Transcriptomic analysis delineates preterm prelabor rupture of membranes from preterm labor in preterm fetal membranes.

BACKGROUND: Globally, preterm birth remains the leading cause of death in children younger than 5 years old. Spontaneous preterm birth is comprised of two events that may or may not occur simultaneously: preterm labor and preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PPROM). To further explore the concept that spontaneous preterm birth can result from the initializing of two separate but overlapping pathological events, we compared fetal membrane tissue from preterm labor deliveries to fetal tissue from preterm labor with PPROM deliveries. We hypothesized that the fetal membrane tissue from preterm labor with PPROM cases will have an RNA-seq profile divergent from the fetal membrane tissue from preterm labor controls. METHODS: Chorioamnion, separated into amnion and chorion, was collected from eight gestationally age-matched cases and controls within 15 min of birth, and analyzed using RNA sequencing. Pathway enrichment analyses and functional annotations of differentially expressed genes were performed using KEGG and Gene Ontogeny Pathway enrichment analyses. RESULTS: A total of 1466 genes were differentially expressed in the amnion, and 484 genes were differentially expressed in the chorion (log2 fold change > 1, FDR < 0.05) in cases (preterm labor with PPROM), versus controls (preterm labor only). In the amnion, the most significantly enriched (FDR < 0.01) KEGG pathway among down-regulated genes was the extracellular matrix receptor interaction pathway. Seven of the most significantly enriched pathways were comprised of multiple genes from the COL family, including COL1A, COL3A1, COL4A4, and COL4A6. In the chorion, the most significantly enriched KEGG pathways in up-regulated genes were chemokine, NOD receptor, Toll-like receptor, and cytokine-cytokine receptor signaling pathways. Similarly, KEGG pathway enrichment analysis for up-regulated genes in the amnion included three inflammatory pathways: cytokine-cytokine interaction, TNF signaling and the CXCL family. Six genes were significantly up regulated in chorionic tissue discriminated between cases (preterm labor with PPROM) and controls (preterm labor only) including GBP5, CXCL9, ALPL, S100A8, CASP5 and MMP25. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, transcriptome analysis of preterm fetal membranes revealed distinct differentially expressed genes for PPROM, separate from preterm labor. This study is the first to report transcriptome data that reflects the individual pathophysiology of amnion and chorion tissue from PPROM deliveries.

VIVA (VIsualization of VAriants): A VCF File Visualization Tool.

High-throughput sequencing produces an extraordinary amount of genomic data that is organized into a number of high-dimension datasets. Accordingly, visualization of genomic data has become essential for quality control, exploration, and data interpretation. The Variant Call Format (VCF) is a text file format generated during the variant calling process that contains genomic information and locations of variants in a group of sequenced samples. The current workflow for visualization of genomic variant data from VCF files requires use of a combination of existing tools. Here, we describe VIVA (VIsualization of VAriants), a command line utility and Jupyter Notebook based tool for evaluating and sharing genomic data for variant analysis and quality control of sequencing experiments from VCF files. VIVA combines the functionality of existing tools into a single command to interactively evaluate and share genomic data, as well as create publication quality graphics.

Olanzapine vs haloperidol in geriatric schizophrenia: analysis of data from a double-blind controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the six-week clinical response and safety profile of schizophrenia patients, age > or =60 years, receiving olanzapine (OLZ) vs haloperidol (HAL) in a double blind, randomized trial. METHODS: Double-blind data on patients age > or =60 randomized to 5 mg/d OLZ (n=83) or 5 mg/d HAL (n=34) (Week 1) then flexibly dosed to 5-20 mg/d over six weeks, with a 48-week extension for responders, were analyzed post-hoc. Efficacy indices included the PANSS Total and PANSS Psychosis Core Total (PPCT). Safety measures included the Simpson-Angus Scale (SAS), Barnes Akathisia Scale (BAS), Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS), treatment-emergent adverse events, and laboratory values. Mixed model, repeated measures (MMRM) analyses were applied to all continuous data measured at each visit. Continuous data recorded only at phase completion or termination were analyzed with a fixed effect last observation carried forward (LOCF) model. Frequencies of categorical response data were analyzed using Fisher's exact methods. Differences were tested for significance at Week 6 using a two-sided alpha value of 0.05. RESULTS: HAL group (n=34; age range 60-80) received a mean modal dose 9.4 mg/d while OLZ group (n=83; age range 60-86) received a mean modal dose 11.9 mg/d. At Week 6, OLZ was superior to HAL on both the PANSS Total (p=0.015) and PPCT (p=0.043). Considering safety, OLZ was superior to HAL for the SAS and BAS (p<0.001; p<0.001). No spontaneous adverse event occurred more frequently with OLZ than with HAL. In patients never receiving adjunct anticholinergic therapy, no significant differences were present for anticholinergic-like side effects including blurred vision, dry mouth, constipation, or urinary difficulties. CONCLUSIONS: In elderly schizophrenia patients, olanzapine was more efficacious and better tolerated for extrapyramidal signs than was haloperidol. Olanzapine was equivalent to haloperidol for anticholinergic-like side effects when corrected for anticholingergic agents.

The central cholinergic system profile of olanzapine compared with placebo in Alzheimer's disease.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this analysis was to compare the treatment-emergent central anticholinergic-like adverse events experienced during treatment with olanzapine versus placebo in patients with psychosis and/or agitation due to Alzheimer's disease (AD). In addition, changes in cognition were assessed in a subgroup of patients with mild to moderate cognitive impairment. METHODS: Double-blind data were compared for placebo and three fixed olanzapine dosages (5 mg/day, 10 mg/day, and 15 mg/day) in 206 nursing home-residing patients with AD for five a priori selected central nervous system anticholinergic-like adverse events: confusion, delirium, delusions, hallucinations, abnormal thinking. Mean change from baseline to endpoint on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive (ADAS-Cog) was measured for a subgroup of 43 patients who had mild to moderate cognitive impairment at baseline. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in central anticholinergic-like adverse events at any olanzapine dose compared to placebo. Additionally, in the 43-patient subgroup, there were no significant differences in mean change in ADAS-Cog scores between placebo and the three olanzapine dose subgroups. CONCLUSION: Olanzapine did not differ significantly from placebo for any of the five central nervous system anticholinergic events nor on the ADAS-Cog. Olanzapine's initially reported potent in vitro muscarinic receptor affinity is not consistent with this clinical study of central nervous system anticholinergic-like adverse events in patients with AD.

A meta-analysis of the use of typical antipsychotic agents in bipolar disorder.

BACKGROUND: The potential benefits of typical antipsychotic agents in bipolar disorder are offset by serious treatment-associated side effects. Despite these concerns and the availability of mood stabilizing agents, the treatment of bipolar disorder with typical antipsychotic agents appears to be widespread. METHODS: A Medline search identified 16 publications that outlined medication use among 2378 bipolar disorder patients. Meta-analysis was used to estimate a weighted average of the relative proportions of the treatment use, where the weights were the reciprocals of the estimated variances for each study. RESULTS: Overall, 84.7% of bipolar patients received typical antipsychotic agents, with a loading toward a greater in-patient (90.7%) relative to out-patient (65.3%) use. Monotherapy accounted for 53.8% of typical antipsychotic use, and typical antipsychotic/mood stabilizer combination therapy accounted for 47.4%. In four studies where length of treatment data were available, the median of minimum typical antipsychotic use was 2.5 months, with 96.0% of the patients receiving typical antipsychotic agents. LIMITATIONS: The meta-analytic technique employed in this analysis is limited by the possible inclusion of studies with unreliable study designs or biased treatment practices, publication bias in which some studies may not have been reported, and possible lack of identification of all relevant studies. CONCLUSIONS: Typical antipsychotic agents are commonly used in the treatment of bipolar disorder, possibly due to dissatisfaction with mood stabilizer monotherapy especially in psychotic mania, the high prevalence of psychotic symptoms in acute mania, inappropriate continuation of typical antipsychotic agents after initial stabilization, and/or unavailability or unfamiliarity with new treatments. These findings also suggest that typical antipsychotics may have not only antipsychotic effects in mania but perhaps also antimanic properties.

Factors influencing acute weight change in patients with schizophrenia treated with olanzapine, haloperidol, or risperidone.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical factors predicting weight change in patients with schizophrenia and related disorders during acute treatment with the antipsychotic drugs olanzapine, risperidone, and haloperidol were sought through retrospective analyses. METHOD: Six-week body-weight data from 2 trials, study 1 comparing olanzapine and haloperidol (N = 1,369) and study 2 olanzapine and risperidone (N = 268), were analyzed. Effects of 8 clinically relevant covariates--therapy, clinical outcome (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale), baseline body mass index (BBMI), increased appetite, age, gender, race, and dose--on weight were compared. RESULTS: In study 1, olanzapine (vs. haloperidol) therapy, better clinical outcome, lower BBMI, and nonwhite race significantly affected weight gain. Effects of increased appetite and male gender on weight gain were significant for olanzapine but not for haloperidol. In study 2, better clinical outcome, lower BBMI, and younger age significantly affected weight gain. Increased appetite was more frequent during olanzapine treatment than during haloperidol, but not significantly different from risperidone. Significant differences in effect on weight change were found between olanzapine and haloperidol but not between olanzapine and risperidone. No evidence was found that lower antipsychotic drug doses were associated with lower weight gain. CONCLUSION: This report identifies predictive factors of acute weight change in patients with schizophrenia. Similar factors across antipsychotic drugs in predicting greater weight gain included better clinical outcome, low BBMI, and nonwhite race. Factors differing between conventional (haloperidol) and atypical (olanzapine) agents included increased appetite and gender. Choice of atypical antipsychotic drug (olanzapine vs. risperidone) was of minor importance with regard to influence on acute weight gain.

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.

Long-term olanzapine treatment: weight change and weight-related health factors in schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Weight change and the weight-related health factors of nonfasting serum glucose, serum cholesterol, and diastolic blood pressure levels were analyzed in patients with DSM-III-R schizophrenia and related disorders who received treatment with olanzapine for up to 3 years, and comparisons were made to patients treated with haloperidol. Baseline body mass index (BBMI; kg/m2) and dose (mg/day) were investigated as predictors of long-term weight change experienced during olanzapine treatment. METHOD: This analysis retrospectively examined 573 patients receiving olanzapine and 103 patients receiving haloperidol for 39 weeks or more from a study of 1,996 patients randomly assigned 2:1 to either olanzapine, 5 to 20 mg/day, or haloperidol, 5 to 20 mg/day. After 6 weeks of acute therapy, patients continued for 1 year or more with either double-blind or open-label olanzapine therapy or double-blind haloperidol therapy. RESULTS: Mean weight gain for olanzapine-treated patients observed for a median of 2.54 years trended toward a plateau after the first 39 weeks of treatment with a last-observation-carried-forward mean weight change of 6.26 kg (13.8 lb) and a median of 5.90 kg (13.0 lb). This was significantly higher than that for haloperidol-treated patients, whose mean weight gain was 0.69 kg (1.5 lb) after 1.15 years (p < .001). Patients with higher BBMI (> 27.6) gained significantly less weight during treatment with olanzapine than their lighter counterparts (BBMI < 27.6) (p < .001). The effect of olanzapine dose on weight was not significant (p > or = . 183). Median serum glucose at endpoint was not significantly associated (p = .096) with weight change for olanzapine. Median serum cholesterol and diastolic blood pressure for olanzapine-treated patients at endpoint showed a relationship with weight change that was statistically (p < or = .001) but not clinically significant. The difference in incidence of elevated serum glucose, cholesterol, or diastolic blood pressure between olanzapine and haloperidol therapy groups was not different (p > .05). CONCLUSION: Mean weight gain during olanzapine treatment trended toward a plateau after the initial 39 weeks of treatment with no further significant gain out to 3 years. Higher BBMI was predictive of a lower long-term weight gain, while dose was not a significant predictor of greater longer term weight change. The relationship between weight change and glucose was not statistically significant. The association between weight change and changes in cholesterol as well as changes in diastolic blood pressure was statistically significant but not considered clinically relevant based on the ranges observed.

No gender differences in placebo responses of patients with major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to compare placebo responses in men and women. METHODS: Data for 501 women and 375 men with major depressive disorder treated with placebo from seven investigational randomized double-blind trials comparing fluoxetine with placebo were analyzed. Changes in major depressive disorder symptoms with placebo administration were measured as changes in total Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores and adverse (nocebo) effects were measured by comparing treatment-emergent signs and symptoms. RESULTS: Both women and men with major depressive disorder showed significant symptomatic improvement following placebo administration, similar in magnitude and time course of response. Women on placebo reported slightly more nocebo effects than men. CONCLUSIONS: The finding that women and men with major depressive disorder demonstrated a similar therapeutic outcome after placebo administration suggests that gender is not a predictor of placebo response.

Double-blind comparison of olanzapine versus clozapine in schizophrenic patients clinically eligible for treatment with clozapine.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of schizophrenic patients who fail to respond to adequate trials of neuroleptic drugs is a major challenge. Clozapine has been one treatment option; however, it is not universally effective and is limited in its use by safety concerns. With the introduction of newer agents, their performance relative to clozapine is of great clinical interest. METHODS: The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of olanzapine versus clozapine among treatment resistant DSM-IV schizophrenic patients. The study was primarily designed to demonstrate the "noninferiority" of olanzapine compared to clozapine after 18 weeks of double-blind treatment. Conclusions were based on the one-sided lower 95% confidence limit about the treatment effect observed from the primary efficacy variable (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale [PANSS] Total). RESULTS: Mean changes from baseline to end point in PANSS Total score, using a last observation carried forward technique, showed that both agents were comparably effective in neuroleptic resistant patients, i.e., demonstrated the "noninferiority" of olanzapine when compared to clozapine. Overall, significantly fewer olanzapine-treated patients (4%) discontinued for an adverse event than their clozapine-treated (14%) counterparts (p =.022). Among spontaneously reported adverse events, increased salivation, constipation, dizziness, and nausea were reported significantly more often among clozapine-treated patients, whereas only dry mouth was reported more often among olanzapine-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Olanzapine was demonstrated to be noninferior to clozapine and better tolerated among resistant schizophrenic patients clinically eligible for treatment with clozapine.

A novel augmentation strategy for treating resistant major depression.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment-resistant depression is a significant public health concern; drug switching or augmentation often produce limited results. The authors hypothesized that fluoxetine could be augmented with olanzapine to successfully treat resistant depression. METHOD: An 8-week double-blind study was conducted with 28 patients who were diagnosed with recurrent, nonbipolar, treatment-resistant depression without psychotic features. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of three groups: olanzapine plus placebo, fluoxetine plus placebo, or olanzapine plus fluoxetine. RESULTS: Fluoxetine monotherapy produced minimal improvement on various scales that rate severity of depression. The benefits of olanzapine monotherapy were modest. Olanzapine plus fluoxetine produced significantly greater improvement than either monotherapy on one measure and significantly greater improvement than olanzapine monotherapy on the other measures after 1 week. There were no significant differences between treatment groups on extrapyramidal measures nor significant adverse drug interactions. CONCLUSIONS: Olanzapine plus fluoxetine demonstrated superior efficacy for treating resistant depression compared to either agent alone.

The double-blind variable placebo lead-in period: results from two antidepressant clinical trials.

The 1-week single-blind placebo lead-in has long been a standard in double-blind psychopharmacology clinical trials. Although a lead-in period is often necessary (e.g., to receive laboratory results before randomization), some authors have demonstrated that the standard single-blind placebo lead-in's performance was similar to having a lead-in in which placebo was not administered. The single-blind placebo lead-in did not decrease postrandomization placebo response, nor did it increase drug-placebo differences. To eliminate a higher percentage of placebo responders before randomization and to reduce potential biases in baseline ratings, the authors designed and implemented two depression studies with a double-blind variable placebo lead-in period. In these designs, both the patients and personnel at the investigative sites were blinded to the length of the placebo lead-in period and the start of the active treatment period. Approximately 28% of the patients in the double-blind placebo lead-in studies met criteria to be placebo lead-in responders, as compared with fewer than 10% from two single-blind placebo lead-in studies conducted in a similar time frame. Although all patients continued in the study (including placebo lead-in responders), the primary efficacy analysis prospectively excluded double-blind placebo lead-in responders. Analysis of postrandomization changes revealed that double-blind placebo lead-in responders, even when continuing to receive placebo treatment, maintained their response. At the study endpoint, these placebo lead-in responders had significantly lower severity scores than their counterparts who were not lead-in responders. The prospective removal of lead-in responders thus resulted in an increase in mean endpoint placebo group severity scores. This resulted in an increased drug-placebo treatment difference in one of the two studies but had no effect on the treatment difference in the other study.

Olanzapine treatment of psychotic and behavioral symptoms in patients with Alzheimer disease in nursing care facilities: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. The HGEU Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Patients with Alzheimer disease (AD) commonly exhibit psychosis and behavioral disturbances that impair patient functioning, create caregiver distress, and lead to institutionalization. This study was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of olanzapine in treating psychosis and/or agitation/aggression in patients with AD. METHODS: A multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 6-week study was conducted in 206 elderly US nursing home residents with AD who exhibited psychotic and/or behavioral symptoms. Patients were randomly assigned to placebo or a fixed dose of 5, 10, or 15 mg/d of olanzapine. The primary efficacy measure was the sum of the Agitation/Aggression, Hallucinations, and Delusions items (Core Total) of the Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Nursing Home version. RESULTS: Low-dose olanzapine (5 and 10 mg/d) produced significant improvement compared with placebo on the Core Total (-7.6 vs -3.7 [P<.001] and -6.1 vs -3. 7 [P =.006], respectively). Core Total improvement with olanzapine, 15 mg/d, was not significantly greater than placebo. The Occupational Disruptiveness score, reflecting the impact of patients' psychosis and behavioral disturbances on the caregiver, was significantly reduced in the 5-mg/d olanzapine group compared with placebo (-2.7 vs -1.5; P =.008). Somnolence was significantly more common among patients receiving olanzapine (25.0%-35.8%), and gait disturbance occurred in those receiving 5 or 15 mg/d (19.6% and 17.0%, respectively). No significant cognitive impairment, increase in extrapyramidal symptoms, or central anticholinergic effects were found at any olanzapine dose relative to placebo. CONCLUSION: Low-dose olanzapine (5 and 10 mg/d) was significantly superior to placebo and well tolerated in treating agitation/aggression and psychosis in this population of patients with AD.

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.

Synergistic effects of olanzapine and other antipsychotic agents in combination with fluoxetine on norepinephrine and dopamine release in rat prefrontal cortex.

To understand the mechanism of the clinical efficacy of olanzapine and fluoxetine combination therapy for treatment-resistant depression (TRD), we studied the effects of olanzapine and other antipsychotics in combination with the selective serotonin uptake inhibitors fluoxetine or sertraline on neurotransmitter release in rat prefrontal cortex (PFC) using microdialysis. The combination of olanzapine and fluoxetine produced robust, sustained increases of extracellular levels of dopamine ([DA](ex)) and norepinephrine ([NE](ex)) up to 361 +/- 28% and 272 +/- 16% of the baseline, respectively, which were significantly greater than either drug alone. This combination produced a slightly smaller increase of serotonin ([5-HT](ex)) than fluoxetine alone. The combination of clozapine or risperidone with fluoxetine produced less robust and persistent increases of [DA](ex) and [NE](ex). The combination of haloperidol or MDL 100907 with fluoxetine did not increase the monoamines more than fluoxetine alone. Olanzapine plus sertraline combination increased only [DA](ex). Therefore, the large, sustained increase of [DA](ex), [NE](ex), and [5-HT](ex) in PFC after olanzapine-fluoxetine treatment was unique and may contribute to the profound antidepressive effect of the olanzapine and fluoxetine therapy in TRD.

Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of fluoxetine v. placebo and tricyclic antidepressants in the short-term treatment of major depression.

BACKGROUND: Previous meta-analyses of fluoxetine as an antidepressant have many methodological problems, including diagnosis of major depression, validity of outcome measures and lack of intention-to-treat analyses. AIMS: To provide an estimate of the effect of fluoxetine compared with placebo and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), and to investigate reasons for early discontinuation from acute treatment. METHOD: Randomised trials were analysed using both intention-to-treat, efficacy and end-point. RESULTS: Fluoxetine was superior to placebo but effect size was low. In trials comparing fluoxetine v. TCA, the results for all trials and for the USA trials showed a trend in favour of fluoxetine. Those for the non-USA trials showed a trend in favour of TCA. When combined, the results showed that significantly fewer patients on fluoxetine discontinued treatment because of adverse events. CONCLUSION: Fluoxetine is superior to placebo, irrespective of the analytical approach use, whereas the results obtained v. TCAs depend on the approach used. Hence, the results should be interpreted in this light.

Beneficial effect of olanzapine in schizophrenic patients with obsessive-compulsive symptoms.

Some studies suggest that obsessive-compulsive symptoms may be common (7.8-46%) in schizophrenic patients and seem to be poorly responsive to drug therapy. Conventional neuroleptics are of limited value, but adjunctive anti-obsessive agents (clomipramine, fluvoxamine) may be an option. Although novel atypical antipsychotics (clozapine, risperidone) reportedly aggravate the obsessive-compulsive symptoms, a recent trial has shown that olanzapine did not induce new-onset obsessive-compulsive symptoms in schizophrenic patients. We report our experience with three schizophrenic patients with obsessive-compulsive symptoms who were unsuccessfully treated with various conventional neuroleptics in combination with anti-obsessive agents and subsequently showed resistance or intolerance to clozapine. All of them were switched to olanzapine (10-20 mg/ day). All patients demonstrated a significant improvement in both schizophrenic and obsessive-compulsive symptoms as measured by the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS). Within 5-8 weeks of initiation of olanzapine, the BPRS scores of the three patient decreased by 53%, 51% and 48%, and the Y-BOCS scores by 68%, 73% and 85%. Olanzapine was well tolerated. These preliminary results suggest that olanzapine may be a therapeutic option in schizophrenic patients with obsessive-compulsive symptoms.

Neuropsychological change in early phase schizophrenia during 12 months of treatment with olanzapine, risperidone, or haloperidol. The Canadian Collaborative Group for research in schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this investigation was to test the efficacy of novel antipsychotic medications in the treatment of cognitive impairment in early phase schizophrenia. METHODS: Sixty-five patients in this multicenter double-blind study were randomly assigned to olanzapine (5-20 mg), risperidone (4-10 mg), or haloperidol (5-20 mg). Standard measures of clinical and motor syndromes were administered, as well as a comprehensive battery of tests to assess (1) motor skills, (2) attention span, (3) verbal fluency and reasoning, (4) nonverbal fluency and construction, (5) executive skills, and (6) immediate recall at baseline and after 6, 30, and 54 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: The general cognitive index derived from the 6 domain scores revealed a significantly greater benefit from treatment with olanzapine relative to haloperidol and olanzapine relative to risperidone, but no significant difference was shown between risperidone and haloperidol. The improvement related to olanzapine was apparent after 6 weeks and enhanced after 30 and 54 weeks of treatment. Exploratory within-group analyses of the 6 cognitive domains after a conservative Bonferroni adjustment revealed a significant improvement with olanzapine only on the immediate recall domain, and similar analyses of the 17 individual tests revealed a significant improvement with olanzapine only on the Hooper Visual Organization Test. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that olanzapine has some superior cognitive benefits relative to haloperidol and risperidone. A larger sample replication study is necessary to confirm and generalize the observations of this study and begin evaluation of the implications of this change to cerebral function and quality of life for people with schizophrenia.

Controlled, double-blind investigation of the clozapine discontinuation symptoms with conversion to either olanzapine or placebo. The Collaborative Crossover Study Group.

The abrupt appearance of clozapine discontinuation symptoms represents a particularly unique situation that has not been characterized in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. A randomized, double-blind comparison of placebo (N = 53) and olanzapine 10 mg (N = 53) for 3 to 5 days following the abrupt discontinuation of clozapine (< 300 mg/day) was carried out. Subjects were assessed with the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), the Clinical Global Impression Scale of Severity, the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and the Mini-Mental State Evaluation. Subsequently both groups received open-label olanzapine (10-25 mg/day) for an additional 9 weeks. Statistically significantly more placebo-treated (24.5%) than olanzapine-treated (7.5%) patients experienced clozapine discontinuation symptoms (p = 0.017). Core symptoms included delusions, hallucinations, hostility, and paranoid reaction and translated into a significantly higher worsening from baseline on the PANSS total, PANSS General Psychopathology subscale, and MADRS among subjects randomly assigned to receive placebo. After open-label treatment with olanzapine for 9 weeks, both groups were clinically stable, suggesting that the discontinuation symptoms were transient. However, subjects who had been randomly assigned to the 3- to 5-day placebo discontinuation segment achieved somewhat less global clinical improvement. Although a pharmacologic interpretation is speculative, evidence of a clozapine discontinuation syndrome was apparent. In most cases, the direct substitution of a pharmacologically similar agent (olanzapine) prevented the syndrome. Clozapine discontinuation or noncompliance should be considered in the differential assessment of an acutely emergent psychosis. The possibility that subjects who experience a clozapine discontinuation syndrome may take longer or are less likely to clinically restabilize warrants further investigation.