Search

Objective: The aim of this double-blind, placebo-controlled study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of ziprasidone in the treatment of adult patients with borderline personality disorder., Method: Sixty DSM-IV borderline personality disorder patients were included from March 2004 to April 2006 in a 12-week, single-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. The subjects were randomly assigned to ziprasidone or placebo in a 1:1 ratio following a 2-week baseline period. The Clinical Global Impressions scale for use in borderline personality disorder patients (CGI-BPD) was the primary outcome measure, and other scales and self-reports related to affect, behavior, psychosis, general psychopathology domains, and clinical safety were included., Results: Analysis of variance indicated no statistically significant differences between ziprasidone and placebo in the CGI-BPD. Nor were significant differences observed between groups in depressive, anxiety, psychotic, or impulsive symptoms. The mean daily dose of ziprasidone was 84.1 mg/day (SD = 54.8; range, 40-200). The drug was seen to be safe, and no serious adverse effects were observed., Conclusion: This trial failed to show a significant effect of ziprasidone in patients with borderline personality disorder., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00635921.

Aims: To compare olanzapine and risperidone outcome on some neurocognitive dimensions in chronic schizophrenia patients with prominent negative symptoms., Method: We randomised and followed for 1 year 235 chronic schizophrenia outpatients with a SANS global score > or =10 to open-label flexible-dose treatment with olanzapine or risperidone. Clinical, functional and cognitive assessments [including the COGLAB battery reaction time, vigilance-span of apprehension (VSA) and a card-sorting task] were done periodically., Results: There were no significant differences between olanzapine (n=120) and risperidone (n=115) treatments in the neurocognitive dimensions tested. Mean+/-SD doses were 12.2+/-5.8 mg/day of olanzapine and 4.9+/-2.0 mg/day of risperidone. Patients in the olanzapine group showed a significant improvement in the VSA total score, but the within-group change was modest (effect size of 0.26); the difference with the risperidone group was not significant (p=0.207). Patients in both groups showed a significant improvement in a composite measure of executive efficiency based on the card-sorting task, with within-group effect size of 0.21 (risperidone) and 0.35 (olanzapine); the between-group difference was not significant (p=0.164). At baseline, better functional status correlated with VSA. Patients scoring lower on VSA or executive efficiency at baseline improved more on these respective measures., Conclusion: Modest pro-cognitive effects can also be found in chronic schizophrenia outpatients with prominent negative symptoms when treated with olanzapine or risperidone.

Unlabelled: GENERAL PURPOSE: To evaluate the social functioning of schizophrenic outpatients after switching to second-generation antipsychotics., Methodology: Multi-center, randomized, open-label, parallel, flexible-dose, 1-year study of schizophrenic outpatients with prominent negative symptoms (defined as a SANS Global score > or =10), previously treated with conventional antipsychotics. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to treatment with an initial dose of at least 10 mg/day olanzapine (N = 120) or at least 3 mg/day risperidone (N = 115). Dosage could be modified during the study according to clinical criteria. Social functioning was evaluated using the total and subscales scores of the Social Functioning Scale (SFS) (validated Spanish version). Other efficacy measures included the SANS, SAPS, and CGI-S scales. Response was defined in advance as a 30% improvement in the SANS Global score., Results: The mean doses during the trial were 12.2 mg/day (S.D. = 5.8) of olanzapine and 4.9 mg/day (S.D. = 2) of risperidone. There were no significant baseline differences in SFS total scores or other relevant clinical variables. At 1 year, olanzapine-treated patients presented a mean improvement in SFS total scores (7.75) that were significantly higher (p = 0.0028) than for risperidone-treated patients (-0.92). Treatment with olanzapine resulted in a greater numerical improvement than risperidone in all SFS domains and reached statistical significance in such categories as social engagement or withdrawal (p = 0.01), independence (performance) (p = 0.0098), independence (competence) (p = 0.04), recreational activities (p = 0.0391), and occupation/employment (p = 0.0024) in which the greatest difference between the olanzapine and risperidone groups was found (0.86 vs. -3.06). Significantly more patients treated with olanzapine reached or surpassed the SFS typified total scores corresponding to a functional level that is representative of a sample of stabilized Spanish outpatients with schizophrenia without prominent negative symptoms (p = 0.0009). Associated factors were treatment with olanzapine and a 30% improvement or more in SANS global score or SAPS global score., Conclusions: Long-term treatment with olanzapine was associated with overall greater improvement in social functioning (as measured by SFS) compared to risperidone-treated patients.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of olanzapine compared with risperidone in negative symptoms, after 1 year of treatment, in schizophrenic outpatients with prominent negative symptoms., Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized, monitored, open-label, parallel, dose-flexible, 1-year study of outpatients with schizophrenia (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition criteria) with prominent negative symptoms (Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms [SANS] summary score > or =10) previously treated with conventional antipsychotics. Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with an initial dose of olanzapine 10 mg/d or more (n = 120) or risperidone 3 mg/d or more (n = 115). The primary efficacy measure was the SANS summary score. Secondary efficacy measures included Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms, Clinical Global Impression of Severity Scale, Calgary Depression Scale, and Social Functioning Scale. The response rate was defined as 30% or more of improvement in the SANS summary score., Results: The mean dose throughout the study was 12.2 mg/d (+/-5.8 mg/d) for olanzapine and 4.9 mg/d (+/-2.0 mg/d) for risperidone. At 1 year, olanzapine patients showed significantly higher improvement than risperidone patients on the SANS summary (P = 0.015) and on the affective flattening (P = 0.007) and avolition/apathy (P = 0.028) SANS subscales. There were also significant improvements in favor of olanzapine in the Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms summary (P = 0.021), Clinical Global Impression of Severity (P = 0.008), and Social Functioning Scale total (P < 0.001) scores. The response rate was greater (P = 0.001) in the olanzapine cohort (69.2%) than in the risperidone cohort (48.7%). Olanzapine patients reported less extrapyramidal side effects but a higher incidence of clinically important body weight increase than risperidone patients., Conclusions: Long-term treatment with olanzapine was associated with significantly better improvement in negative symptoms as compared with risperidone-treated schizophrenic outpatients with prominent negative symptoms.

Background: This study investigated safety and effectiveness of olanzapine in monotherapy compared with conventional antipsychotics in treatment of acute inpatients with schizophrenia., Method: This was a prospective, comparative, nonrandomized, open-label, multisite, observational study of Spanish inpatients with an acute episode of schizophrenia. Data included safety assessments with an extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) questionnaire and the report of spontaneous adverse events, plus clinical assessments with the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness (CGI-S). A multivariate methodology was used to more adequately determine which factors can influence safety and effectiveness of olanzapine in monotherapy., Results: 339 patients treated with olanzapine in monotherapy (OGm) and 385 patients treated with conventional antipsychotics (CG) were included in the analysis. Treatment-emergent EPS were significantly higher in the CG (p<0.0001). Response rate was significantly higher in the OGm (p=0.005). Logistic regression analyses revealed that the only variable significantly correlated with treatment-emergent EPS and clinical response was treatment strategy, with patients in OGm having 1.5 times the probability of obtaining a clinical response and patients in CG having 5 times the risk of developing EPS., Conclusion: In this naturalistic study olanzapine in monotherapy was better-tolerated and at least as effective as conventional antipsychotics.

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of dialectical behavior therapy plus olanzapine compared with dialectical behavior therapy plus placebo in patients with borderline personality disorder., Method: Sixty patients with borderline personality disorder were included in a 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. All patients received dialectical behavior therapy and were randomly assigned to receive either olanzapine or placebo following a 1-month baseline period., Results: Seventy percent of the patients completed the 4-month trial. Combined treatment showed an overall improvement in most symptoms studied in both groups. Olanzapine was associated with a statistically significant improvement over placebo in depression, anxiety, and impulsivity/aggressive behavior. The mean dose of olanzapine was 8.83 mg/day., Conclusions: A combined psychotherapeutic plus pharmacological approach appears to lower dropout rates and constitutes an effective treatment for borderline personality disorder.

Background and Objective: This study assessed the safety and effectiveness of the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine for the treatment of inpatients with acute schizophrenia. Furthermore, we evaluated patterns of use of olanzapine and their relationship to safety and effectiveness., Patients and Method: This was a prospective, comparative, nonrandomized, open-label, observational study of 848 patients with schizophrenia (International Classification of Diseases, 10th edition) hospitalized due to an acute psychotic episode. Data were collected during patients' entire hospital stay. Safety of antipsychotic therapy was assessed with an extrapyramidal symptoms questionnaire (based on the Udvalg for Kliniske Undersøgelser scale) and the report of spontaneous adverse events. Clinical status was assessed with the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness (CGI-S). A multivariate statistical approach was employed., Results: Patients treated with olanzapine in monotherapy had the lowest risk of developing extrapyramidal symptoms (11.2%), whereas patients treated with conventional antipsychotics had a higher risk (39.0%; p < 0.001). Patients treated with olanzapine in monotherapy (even patients with prominent positive symptoms) displayed a higher rate of response compared with conventional antipsychotics-treated patients (p = .007)., Conclusions: Olanzapine is a safe and effective treatment for patients with acute schizophrenia in the hospital setting, even for patients with prominent positive or agitation symptoms.

Objective: To assess the safety and effectiveness of olanzapine compared to typical antipsychotics in the treatment of first-episode schizophrenics in acute psychiatric inpatient wards., Methods: Data were collected from a prospective, comparative, nonrandomized, open, observational study of 904 inpatients with schizophrenia. One hundred and fifty-eight patients fulfilled the criteria for first-episode schizophrenia, defined as (1) the International Classification of Diseases: Mental and Behavioral Disorders, 10th ed. (ICD-10) diagnosis of schizophrenia, (2) antipsychotic nai;ve, and (3) a course of illness of less than 5 years. Eighty-nine (56.3%) of these patients were assigned to the olanzapine treatment group (OLZ) and 69 (43.7%) to the control group that received treatment with conventional antipsychotics (CON). Safety was evaluated in terms of the spontaneous adverse events reported and a specific questionnaire for extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS). Clinical status was measured by means of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S). Clinical response was defined as the baseline-endpoint decrease in BPRS>40% plus an endpoint BPRS<18 or an endpoint CGI

Background: Conventional antipsychotics although effective in treating acute psychotic and behavioural symptoms are subject to certain limitations due to the high incidence of side effects associated, mainly extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), and insufficient response shown in some cases. EPS are a major factor in neuroleptic non compliance and high relapse rates among patients. This study was designed to assess the safety and effectiveness of olanzapine compared to typical antipsychotics drugs in the treatment of schizophrenic inpatients at acute psychiatric in-patient units., Method: Data from 904 patients schizophrenic patients (F20 of ICD10, WHO) were collected in this prospective, comparative, non-randomized, open and observational study. Patients were followed during their entire hospital stay. Safety was assessed through the collection of spontaneous adverse events and a specific extrapyramidal symptoms questionnaire (EPS). Clinical status was measured through the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S), Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI) and the Nursing Observational Scale for In-patient Evaluation (NOSIE)., Results: A total of 483 patients received olanzapine (olanzapine group, OG), and 421 received typical antipsychotics (control group, CG). Treatment emergent EPS, or worsening of previous EPS were statistically significantly higher in the CG (P=0.001). Responder rate was statistically greater in the OG (P<0.001). Mean change in BPRS-total, BPRS-negative, BPRS-agitation subscales and PGI was significantly higher in the OG (P<0.001). Mean decrease in CGI, BPRS positive and BPRS depression sub-scales was also significantly lower (P< or =0.05). Mean change in the NOSIE scale was similar between both groups., Conclusion: Olanzapine has been shown to be better tolerated in comparison with conventional antipsychotics in a large unselected sample of acutely psychotic schizophrenic in-patients. Its effectiveness may be greater than that of conventional antipsychotics.