Scott W. Andersen

Double-blind comparison of olanzapine versus risperidone in the treatment of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders

Olanzapine and risperidone, both second-generation antipsychotic agents, represent two different pharmacologic strategies. Although they share some in vitro properties, they differ by virtue of their chemical structure, spectrum of receptor binding affinities, animal neuropharmacology, pharmacokinetics, and in vivo neuroimaging profile. Based on such differences, it was hypothesized that the two compounds would show distinct safety and/or efficacy characteristics. To test this hypothesis, an international, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, 28-week prospective study was conducted with 339 patients who met DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, or schizoaffective disorder. Results of the study indicated that both olanzapine and risperidone were safe and effective in the management of psychotic symptoms. However, olanzapine demonstrated significantly greater efficacy in negative symptoms (Scale for Assessment of Negative Symptoms summary score), as well as overall response rate (> or = 40% decrease in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score). Furthermore, a statistically significantly greater proportion of the olanzapine-treated than risperidone-treated patients maintained their response at 28 weeks based on Kaplan-Meier survival curves. The incidence of extrapyramidal side effects, hyperprolactinemia, and sexual dysfunction was statistically significantly lower in olanzapine-treated than risperidone-treated patients. In addition, statistically significantly fewer adverse events were reported by olanzapine-treated patients than by their risperidone-treated counterparts. Thus, the differential preclinical profiles of these two drugs were also evident in a controlled, clinical investigation. Olanzapine seemed to have a risk-versus-benefit advantage.

A double-blind, randomized study of olanzapine and olanzapine/fluoxetine combination for major depression with psychotic features

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of olanzapine (OLZ) monotherapy and an olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC) with placebo (PLA) for unipolar major depression with psychotic features. Under a single protocol, two 8-week, double-blind trials were conducted at 27 sites. Patients (n = 124 trial 1, n = 125 trial 2) were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment groups: OLZ (5 to 20 mg/d), PLA, or OFC (olanzapine 5 to 20 mg/d + fluoxetine 20 to 80 mg/d). The primary outcome measure was the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total score. For trial 1, endpoint improvement for the OLZ group (−14.9) was not significantly different from the PLA or OFC groups. The OFC group had significantly greater endpoint improvement (−20.9) than the PLA group (−10.4, P = 0.001); this significant difference was present within 7 days of therapy and maintained at every subsequent visit. The OFC group also had significantly higher response rate (63.6%) than the PLA (28.0%, P = 0.004) or OLZ (34.9%, P = 0.027) groups. For trial 2, there were no significant differences among treatment groups on the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total scores or response rates. The combination exhibited a comparable safety profile with OLZ monotherapy and no significant increases in extrapyramidal symptoms compared with placebo. Patients with major depression with psychotic features treated with OLZ monotherapy did not demonstrate significant depressive symptom improvement compared with placebo in either trial; however, an olanzapine/fluoxetine combination was associated with significant improvement compared with placebo in one trial and was well tolerated.

The course of depressive symptoms in predicting relapse in schizophrenia: a double-blind, randomized comparison of olanzapine and risperidone

BACKGROUND Depressive symptoms are common during the course of schizophrenia and may carry prognostic relevance. METHODS From a 28-week prospective, double-blind, randomized study of olanzapine and risperidone, a post hoc evaluation of changes on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) depression cluster (PDC) and the subsequent risk of relapse were analyzed by logistic regression. RESULTS Olanzapine was associated with a significantly higher categorical rate of improvement on the PANSS depression cluster (> or = 7 points) (p < .05). Although the baseline severity of depressive symptoms was not a significant predictor of relapse, the degree of acute (8-week) mood improvement on the PANSS depression cluster (but neither negative or positive symptom changes) was related to the probability of a subsequent psychotic relapse. Acute mood improvement with olanzapine was inversely related to a nonsignificantly lower risk of relapse. However, an opposite and significant relationship was observed among risperidone-treated subjects. Risperidone-treated subjects with a greater degree of acute mood change were both 3.58 times more likely to relapse than their risperidone counterparts who had experienced less mood improvement (p = .008) and 8.55 times more likely than olanzapine-treated subjects who had had similar mood improvements (p = .001). CONCLUSIONS These data suggest the underlying pharmacologic differences between the two drugs may bestow different rates of longer-term mood stabilization and relapse prevention. In a second series of analyses, worsening on the PANSS depression cluster in the 4 weeks or less preceding a clinical relapse was a significant prodromal predictor of relapse among all subjects. As a whole, subjects with a worsening on the PDC demonstrated a 1.77 times higher risk of a relapse during the subsequent 4 weeks (p = .001). Among this mood-worsening stratum, risperidone-treated patients were 3.51 times more likely to relapse in those next 4 weeks (p = .005) than their olanzapine counterparts. Future comparative drug studies in this area will further contribute to our understanding of the pathophysiology of mood change and its relationship to psychosis, including clinical relapse and how newer agents may differ in their respective delivery of long-term treatment outcomes.

Olanzapine vs risperidone in the management of schizophrenia: a randomized double-blind trial in Australia and New Zealand

Improved drug therapy for schizophrenia may represent the best strategy for reducing the costs of schizophrenia and the recurrent chronic course of the disease. Olanzapine and risperidone are atypical antipsychotic agents developed to meet this need. We report a multicenter, double-blind, parallel, 30-week study designed to compare the efficacy, safety, and associated resource use for olanzapine and risperidone in Australia and New Zealand. The study sample consisted of 65 patients who met DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or schizophreniform disorder. Olanzapine-treated patients showed a significantly greater reduction in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) total, and PANSS General Psychopathology scores at endpoint compared to the risperidone-treated patients. Response rates through 30 weeks showed a significantly greater proportion of olanzapine-treated patients had achieved a 20% or greater improvement in their PANSS total score compared to risperidone-treated patients. Olanzapine and risperidone were equivalent in their improvement of PANSS positive and negative scores and Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness scale (CGI-S) at endpoint. Using generic and disease-specific measures of quality of life, olanzapine-treated patients showed significant within-group improvement in most measures, and significant differences were observed in favor of olanzapine over risperidone in Quality of Life Scale (QLS) Intrapsychic Foundation and Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36-item instrument (SF-36) Role Functioning Limitations-Emotional subscale scores. Despite the relatively small sample size, our study suggests that olanzapine has a superior risk:benefit profile compared to risperidone.

Pomaglumetad methionil: no significant difference as an adjunctive treatment for patients with prominent negative symptoms of schizophrenia compared to placebo.

This study tested whether treatment with pomaglumetad methionil (LY2140023 monohydrate), a metabotropic glutamate receptor 2/3 agonist compared with placebo (PBO), when added to a fixed-dose second-generation antipsychotic (SGA) demonstrated significantly greater reduction of negative symptoms, as assessed by the 16-item Negative Symptom Assessment scale (NSA-16), in patients with schizophrenia. This parallel-group, 16-week study enrolled adults with schizophrenia who were receiving standard of care (SOC) therapy, which included ≥3months treatment with one of four SGAs: aripiprazole, olanzapine, risperidone, or quetiapine. Patients received either 20mg of twice daily LY2140023 monohydrate (LY2140023) or concurrent PBO SGA. The primary efficacy measure was change from baseline to final visit in NSA-16 total score. Secondary measures included additional measures of efficacy, cognition, and assessments of safety. Of 352 patients screened, 167 were randomly assigned to treatment, and 110 patients completed the study. Patients treated with LY2140023 and SOC failed to demonstrate a statistically significant improvement over patients treated with PBO and SOC on NSA-16 total score at endpoint or at any point during the study (all p>0.131). Changes in secondary efficacy measures were not significantly different between groups at endpoint. With the exception of vomiting which was greater in the LY2140023 group, there were no statistically significant differences in safety and tolerability measures. This study found no benefit of adjunctive LY2140023 versus PBO for negative symptoms in patients with schizophrenia receiving treatment with SOC. LY2140023 was generally well-tolerated in these patients.

Olanzapine versus Risperidone: A Prospective Comparison of Clinical and Economic Outcomes in Schizophrenia

AbstractObjective: To compare the clinical and economic outcomes associatedwith olanzapine and risperidone treatment for schizophrenia. Design and setting: An international, multicentre, double-blind, prospective study. To facilitate economic comparisons, our sample was restricted to patients enrolled in US sites. 150 patients with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV) diagnosis of schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or schizophreniform disorder were randomised to therapy with either olanzapine 10 to 20 mg/day (n = 75) or risperidone 4 to 12 mg/day (n = 75) for a maximum of 28 weeks. In addition to tolerability and efficacy assessments, use of health services was assessed at baseline and prospectively, at 8-week intervals and at study completion. Clinically important response, defined as a 40% improvement in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score, maintenance of response and rates of treatment-emergent extrapyramidal symptoms were compared between groups. Direct medical costs were estimated by assigning standardised prices to resource units. Median total, inpatient/outpatient service and medication acquisition costs were compared between treatment groups. Main outcome measures and results: The mean modal dosages for the olanzapine and risperidone treatment groups were 17.7 ± 3.4 mg/day and 7.9 ± 3.2 mg/day, respectively. Olanzapine-treated patients were more likely to maintain response compared with risperidone-treated patients (p = 0.048). In addition, a smaller proportion of olanzapine-treated patients required anticholinergic therapy compared with risperidone-treated patients (25.3 vs 45.3%; p = 0.016). Total per patient medical costs over the study interval were

Sex differences in clinical response to olanzapine compared with haloperidol

US2843 (1997 values) [36%] lower in the olanzapine treatment group than in the risperidone treatment group (p = 0.342).Medication costs were significantly higher for olanzapine-treated patients (

Delayed-start analysis: Mild Alzheimer's disease patients in solanezumab trials, 3.5 years

US2513 vs

A Novel Approach to Delayed-Start Analyses for Demonstrating Disease-Modifying Effects in Alzheimer’s Disease

US1581; p < 0.001), but this difference was offset by a reduction of

Long-Term Safety and Tolerability of Open-Label Olanzapine Long-Acting Injection in the Treatment of Schizophrenia: 190-Week Interim Results

US3774 (52%) in inpatient/outpatient service costs for olanzapine-treated patients in comparison with risperidone-treated patients (