retrospective cohort study of diabetes mellitus and antipsychotic treatment in the United States.

Treatment-emergent diabetes mellitus (DM) has been described for conventional and atypical antipsychotics. In our study, antipsychotic prescription claims from AdvancePCS's database were used to identify patients starting antipsychotic monotherapy. The relative risk of developing DM was determined using prescription claims for antidiabetic agents in the following cohorts: AdvancePCS general patient population, combined conventional antipsychotics, and combined atypical antipsychotics. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to adjust for differences in age, gender, and duration of antipsychotic exposure between cohorts in the estimation of risk of developing diabetes. Hazard ratios for developing DM in the combined conventional, combined atypical, and individual conventional and atypical antipsychotic treatment cohorts were greater than the AdvancePCS general patient population cohort. An increased risk of developing diabetes compared with the AdvancePCS general patient population was observed during treatment with conventional or atypical antipsychotics.

Nizatidine for prevention of weight gain with olanzapine: a double-blind placebo-controlled trial.

Weight gain is associated with treatment with olanzapine and other psychotropic agents. Nizatidine, a histamine H-2 receptor antagonist, has been proposed to have weight-reducing effects. This double-blind trial evaluated the efficacy of nizatidine in limiting weight gain in patients with schizophrenia and related disorders who were treated with olanzapine for up to 16 weeks. After an initial screening period, 175 patients were randomized to receive olanzapine (5-20 mg) with either placebo or nizatidine (150 mg b.i.d. or 300 mg b.i.d.). Significantly less weight gain was observed on average at weeks 3 and 4 with olanzapine+nizatidine 300 mg b.i.d. (P<0.05) compared to olanzapine+placebo, but the difference was not statistically significant at 16 weeks. Nizatidine was well-tolerated and did not adversely affect clinical outcomes. Nizatidine 300 mg b.i.d. may have an early transient effect in limiting the weight gain, but this potential early effect appeared to be diminished or eliminated by 16 weeks.

Is response to prophylactic lithium a familial trait?

BACKGROUND: Selecting a drug according to the treatment response in a relative has been widely accepted advice in the management of mood disorders. However, this recommendation has not been adequately substantiated in the literature. We tested the hypothesis that response to long-term lithium treatment is a familial trait. METHOD: We compared response to long-term lithium treatment in bipolar relatives of bipolar lithium responders and bipolar controls. Twenty-four relatives with bipolar disorder (as determined using the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia-Lifetime version [SADS-L] and Research Diagnostic Criteria [RDC]) were identified in families of 106 patients with lithium-responsive bipolar disorder. A consecutive series of 40 lithium-treated patients in a bipolar clinic (meeting RDC and DSM-IV criteria for bipolar disorder) served as a comparison group. Lithium response was evaluated on a rating scale reflecting the quality and quantity of available data. RESULTS: The prevalence of unequivocal response among the relatives was 67%, as compared with the response rate of 35% in the comparison group (chi2 = 6.04, df = 1, p = .014). CONCLUSION: This highly significant difference in response between relatives and the control group supports the view that the response to lithium prophylaxis clusters in families.