Why olanzapine beats risperidone, risperidone beats quetiapine, and quetiapine beats olanzapine: an exploratory analysis of head-to-head comparison studies of second-generation antipsychotics. Clozapine and "high-dose" olanzapine in refractory early-onset schizophrenia: a 12-week randomized and double-blind comparison. Cognition, functioning and quality of life in schizophrenia treatment: results of a one-year randomized controlled trial of olanzapine and quetiapine. Effectiveness of clozapine versus olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone in patients with chronic schizophrenia who did not respond to prior atypical antipsychotic treatment. Clozapine v. conventional antipsychotic drugs for treatment-resistant schizophrenia: a re-examination. Childhood-onset schizophrenia: A double-blind, randomized clozapine-olanzapine comparison. Adverse effects and laboratory parameters of high-dose olanzapine vs. clozapine in treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Comparative efficacy and safety of atypical and conventional antipsychotic drugs in first-episode psychosis: a randomized, double-blind trial of olanzapine versus haloperidol. Atypical antipsychotic agents in the treatment of violent patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder.
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. 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. 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. When a schizophrenia patient has an inadequate response to treatment with an antipsychotic drug, it is unclear what other antipsychotic to switch to and when to use clozapine. In this study, the authors compared switching to clozapine with switching to another atypical antipsychotic in patients who had discontinued treatment with a newer atypical antipsychotic in the context of the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials for Interventions Effectiveness (CATIE) investigation.
                Ninety-nine patients who discontinued treatment with olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, or ziprasidone in phase 1 or 1B of the trials, primarily because of inadequate efficacy, were randomly assigned to open-label treatment with clozapine (N=49) or blinded treatment with another newer atypical antipsychotic not previously received in the trial (olanzapine [N=19], quetiapine [N=15], or risperidone [N=16]).
                Time until treatment discontinuation for any reason was significantly longer for clozapine (median=10.5 months) than for quetiapine (median=3.3), or risperidone (median=2.8), but not for olanzapine (median=2.7). Time to discontinuation because of inadequate therapeutic effect was significantly longer for clozapine than for olanzapine, quetiapine, or risperidone. At 3-month assessments, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total scores had decreased more in patients treated with clozapine than in patients treated with quetiapine or risperidone but not olanzapine. One patient treated with clozapine developed agranulocytosis, and another developed eosinophilia; both required treatment discontinuation.
                For these patients with schizophrenia who prospectively failed to improve with an atypical antipsychotic, clozapine was more effective than switching to another newer atypical antipsychotic. Safety monitoring is necessary to detect and manage clozapine's serious side effects. Although there is a consensus that clozapine is more effective than conventional antipsychotic drugs for treatment-resistant schizophrenia, there is great heterogeneity among results of relevant trials.
                To re-evaluate the evidence comparing clozapine with conventional antipsychotics and to investigate sources of heterogeneity.
                Individual studies were inspected with assessment of clinical relevance of results. Meta-regression analysis was performed to investigate sources of heterogeneity.
                Ten trials were examined. Recent large-scale studies have not found a substantial advantage for clozapine, especially in terms of a clinically relevant effect. Meta-regression showed that shorter study duration, financial support from a drug company and higher baseline symptom score consistently predicted greater advantage of clozapine.
                It may be inappropriate to combine studies in meta-analysis, given the degree of heterogeneity between their findings. The benefits of clozapine compared with conventional treatment may not be substantial. 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. 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. 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. 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.
Olanzapine may be a somewhat more efficacious drug than some other second generation antipsychotic drugs. This small superiority in efficacy needs to be weighed against a larger weight gain and associated metabolic problems than most other second generation antipsychotic drugs, except clozapine. These conclusions are tentative due to the large number of people leaving the studies early which possibly limits the validity of the findings. Further large, well-designed trials are necessary to establish the relative effects of different second generation antipsychotic drugs.