S.H. Hamilton

Olanzapine versus placebo and haloperidol: acute phase results of the North American double-blind olanzapine trial.

Olanzapine is a potential new “atypical” antipsychotic agent. The double-blind acute phase of this study compared three dosage ranges of olanzapine (5 ± 2.5 mg/day [Olz-L], 10 ± 2.5 mg/day [Olz-M], 15 ± 2.5 mg/day [Olz-H]) to a dosage range of haloperidol (15 ± 5 mg/day [Hal]) and to placebo in the treatment of 335 patients who met the DSM-III-R criteria for schizophrenia. In overall symptomatology improvement (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale [BPRS]-total), Olz-M, Olz-H, and Hal were significantly superior to placebo. In positive symptom improvement (BPRS-positive), Olz-M, Olz-H, and Hal were comparable and significantly superior to placebo. In negative symptom improvement (Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms [SANS]-composite), Olz-L and Olz-H were significantly superior to placebo and Olz-H was also significantly superior to Hal. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events included somnolence, agitation, asthenia, and nervousness. No acute dystonia was observed with olanzapine. Treatment-emergent parkinsonism occurred with Olz-H at approximately one-third the rate of Hal, and akathisia occurred with Olz-H at approximately one-half the rate of Hal. Prolactin elevations associated with olanzapine were not significantly greater than those observed with placebo and were also significantly less than those seen with haloperidol.

Olanzapine versus placebo : results of a double-blind, fixed-dose olanzapine trial

Olanzapine is a potential new “atypical” antipsychotic agent. This double-blind, acute phase study compared two doses of olanzapine [1 mg/day (Olz1.0); 10 mg/day (Olz10.0)] with placebo in the treatment of 152 patients who met the DSM-III-R criteria for schizophrenia and had a Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS)-total score (items scored 0–6) ≥24. In overall symptomatology improvement [BPRS-total score and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS)-total score], Olz10.0 was statistically significantly superior to placebo. In positive symptom improvement (PANSS-positive score, BPRS-positive score), Olz10.0 was statistically significantly superior to placebo. In negative symptom improvement (PANSS-negative score), Olz10.0 was statistically superior to placebo. Olz 1.0 was clinically comparable to placebo in all efficacy comparisons. The only adverse event to show an overall statistically significant incidence difference was anorexia (reported for 10% of placebo-treated and 0% of Olz10.0-treated patients). The Olz10.0-treated patients improved over baseline with respect to parkinsonian and akathisia symptoms, and these changes were comparable with those observed with placebo. There were no dystonias associated with Olz10.0 treatment. At endpoint, the incidence of patients with elevated prolactin values did not differ statistically significantly between placebo-treated and Olz10.0-treated patients. Olanzapine appears to be not only safe and effective, but a promising atypical antipsychotic candidate.

OLANZAPINE VERSUS HALOPERIDOL : ACUTE PHASE RESULTS OF THE INTERNATIONAL DOUBLE-BLIND OLANZAPINE TRIAL

A 6-week acute phase of an international 1-year double-blind study was conducted comparing three dose ranges of olanzapine (5 +/- 2.5 mg/day, 10 +/- 2.5 mg/day, and 15 +/- 2.5 mg/day) with a fixed dose of olanzapine (1.0 mg/day) and with a dose range of haloperidol (15 +/- 5 mg/day) in the treatment of 431 patients with schizophrenia. The purpose was to determine whether olanzapine demonstrated a dose-related ability to decrease overall psychopathology with minimal associated extrapyramidal symptoms in patients with schizophrenia. The high-dose olanzapine group showed statistically significantly greater improvement in overall psychopathology based on mean change in the CGI Severity score and statistically significantly greater improvement in positive psychotic symptoms based on mean change in both the BPRS positive score and the PANSS positive score compared with the 1.0-mg/day olanzapine group. Analyses indicated that an increasing dose-response curve was observed across the range of all olanzapine dose groups. Acute extrapyramidal syndromes were reported less frequently among all olanzapine groups compared with the haloperidol group. Endpoint mean change on both the Simpson-Angus Scale and the Barnes Akathisia Scale reflected improvement for all olanzapine treatment groups compared with worsening for the haloperidol group. Olanzapine was associated with weight gain but did not appear to have any clinically meaningful effect on vital signs. Although olanzapine was associated with some increase in prolactin concentrations, increases were transient, occurred less often, and were of lesser magnitude than those observed with haloperidol.

Olanzapine versus haloperidol in the treatment of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders: Quality of life and clinical outcomes of a randomized clinical trial

Background: Little information is available on the impact of the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine on quality of life (QOL). A 6-week, double-blind randomized multicenter trial, with a long-term extension, was conducted to evaluate the clinical efficacy and QOL of olanzapine and haloperidol in treating schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders. Methods: A total of 828 outpatients provided QOL data. Study patients were aged greater than 18 years with a DSM-III-R diagnosis of schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, or schizoaffective disorder and baseline BPRS (items scored on 0–6 scale) total scores, ≥18 were randomized to 6 weeks of treatment with olanzapine 5 to 20u2009mg/day or haloperidol 5 to 20u2009mg/day. Patients entered a 46-week double-blind extension if they demonstrated minimal clinical response and were tolerant to study medication. The Quality of Life Scale (QLS) and SF-36 Health Survey were used to evaluate QOL. Results: During the 6-week acute phase, olanzapine treatment significantly improved BPRS total (p = 0.004), PANSS total scores (p = 0.043), QLS total (p = 0.005), intrapsychic foundations (p < 0.001) and interpersonal relations scores (p = 0.036), and SF-36 mental component summary scores (p < 0.001) compared with haloperidol. During the extension phase, olanzapine treatment significantly improved PANSS negative scores (p = 0.035) and improved QLS total (p = 0.001), intrapsychic foundations (p < 0.001), and instrumental role category scores (p = 0.015) versus haloperidol treatment. Significantly more haloperidol patients discontinued treatment due to adverse events during the acute and extension phases (p = 0.041 and p = 0.014, respectively). Changes in QLS total and MCS scores were associated with changes in clinical symptoms, depression scores and extrapyramidal symptoms. Conclusions: Olanzapine was more effective than haloperidol in reducing severity of psychopathology and in improving QOL in patients with schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders. The QOL benefits of olanzapine, although modest, may be important for long-term treatment.

Olanzapine versus placebo and haloperidol: quality of life and efficacy results of the North American double-blind trial.

This double-blind study evaluated the impact of treatment with olanzapine compared with haloperidol, and placebo on improvements in symptomatology and quality of life in patients with a DSM-III-R diagnosis of schizophrenia. A total of 335 patients was randomized to five treatment groups; olanzapine 5 ± 2.5 mg/day, olanzapine 10 ± 2.5 mg/day, olanzapine 15 ± 2.5 mg/day, haloperidol 15 ± 5 mg/day, and placebo. Patients responding to treatment during the 6-week acute phase were eligible to enter a 46-week extension. Efficacy measures included the brief psychiatric rating scale total, scale for assessment of negative symptoms summary, and clinical global impressions severity scores. Quality of life was evaluated using the quality of life scale. Data analyzed after 24 weeks of therapy showed that olanzapine was significantly superior to placebo in reducing clinical severity and significantly superior to haloperidol in reducing negative symptoms in patients responding to acute treatment. Furthermore, improvement in quality of life was observed in olanzapine-treated responders.

Comparative efficacy of olanzapine and haloperidol for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia

BACKGROUNDnThere is relatively little information regarding the efficacy of newer atypical antipsychotic drugs for patients with schizophrenia who are treatment-resistant to neuroleptic agents. Several lines of evidence suggest that a clinical trial of olanzapine in this population is warranted.nnnMETHODSnA subpopulation of patients (n = 526) meeting treatment-resistant criteria selected from a large, prospective, double-blind, 6-week study assessing the efficacy and safety of olanzapine and haloperidol were examined. Both last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) and completers (observed cases) analyses were conducted.nnnRESULTSnOlanzapine demonstrated significantly greater mean improvement from baseline in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) negative symptoms, comorbid depressive symptoms assessed by the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, akathisia as measured by Barnes Akathisia Scale, and extrapyramidal symptoms as measured by Simpson-Angus Extrapyramidal Rating Scale with both LOCF and completers analyses. In addition, olanzapine was significantly superior to haloperidol for Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale total (p = .006), PANSS total (p = .005), and PANSS positive symptoms (p = .017) in completers of the 6-week study. Significantly greater response rates were observed in olanzapine-treated (47%) than haloperidol-treated (35%) patients in the LOCF analysis (p = .008), but significance was not reached in the completers analysis (p = .093). Mean doses (+/- SD) of olanzapine and haloperidol were 11.1 +/- 3.4 mg/day and 10.0 +/- 3.6 mg/day, respectively.nnnCONCLUSIONSnOlanzapine was superior to haloperidol for key symptom domains and parkinsonian side effects. Implications of these data for the therapeutics of this severely ill subgroup are discussed.

Clinical and economic outcomes of olanzapine compared with haloperidol for schizophrenia. Results from a randomised clinical trial.

AbstractObjective: The purpose of this study was to compare, from the payor perspective, the clinical and economic outcomes of olanzapine to those of haloperidol for the treatment of schizophrenia.n Design and setting: Clinical, quality-of-life and resource utilisation data were prospectively collected for US-residing patients with schizophrenia who were participating in a multicentre, randomised, double-blind clinical trial comparing olanzapine and haloperidol. Direct medical costs were estimated by assigning standardised prices (1995 values) to the resource utilisation data.n Patients and participants: 817 patients with schizophrenia who had a baseline Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale score (BPRS) ≥18 (items scored 0 to 6) and/or were no longer tolerating current antipsychotic therapy.n Interventions: Olanzapine 5 to 20 mg/day (n = 551) or haloperidol 5 to 20 mg/day (n = 266) for 6 weeks. Patients showing a predefined level of clinical response entered a 46-week maintenance phase.n Main outcome measures and results: After acute treatment, BPRS-based clinical improvements were seen in 38 and 27% of olanzapine and haloperidol patients, respectively (p = 0.002). Clinically important improvements on the Quality of Life Scale were achieved during acute treatment in 33% of olanzapine recipients and 25% of haloperidol recipients (p = 0.094). Olanzapine treatment in the acute phase led to significantly lower inpatient (

Functional outcomes in schizophrenia: a comparison of olanzapine and haloperidol in a European sample.

US5125 vs

101. Relapse prevention with olanzapine

US5795, p = 0.038) and outpatient (

Efficacy and safety of long-term fluoxetine treatment of obesity--maximizing success.

US663 vs