Atypical antipsychotic agents in the treatment of violent patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. A double-blind, placebo-controlled dose-response comparison of intramuscular olanzapine and haloperidol in the treatment of acute agitation in schizophrenia. 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. Augmentation of serotonin reuptake inhibitors in refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder using adjunctive olanzapine: a placebo-controlled trial. Cognition, functioning and quality of life in schizophrenia treatment: results of a one-year randomized controlled trial of olanzapine and quetiapine. Why olanzapine beats risperidone, risperidone beats quetiapine, and quetiapine beats olanzapine: an exploratory analysis of head-to-head comparison studies of second-generation antipsychotics. Adverse effects and laboratory parameters of high-dose olanzapine vs. clozapine in treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Double-blind olanzapine vs. haloperidol D2 dopamine receptor blockade in schizophrenic patients: a baseline-endpoint.
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. An intramuscular (IM) formulation of olanzapine has been developed because there are no rapid-acting IM atypical antipsychotic drugs currently available in the United States for treating acute agitation in patients with schizophrenia.
                Recently hospitalized acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia (N = 270) were randomized to receive 1 to 3 IM injections of olanzapine (2.5, 5.0, 7.5, or 10.0 mg), haloperidol (7.5 mg), or placebo within 24 hours. A dose-response relationship for IM olanzapine in the reduction of agitation was assessed by measuring the reduction in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale Excited Component (PANSS-EC) scores 2 hours after the first injection. Safety was assessed by recording adverse events and with extrapyramidal symptom scales and electrocardiograms at 24 hours after the first injection.
                Olanzapine exhibited a dose-response relationship for reduction in agitation (F(1,179)= 14.4; P<.001). Mean PANSS-EC reductions 2 hours after the first injection of olanzapine (2.5 mg = -5.5; 5.0 mg = -8.1; 7.5 mg = -8.7; 10.0 mg = -9.4) were superior to those with placebo (-2.9; P =.01 vs olanzapine at 2.5 mg; P<.001 for each other olanzapine dose) but not with haloperidol (-7.5). A dose of 5.0, 7.5, or 10.0 mg of olanzapine caused a greater reduction in agitation than placebo 30 minutes after the first injection. There were no differences between treatment groups for hypotension, the most frequently reported adverse event, or for clinically relevant changes in the QTc interval. There was a greater incidence of treatment-emergent parkinsonism during treatment with IM haloperidol (16.7%) than with 2.5 (P =.03), 5.0 (P =.03), or 7.5 mg (P =.01) of IM olanzapine (0%) or with placebo (0%) (P =.01).
                Intramuscular olanzapine at a dose of 2.5 to 10.0 mg per injection exhibits a dose-response relationship in the rapid treatment of acute agitation in patients with schizophrenia and demonstrates a favorable safety profile. 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 purpose of this study was to explore the efficacy of adding an atypical antipsychotic, olanzapine, to a serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SRI) in treatment-refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).
                Twenty-six patients aged between 18 and 65 (mean = 41.2, SD = 11.9) years meeting DSM-IV criteria for OCD, who had not responded to SRIs, were treated for 6 weeks in a double-blind, placebo-controlled augmentation study with either olanzapine (up to 20 mg/day) or placebo. Severity of illness was assessed biweekly by the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS). Analysis of covariance with baseline Y-BOCS score included as a covariate was used to compare improvement in Y-BOCS scores in the 2 groups. Response was defined as a 25% or greater improvement in Y-BOCS score. Data were collected between April 2001 and May 2003.
                Outcome was assessed for all patients using the last observation carried forward. Subjects in the olanzapine group had a mean decrease of 4.2 (SD = 7.9) in Y-BOCS score compared with a mean increase in score of 0.54 (SD = 1.31) for subjects in the placebo group (F = 4.85, df = 2,23; p =.04). Six (46%) of 13 subjects in the olanzapine group showed a 25% or greater improvement in Y-BOCS score compared with none in the placebo group. The final mean dose of olanzapine was 11.2 (SD = 6.5) mg/day. Medication was well tolerated. Only 2 (15%) of 13 subjects who received olanzapine discontinued because of side effects: sedation (N = 1) or weight gain (N = 1).
                These results provide preliminary evidence that adding olanzapine to SRIs is potentially efficacious and well tolerated in the short-term treatment of patients with refractory OCD. Controlled studies with larger sample sizes are necessary to more definitively address this treatment strategy. Cognitive deficits are recognized as a critical determinant of functional outcomes in schizophrenia; and second generation antipsychotic drugs have been touted for their potential to enhance cognitive functioning and community tenure.
                The study examined the relative merits of olanzapine and quetiapine in improving cognitive deficits and enhancing psychosocial functioning in a sample of community dwelling adults previously treated with first generation antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia.
                In a prospective, rater-blinded study, 86 participants were randomized to receive either olanzapine or quetiapine, and assessed at baseline and after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Outcome measures included, besides symptoms and side effects rating scales, the subjective scale to investigate cognition in schizophrenia (SSTICS), a computer-assisted cognitive test battery (COGLAB), the sickness impact profile (SIP), the global assessment of functioning (GAF) scale, and the drug attitude inventory (DAI).
                Both olanzapine and quetiapine were equally effective in improving symptom severity and decreasing the neurological side effects. Quetiapine was significantly better tolerated (p=0.002), improved self-rated cognitive dysfunction (p=0.002) and subjects' performance on selected neurocognitive tasks (p=0.01). Olanzapine use was associated with greater symptom stability, fewer drop outs (p=0.01) and frequent metabolic aberrations (p=0.001). The accrued benefits of drug therapy, however, were not reflected as significant gains in daily functioning and quality of life.
                Quetiapine is noted to have specific cognition enhancing properties in schizophrenia that warrants further exploration. The observed clinical and cognitive benefits associated with quetiapine may likely be attributable to its loose binding to, and fast dissociation from the dopamine receptors. Olanzapine has proved to be a reliable antipsychotic drug with a greater liability to cause metabolic abnormalities. In many parts of the world, second-generation antipsychotics have largely replaced typical antipsychotics as the treatment of choice for schizophrenia. Consequently, trials comparing two drugs of this class--so-called head-to-head studies--are gaining in relevance. The authors reviewed results of head-to-head studies of second-generation antipsychotics funded by pharmaceutical companies to determine if a relationship existed between the sponsor of the trial and the drug favored in the study's overall outcome.
                The authors identified head-to-head comparison studies of second-generation antipsychotics through a MEDLINE search for the period from 1966 to September 2003 and identified additional head-to-head studies from selected conference proceedings for the period from 1999 to February 2004. The abstracts of all studies fully or partly funded by pharmaceutical companies were modified to mask the names and doses of the drugs used in the trial, and two physicians blinded to the study sponsor reviewed the abstracts and independently rated which drug was favored by the overall outcome measures. Two authors who were not blinded to the study sponsor reviewed the entire report of each study for sources of bias that could have affected the results in favor of the sponsor's drug.
                Of the 42 reports identified by the authors, 33 were sponsored by a pharmaceutical company. In 90.0% of the studies, the reported overall outcome was in favor of the sponsor's drug. This pattern resulted in contradictory conclusions across studies when the findings of studies of the same drugs but with different sponsors were compared. Potential sources of bias occurred in the areas of doses and dose escalation, study entry criteria and study populations, statistics and methods, and reporting of results and wording of findings.
                Some sources of bias may limit the validity of head-to-head comparison studies of second-generation antipsychotics. Because most of the sources of bias identified in this review were subtle rather than compelling, the clinical usefulness of future trials may benefit from minor modifications to help avoid bias. The authors make a number of concrete suggestions for ways in which potential sources of bias can be addressed by study initiators, peer reviewers of studies under consideration for publication, and readers of published studies. 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. 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.
Data relevant to the effects of olanzapine IM are taken from some studies that may not be considered ethical in many places, all are funded by a company with a pecuniary interest in the result. These studies often poorly report outcomes that are difficult to interpret for routine care. Other important outcomes are not recorded at all. Nevertheless, olanzapine IM probably has some value in helping manage acute aggression or agitation, especially where it is necessary to avoid some of the older, better, known treatments. Olanzapine causes fewer movement disorders than haloperidol and more than lorazepam. The value of the oro-dipersable velotab preparation is untested in trials. There is a need for well designed, conducted and reported randomised studies in this area. Such studies are possible and, we argue, should be designed with the patient groups and clinicians in mind. They should report outcomes of relevance to the management of people at this difficult point in their illness.