Long-term olanzapine therapy in the treatment of bipolar I disorder: an open-label continuation phase study.

BACKGROUND: Olanzapine has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of acute mania in 2 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. We describe the results of the open-label extension from one of these trials. METHOD: In a 3-week, double-blind study of patients with DSM-IV bipolar I disorder, olanzapine was superior to placebo for the treatment of acute manic symptoms. Of the 139 patients who entered the double-blind phase of the 3-week study, 113 patients continued into the 49-week open-label extension. Efficacy measurements including the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), the 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-21), the Clinical Global Impressions scale-Bipolar Version, and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and safety measurements including the Simpson-Angus scale, the Barnes Akathisia Scale, and the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale were completed throughout. The analysis considered all treatment results, starting with the first olanzapine dose. Adjunctive lithium and fluoxetine were allowed during the open-label extension. RESULTS: The mean length of olanzapine treatment was 6.6 months, with a mean modal dose of 13.9 mg/day. A significant mean improvement in the YMRS total score, baseline to endpoint (-18.01, p < .001), was observed. During treatment, 88.3% of patients experienced a remission of manic symptoms (YMRS total score < or =12), and only 25.5% subsequently relapsed (YMRS total score > or = 15). Significant improvement in HAM-D-21 scores was observed (p < .001). Forty-one percent of patients were maintained on olanzapine monotherapy. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events reported were somnolence (46.0%), depression (38.9%), and weight gain (36.3%). CONCLUSION: During up to 1 year of olanzapine therapy, either as monotherapy or in combination with lithium and/or fluoxetine, patients with bipolar disorder demonstrated significant improvement in mania and depression symptoms with a favorable safety profile. Further double-blind, controlled studies are needed to confirm these results.

Evidence for the effectiveness of olanzapine among patients nonresponsive and/or intolerant to risperidone.

BACKGROUND: This multicenter, open-label study evaluated the efficacy and safety of olanzapine in patients with schizophrenia who had been nonresponsive or intolerant to a course of risperidone (mean duration of risperidone treatment = 46.3 days). METHOD: A total of 34 patients with DSM-III-R and ICD-9 schizophrenia entered this trial. Twenty-five patients were nonresponsive to previous risperidone treatment, 6 patients were intolerant to the risperidone treatment, and 3 patients listed both reasons for discontinuation of risperidone. Patients were treated across a dose range of 5 to 25 mg/day of olanzapine. The primary efficacy variable was baseline to endpoint change in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) score. Safety was assessed using the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale. RESULTS: Improvement from baseline PANSS score (mean +/- SD PANSS score = 119.4 +/- 26.9) was evident at the week-6 midpoint (-22.2 +/- 19.5) and at the week-14 endpoint (-28.7 +/- 22.3). On average, severity ratings were reduced from baseline by 25% after 14 weeks of olanzapine therapy. Twenty olanzapine-treated patients (58.8%) achieved the a priori-defined response criterion of > or = 20% reduction in PANSS total score. Among patients who met the response criterion, 50% (10/20) had done so by the fourth week. These clinical improvements occurred across a broad range of symptom domains and included reductions in PANSS positive, negative, general psychopathology, and mood subscores. No statistically significant differences were found on any efficacy measure at any visit between the patients who were nonresponsive to risperidone compared with those who were intolerant to risperidone. Olanzapine was well tolerated, with no subject discontinuing early owing to an intolerable adverse event that could be conclusively linked to olanzapine. CONCLUSION: The results of this open-label study suggest that olanzapine may be an effective alternative for schizophrenic patients who are nonresponsive and/or intolerant to risperidone treatment. Moreover, the results underscore the differential pharmacology that exists among the newer antipsychotic agents.

The effectiveness of olanzapine in treatment-refractory schizophrenia when patients are nonresponsive to or unable to tolerate clozapine.

OBJECTIVE: This multicenter, open-label study was designed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of olanzapine in patients with chronic schizophrenia who are resistant to therapy with classic neuroleptic agents and are either not responsive to or unable to tolerate clozapine. METHODS: Patients received olanzapine orally once daily for 18 weeks at doses ranging from 5 to 25 mg. The primary efficacy measure was change in the total score on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) from baseline to end point. Secondary efficacy measures were the total score on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS); the PANSS positive, negative, general psychopathology, and mood subscores; and the Clinical Global Impression improvement score. Also recorded were spontaneously reported adverse events; extrapyramidal symptoms (assessed by the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale, Simpson-Angus Scale, and Barnes Akathisia Scale); vital signs; and clinical laboratory test results. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients were treated with olanzapine; of these, 45 were assessable over the full 18-week study period. Total scores on the PANSS and BPRS were reduced from baseline by an average of 17.7 (14.2%) and 9.8 points (20.2%), respectively. Eighteen patients (40.0%) experienced a treatment response, defined as a reduction in PANSS total score of > or = 20%. A total of 25 patients (55.6%) achieved a similar reduction in BPRS total score. Significant reductions were seen in both the positive and negative symptom scores on the PANSS (P < 0.001). Olanzapine was well tolerated, with minimal treatment-emergent adverse events or clinically relevant changes in vital signs or clinical laboratory test results. No clinically significant blood dyscrasias were observed in olanzapine-treated patients, including those who had discontinued clozapine because of treatment-associated leukopenia or neutropenia. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that olanzapine may be of benefit in patients who are refractory to or unable to tolerate clozapine.

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

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

Olanzapine versus placebo in the treatment of acute mania. Olanzapine HGEH Study Group.

OBJECTIVE: The primary intent of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of olanzapine and placebo in the treatment of acute mania. METHOD: The design involved a random-assignment, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel group study of 3 weeks' duration. After a 2- to 4-day screening period, qualified patients were assigned to either olanzapine (N = 70) or placebo (N = 69). Patients began double-blind therapy with either olanzapine, 10 mg, or placebo given once per day. After the first day of treatment, the daily dose could be adjusted upward or downward, as clinically indicated, by one capsule (olanzapine, 5 mg/day) within the allowed range of one to four capsules. The primary efficacy measure in the protocol was defined as a change from baseline to endpoint in total score on the Young Mania Rating Scale. Clinical response was defined a priori as a decrease of 50% or more from baseline in Young Mania Rating Scale total score. RESULTS: The olanzapine group experienced significantly greater mean improvement in Young Mania Rating Scale total score than the placebo group. On the basis of the clinical response criteria, significantly more olanzapine-treated patients (48.6%) responded than those assigned to placebo (24.2%). Somnolence, dizziness, dry mouth, and weight gain occurred significantly more often with olanzapine. There were no statistically significant differences between the olanzapine-treated and placebo-treated patients with respect to measures of parkinsonism, akathisia, and dyskinesias. No discontinuations of treatment due to adverse events occurred in the olanzapine treatment group. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this study suggest that compared with placebo, olanzapine has superior efficacy for the symptoms of acute mania.

Vascular plants as sensitive indicators of lead and PCB transport from local sources in the Canadian Arctic.

Vascular plants collected at background locations in the Canadian Arctic were assessed as biological indicators of the aerial transport of contaminants from nearby military radar sites. Significantly higher levels of lead and PCBs were found in plants from site background areas (collected up to 10 km from any known sources of contamination) than remote locations (collected at least 20 km away from any human activity) which indicates that these contaminants are being aerially redistributed from the sites to plants in surrounding background areas. An analysis of individual PCB congener signatures in plant site background samples using principal components analysis (PCA) revealed that the past use of specific commercial PCB formulations at these sites, such as Aroclor 1260 on the east coast, is reflected in the PCB congener signature present in the plants. The implications of these findings in terms of elucidating sources and the distribution of contaminants in the Canadian Arctic are discussed.

Effects of local and distant contaminant sources: polychlorinated biphenyls and other organochlorines in bottom-dwelling animals from an Arctic estuary.

Elevated concentrations of organochlorines in the tissues of large marine predators in the Canadian Arctic are well documented. This paper presents some of the first data on the composition and distribution of chlorinated organic compounds in some arctic coastal animals found at lower levels of the marine food chain. Organisms include bottom-dwelling invertebrates: clams (Mya truncata), mussels (Mytilus edulis), sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis) and fish: sculpins (Myoxocephalus quadricornis). The majority of samples were collected in the vicinity of Cambridge Bay, Northwest Territories (NWT), Canada; however, samples were also collected near another inhabited area (Hall Beach, NWT) and at a reference site (Wellington Bay, NWT). PCBs and other organochlorines typically originate in more industrialized parts of the northern hemisphere, enter the Arctic, and are subsequently biomagnified. In this study, differences in the PCB congener compositions and concentrations, as well as the relative concentrations of a larger suite of organochlorines in biota, allowed the discrimination between local and distant PCB sources. Terrestrial runoff from southern Victoria Island, NWT, has resulted in localized elevation of PCBs and chlorinated pesticides in marine sediment and bottom-dwelling animals. The major inputs of PCBs to coastal waters within Cambridge Bay were derived from local sources (the hamlet dump and DEW Line site). In addition, transport from more distant sources via riverine input accounts for locally elevated concentrations of other organochlorines in upper Cambridge Bay. This process may also account for concentrations of all measured organochlorines that are higher in Wellington Bay than in Queen Maud Gulf. The high PCB concentrations in the whole tissue (excluding liver) or livers of four-horned sculpins in Cambridge Bay (up to 220 ng/g and 1950 ng/g, respectively) and, to a lesser extent, Wellington Bay (3.8 ng/g and 47 ng/g, respectively) reflect a strong tendency for biomagnification of PCBs in coastal benthic communities.