Olanzapine in the treatment of schizophrenia : an open label comparative clinical trial from north India. Randomized, controlled, double-blind multicenter comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of ziprasidone and olanzapine in acutely ill inpatients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Olanzapine versus placebo: results of a double-blind, fixed-dose olanzapine trial. The impact upon extra-pyramidal side effects, clinical symptoms and quality of life of a switch from conventional to atypical antipsychotics (risperidone or olanzapine) in elderly patients with schizophrenia. Effectiveness of the selective D4 antagonist sonepiprazole in schizophrenia: a placebo-controlled trial. Olanzapine vs risperidone in the management of schizophrenia: a randomized double-blind trial in Australia and New Zealand. Olanzapine vs. haloperidol in the treatment of elderly chronic schizophrenia patients. Obsessive-compulsive symptoms during treatment with olanzapine and risperidone: a prospective study of 113 patients with recent-onset schizophrenia or related disorders. Clozapine treatment for suicidality in schizophrenia: International Suicide Prevention Trial (InterSePT). Effectiveness and cost of olanzapine and haloperidol in the treatment of schizophrenia: a randomized controlled trial. A double-blind, randomised comparative trial of amisulpride versus olanzapine in the treatment of schizophrenia: short-term results at two months. Comparative efficacy and safety of atypical and conventional antipsychotic drugs in first-episode psychosis: a randomized, double-blind trial of olanzapine versus haloperidol. Olanzapine versus haloperidol: acute phase results of the international double-blind olanzapine trial. Double-blind olanzapine vs. haloperidol D2 dopamine receptor blockade in schizophrenic patients: a baseline-endpoint. Olanzapine versus haloperidol in the treatment of schizophrenia and schizoaffective and schizophreniform disorders: results of an international collaborative trial. Effect of divalproex combined with olanzapine or risperidone in patients with an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia. Effects of olanzapine and haloperidol on serum prolactin levels in male schizophrenic patients. Adverse effects and laboratory parameters of high-dose olanzapine vs. clozapine in treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Olanzapine versus haloperidol in the treatment of patients with chronic schizophrenia: results of the Japan multicenter, double-blind olanzapine trial. Olanzapine versus clozapine in treatment-resistant or treatment-intolerant schizophrenia. A randomized double-blind study of risperidone and olanzapine in the treatment of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Olanzapine compared with chlorpromazine in treatment-resistant schizophrenia. International multisite double-blind trial of the atypical antipsychotics risperidone and olanzapine in 175 elderly patients with chronic schizophrenia. Changes in perceived health and functioning as a cost-effectiveness measure for olanzapine versus haloperidol treatment of schizophrenia. Double-blind comparison of olanzapine versus risperidone in the treatment of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders. Olanzapine versus placebo and haloperidol: acute phase results of the North American double-blind olanzapine trial.
The aim of the present study was to assess the efficacy and safety of olanzapine in the treatment of schizophrenic patients. 27 patients were randomly assigned to treatment with olanzapine or haloperidol over 12 weeks. The primary efficacy measure was the mean change from baseline to endpoint in total scores on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and assessing treatment emergent adverse events. Secondary measures were positive symptoms, negative symptoms, general psychopathology depression, anxiety and quality of life. Compared to haloperidol, olanzapine had equal effect in improving overall psychopathology, positive symptoms, and severity of schizophrenic illness. Olanzapine showed supehor improvement on negative symptoms and secondary depressive features. Commonest side effects were weight gain, sleepiness and increased duration of sleep. Olanzapine is effective in improving overall psychopathology including positive symptoms, negative and secondary depressive features in Indian patients with schizophrenia and it is safe and well tolerated at dosage between 5 to 20 mg/day. Limited randomized, controlled trial data exist on possible differences between atypical antipsychotics in efficacy, overall tolerability, and important indices of health status. The authors compared the efficacy and tolerability of ziprasidone and olanzapine in the treatment of acutely ill inpatients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.
                In this 6-week, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-design, flexible-dose trial, patients were randomly assigned to receive ziprasidone (N=136) or olanzapine (N=133). Primary efficacy measures were improvement in Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) severity scale scores; secondary measures were scores on the CGI improvement scale, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, and Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia. Tolerability assessments included fasting lipid profiles, fasting glucose and insulin measurements, electrocardiography, and monitoring of vital signs and body weight.
                The overall mean daily doses were 129.9 mg (SD=27.3) for ziprasidone and 11.3 mg (SD=2.8) for olanzapine. Both antipsychotics were efficacious in improving symptoms and global illness severity. The two treatment groups did not differ significantly in primary or secondary efficacy measures at endpoint or in by-visit analysis. Both agents were well tolerated. Body weight, total cholesterol, triglycerides, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol significantly increased with olanzapine but not with ziprasidone; all between-group comparisons of these variables were significant and favored ziprasidone. Olanzapine, but not ziprasidone, was associated with significant increases in fasting insulin level. No patient in either group exhibited a corrected QT interval >/=500 msec.
                During 6 weeks' treatment, ziprasidone and olanzapine demonstrated comparable antipsychotic efficacy. Differences favoring ziprasidone were observed in metabolic parameters. 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) > or = 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. Atypical antipsychotics are commonly used in the management of schizophrenia in late life with evidence suggesting they induce lower rates of motor disturbance, but have similar efficacy to conventional antipsychotics. Trials in the elderly have been either retrospective, small, of short duration or of a single-arm design.
                To demonstrate the effects upon motor side-effects, efficacy, safety and quality of life (QOL) of switching elderly patients with schizophrenia from conventional antipsychotics to olanzapine or risperidone.
                Elderly patients with schizophrenia were randomly allocated to olanzapine or risperidone and followed through an open-label crossover period. Between and within group intention to treat analyses were conducted.
                66 patients were randomised (mean age 69.6 [SD +/- 6.2]). Four (11.8%) patients on olanzapine and 8 (26.7%) patients on risperidone failed to complete the crossover because of treatment failure [Odds Ratio (OR) = 2.73[0.73-10.2] p = 0.14]. The mean doses upon completion of switching in each arm were 9.9 mg (SD = 4.2) and 1.7 mg (SD = 1.2) for olanzapine and risperidone respectively. In both arms there was improvement in Parkinsonism, though only olanzapine was associated with a reduction in dyskinetic symptoms. The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, Scale for the assessment of Negative Symptoms and Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores all improved through the crossover period in both arms with no between group differences. Treatment with olanzapine was associated with a better response over risperidone on the psychological domain of the World Health Organisation-Quality Of Life [Brief] (WHO-QOL-BREF) scale ( p = 0.02). Patients in the olanzapine arm also demonstrated improvement from baseline in the WHO-QOL-BREF physical, psychological and health satisfaction domains, but risperidone had no effect on any Quality of Life (QOL) measure.
                After switching from a conventional antipsychotic, olanzapine and risperidone were associated with improvement in core symptoms of schizophrenia and motor side effects. Subjects switched to olanzapine were more likely to complete the switching process and show an improvement in psychological QOL.
                Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Selective localization of dopamine D(4) receptors in the prefrontal cortex and preferential affinity of clozapine for the dopamine D(4) receptor over the D(2) receptor led to the hypothesis that the superior efficacy of clozapine may be mediated via blockade of the D(4) receptor. This hypothesis was tested by evaluating sonepiprazole, a selective D(4) dopamine antagonist, in schizophrenia patients.
                We treated 467 hospitalized schizophrenia patients with scores of > or = 60 on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) with sonepiprazole, olanzapine, or placebo once daily for 6 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was the mean change from baseline in the PANSS total score at 6 weeks. Secondary efficacy end points were the mean change from baseline in the PANSS factor scores, the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale score, the Clinical Global Impressions Severity of Illness score, and the Calgary Depression Scale score.
                No statistically significant differences were observed between placebo and any sonepiprazole dose on the primary or any secondary end point after 6 weeks of treatment. Statistically significant differences, favoring olanzapine over placebo, were observed on all efficacy end points but the Calgary Depression Scale.
                Sonepiprazole was ineffective for the treatment of patients with schizophrenia. 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. Most of the data supporting the use of atypical antipsychotics (AA) is based on studies in young adult patients. The present study is an open-label naturalistic follow-up study of olanzapine treatment vs. haloperidol for elderly chronic schizophrenia patients. MEHTOD: 20 patients (mean age 72.7+/-5.9 years, mean disease duration 33.1+/-12.0 years) who met the DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia were randomly assigned to olanzapine (n=10) or haloperidol (n=10) treatment during acute exacerbation. Primary outcome measure was rating on the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale and the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS).
                Between-group differences were computed using analysis of covariance. PANSS Total score decreased from 84 at baseline to 65 after treatment with olanzapine while decreased only from 79 to 74 with haloperidol treatment (F= 6.66, P=.02). PANSS Negative subscale decreased from 19 at baseline to 15 with olanzapine treatment while increased (deteriorated) from 18 to 20 with haloperidol treatment (F=23.37, P=.0003). CGI decreased from baseline with both olanzapine and haloperidol treatments (1.1 vs. 0.4) but the decrease in the olanzapine group was significantly greater (F=4.63, P=.05). Mean weight increased in both groups but without statistical difference between groups.
                In elderly chronic schizophrenia patients, olanzapine treatment is superior to haloperidol in reducing negative symptoms as well as less induction of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS). To determine whether severity of obsessive-compulsive symptoms (OCS) differs during treatment with olanzapine or risperidone and to establish whether duration of antipsychotic treatment is related to severity of OCS.
                We conducted a prospective study of consecutively hospitalized young patients (mean age = 22.4 years) with DSM-IV schizophrenia or related disorders (N = 113) who were treated with olanzapine or risperidone. Olanzapine or risperidone was randomly prescribed for patients who were drug-naive or were treated with typical antipsychotics before admission (N = 36). Patients who had started olanzapine (N = 39) or risperidone treatment (N = 23) prior to admission continued with that medication if they showed initial clinical response. Patients who prior to admission started olanzapine (N = 6) or risperidone (N = 9) but showed no response or suffered from adverse effects switched at admission to risperidone or olanzapine, respectively. Medical records, parents, and patients revealed information on duration of treatment and compliance with olanzapine or risperidone prior to admission. The Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (YBOCS) was administered at admission and 6 weeks thereafter.
                At baseline and 6-week assessments, OCS were found in about 30% of 106 evaluable cases and 15% met DSM-IV criteria for obsessive-compulsive disorder. No differences in OCS were found in the patients randomly assigned to olanzapine or risperidone. The 35 subjects treated with olanzapine at both assessments had significantly (p = .01) more severe OCS at week 6 than the 20 subjects treated with risperidone at both assessments. Duration of treatment with olanzapine was significantly (p < .01) related to severity of OCS.
                There are no differences in the short-term propensity of olanzapine or risperidone to induce or exacerbate OCS. However, severity of OCS was associated with duration of treatment with olanzapine. Approximately 50% of patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder attempt suicide, and approximately 10% die of suicide. Study results suggest that clozapine therapy significantly reduces suicidal behavior in these patients.
                A multicenter, randomized, international, 2-year study comparing the risk for suicidal behavior in patients treated with clozapine vs olanzapine was conducted in 980 patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, 26.8% of whom were refractory to previous treatment, who were considered at high risk for suicide because of previous suicide attempts or current suicidal ideation. To equalize clinical contact across treatments, all patients were seen weekly for 6 months and then biweekly for 18 months. Subsequent to randomization, unmasked clinicians at each site could make any interventions necessary to prevent the occurrence of suicide attempts. Suicidal behavior was assessed at each visit. Primary end points included suicide attempts (including those that led to death), hospitalizations to prevent suicide, and a rating of "much worsening of suicidality" from baseline. Masked raters, including an independent suicide monitoring board, determined when end point criteria were achieved.
                Suicidal behavior was significantly less in patients treated with clozapine vs olanzapine (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.97; P =.03). Fewer clozapine-treated patients attempted suicide (34 vs 55; P =.03), required hospitalizations (82 vs 107; P =.05) or rescue interventions (118 vs 155; P =.01) to prevent suicide, or required concomitant treatment with antidepressants (221 vs 258; P =.01) or anxiolytics or soporifics (301 vs 331; P =.03). Overall, few of these high-risk patients died of suicide during the study (5 clozapine vs 3 olanzapine-treated patients; P =.73).
                Clozapine therapy demonstrated superiority to olanzapine therapy in preventing suicide attempts in patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder at high risk for suicide. Use of clozapine in this population should lead to a significant reduction in suicidal behavior. Although olanzapine has been widely adopted as a treatment of choice for schizophrenia, its long-term effectiveness and costs have not been evaluated in a controlled trial in comparison with a standard antipsychotic drug.
                To evaluate the effectiveness and cost impact of olanzapine compared with haloperidol in the treatment of schizophrenia.
                Double-blind, randomized controlled trial with randomization conducted between June 1998 and June 2000 at 17 US Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers.
                Three hundred nine patients with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, serious symptoms, and serious dysfunction for the previous 2 years. Fifty-nine percent fully completed and 36% partially completed follow-up assessments.
                Patients were randomly assigned to receive flexibly dosed olanzapine, 5 to 20 mg/d, with prophylactic benztropine, 1 to 4 mg/d (n = 159); or haloperidol, 5 to 20 mg/d (n = 150), for 12 months.
                Standardized measures of symptoms, quality of life, neurocognitive status, and adverse effects of medication. Veterans Affairs administrative data and interviews concerning non-VA service use were used to estimate costs from the perspective of the VA health care system and society as a whole (ie, consumption of all resources on behalf of these patients).
                There were no significant differences between groups in study retention; positive, negative, or total symptoms of schizophrenia; quality of life; or extrapyramidal symptoms. Olanzapine was associated with reduced akathisia in the intention-to-treat analysis (P<.001) and with lower symptoms of tardive dyskinesia in a secondary analysis including only observations during blinded treatment with study drug. Small but significant advantages were also observed on measures of memory and motor function. Olanzapine was also associated with more frequent reports of weight gain and significantly greater VA costs, ranging from 3000 dollars to 9000 dollars annually. Differences in societal costs were somewhat smaller and were not significant.
                Olanzapine does not demonstrate advantages compared with haloperidol (in combination with prophylactic benztropine) in compliance, symptoms, extrapyramidal symptoms, or overall quality of life, and its benefits in reducing akathisia and improving cognition must be balanced with the problems of weight gain and higher cost. To compare the efficacy and safety of the atypical antipsychotics amisulpride and olanzapine in the treatment of acute psychotic exacerbations of schizophrenia.
                A multinational, double-blind randomised clinical trial.
                Three hundred and seventy-seven patients with predominantly positive symptomatology were treated for six months with either amisulpride (200-800 mg/d) or olanzapine (5-20 mg/d).
                Short-term results were analysed after two months of treatment. The primary efficacy measure was the change of score on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS). Other measures of efficacy and safety were also evaluated.
                Psychotic symptoms, as measured on the BPRS score, improved with both treatments, amisulpride being equivalent to olanzapine. All BPRS factor scores, as well as depressive symptoms, improved to a similar extent with both treatments. Less than five per cent of patients withdrew for adverse events, and there was no evidence for the emergence of extrapyramidal symptoms with either treatment. Statistically significant greater weight gain (2.7 +/- 3.9 kg) was observed during the study in the olanzapine group, compared with the amisulpride group (0.9 +/- 3.2 kg, p < 0.0001).
                Amisulpride and olanzapine show equivalent efficacy at 2 months in the treatment of acute psychotic exacerbations of schizophrenia. Amisulpride offers a significant advantage in preserving body weight. Few long-term studies have compared the efficacy and safety of typical and atypical antipsychotic medications directly in patients with a first episode of psychosis who met the criteria for schizophrenia or a related psychotic disorder. This study compared the acute and long-term effectiveness of haloperidol with that of olanzapine in patients with first-episode psychosis in a large, controlled clinical trial.
                Patients with first-episode psychosis (N=263) were randomly assigned under double-blind conditions to receive haloperidol or olanzapine and were followed for up to 104 weeks. Domains measured included psychopathology, psychosocial variables, neurocognitive functioning, and brain morphology and metabolism. This report presents data from clinical measures of treatment response and safety data from the 12-week acute treatment phase.
                Haloperidol and olanzapine were associated with substantial and comparable baseline-to-endpoint reductions in symptom severity, which did not differ significantly in last-observation-carried-forward analyses. However, in a mixed-model analysis, olanzapine-treated subjects had significantly greater decreases in symptom severity as measured by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score and negative and general scales and by the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale but not as measured by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale positive scale and by the Clinical Global Impression severity rating. Olanzapine-treated patients experienced a lower rate of treatment-emergent parkinsonism and akathisia but had significantly more weight gain, compared with the haloperidol-treated patients. Overall, significantly more olanzapine-treated subjects than haloperidol-treated subjects completed the 12-week acute phase of the study (67% versus 54%).
                As expected on the basis of previous studies, both olanzapine and haloperidol were effective in the acute reduction of psychopathological symptoms in this group of patients with first-episode psychosis. However, olanzapine had several relative advantages in therapeutic response. Although the nature of adverse events differed between the two agents, retention in the study was greater with olanzapine. Retention in treatment is important in this patient population, given their risk of relapse. Longer-term results are needed to determine whether treatment with atypical antipsychotics results in superior outcomes for a first episode of schizophrenia. 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. The aim of this study was to compare in vivo striatal D2 dopamine receptor occupancy induced by olanzapine and haloperidol in schizophrenic patients using a baseline-endpoint [(123)I]IBZM single photon computed emission tomography (SPECT) design. The relationships of striatal D2 receptor occupancy with clinical efficacy and extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) were also assessed. Twenty-seven inpatients with schizophrenia or schizophreniform disorder were included in a 4-week prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel and comparative clinical trial. Thirteen patients were treated with haloperidol (10 mg/day) and 14 with olanzapine (10 mg/day). Ratings of clinical status and EPS were obtained weekly. The percentage of D2 receptor occupancy was estimated by using basal ganglia (striatum)/frontal cortex IBZM uptake ratios obtained from each patient before and after 4 weeks of maintained antipsychotic treatment. Olanzapine led to a mean striatal D2 receptor occupancy of 49% (range 28-69%), which was significantly lower than that induced by haloperidol (mean 64%, range 46-90%). The baseline-endpoint SPECT design used in this study revealed lower antipsychotic D2 occupancy percentage values than those reported in the literature, using other approaches. The degree of striatal D2 receptor occupancy correlated to the EPS, which predominantly appeared in patients on haloperidol. No relationship was found between the striatal D2 receptor occupancy and clinical improvement. Olanzapine induced a lower striatal D2 occupancy than haloperidol. This low striatal D2 occupancy, together with the lower incidence of EPS in olanzapine-treated patients, contributed to confirm the atypical behavior of this new antipsychotic drug. Nevertheless, conclusions based on SPECT-estimated percentages of antipsychotic D2 occupancy should be cautious, since the SPECT design could influence the results. In this regard, SPECT studies including baseline and endpoint examinations should be encouraged. This international, multicenter double-blind trial was designed to compare the therapeutic profile of an atypical antipsychotic, olanzapine, with that of a conventional dopamine D2 antagonist, haloperidol.
                A total of 1,996 patients at 174 sites in Europe and North America were randomly assigned to treatment with olanzapine (N = 1,336) or haloperidol (N = 660) over 6 weeks. The primary efficacy analysis involved the mean change from baseline to endpoint in total scores on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS). Secondary analyses included comparisons of the mean change in positive and negative symptoms, comorbid depression, extrapyramidal symptoms, and overall drug safety.
                Olanzapine demonstrated clinical results superior to those of haloperidol on overall improvement according to the BPRS and on every secondary measure, including depression. Olanzapine was also associated with significantly fewer discontinuations of treatment due to lack of drug efficacy or adverse events. Substantially more olanzapine-treated patients (66.5%) than haloperidol-treated patients (46.8%) completed 6 weeks of therapy. Statistically significant advantages of olanzapine treatment were related to 1) change in negative symptoms, 2) extrapyramidal symptom profile, 3) effect on prolactin levels, and 4) response rate.
                Olanzapine shows a superior and broader spectrum of efficacy in the treatment of schizophrenic psychopathology, with a substantially more favorable safety profile, than haloperidol. It meets several of the criteria for a novel atypical antipsychotic agent. This double-blind, randomized, multicenter study investigated the use of divalproex with an antipsychotic agent in patients hospitalized for acute exacerbation of schizophrenia. Patients (n = 249) who met DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia were randomly assigned to receive olanzapine monotherapy, risperidone monotherapy, divalproex plus olanzapine, or divalproex plus risperidone for 28 days. Divalproex was initiated at 15 mg/kg/day and titrated over 12 days to a maximum dosage of 30 mg/kg/day. Olanzapine and risperidone, were, respectively, initiated at 5 and 2 mg/day and were titrated over the first 6 days to respective target fixed daily dosages of 15 and 6 mg/day. Improvements from baseline were observed at all evaluation points throughout the 28-day treatment period in the two combination therapy and the two antipsychotic monotherapy groups, with statistically significant treatment differences favoring combination therapy as soon as day 3 for Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score, derived Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRSd) total score, as well as PANSS and BPRSd subscales. These findings were confirmed in post hoc repeated-measures analyses of variance in which treatment differences favoring combination therapy were observed for PANSS total (p = 0.020) and PANSS positive scale scores (p = 0.002). Both combination therapy and antipsychotic monotherapy were well tolerated. Treatment with divalproex in combination with an atypical antipsychotic agent resulted in earlier improvements in a range of psychotic symptoms among acutely hospitalized patients with schizophrenia. Further evaluation is warranted to confirm these findings. It has been proposed that new atypical antipsychotics cause minimal prolactin (PRL) elevation compared to traditional antipsychotic agents because they spare dopamine blockade within the brain's tuberoinfundibular tract. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of olanzapine and haloperidol on PRL secretion in male schizophrenic patients. Twenty-nine male schizophrenic inpatients were included in the study. Fifteen of them were given olanzapine in a fixed dose of 10 mg/day PO and 14 of them were given haloperidol in a fixed dose of 10 mg/day PO for 6 weeks after a 2-week drug washout period. Fifteen age-matched healthy control subjects were used as control group. PRL levels were measured both before and after the 6-week treatment period in the patients. At the end of the 6th week, the PRL values observed with olanzapine treatment were significantly less than those observed with haloperidol, but not different from those of the controls. There was a significant positive correlation between the PRL values and the severity of extrapyramidal side effects in only the haloperidol group after the six week's treatment period. Our data indicate that short-term olanzapine treatment at doses of 10 mg/day PO causes minimal elevations in PRL secretion in male schizophrenic patients in contrast to haloperidol. This finding is consistent with the previous reports and may be attributed to olanzapine's differential effects on dopamine neurotransmission. Patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia pose a major challenge to caregivers since only clozapine is documented as having superior efficacy in this population. Although olanzapine is similar to clozapine in structure and receptor profile, it has not been proven to have superior efficacy for this patient group. Nonetheless, olanzapine is being increasingly used in higher doses as clinicians attempt to find a more effective and tolerable therapy for refractory patients. Furthermore, there are little data comparing olanzapine and clozapine in this population. Thirteen patients participated in a randomized double-blind 16-week crossover study of clozapine therapy (450 mg/day) compared to high doses of olanzapine (50 mg/day). No patients on olanzapine responded while 20% responded to clozapine treatment. Olanzapine patients tended to experience higher rates of anticholinergic effects such as dry mouth (80 vs. 20%) and blurry vision (40 vs. 0%). Clozapine-treated patients had higher rates of sialorrhea (80 vs. 10%), sweating (50 vs. 10%), dyspepsia (70 vs. 30%), and lethargy (90 vs. 60%). Neither treatment was associated with significant akathisia. Liver enzyme elevation and lipids were higher with clozapine treatment. Mean weight gain in the initial 8 weeks was 3.4 kg for olanzapine and 1.2 kg for clozapine. High doses of olanzapine during 8 weeks of treatment did not increase lipids and liver enzymes like clozapine did. Olanzapine at 50 mg/day may be associated with more anticholinergic effects and weight gain than clozapine. This randomized double-blind trial was conducted to test the efficacy and safety of olanzapine in Japanese patients with schizophrenia. Importantly, this study also represents the first large clinical trial of olanzapine conducted in an Asian population. Patients (n = 182) were randomly assigned to treatment with olanzapine or haloperidol over a period of 8 weeks. The primary analyses included: (i) a test of non-inferiority of olanzapine compared with haloperidol in efficacy using the Final Global Improvement Rating (FGIR); and (ii) comparison between the treatment groups in extrapyramidal symptom severity using the Drug-Induced Extrapyramidal Symptoms Scale (DIEPSS). Olanzapine was comparable to haloperidol in efficacy in treating positive symptoms and significantly superior in treating negative symptoms. Extrapyramidal symptom severity was significantly improved for olanzapine-treated patients versus haloperidol-treated patients. Olanzapine was shown to be more effective and better tolerated than haloperidol in the treatment of Japanese patients suffering from chronic schizophrenia. Clozapine has been the gold standard for treatment of patients with refractory schizophrenia but is associated with serious safety liabilities. This has prompted the search for therapeutic alternatives for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of olanzapine versus clozapine in schizophrenic patients who failed to respond adequately to antipsychotic medication or who experienced intolerable adverse effects associated with the medication. This 18-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel study compared treatment with either olanzapine (5-25 mg/day, n=75) or clozapine (100-500 mg/day, n=72) in patients with schizophrenia who were nonresponsive to, or intolerant of, standard acceptable antipsychotic therapy. At the 18-week endpoint, no statistically significant differences were found between olanzapine and clozapine in any efficacy measure used: Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total, positive, negative, or general psychopathology or Clinical Global Impression severity (CGI-S). Response rates based on the criteria of Kane et al. [Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 45 (1988) 789] were also not significantly different between olanzapine-treated (57.9%) and clozapine-treated patients (60.8%). There were no significant differences in measurements of extrapyramidal symptoms or electrocardiography, and no clinically and statistically significant changes were seen in vital signs or laboratory measures in either group. Both treatments were well tolerated. Olanzapine demonstrated similar efficacy to clozapine in patients who had failed previous treatment because of lack of efficacy (treatment resistance) or intolerable side effects (treatment intolerance). Olanzapine therefore presents a safe alternative in the treatment of refractory schizophrenia. The safety and efficacy of risperidone and olanzapine were compared in a double-blind trial that used doses widely accepted in clinical practice.
                Subjects (N=377) who met DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder were randomly assigned to receive 2-6 mg/day of risperidone (mean modal dose=4.8 mg/day) or 5-20 mg/day of olanzapine (mean modal dose=12.4 mg/day) for 8 weeks.
                The two study groups were similar at baseline except that the olanzapine group was slightly younger than the risperidone group. Seventy-five percent of the participants completed the trial, with no between-treatment differences in the proportion of dropouts. Similar proportions of the risperidone and olanzapine groups reported extrapyramidal symptoms (24% and 20%, respectively). Severity of extrapyramidal symptoms was low in both groups, with no between-group differences. Total Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale scores and scores on the five Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale factors were improved in both groups at week 8 (subjects who completed the study) and endpoint (all subjects, including dropouts). There were overall between-treatment differences in efficacy. Comparison of individual factors found no significant differences at endpoint; at week 8, however, improvements on Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale factors for positive symptoms and anxiety/depression were greater with risperidone than olanzapine. An increase in body weight of > or =7% was seen in 27% of olanzapine participants and 12% of risperidone participants.
                Both treatments were well tolerated and efficacious. The frequency and severity of extrapyramidal symptoms were similar in the two treatment groups. Greater reductions in severity of positive and affective symptoms were seen with risperidone than with olanzapine treatment among study completers. There was no measure on which olanzapine was superior. Greater weight gain was associated with olanzapine than with risperidone treatment. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of olanzapine with that of chlorpromazine plus benztropine in patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia.
                One hundred three previously treatment-resistant patients with schizophrenia diagnosed according to the DSM-III-R criteria were given a prospective 6-week trial of 10-40 mg/day of haloperidol. Eighty-four of them failed to respond to that trial and agreed to be randomly assigned to an 8-week fixed-dose trial of either 25 mg/day of olanzapine alone or 1200 mg/day of chlorpromazine plus 4 mg/day of benztropine mesylate.
                Fifty-nine (70%) of the 84 subjects completed the trial. The primary outcome measures were Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale total score and positive symptom score, Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms global score, and Clinical Global Impression score. An analysis of variance for the subjects who completed the study showed no difference in efficacy between the two drugs. Seven percent of the olanzapine-treated patients responded according to a priori criteria; no chlorpromazine-treated patients responded. The olanzapine-treated patients had fewer motor and cardiovascular side effects than the chlorpromazine-treated patients. Extrapyramidal symptoms and akathisia were similar in the two groups, although no antiparkinsonian drugs were used in the olanzapine group.
                Olanzapine and chlorpromazine showed similar efficacy, and the total amount of improvement with either drug was modest. Olanzapine-treated patients had fewer side effects than chlorpromazine-treated patients. The authors compared the effects of the two most commonly used atypical antipsychotics, risperidone and olanzapine, in elderly patients with schizophrenia.
                In an 8-week, international, double-blind study, patients (outpatients, hospital inpatients, and residents of nursing or boarding homes) were randomly assigned to receive risperidone (1 mg to 3 mg/day) or olanzapine (5 mg to 20 mg/day). The main outcome measures were changes in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total scores and rates of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS).
                Subjects were 175 patients age 60 years or over with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. The mean duration of illness was 36.5 years. Median doses were 2 mg/day of risperidone and 10 mg/day of olanzapine. PANSS total scores and four of the five PANSS factor scores (positive symptoms, negative symptoms, disorganized thoughts, and anxiety/depression) improved significantly at all time-points and at endpoint in both groups; between-treatment differences were not significant. EPS-related adverse events were reported by 9.2% of patients in the risperidone group and 15.9% in the olanzapine group; the between-treatment difference was not significant. Total scores on the Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale were reduced in both groups at endpoint; between-treatment differences were not significant. Clinically relevant weight gain was seen in both groups, but was significantly less frequent in risperidone patients than in olanzapine patients.
                Stable elderly patients with chronic schizophrenia receiving appropriate doses of risperidone or olanzapine over an 8-week period experienced significant reductions in the severity of psychotic and extrapyramidal symptoms, with a relatively low risk of side effects. We utilize data from a large, double-blind, randomized clinical trial of treatment for schizophrenia to compare the effect of therapy with the second generation antipsychotic olanzapine versus therapy with the conventional agent haloperidol on the perceived functioning and well-being of patients over 1 year as measured by the Medical Outcome Study Short Form (SF-36). We also compare the total cost of care between the treatment groups over 1 year and combine cost and functional outcomes information to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of both therapies in this sample. Over 1 year of therapy, patients receiving olanzapine experienced a mean of 5.75 units greater improvement than did haloperidol-treated patients on the physical health and functioning factor of the SF-36 and 1.66 units greater improvement on the mental health and functioning factor. The mean annual total cost of care, including the cost of medication therapies, was $9386.87 less for olanzapine-treated patients than for haloperidol-treated patients. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for olanzapine versus haloperidol treatment indicated a savings of $1632.50 per unit of improvement in the SF-36 physical health and functioning score and a savings of $5654.74 per unit of improvement in the mental health and functioning composite. Improvements in perceived health and functioning were also associated with reduction in hospital costs in the full sample. These findings suggest that patient-centered measures of functioning such as the SF-36 are an important component of the evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of novel treatments for schizophrenia. 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. 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.
The large proportion of participants leaving studies early in these trials makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions on olanzapine's clinical effects. For people with schizophrenia it may offer antipsychotic efficacy with fewer extrapyramidal adverse effects than typical drugs, but more weight gain. There is a need for further large, long-term randomised trials with more comprehensive data.