The olfactory tubercle as a site of action of neuroleptics with an atypical profile in the paw test: effect of risperidone, prothipendyl, ORG 5222, sertindole and olanzapine

Myricitrin, a nitric oxide and protein kinase C inhibitor, exerts antipsychotic-like effects in animal models

Myricitrin is a nitric oxide (NO) and protein kinase C (PKC) inhibitor that has central nervous system activity, including anxiolytic-like action. Nitric oxide inhibitors blocked the behavioral effects of apomorphine, suggesting an antipsychotic-like effect. Furthermore, PKC inhibition reduced psychotic symptoms in acute mania patients and blocked amphetamine-induced hyperlocomotion, suggesting a potential antipsychotic-like effect. The present study evaluated the effects of myricitrin in animal models that assess antipsychotic-like effects (apomorphine-induced stereotypy and climbing and the paw test) and extrapyramidal side effects (catalepsy test and paw test). Olanzapine was used as a positive control. 7-Nitroindazole (7-NI), a NOS inhibitor, and l-arginine, a NO precursor, were used to evaluate nitrergic modulation, and tamoxifen was used to test the effect of PKC inhibition. In mice, myricitrin dose-dependently and olanzapine blocked the stereotypy and climbing induced by apomorphine at doses that did not induce catalepsy. 7-Nitroindazole also blocked apomorphine-induced stereotypy and climbing, which were reversed by l-arginine pretreatment. l-arginine only attenuated the effects of myricitrin on apomorphine's effects. Tamoxifen also blocked apomorphine-induced stereotypy and climbing. In the paw test in rats, myricitrin and olanzapine increased hindlimb retraction time at doses that did not affect forelimb reaction time, whereas haloperidol affected both parameters at the same dose. Myricitrin did not induce catalepsy in the bar test. Tamoxifen did not affect hindlimb retraction time or forelimb retraction time, whereas 7-NI significantly increased hindlimb reaction time. Thus, myricitrin exhibited an antipsychotic-like profile at doses that did not induce catalepsy, and this effect may be related to nitrergic action.

Effects of (-)stepholidine in animal models for schizophrenia

AIM

(-)Stepholidine (SPD) is an active ingredient of the Chinese herb Stephania intermedia, which binds to the dopamine D(1) and D(2) like receptors. Biochemical, electrophysiological and behavioural experiments have provided strong evidence that SPD is both a D(1) and a D(2) antagonist, which could make SPD a unique antipsychotic drug. The present study aimed to investigate the antipsychotic properties of SPD in two animal models for schizophrenia.

METHODS

The effects of SPD, clozapine and haloperidol in increasing forelimb and hindlimb retraction time in the paw test and in reversing the apomorphine and MK801-induced disruption of prepulse inhibition was investigated.

RESULTS

In the paw test, clozapine and SPD increased the hindlimb retraction time, with only a marginal effect on the forelimb retraction time, whereas haloperidol potently increased both. In the prepulse inhibition paradigm, all three drugs reverse the apomorphine-induced disruption in prepulse inhibition, while none of the drugs could reverse the MK801-induced disruption. SPD even slightly, but significantly, potentiated the effects of MK801.

CONCLUSION

The data show that SPD showed antipsychotic-like effects in both the prepulse inhibition paradigm and in the paw test. Moreover, the results of the paw test suggest that SPD has an atypical character with a relatively small potency to induce extrapyramidal side effects.

Why do physicians switch from one antipsychotic agent to another? The "physician drug stereotype"

There is a lack of research on why physicians select a certain drug in an individual case and not another available alternative, although this drug selection process is important for quality assurance and cost control. Four hundred ninety-five psychiatrists documented in a standardized form patient and illness characteristics of 1711 schizophrenic outpatients who were switched for individual clinical reasons from an ongoing neuroleptic treatment to olanzapine, and of another 1654 schizophrenic outpatients whose present neuroleptic medication was continued. Physicians also filled in the "Reason for Treatment Selection Questionnaire." Patients who were switched to olanzapine were more ill and showed more preexisting extrapyramidal symptoms and less patient compliance. Reasons of psychiatrists to switch to olanzapine were the expectation of better efficacy and tolerability of the present treatment and patient preferences to continue with the present medication. The price of olanzapine is seen as a reason not to select olanzapine but has no effect on the treatment decision. The "physician drug stereotype" of olanzapine corresponds with clinical data on the efficacy and tolerability of olanzapine. The data show that medical decisions about drug selection are multidimensional, integrating knowledge about the clinical properties of the drug, personal experiences and information about the individual case. The Reason for Treatment Selection Questionnaire is an instrument that allows to objectively assess important aspects of medical decision making, to generate psychological drug profile, and to understand why physicians prefer one drug over alternatives.

Alcohol drinking of alcohol-preferring AA rats is differentially affected by clozapine and olanzapine

Clinical evidence suggests that atypical antipsychotic drugs might reduce alcohol drinking and help to maintain abstinence. This study aimed to compare the effects of two widely used atypical antipsychotic drugs clozapine and olanzapine on alcohol intake in alcohol-preferring AA (Alko, Alcohol) rats that were taught to drink 10% alcohol in a 4 h limited access paradigm. Effects of acute clozapine (0, 0.3, 1.0 and 5.0 mg/kg) and olanzapine (0, 0.1, 0.5 and 1.25 mg/kg) treatments on the limited access alcohol drinking were studied. In repeated treatment experiment, clozapine (1.0 mg/kg) or olanzapine (0.5 mg/kg) was administered once daily, before limited access alcohol drinking session, over 5 successive days. To reveal any effect of the drugs selective for alcohol drinking, alcohol was exchanged with 0.1% saccharin solution for the 4 h limited access, and acute treatments were repeated. Effects of the drugs on ambulatory locomotor activity were tested with doses that were used in the acute experiments. Acute clozapine treatment had no effect on either alcohol or saccharin drinking, but olanzapine significantly reduced 4 h alcohol drinking. Repeated olanzapine treatment significantly reduced 4 h alcohol drinking when compared with vehicle or clozapine, but a tolerance developed to this effect. Repeated clozapine treatment produced no significant effect compared with vehicle. Both drugs significantly reduced locomotor activity. In conclusion, the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine non-selectively reduced alcohol drinking, while clozapine failed to do so, even if both were administered at pharmacologically effective doses.

Generalization to atypical antipsychotic drugs depends on training dose in rats trained to discriminate 1.25 mg/kg clozapine versus 5.0 mg/kg clozapine versus vehicle in a three-choice drug discrimination task

The prototypical atypical antipsychotic drug (APD) clozapine (CLZ) elicits a discriminative cue that appears to be similar to the stimulus properties elicited by atypical, but not typical, antipsychotic drugs in two-choice drug discrimination procedures. However, the ability of CLZ to generalize to atypical APDs depends on the training dose, since several atypical APDs (e.g. sertindole, risperidone) do not substitute for a 5.0 mg/kg CLZ training dose in rats, but do so for a 1.25 mg/kg CLZ training dose. Yet, a 1.25 mg/kg CLZ discriminative stimulus has not generalized to all atypical APDs either (e.g. quetiapine); thus, both 1.25 mg/kg and 5.0 mg/kg CLZ discriminative stimuli may be necessary to provide a better screen for atypical APDs. The present study sought to determine whether a three-choice 1.25 mg/kg CLZ versus 5.0 mg/kg CLZ versus vehicle drug discrimination task in rats might better distinguish atypical from typical APDs. Adult male Sprague-Dawley rats were trained in this three-choice drug discrimination task with a fixed ratio 30 reinforcement schedule for food. Clozapine produced full substitution (>or=80% condition-appropriate responding) for both the 1.25 mg/kg CLZ dose (ED50=0.09 mg/kg) and the 5.0 mg/kg CLZ dose (ED50=2.71 mg/kg). The atypical APD olanzapine produced full substitution for the 5.0 mg/kg CLZ dose, but not for the 1.25 mg/kg CLZ dose (ED50=1.55 mg/kg). In contrast, the atypical APD quetiapine produced full substitution for the 1.25 mg/kg CLZ dose (ED50=0.13 mg/kg), but not for the 5.0 mg/kg CLZ dose. Similarly, the atypical APD sertindole produced full substitution for only the 1.25 mg/kg CLZ dose (ED50=0.94 mg/kg). Risperidone, another atypical APD, produced partial substitution (>or=60% and <or=80% condition-appropriate responding) for the 1.25 mg/kg CLZ dose, and failed to substitute for the 5.0 mg/kg CLZ dose. The atypical APD ziprasidone and the typical APDs haloperidol and chlorpromazine failed to substitute for either CLZ training dose. These results demonstrated that the 1.25 mg/kg CLZ training dose provides partial or full stimulus generalization to more atypical APDs than does the 5.0 mg/kg CLZ training dose. Full substitution by olanzapine for only the 5.0 mg/kg CLZ dose suggests that this higher training dose is also important for screening atypical APDs.

Characterization of fluoxetine plus olanzapine treatment in rats: a behavior, endocrine, and immediate-early gene expression analysis

A large number of individuals afflicted with psychiatric disorders, particularly depression with psychotic features, do not respond to conventional drug therapy. An option for this phenomenon is to augment a standard selective serotonin (5-HT) reuptake inhibitor with an atypical antipsychotic agent. In this regard, fluoxetine and olanzapine have been used concomitantly for treatment-resistant depression and bipolar depression. Although highly efficacious in terms of producing superior improvement of symptoms across a variety of psychological measures, the motor patterns, endocrine profiles, and intracellular signaling pathways affected by drug augmentation have not been determined. Here we show that fluoxetine (10 mg/kg) plus olanzapine (5 mg/kg) given to rats for 7 consecutive days (i.e., subchronic treatment) alters motor activity and diminishes spontaneous behaviors as measured by spatial position and angular path analyses. In addition, the same drug combination pattern sensitizes peak adrenal corticosterone secretion without altering serum glucose levels. We also show that subchronic fluoxetine and olanzapine exposure suppresses the induction of two immediate-early gene transcription factors (e.g., pCREB and FOS) that are associated with long-lasting changes in synaptic efficacy and structural modifications in the prefrontal cortex, piriform cortex, and hippocampus. These results suggest that fluoxetine plus olanzapine can interact in a fashion not predicted by the currently accepted model of fluoxetine monotherapy and provide insight into the synergistic actions of drug augmentation in patients with treatment-resistant depression.

Animal behavior models of the mechanisms underlying antipsychotic atypicality

This review describes the animal behavior models that provide insight into the mechanisms underlying the critical differences between the actions of typical vs. atypical antipsychotic drugs. Although many of these models are capable of differentiating between antipsychotic and other psychotropic drugs, only a few seem to be able to differentiate between typical and atypical antipsychotics, such as the paw test and the phencyclidine (PCP)-induced disruption of prepulse inhibition (PPI) of startle in rats. Moreover, there is an urgent need for animal models focusing more on the negative and the cognitive symptoms. Hence, improved animal models are crucial for developing better treatments for schizophrenia.

JL 13, an atypical antipsychotic: a preclinical review

The extensive pharmacological evaluation of JL 13 as an atypical antipsychotic drug has revealed a close similarity to clozapine, however with some major advantages. JL 13 was characterized as a weak D(2) antagonist, both in vitro and in vivo, with a strong affinity for the D(4) and the 5-HT(2A) receptors. It has no affinity for the 5-HT(2C) receptor. In vivo microdialysis experiments in rat showed that JL 13, like clozapine, preferentially increased extracellular dopamine concentrations in the prefrontal cortex compared to nucleus accumbens or striatum. Behavioral studies showed that JL 13, like clozapine, has the profile of an atypical antipsychotic. Thus, JL 13 did not antagonize apomorphine-induced stereotypy nor did it produce catalepsy, but it antagonized apomorphine-induced climbing in rodents. It was inactive against d-amphetamine-induced stereotypy but antagonized d-amphetamine-induced hyperactivity in the mouse. Likewise, in the paw test, it was more effective in prolonging hindlimb retraction time than prolonging forelimb retraction time. Like other antipsychotic drugs, JL 13 reversed the apomorphine- and amphetamine-induced disruption of prepulse inhibition. In a complex temporal regulation schedule in the dog, JL 13 showed a high resemblance with clozapine without inducing sialorrhea, palpebral ptosis or any significant motor side effects. In rats and squirrel monkeys JL 13 induced a high degree of generalization (70%) to clozapine. Regarding behavioral toxicology, JL 13 did not produce dystonia or Parkinsonian symptoms in haloperidol-sensitized monkeys. After acute administration, again like clozapine, JL 13 induced only a transient increase in circulating prolactin. Last but not the least, regarding a possible hematological toxicity, unlike clozapine, JL 13 did not present sensitivity to peroxidase-induced oxidation. Moreover, its electrooxidation potential was close to that of loxapine and far from that of clozapine. Taking all these preclinical data into account, it appears that JL 13 is a promising atypical antipsychotic drug.

A current review of olanzapine's safety in the geriatric patient: from pre-clinical pharmacology to clinical data

OBJECTIVE

Olanzapine (OLZ) is unique among currently available antipsychotic medications in its antagonism of a range of receptor systems including dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin, acetylcholine, and histamine. Olanzapine's mechanistic complexity provides a broad efficacy profile in patients with schizophrenia and acute, pure or mixed mania. Patients experience symptomatic relief of mania, anxiety, hallucinations, delusions, and agitation/aggression and reduced depressive, negative, and some cognitive symptoms. This paper will review the safety profile of OLZ, focusing on the elderly, where data are available.

METHOD

Preclinical and clinical studies of OLZ are reviewed, with emphasis on its possible effects on the cholinergic system and the histamine H(1) receptor. Weight change and related metabolic considerations, cardiac and cardiovascular safety, and motor function during treatment with OLZ are also reviewed.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

In vitro receptor characterization methods, when done using physiologically relevant conditions allow accurate prediction of the relatively low rate of anticholinergic-like adverse events, extrapyramidal symptoms, and cardiovascular adverse events during treatment with OLZ. Currently available clinical data suggest olanzapine is predictably safe in treating adult patients of any age with schizophrenia and acute bipolar mania, as well as in treatment of patients with some types of neurodegenerative disorders.

The effectiveness of olanzapine in treatment-refractory schizophrenia when patients are nonresponsive to or unable to tolerate clozapine

OBJECTIVE

This multicenter, open-label study was designed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of olanzapine in patients with chronic schizophrenia who are resistant to therapy with classic neuroleptic agents and are either not responsive to or unable to tolerate clozapine.

METHODS

Patients received olanzapine orally once daily for 18 weeks at doses ranging from 5 to 25 mg. The primary efficacy measure was change in the total score on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) from baseline to end point. Secondary efficacy measures were the total score on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS); the PANSS positive, negative, general psychopathology, and mood subscores; and the Clinical Global Impression improvement score. Also recorded were spontaneously reported adverse events; extrapyramidal symptoms (assessed by the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale, Simpson-Angus Scale, and Barnes Akathisia Scale); vital signs; and clinical laboratory test results.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients were treated with olanzapine; of these, 45 were assessable over the full 18-week study period. Total scores on the PANSS and BPRS were reduced from baseline by an average of 17.7 (14.2%) and 9.8 points (20.2%), respectively. Eighteen patients (40.0%) experienced a treatment response, defined as a reduction in PANSS total score of > or = 20%. A total of 25 patients (55.6%) achieved a similar reduction in BPRS total score. Significant reductions were seen in both the positive and negative symptom scores on the PANSS (P < 0.001). Olanzapine was well tolerated, with minimal treatment-emergent adverse events or clinically relevant changes in vital signs or clinical laboratory test results. No clinically significant blood dyscrasias were observed in olanzapine-treated patients, including those who had discontinued clozapine because of treatment-associated leukopenia or neutropenia.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that olanzapine may be of benefit in patients who are refractory to or unable to tolerate clozapine.

Pharmacokinetics and tissue distribution of olanzapine in rats

The single dose pharmacokinetics of olanzapine in rats, following an oral dose and its distribution in the brain and other tissues after repeated oral and intra-peritoneal (i.p.) administration, were studied. Olanzapine in plasma, brain, liver, lung, kidney, spleen and fat was assayed at predose, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 12, 24, 36, 48 h postoral dose of 6 mg/kg and after daily oral and i.p. doses of 0.25, 1, 3, and 6 mg/kg/day of olanzapine for 15 consecutive days by a sensitive and specific HPLC method with electrochemical detection. Olanzapine was readily absorbed and distributed in plasma and tissues as the peak concentrations were reached within approximately 45 min after the oral dose. The terminal half-life of olanzapine in plasma was 2.5 h and in tissues it ranged from 3 to 5.2 h. The area under the concentration-time curve (AUC(last)) was lowest in plasma and largest in liver and lung. The AUC(last) of olanzapine was eight times larger in brain and three to 32 times larger in other tissues than that in plasma. After repeated oral doses, the plasma and tissue concentrations of olanzapine were generally higher than those after repeated i.p. doses. The liver and spleen had the highest concentrations after oral and i.p doses, respectively. In both cases, the tissue concentrations were four- to 46-fold higher than that in plasma and correlated with administered doses. Likewise, plasma concentrations strongly correlated with the simultaneous brain and tissue concentrations (r(2)>0.908, p<0.0001). On average, the brain levels were 6.3-13.1 and 5.4-17.6 times higher than the corresponding plasma level after oral and i.p. doses, respectively. The tissue to plasma level ratio of olanzapine was higher in other tissues. The data indicated that olanzapine is rapidly absorbed and widely distributed in the tissues of rats after oral and i.p. administration. The plasma concentration appears to predict the simultaneous concentration in brain and other tissues. There was no marked localized accumulation of olanzapine in any of the regions of the rat brain.

Double-blind comparison of olanzapine versus risperidone in the treatment of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders

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.

The acute and long-term effect of olanzapine compared with placebo and haloperidol on serum prolactin concentrations

Prolactin elevation is both a common and a persistent event with the currently marketed antipsychotics, excluding clozapine. Elevations have been associated with both acute (galactorrhea, amenorrhea) and chronic (predisposition to osteoporosis) treatment-emergent adverse events. One of the defining criteria for an atypical antipsychotic is the relative lack of persistent prolactinemia. A double-blind, placebo- (N = 68) and haloperidol- (Hal: 15 +/- 5 mg/day, N = 69) controlled trial of three dose ranges of olanzapine (Olz-L: 5 +/- 2.5 mg/day, N = 65; Olz-M: 10 +/- 2.5 mg/day, N = 64; Olz-H: 15 +/- 2.5 mg/day, N = 69) in the treatment of schizophrenia afforded the opportunity to assess the temporal course of the influence of olanzapine and haloperidol on serum prolactin concentration. Consistent with its potent D2 antagonism, haloperidol was associated with a statistically significantly higher incidence of treatment-emergent prolactin elevation (72%) than seen with placebo (8%; p < 0.001) at week 2 of therapy. Expectedly, this elevation was also persistent at weeks 4 and 6. In contrast, olanzapine-associated treatment-emergent prolactin elevations were both lower in magnitude and transient. At week 2, 38% of the Olz-H, 24% of the Olz-M, and 13% of the Olz-L treatment groups exhibited a treatment-emergent prolactin elevation, with a mean increase of 0.35, 0.52, and 0.61 nmol/l, respectively; for haloperidol the mean increase was 1.23 nmol/l. For only the Olz-M and the Olz-H treatment groups did the week 2 incidence of treatment-emergent prolactin elevations differ statistically significantly from placebo. Both the incidence of elevations and the mean increase, in prolactin concentration were less than that seen with haloperidol. Furthermore, by treatment week 6, all three olanzapine groups exhibited incidences of treatment-emergent prolactin elevation that were comparable to placebo and were statistically significantly less than observed with haloperidol. Rapid adaptation was observed in the temporal course of prolactin elevations associated with olanzapine based on both the categorical analysis of treatment-emergent high values and the analyses of temporal change in mean concentrations. In contrast to haloperidol, the magnitudes of the treatment-emergent elevations associated with olanzapine were minimal. The rates of elevation were approximately one-half to one-third those observed with haloperidol and were significantly more transient. Olanzapine, even at the highest doses (15 +/- 2.5 mg/day) used, was not associated with persistent elevations of prolactin, consistent with an 'atypical' pharmacologic profile.

Olanzapine. A review of its pharmacological properties and therapeutic efficacy in the management of schizophrenia and related psychoses

Olanzapine is a thienobenzodiazepine derivative which displays efficacy in patients with schizophrenia and related psychoses. It has structural and pharmacological properties resembling those of the atypical antipsychotic clozapine and an improved tolerability profile compared with the classical antipsychotic haloperidol. In several large, well controlled trials in patients with schizophrenia or related psychoses, olanzapine generally 5 to 20 mg/day was at least as effective as haloperidol (5 to 20mg) and more so than placebo, as assessed by overall rating scales for psychoses. Olanzapine improved negative symptoms to a greater extent than haloperidol in 2 of 3 comparative trials, including the largest trial. Efficacy of olanzapine has a rapid onset (within 1 to 2 weeks). Its clinical benefits appear to be maintained for treatment periods of up to 1 year, as shown by analysis of the extension phase of several trials demonstrating decreased probability of hospitalisation over this period compared with haloperidol. Preliminary data suggest the drug may also improve quality of life. Olanzapine was associated with significantly fewer adverse movement disorders (e.g. akathisia, dystonia, hypertonia, extrapyramidal symptoms) than haloperidol. There have been no reports of agranulocytosis (as occurs with clozapine) or any other haemotoxicity attributed to olanzapine, and the drug has shown minimal effect on prolactin levels. Transient increases in levels of hepatic transaminases seem to be clinically important. The only events recorded more frequently during olanzapine than during haloperidol therapy were weight gain, dry mouth and increased appetite. Although the antipsychotic activity of olanzapine has been well demonstrated. Its efficacy in refractory schizophrenia and its place relative to other atypical antipsychotics remain to be determined. Nevertheless, if the long term tolerability profile of olanzapine is confirmed, the drug should provide a valuable therapeutic alternative in the management of schizophrenia and related psychoses.