A double-blind study of combination of clozapine with risperidone in patients with schizophrenia: effects on cognition. Effectiveness of clozapine versus olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone in patients with chronic schizophrenia who did not respond to prior atypical antipsychotic treatment. A double-blind comparative study of clozapine and risperidone in the management of severe chronic schizophrenia. Clozapine and risperidone in chronic schizophrenia: effects on symptoms, parkinsonian side effects, and neuroendocrine response. Efficacy and tolerability of ziprasidone versus risperidone as augmentation in patients partially responsive to clozapine: a randomised controlled clinical trial. Improvement of cognitive function in schizophrenic patients receiving clozapine or zotepine: results from a double-blind study. Different side effect profiles of risperidone and clozapine in 20 outpatients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder: a pilot study. Risperidone versus clozapine in treatment-resistant schizophrenia: a randomized pilot study. Why olanzapine beats risperidone, risperidone beats quetiapine, and quetiapine beats olanzapine: an exploratory analysis of head-to-head comparison studies of second-generation antipsychotics.
Atypical antipsychotic drugs produce improvement in some domains of cognition as well as psychopathology in patients with schizophrenia. However, the effect of combinations of atypical antipsychotic drugs on cognitive function is unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of risperidone or placebo on cognitive function in patients with schizophrenia who were previously treated with clozapine monotherapy.
                This prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 6-week study included 30 patients with DSM-IV schizophrenia. Patients whose psychopathology was no more than partially responsive to clozapine treatment were randomly assigned to receive adjunctive treatment with risperidone (N = 16) up to 6 mg/day or placebo (N = 14). Cognitive test scores for verbal learning and memory, verbal fluency, attention, executive function, verbal working memory, and motor function were the primary outcome measures. Secondary outcome measures included assessment of psychopathology, extrapyramidal side effects, and global functioning. Data were collected between November 2001 and July 2003.
                Significant improvement was found in both treatment groups in a variety of cognitive measures, but there was significantly greater improvement in the placebo-augmented group on measures of initial learning acquisition and attention. The improvement in cognition was not correlated with improvement in psychopathology. There were significant correlations between improvement in verbal working memory, verbal learning and memory, and attention and quality of life and global functioning in the placebo-augmented but not the risperidone-augmented group.
                Adjunctive treatment with risperidone for 6 weeks in patients with schizophrenia who had received chronic treatment with clozapine does not significantly improve cognitive function. 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. 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. 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. Patients suffering from schizophrenic psychoses sometimes insufficiently respond to antipsychotic monotherapy and then combination approaches are preferred. We aimed in validating the add-on of ziprasidone and risperidone to clozapine, and we performed a randomised head-to-head trial. Patients with partial response to clozapine were randomly attributed to augmentation with ziprasidone (n = 12) or risperidone (n = 12). Efficacy assessments included the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS), the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD), the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) and the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF). Furthermore, several safety and tolerability measures were obtained. After six weeks, both groups showed significant reductions of positive and negative symptoms. In addition, affective state, psychosocial functioning and clozapine side effects improved without significant differences between the groups. Both approaches were well tolerated. However, the ziprasidone group experienced a small elongation of the QTc interval and a reduction of extrapyramidal symptoms. Patients under clozapine-risperidone therapy developed a rise of serum prolactin levels. The clozapine augmentation with ziprasidone or risperidone resulted in significant psychopathological improvements. The side effects differed between the treatment groups. Further head-to-head comparisons of atypical antipsychotics as add-on to clozapine are necessary. 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 side effect +profiles of clozapine and risperidone.
                The subjects were 20 outpatients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder who were clinically stable on a regimen of clozapine at the time of screening. They underwent a randomized-order crossover comparison of 6 weeks of risperidone treatment and 6 weeks of clozapine treatment. Clinical and neurocognitive variables were assessed by raters blind to medication status, and severity of side effects was determined from patients' self-reports.
                Side effect measures, but not clinical ratings, were significantly different after 6 weeks of treatment with the two drugs. Patients required more benztropine for motor effects and complained of more insomnia with risperidone and more sedation with clozapine. Body weight was higher at the end of clozapine treatment than at the end of risperidone treatment.
                In this exploratory study, the side effect profiles of clozapine and risperidone were consistent with the different pharmacodynamic profiles of the two drugs. 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. 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.
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.