Cerebral D2 and 5-HT2 receptor occupancy in Schizophrenic patients treated with olanzapine or clozapine. Childhood-onset schizophrenia: A double-blind, randomized clozapine-olanzapine comparison. A double-blind comparative study of clozapine and risperidone in the management of severe chronic schizophrenia. Randomized double blind comparison of olanzapine vs. clozapine on subjective well-being and clinical outcome in patients with schizophrenia. Risperidone versus clozapine in the treatment of schizophrenic patients with acute symptoms: a double blind, randomized trial. The effects of clozapine and risperidone on spatial working memory in schizophrenia. Atypical antipsychotic agents in the treatment of violent patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. Risperidone versus clozapine in treatment-resistant schizophrenia: a randomized pilot study. The efficacy of high-dose olanzapine versus clozapine in treatment-resistant schizophrenia: a double-blind crossover study. Clozapine and risperidone in chronic schizophrenia: effects on symptoms, parkinsonian side effects, and neuroendocrine response. Clozapine and "high-dose" olanzapine in refractory early-onset schizophrenia: a 12-week randomized and double-blind comparison. Improvement of cognitive function in schizophrenic patients receiving clozapine or zotepine: results from a double-blind study. Risperidone versus clozapine in treatment-resistant chronic schizophrenia: a randomized double-blind study. The Risperidone Study Group. Clozapine, olanzapine, risperidone, and haloperidol in the treatment of patients with chronic schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. Serum leptin and triglyceride levels in patients on treatment with atypical antipsychotics. Double-blind comparison of olanzapine versus clozapine in schizophrenic patients clinically eligible for treatment with clozapine.
We report the results of a double-blind, randomized prospective trial on D2 and 5-HT2 receptor occupancy and the clinical effects of olanzapine versus clozapine in a sample of neuroleptic-refractory schizophrenic patients. Receptor occupancy was evaluated in different cortical areas and in basal ganglia using [18F] fluoro-ethyl-spiperone ([18F] FESP) and positron emission tomography (PET). A total of 15 neuroleptic-free patients completed the study undergoing a baseline and a post-treatment PET scan (olanzapine, nine patients, one female; clozapine, six patients, three female) 8 weeks after starting treatment. PET data were analysed both by regions of interest and on a voxel-by-voxel basis using Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM96). Olanzapine and clozapine induced a similar and significant inhibition of [18F] FESP binding index in the cortex. In the basal ganglia, receptor occupancy was significantly higher with olanzapine than with clozapine (p=0.0018). By contrast, no differences in receptor occupancy were detected at the level of the pituitary gland. Clinical outcomes, in particular a full extra pyramidal tolerability, were similar. In this sample of neuroleptic-refractory schizophrenic patients, olanzapine and clozapine showed a different pattern of occupancy of D2-like receptor despite a common lack of extrapyramidal side-effects. Childhood-onset schizophrenia is a rare but severe form of the disorder that is frequently treatment resistant. The psychiatrist has a limited evidence base to guide treatment, particularly as there are no trials in children comparing atypical antipsychotics, the mainstay of current treatment.
                To compare the efficacy and safety of olanzapine and clozapine, hypothesizing that clozapine would be more efficacious.
                Double-blind randomized 8-week controlled trial, with a 2-year open-label follow-up.
                National Institute of Mental Health study, January 1998 to June 2005. Patients underwent reassessment 2 years after discharge.
                Children and adolescents recruited nationally, aged 7 to 16 years, meeting unmodified DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia, and resistant to treatment with at least 2 antipsychotics.
                After drug washout and a 1- to 3-week antipsychotic-free period, patients were randomized to treatment with clozapine (n = 12) or olanzapine (n = 13).
                The Clinical Global Impression Severity of Symptoms Scale and Schedule for the Assessment of Negative/Positive Symptoms.
                Clozapine was associated with a significant reduction in all outcome measures, whereas olanzapine showed a less consistent profile of clinical improvement. While there were moderate to large differential treatment effects in favor of clozapine, these reached significance only in the alleviation of negative symptoms from an antipsychotic-free baseline (P = .04; effect size, 0.89). Clozapine was associated with more overall adverse events. At 2-year follow-up, 15 patients were receiving clozapine with evidence of sustained clinical improvement, but additional adverse events emerged, including lipid anomalies (n = 6) and seizures (n = 1).
                While not demonstrating definitively the superiority of clozapine compared with olanzapine in treatment-refractory childhood-onset schizophrenia, the study suggests that clozapine has a more favorable profile of clinical response, which is balanced against more associated adverse events. This prospective, double-blind, multicenter, parallel-group study compared the efficacy and safety of therapeutic doses of clozapine and risperidone in patients with severe chronic schizophrenia and poor previous treatment response.
                Male or female patients aged 18-65 years who met DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia and study requirements for poor previous treatment response (N=273) were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with either clozapine or risperidone administered over 12 weeks in increasing increments. The primary efficacy measures were the magnitude of improvement in Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scores. Adverse events were recorded throughout the study.
                The magnitude of improvement in mean BPRS and CGI scores from baseline to end of the study was significantly greater in the clozapine group than in the risperidone group. Statistically significant differences in favor of clozapine were also seen for most of the secondary efficacy measures (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, Calgary Depression Scale, Psychotic Depression Scale, and Psychotic Anxiety Scale). The adverse event profile was similar for both treatment groups, with a lower risk of extrapyramidal symptoms in the clozapine group.
                Clozapine showed superior efficacy over risperidone in this patient population. Both treatments were equally well tolerated as demonstrated through their adverse event profiles, although as expected clozapine was associated with a lower risk of extrapyramidal symptoms than risperidone. This randomized double-blind multicenter trial evaluated the effects of olanzapine vs. clozapine on subjective well-being, quality of life (QOL) and clinical outcome.
                The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority of olanzapine, mean dosage 16.2 +/- 4.8 (5-25 mg/day) vs. clozapine, mean dosage 209 +/- 91 (100-400 mg/day) regarding improvement on the 'Subjective Well-Being under Neuroleptic Treatment' (SWN) Scale after 26 treatment weeks in 114 patients with schizophrenia. Secondary outcome parameters included: Munich QOL Dimension List (MLDL), Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS), Clinical Global Impression (CGI).
                SWN scores improved significantly in both groups, olanzapine was non-inferior to clozapine (group difference 3.2 points in favor of olanzapine; 95% CI: 4.2;10.5). MLDL-satisfaction, PANSS and CGI-S improved similarly, olanzapine yielded a higher CGI Therapeutic Index. Individual SWN and PANSS changes correlated only moderately (r = -0.45).
                Olanzapine was non-inferior to clozapine. The lack of a marked correlation between PANSS and SWN improvements indicates that patients and psychiatrists perceive treatment differently. 1. In order to verify the hypothesis that risperidone is a useful therapeutic alternative to clozapine the authors carried out a randomized double blind trial in 59 patients with paranoid hallucinatory psychoses. 2. In a treatment lasting 28 days three groups of patients received either 4 mg risperidone (N = 20), 8 mg risperidone (N = 19), or 400 mg clozapine (N = 20) daily. 3. The tolerance of 4 mg risperidone was globally assessed as being better than that of 400 mg clozapine. Drop-outs under clozapine were mostly caused by side effects, whereas under risperidone they tended to occur for therapeutic inefficacy. 4. The antipsychotic effect was highly significant and clinically relevant under both risperidone and clozapine. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the effects of clozapine and risperidone on spatial working memory in patients with schizophrenia.
                Spatial working memory performance was evaluated at baseline and after 17 and 29 weeks in 97 patients with schizophrenia participating in a multisite trial.
                Compared with baseline performance while receiving conventional antipsychotic medication, risperidone improved, and clozapine worsened, spatial working memory performance.
                The differential effects of these medications on spatial working memory may be due to the anticholinergic effects of clozapine and prefrontal dopamine-enhancing effects of risperidone. Violent behavior of patients with schizophrenia prolongs hospital stay and interferes with their integration into the community. Finding appropriate treatment of violent behaviors is of primary importance.
                To compare the efficacy of 2 atypical antipsychotic agents, clozapine and olanzapine, with one another and with haloperidol in the treatment of physical assaults and other aggressive behaviors in physically assaultive patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder.
                Randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 12-week trial. Physically assaultive subjects with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder who were inpatients in state psychiatric facilities were randomly assigned to treatment with clozapine (n = 37), olanzapine (n = 37), or haloperidol (n = 36).
                Number and severity of physical assaults as measured by the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS) physical aggression score and the number and severity of all aggressive events as measured by the MOAS overall score. Psychiatric symptoms were assessed through the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS).
                Clozapine was superior to both olanzapine and haloperidol in reducing the number and severity of physical assaults as assessed by the MOAS physical aggression score and in reducing overall aggression as measured by the MOAS total score. Olanzapine was superior to haloperidol in reducing the number and severity of aggressive incidents on these 2 MOAS measures. There were no significant differences among the 3 medication groups in improvement of psychiatric symptoms as measured by the PANSS total score and the 3 PANSS subscales.
                Clozapine shows greater efficacy than olanzapine and olanzapine greater efficacy than haloperidol in reducing aggressive behavior. This antiaggressive effect appears to be separate from the antipsychotic and sedative action of these medications. 1. The atypical antipsychotic risperidone may constitute an alternative to clozapine, the current treatment of choice for refractory schizophrenia. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the effectiveness of risperidone in comparison to clozapine in everyday practice and to assess the feasibility of a pragmatic trial procedure. 2. Patients were randomly assigned to open-label clozapine or risperidone treatment for 10 weeks and treatment outcomes were assessed blindly. Twenty-one patients were recruited and nineteen entered the randomized phase. 3. Five of 10 participants allocated to clozapine and one of nine risperidone participants dropped out before study completion. Five clozapine patients and six risperidone patients achieved clinical improvement, defined as a 20% decrease in the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS) total score. No significant differences between the groups were detected in baseline or endpoint positive or negative symptoms, disease severity, or global or social functioning scores. Patients' opinion on the drugs did not differ between groups. 4. The findings of the intention-to-treat analysis of this study corroborates previous findings that risperidone may be equally effective as clozapine, and supports the feasibility and need of a multicenter randomized pragmatic trial with sufficient power to detect differences between treatments. nan Clozapine and risperidone were the first two "second-generation" antipsychotic drugs approved for schizophrenia. There is currently little information about their comparative efficacy from head-to-head clinical trials. The purpose of this study was to examine the comparative efficacy of clozapine and risperidone for positive and negative symptoms, depression, parkinsonian side effects, and indexes of neuroendocrine function in schizophrenic patients who met a priori criteria for partial response to traditional neuroleptic agents.
                After a baseline fluphenazine treatment period, 29 patients participated in a 6-week, double-blind, parallel-group comparison of the effects of these agents.
                Clozapine was superior to risperidone for positive symptoms and parkinsonian side effects, but there were no significant differences between the drugs on two measures of negative symptoms, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale total scores, and depression scores. The clozapine patients, but not the risperidone patients, demonstrated significant reductions from the fluphenazine baseline in positive symptoms, total symptoms, and depression. In addition, clozapine produced fewer effects on plasma prolactin than risperidone or fluphenazine. The mean daily doses during week 6 of the trial were 403.6 mg of clozapine and 5.9 mg of risperidone.
                The findings from this study indicate that these drugs have both important differences and similarities in their comparative efficacy in chronically ill, partially responsive patients with schizophrenia. Further research on second-generation antipsychotic drugs in this patient population that addresses key methodological issues, such as optimal dose and treatment duration, are needed. The present study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of clozapine versus "high-dose" olanzapine in treatment-refractory adolescents with schizophrenia.
                Children, ages 10-18 years, who met DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia and who were resistant or intolerant to at least two antipsychotic drugs were randomized to receive 12 weeks of double-blind flexibly dosed treatment with clozapine (n = 18) or "high-dose" olanzapine (up to 30 mg/day) (n = 21). The primary efficacy measure was response (improvement), defined as a decrease of 30% or more in total Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale score from baseline and a Clinical Global Impression Scale improvement rating of "1" (very much improved) or "2" (much improved).
                Significantly more clozapine-treated adolescents met response criteria (66%) compared with olanzapine-treated subjects (33%). Clozapine was superior to olanzapine in terms of reduction of the psychosis cluster scores and negative symptoms from baseline to end point. However, both treatments were associated with significant weight-gain and related metabolic abnormalities.
                This double-blind randomized comparison of two second-generation antipsychotic drugs for treatment-refractory adolescents with schizophrenia supports clozapine as the agent of choice. The development of interventions to limit weight gain and metabolic side effects are needed to enhance the risk-benefit profile for both study treatments. Clinical interest in the so-called atypical antipsychotics currently focuses on the possibility of improving the negative symptoms of schizophrenia and the cognitive dysfunction associated with the disease. While clozapine has been shown to be effective in this respect, no data are available on zotepine. We report on a double-blind randomized study designed to evaluate the impact of zotepine and clozapine on cognitive dysfunction in schizophrenia. Cognitive function was operationalized by a maze test in which patients traversed computer-displayed mazes of increasing complexity. Passage time, route, and motor errors were evaluated. 25 schizophrenic (DSM-IIIR) patients were included in each group. After washout, they were randomized on zotepine or clozapine and given up to 450 mg of substance each. Patients were followed for six weeks and evaluated weekly. We report on a subsample of 26 patients matched for baseline BPRS, SANS, and age. 13 matched healthy persons were recruited as controls. ANOVA with group and course over time as factors was used for analysis. Both clozapine and zotepine achieved a highly significant decrease in overall symptoms (BPRS) and negative symptoms (SANS). Zotepine and clozapine were equally effective. In the maze tests, motor errors in simple mazes were stable over time and differentiated schizophrenics from controls as a "trait" marker. In passage time and maze route, schizophrenics performed worse than controls. An improvement by medication was evident in both medication groups, but was more pronounced in the zotepine-treated group. The study confirms previous results on the efficacy of clozapine and zotepine in treating negative symptoms of schizophrenia. The data presented show for the first time that zotepine is efficacious in improving cognitive dysfunction, confirming this substance's value as an atypical antipsychotic. The purpose of this study was to compare the short-term efficacy and safety of risperidone and clozapine in treatment-resistant chronic schizophrenic patients.
                In a controlled double-blind, multicenter study, 86 inpatients with chronic schizophrenia (DSM-III-R), who were resistant to or intolerant of conventional neuroleptics, were randomly assigned to receive risperidone or clozapine for 8 weeks after a 7-day washout period. After a 1-week dose-titration phase, doses were fixed at 6 mg/day of risperidone and 300 mg/day of clozapine for 1 week and then adjusted according to each patient's response. The final mean doses were 6.4 mg/day of risperidone and 291.2 mg/day of clozapine. Treatment efficacy and safety were evaluated with several well-known rating scales.
                Both risperidone and clozapine significantly reduced the severity of psychotic symptoms (scores on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and the Clinical Global Impression scale) from baseline, with no significant between-group differences. At endpoint, 67% of the risperidone group and 65% of the clozapine group were clinically improved (reduction of 20% or more in total Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale score). Risperidone appeared to have a faster onset of action. In both groups extrapyramidal symptoms and other adverse events were few, and their severity was generally mild. Neither group showed evidence of a relation between drug plasma concentrations and clinical effectiveness.
                Risperidone was well tolerated and as effective as medium doses of clozapine in patients with chronic schizophrenia who had been resistant to or intolerant of conventional neuroleptics. The authors compared the efficacy and safety of three atypical antipsychotics (clozapine, olanzapine, and risperidone) with one another and with haloperidol in the treatment of patients with chronic schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.
                In a double-blind trial, 157 inpatients with a history of suboptimal treatment response were randomly assigned to treatment with clozapine, olanzapine, risperidone, or haloperidol for 14 weeks (an 8-week escalation and fixed-dose period followed by a 6-week variable-dose period).
                Clozapine, risperidone, and olanzapine (but not haloperidol) resulted in statistically significant improvements in total score on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale. Improvements seen in total and negative symptom scores with clozapine and olanzapine were superior to haloperidol. The atypical drugs, particularly olanzapine and clozapine, were associated with weight gain.
                The effects of atypical antipsychotics in this population were statistically significant but clinically modest. The overall pattern of results suggests that clozapine and olanzapine have similar general antipsychotic efficacy and that risperidone may be somewhat less effective. Clozapine was the most effective treatment for negative symptoms. However, the differences among treatments were small. Weight gain is a common adverse effect associated with the use of most antipsychotic drugs. Leptin has been reported to be associated with antipsychotic-induced weight gain. Previous studies have demonstrated a relationship between the atypical antipsychotics clozapine and olanzapine and serum leptin levels. We planned to comparatively investigate the effects of the atypical antipsychotics quetiapine, olanzapine, risperidone, and clozapine on leptin and triglyceride levels and weight gain.
                The study population comprised 56 patients with DSM-IV schizophrenia, who were divided into 4 treatment groups: quetiapine (N = 14), olanzapine (N = 14), risperidone (N = 14), or clozapine (N = 14) monotherapy, and a control group of 11 patients receiving no psychopharmacologic treatment. The patients were evaluated at baseline and at the sixth week according to the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), body mass index (BMI), weight, and fasting serum leptin and triglyceride levels. Data were gathered in 2001 and 2002.
                Olanzapine and clozapine caused a marked increase in weight and serum triglyceride and leptin levels, though increases in these variables were modest in the patients receiving quetiapine and minimal in those receiving risperidone. There were positive correlations between serum leptin levels and BMI and triglyceride levels. Clinical efficacy, as indicated by decrease in total PANSS scores, was associated with leptin levels in all atypical antipsychotic groups.
                Our results suggest that leptin may be associated with olanzapine- and clozapine-induced weight gain and that quetiapine appears to have modest influence and risperidone appears to have minimal influence on leptin and triglyceride levels and weight gain compared with olanzapine and clozapine. 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.
                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).
                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.
                Olanzapine was demonstrated to be noninferior to clozapine and better tolerated among resistant schizophrenic patients clinically eligible for treatment with clozapine.
Clozapine may be a little more efficacious than zotepine and risperidone but further trials are required to confirm this finding. Clozapine differs more clearly in adverse effects from other second generation antipsychotics and the side-effect profile could be key in the selection of treatment depending on the clinical situation and a patient’s preferences. Data on other important outcomes such as cognitive functioning, quality of life, death or service use are currently largely missing, making further large and well-designed trials necessary. It is also important to take into account that the large number of people leaving the studies early limits the validity and interpretation of our findings.