T.M. Sanger

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.

Assessing and interpreting treatment effects in longitudinal clinical trials with missing data

Treatment effects are often evaluated by comparing change over time in outcome measures; however, valid analyses of longitudinal data can be problematic, particularly if some data are missing. For decades, the last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach has been a common method of handling missing data. Considerable advances in statistical methodology and our ability to implement those methods have been made in recent years. Thus, it is appropriate to reconsider analytic approaches for longitudinal data. This review examines the following from a clinical perspective: 1) the characteristics of missing data that influence analytic choices; 2) the attributes of common methods of handling missing data; and 3) the use of the data characteristics and the attributes of the various methods, along with empirical evidence, to develop a robust approach for the analysis and interpretation of data from longitudinal clinical trials. We propose that, in many settings, the primary efficacy analysis should use a repeated measures, likelihood-based, mixed-effects modeling approach, with LOCF used as a secondary, composite measure of efficacy, safety, and tolerability. We illustrate how repeated-measures analyses can be used to enhance decision-making, and we review the caveats that remain regarding the use of LOCF as a composite measure.

Predictors of antipsychotic medication adherence in patients recovering from a first psychotic episode.

BACKGROUND Many patients recovering from a first psychotic episode will discontinue medication against medical advice, even before a 1-year treatment course is completed. Factors associated with treatment adherence in patients with chronic schizophrenia include beliefs about severity of illness and need for treatment, treatment with typical versus atypical antipsychotic and medication side effects. METHOD In this 2-year prospective study of 254 patients recovering from a first episode of schizophrenia, schizophreniform, or schizoaffective disorder we examined the relationship between antipsychotic medication non-adherence and patient beliefs about: need for treatment, antipsychotic medication benefits, and negative aspects of antipsychotic medication treatment. We also examined the relationship between medication non-adherence and treatment with either haloperidol or olanzapine, and objective measures of symptom response and side effects. RESULTS The likelihood of becoming medication non-adherent for 1 week or longer was greater in subjects whose belief in need for treatment was less (HR=1.75, 95% CI 1.16, 2.65, p=0.0077) or who believed medications were of low benefit (HR=2.88, 95 CI 1.79-4.65, p<0.0001). Subjects randomized to haloperidol were more likely to become medication non-adherent for >or=1 week than subjects randomized to olanzapine (HR-1.51, 95% CI 1.01, 2.27, p=0.045). CONCLUSION Beliefs about need for treatment and the benefits of antipsychotic medication may be intervention targets to improve likelihood of long-term medication adherence in patients recovering from a first episode of schizophrenia, schizoaffective, or schizophreniform disorder.

Olanzapine plasma concentrations and clinical response : Acute phase results of the North American Olanzapine Trial

Olanzapine is an atypical antipsychotic that is effective in the treatment of schizophrenia. Olanzapine plasma concentrations ≥ 9.3 ng/mL (24 hours postdose) have been identified as a predictor of clinical response in acutely ill patients with schizophrenia. The authors report a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis of 12-hour olanzapine concentrations and treatment response from the North American Double-Blind Olanzapine Trial. After a 4- to 7-day placebo lead-in, patients meeting DSM-III-R criteria for schizophrenia were randomly assigned to receive olanzapine, haloperidol, or placebo. Patients who were randomly assigned to receive olanzapine were given daily doses ranging from 2.5 to 17.5 mg/day for up to 6 weeks. Blood samples for the determination of olanzapine plasma concentrations were obtained between 10 and 16 hours (11.7 ± 1.7 hours) after the last dose was administered. Therapeutic response data and olanzapine concentrations used for analysis were obtained from the endpoint visit for each patient if the patient had been receiving a fixed olanzapine dose for at least the last 2 weeks of the study. Plasma concentrations from previous visits were used if endpoint concentrations were invalid. Response was defined as a ≥ 20% reduction in Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) scores and a Clinical Global Impression (CGI) Severity scale score of ≤ 3 or a final BPRS score of ≤ 35. The final ROC analysis included data from 84 patients and suggested an olanzapine concentration ≥ 2 3.2 ng/mL to be a predictor of therapeutic response. Fifty-two percent of patients with 12-hour olanzapine concentrations ≥ 23.2 ng/mL responded, whereas only 25% of patients with concentrations <23.2 ng/mL responded. Furthermore, an olanzapine concentration ≥ 23.2 ng/mL was a predictor of response in the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (≥ 20% decrease and endpoint CGI ≤ 3). Olanzapine concentrations were found to be a function of olanzapine dose (in milligrams per day) and gender such that prospective olanzapine dosing is feasible. A 12-hour olanzapine plasma concentration of >23.2 ng/mL was a predictor of therapeutic response in acutely ill patients with schizophrenia. Males required a higher olanzapine dose to reach this threshold concentration than their female counterparts.

A Double-Blind, Controlled Comparison of the Novel Antipsychotic Olanzapine versus Haloperidol or Placebo on Anxious and Depressive Symptoms Accompanying Schizophrenia

BACKGROUND Depressive symptoms are a common feature of schizophrenia and may represent a core part of the illness. Where present, it has been associated with greater overall morbidity and mortality. Monotherapy with conventional dopamine antagonists may either worsen or bestow a limited therapeutic benefit. Accordingly the use of adjunctive thymoleptics has been explored. In contrast, olanzapine (OLZ), an atypical antipsychotic agent, offers a distinctive and pleotropic pharmacology suggestive of a broader efficacy profile than conventional neuroleptic agents. METHODS In a 6-week placebo- and haloperidol (HAL)-controlled trial with 335 randomized subjects with chronic schizophrenia in an acute exacerbation, three fixed dose ranges of OLZ (5, 10, or 15 +/- 2.5 mg) were evaluated versus HAL (10-20 mg) or placebo. RESULTS Baseline to endpoint change in the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale including the anxiety-depression cluster (items 1, 2, 5, 9) was analyzed. Two dose ranges of OLZ (10 +/- 2.5, 15 +/- 2.5) were superior to placebo (p < 05) in improving mood status, whereas HAL was not. CONCLUSION Contributions from a more selective mesolimbic dopaminergic profile, D1 or D4 activity, the release of dopamine/norepinephrine in the prefrontal cortex, and/or serotonin 5-HT2A,C antagonism may explain the differential benefit seen with OLZ in the treatment of comorbid anxious and depressive symptoms in schizophrenia.

Long-Term Neurocognitive Effects of Olanzapine or Low-Dose Haloperidol in First-Episode Psychosis

BACKGROUND Neurocognitive deficits are severe in first-episode psychosis. METHODS Patients (N = 263) with first-episode psychosis (schizophrenia, schizoaffective, or schizophreniform disorders) were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with olanzapine (mean 11.30 mg/day) or haloperidol (mean 4.87 mg/day) for 104 weeks. A neurocognitive battery was administered at baseline (n = 246) and 12 (n = 167), 24 (n = 126), 52 (n = 89), and 104 (n = 46) weeks during treatment. Weighted principal component and unweighted composite scores were derived from individual tests. RESULTS Both treatment groups demonstrated significant improvement on both composite scores. On the basis of the weighted composite score, olanzapine had greater improvement than haloperidol only at 12 (p = .014) and 24 (p = .029) weeks. For the unweighted composite, olanzapine had significantly better improvement compared with haloperidol only at week 12 (p = .044). At week 12 only, olanzapine improved performance on the Digit Symbol and Continuous Performance Test significantly more than haloperidol. CONCLUSIONS Both antipsychotic agents appeared to improve neurocognitive functioning among first-episode psychosis patients with schizophrenia. A significantly greater benefit in terms of neurocognitive improvement was found with olanzapine than with haloperidol at weeks 12 and 24.

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.

Olanzapine Plasma Concentrations and Clinical Response in Acutely Ill Schizophrenic Patients

Olanzapine is an atypical antipsychotic effective in the treatment of schizophrenic patients. After a 2- to 9-day placebo lead-in, 79 inpatients with schizophrenia according to DSM-III-R criteria were placed on an olanzapine dosage of 10 mg/day or 1 mg/day for up to 6 weeks. Blood samples were obtained weekly during this period. Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses of Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale rating scale data suggested a minimum effective therapeutic concentration of 9 ng/mL. Using an intent-to treat analysis, 45% of the patients with olanzapine plasma concentrations > or = 9.3 ng/mL responded (> or = 20% decrease in BPRS), whereas only 13% of the patients with concentrations < 9.3 ng/mL responded. Use of olanzapine plasma concentrations of > 9 ng/mL as a predictor for treatment response in acutely ill schizophrenic patients is practicable because this therapeutic marker significantly increases the likelihood of a patient responding to olanzapine.

Olanzapine in the acute treatment of bipolar I disorder with a history of rapid cycling

BACKGROUND A substantial proportion of patients with bipolar disorder are characterized by a rapidly cycling course and are particularly resistant to conventional treatment. METHODS This secondary analysis, defined a priori, was conducted on a larger data set from patients with bipolar I disorder to determine the efficacy of a 3-week treatment with the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine (5-20 mg/day, n=19) versus placebo (n=26) in patients with >or=4 episodes in the preceding year. RESULTS Significantly fewer placebo patients completed treatment (34.6 vs. 73.7%, P=0.016), and more than half discontinued due to lack of efficacy (53.8 vs. 21.1%, P=0.035). Olanzapine reduced Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total scores significantly more than placebo (-13.9 vs. -4.1, P=0.011). Clinical responses, defined as >or=50% improvement in YMRS, were achieved in 58% of olanzapine patients, compared with 28% of placebo patients (P=0.066). Extrapyramidal symptoms were not significantly changed in either group. Somnolence was the most common adverse event in both groups (olanzapine: 52.6%, placebo: 23.1%; P=0.060). No event occurred significantly more frequently with olanzapine than with placebo. No patients discontinued due to an adverse event. LIMITATIONS The duration of this study was limited to 3 weeks, precluding conclusions about long-term efficacy of olanzapine. Moreover, a sizeable placebo effect was obtained, possibly masking optimal therapeutic effect. Despite these limitations, treatment differences in efficacy were highly significant. CONCLUSIONS These results indicate that olanzapine was effective in reducing symptoms of mania and well tolerated in patients with bipolar I disorder with a rapid-cycling course.