Search

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of olanzapine (OLZ) monotherapy and an olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC) with placebo (PLA) for unipolar major depression with psychotic features. Under a single protocol, two 8-week, double-blind trials were conducted at 27 sites. Patients (n = 124 trial 1, n = 125 trial 2) were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment groups: OLZ (5 to 20 mg/d), PLA, or OFC (olanzapine 5 to 20 mg/d + fluoxetine 20 to 80 mg/d). The primary outcome measure was the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total score. For trial 1, endpoint improvement for the OLZ group (-14.9) was not significantly different from the PLA or OFC groups. The OFC group had significantly greater endpoint improvement (-20.9) than the PLA group (-10.4, P = 0.001); this significant difference was present within 7 days of therapy and maintained at every subsequent visit. The OFC group also had significantly higher response rate (63.6%) than the PLA (28.0%, P = 0.004) or OLZ (34.9%, P = 0.027) groups. For trial 2, there were no significant differences among treatment groups on the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total scores or response rates. The combination exhibited a comparable safety profile with OLZ monotherapy and no significant increases in extrapyramidal symptoms compared with placebo. Patients with major depression with psychotic features treated with OLZ monotherapy did not demonstrate significant depressive symptom improvement compared with placebo in either trial; however, an olanzapine/fluoxetine combination was associated with significant improvement compared with placebo in one trial and was well tolerated.

Sustained response to antipsychotic therapy is an important outcome measure for patients with psychotic disorders. Placebo control in studies of relapse prevention contributes valuable information yet provokes much debate. This study, using placebo as a control, evaluated olanzapine's efficacy in preventing a psychotic relapse. Participants were stable minimally symptomatic outpatients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. The study included 4 phases: (1) 4-day to 9-day screening/evaluation (N = 583), (2) 6-week conversion to open-label olanzapine (N = 493; 10-20 mg/d), (3) 8-week stabilization on olanzapine (N = 458; 10-20 mg/d), and (4) 52-week randomized (2:1), double-blind maintenance with olanzapine (N = 224; 10-20 mg/d) or placebo (N = 102). Primary relapse criteria were clinically significant changes in the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) positive item cluster or rehospitalization due to positive symptoms. Statistical methodology allowed sequential real-time estimation of efficacy across blinded treatment groups and multiple interim analyses, which permitted study termination when efficacy was significantly different between treatments. A significant between-treatment difference emerged 210 days after first patient randomization to double-blind treatment. Thus, 151 (46.3%) of the randomized patients were discontinued early and 34 (10.4%) of the planned patient enrollment were not required. The olanzapine group had a significantly longer time to relapse (P < 0.0001) than the placebo group. The 6-month cumulative estimated relapse rate (Kaplan-Meier) was 5.5% for olanzapine-treated patients versus 55.2% for placebo-treated patients. The design of this study enabled appropriate statistical testing of the primary hypothesis while minimizing exposure of patients to a less effective treatment than olanzapine. In remitted stabilized patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, olanzapine demonstrated a positive benefit-to-risk profile in relapse prevention.

The 1-week single-blind placebo lead-in has long been a standard in double-blind psychopharmacology clinical trials. Although a lead-in period is often necessary (e.g., to receive laboratory results before randomization), some authors have demonstrated that the standard single-blind placebo lead-in's performance was similar to having a lead-in in which placebo was not administered. The single-blind placebo lead-in did not decrease postrandomization placebo response, nor did it increase drug-placebo differences. To eliminate a higher percentage of placebo responders before randomization and to reduce potential biases in baseline ratings, the authors designed and implemented two depression studies with a double-blind variable placebo lead-in period. In these designs, both the patients and personnel at the investigative sites were blinded to the length of the placebo lead-in period and the start of the active treatment period. Approximately 28% of the patients in the double-blind placebo lead-in studies met criteria to be placebo lead-in responders, as compared with fewer than 10% from two single-blind placebo lead-in studies conducted in a similar time frame. Although all patients continued in the study (including placebo lead-in responders), the primary efficacy analysis prospectively excluded double-blind placebo lead-in responders. Analysis of postrandomization changes revealed that double-blind placebo lead-in responders, even when continuing to receive placebo treatment, maintained their response. At the study endpoint, these placebo lead-in responders had significantly lower severity scores than their counterparts who were not lead-in responders. The prospective removal of lead-in responders thus resulted in an increase in mean endpoint placebo group severity scores. This resulted in an increased drug-placebo treatment difference in one of the two studies but had no effect on the treatment difference in the other study.

The abrupt appearance of clozapine discontinuation symptoms represents a particularly unique situation that has not been characterized in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. A randomized, double-blind comparison of placebo (N = 53) and olanzapine 10 mg (N = 53) for 3 to 5 days following the abrupt discontinuation of clozapine (< 300 mg/day) was carried out. Subjects were assessed with the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), the Clinical Global Impression Scale of Severity, the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and the Mini-Mental State Evaluation. Subsequently both groups received open-label olanzapine (10-25 mg/day) for an additional 9 weeks. Statistically significantly more placebo-treated (24.5%) than olanzapine-treated (7.5%) patients experienced clozapine discontinuation symptoms (p = 0.017). Core symptoms included delusions, hallucinations, hostility, and paranoid reaction and translated into a significantly higher worsening from baseline on the PANSS total, PANSS General Psychopathology subscale, and MADRS among subjects randomly assigned to receive placebo. After open-label treatment with olanzapine for 9 weeks, both groups were clinically stable, suggesting that the discontinuation symptoms were transient. However, subjects who had been randomly assigned to the 3- to 5-day placebo discontinuation segment achieved somewhat less global clinical improvement. Although a pharmacologic interpretation is speculative, evidence of a clozapine discontinuation syndrome was apparent. In most cases, the direct substitution of a pharmacologically similar agent (olanzapine) prevented the syndrome. Clozapine discontinuation or noncompliance should be considered in the differential assessment of an acutely emergent psychosis. The possibility that subjects who experience a clozapine discontinuation syndrome may take longer or are less likely to clinically restabilize warrants further investigation.

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.

A substantial number of patients with mania have significant concomitant depressive features, and they may respond differently to mood stabilizers than patients with pure mania. This post-hoc analysis explored the response characteristics of olanzapine versus placebo in bipolar I manic patients with dysphoric and nondysphoric mania (differentiated by baseline Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HAM-D] score of20). Two similar, double-blind, randomized trials comparing olanzapine, 5-20 mg, to placebo were pooled for these analyses (N = 246). Mean changes in Young-Mania Rating Scale (Y-MRS) and HAM-D scores during 3 weeks of treatment were examined. Twenty-eight percent of patients had dysphoric mania (olanzapine, n = 33; placebo, n = 35). Among these patients, olanzapine-treated patients had greater improvement within 1 week than did placebo-treated patients on both mania ratings (Y-MRS: -9.7 vs. -3.0 points; = 0.011) and depressive symptom ratings (HAM-D: -9.9 vs. -5.4 points; = 0.025). Among those manic subjects without prominent depressive symptoms (olanzapine, n = 91; placebo, n = 87), mean Y-MRS improvement from baseline to endpoint with olanzapine (-11.5 points) versus placebo (-6.13 points) was comparable to the improvement seen with olanzapine versus placebo in the dysphoric mania subgroup ( = 0.476, test of interaction). In acutely ill manic patients with significant depressive symptoms, olanzapine demonstrated a broad spectrum of efficacy, effectively treating both manic and depressive symptoms. The magnitude of the antimanic response appears similar, regardless of baseline depressive features. Additional experience with putative mood stabilizers and atypical agents in mixed mania should include an exploration of their efficacy in treating both manic and depressive mood symptoms.

The aim of this study was to make a preliminary investigation of the efficacy and safety of zatosetron maleate, a selective 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist for patients with a broad range of anxiety symptoms. A double-blind, parallel, placebo-controlled pilot study was conducted in 43 patients, aged 18 to 65 years, scoring >17 on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A). Patients were randomly assigned to either a fixed oral dose of 0.2, 1, or 5 mg of zatosetron or placebo for 4 weeks, followed by a 2-week placebo phase. Enhanced blinding procedures reduced the influence of side effects on efficacy ratings and obscured phases of the research design to patient and clinician. A change in HAM-A scores from baseline to endpoint was the principal efficacy measure; HAM-A Psychic and Somatic subscales, the Symptom Checklist-90, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, and Clinical Global Impressions Scale subscales provided secondary change indices. Adverse events (AEs) (spontaneously mentioned and elicited with the Udvalg for Kliniske Undersogelser side effect rating scale), vital signs, electrocardiographic findings, and laboratory analytes were compared among treatment groups. Eighty-eight percent of the patients met the criteria for generalized anxiety disorder. No statistically significant differences in outcome measures differentiated among the four treatment groups. However, a pattern of greater change in the HAM-A scores seemed to favor zatosetron over placebo. Placebo was associated with only modest HAM-A score changes and a 30% response rate. The greatest numeric decrease in the HAM-A score and the highest response rate (45%) occurred in the groups receiving 0.2 and 1 mg of zatosetron. The secondary measures of efficacy demonstrated similar outcomes. There were no deaths or serious AEs reported in this study. This pilot study demonstrated that zatosetron at doses of 0.2 to 5 mg/day was safe. Although statistical significance was not achieved, the results show a greater numeric trend toward reducing anxiety with zatosetron than with placebo.

No consensus exists regarding whether early response to an antidepressant strongly predicts a good outcome, what is the criterion for early response, or when to measure it. We hypothesized that early response (or = 20% decrease in HAM-d21) after any of weeks 1, 2, or 3 of fluoxetine treatment of major depression in geriatric outpatients would predict a favorable outcome by week 6 or an earlier endpoint accurately enough for clinical use. We also hypothesized that the week 1, 2, and 3 percent changes in 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D21) would predict the percent change at week 6 (or endpoint) accurately enough for clinical use. We enrolled 671 elderly outpatients with unipolar DSM-III-R major depression in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of fluoxetine, 20 mg/day. For analysis, fluoxetine-treated patients were randomly divided into a development set (N = 154) for a preliminary test of our criteria and a validation set (N = 181) to validate the development data set's results. Early responders at weeks 1, 2, and 3 were statistically significantly more likely to experience marked improvement or remission than those lacking early response. However, at week 3, this criterion correctly classified only about three-fourths of patients with regard to marked improvement and only about two-thirds with regard to remission. Moreover, about one-third of patients predicted to experience marked improvement and about three-fifths of those predicted to remit did not. The continuous variable, percent change in HAM-D21, did not produce predictive results of any greater clinical utility. We believe that the sensitivity, specificity, false-positive rate, false-negative rate, and kappa of outcome predictions all should be reported in future studies. Without a full set of descriptive statistics, clinicians can be misled by statistically significant results.

A common presentation for major depression includes psychomotor agitation. However, this subtype has been the infrequent subject of controlled investigation during depression trials. Yet, the subcategorization of agitated depression has historically been associated with the belief that older, sedating compounds have a superior risk:benefit profile. In the 8-week, double-blind, randomized, parallel trial, 124 subjects with Research Diagnostic Criteria-compatible agitated depression were randomized to either imipramine (IMI) or fluoxetine (FLU). Both compounds proved to be similarly effective as measured by change in HAM-D17, HAM-D17 response, and HAM-D17 remission rates. Similar comparability was seen in secondary measures of agitation, anxiety, suicidality, and global impressions. However, of note, a statistically significant difference in early discontinuations because of intolerable adverse events emerged. Whereas 43.5% of IMI subjects discontinued early, only 9.7% of FLU subjects (p < 0.001) did. Significantly more central nervous system events characterized the IMI than the FLU subgroup (IMI, 24.2%, vs. FLU, 6.5%; p = 0.006). In conclusion, among subjects with major depression, subtype agitated, the risk:benefit profile favored FLU over IMI. This was driven by the superior tolerance of FLU. No evidence emerged in support of the clinical hypothesis that a "sedating" agent is the treatment of choice for this group. The results are important when striving to maximize compliance with pharmacotherapy in order to minimize recidivism and associated psychological and economic morbidity.

This study tested the hypothesis that some patients treated with an antidepressant who develop adverse events (e.g., activation, akathisia) experience emergent suicidality specifically associated with such events. Seventeen double-blind, controlled clinical trials conducted in the United States and Canada with 3,065 patients with major depression were evaluated for treatment-emergent adverse events (events that first occurred or worsened during therapy) and suicidality (a suicidal act or emergence of substantial suicidal ideation or both) with fluoxetine, placebo, and tricyclic antidepressants. Nine relevant adverse event clusters were evaluated: activation, sedation, activation and sedation, decreased libido, mania, psychosis, psychosis and mania, acute brain syndrome, and violence. Incidence rates were determined for suicidality that was and was not temporally associated with an adverse event cluster and were analyzed within and across treatments (incidence difference method). Most patients experienced neither a cluster event nor suicidality. Where suicidality was reported, it generally was not in temporal association with an adverse event cluster. In no cluster was the incidence of suicidality statistically significantly higher when reported in temporal association with an event than when not. Suicidality was associated infrequently with treatment-emergent activation and at comparable rates across treatments. No increased risk of suicidality associated with an adverse event cluster was observed between the treatment groups (fluoxetine versus tricyclic anti-depressants; fluoxetine versus placebo). These results from double-blind, placebo- and comparator-controlled fluoxetine clinical trials in patients with major depression do not suggest a relationship between a treatment-emergent adverse event pattern and suicidality in this population.

Certain evidence suggests that buspirone, a novel nonbenzodiazepine anxiolytic, may be a 5-HT1A serotonergic agonist and may antagonize postsynaptic dopaminergic receptors. The latter property raises questions regarding a dyskinesia- or extrapyramidal symptom-inducing potential. We monitored serum prolactin and growth hormone in 10 subjects with generalized anxiety disorder and 10 matched controls before and after 4 weeks of pharmacotherapy. A drug effect upon serotonin-modulated prolactin release or on the tubero-infundibular dopamine axis (prolactin; growth hormone) was negligible at clinically effective dosages of buspirone. Concomitant buspirone levels also failed to demonstrate any significant relationships.

A variety of immune phenomena have been associated with chlorpromazine. One such factor, the lupus-like anticoagulant, while nonspecific, has been reported in 26 to 75% of chronic chlorpromazine recipients, although the exact incidence is unknown and requires further investigation. Such patients may have an enhanced risk of bleeding profiles (hemophilia-like) or, conversely, thrombotic events. A case of such a lupus-like anticoagulant with a circulating inactivator of coagulation is discussed in light of the recent literature.

Four patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (DSM-III and RDC) were treated in an open trial with alprazolam. Moderate to marked improvement was noted in the degree of obsessionality, anxiety with motor tension, and secondary affective changes. The mixed anxiolytic-antidepressant properties of alprazolam are theorized as the basis for the clinical remissions.

The neuroleptic malignant syndrome remains an intriguing syndrome, yet its pathogenesis is unknown. Despite numerous analogies with peripheral disorders of aberrant calcium migration in the sacroplasmic reticulum, the probable loci are striatal and hypothalamic (preoptic) dopaminergic pathways. In order to clarify the characteristics of dopamine activity, analysis of the central metabolites 3,4-dihydroxyphenylacetic acid and homovanillic acid in one case revealed marked elevations. A possible role for postsynaptic dopamine receptor inhibition is discussed. These findings further suggest that the syndrome may be similar to other extrapyramidal disorders, and they lend credence to observations of its reported drug induction and management.