Comparing tolerability of olanzapine in schizophrenia and affective disorders: a meta-analysis

Olanzapine-associated dose-dependent alterations for weight and metabolic parameters in a prospective cohort

Metabolic abnormalities have been associated with olanzapine treatment. We assessed if olanzapine has dose‐dependent effects on metabolic parameters with changes for weight, blood pressure, lipid and glucose profiles being modelled using linear mixed‐effects models. The risk of metabolic abnormalities including early weight gain (EWG) (≥5% during first month) was assessed using mixed‐effects logistic regression models. In 392 olanzapine‐treated patients (median age 38.0 years, interquartile range [IQR] = 26.0–53.3, median dose 10.0 mg/day, IQR = 5.0–10.0 for a median follow‐up duration of 40.0 days, IQR = 20.7–112.2), weight gain was not associated with olanzapine dose (p = 0.61) although it was larger for doses versus ≤10 mg/day (2.54 ± 5.55 vs. 1.61 ± 4.51% respectively, p = 0.01). Treatment duration and co‐prescription of >2 antipsychotics, antidepressants, benzodiazepines and/or antihypertensive agents were associated with larger weight gain (p < 0.05). Lower doses were associated with increase in total and HDL cholesterol and systolic and diastolic blood pressure (p < 0.05), whereas higher doses were associated with glucose increases (p = 0.01). Patients receiving >10 mg/day were at higher EWG risk (odds risk: 2.15, 1.57–2.97). EWG might be prominent in high‐dose olanzapine‐treated patients with treatment duration and co‐prescription of other medications being weight gain moderators. The lack of major dose‐dependent patterns for weight gain emphasizes that olanzapine‐treated patients are at weight gain risk regardless of the dose.

Diabetes mellitus risk for 102 drugs and drug combinations used in patients with bipolar disorder

OBJECTIVE

To compare the largest set of bipolar disorder pharmacotherapies to date (102 drugs and drug combinations) for risk of diabetes mellitus (DM).

METHODS

The IBM MarketScan® database was used to retrospectively analyze data on 565,253 adults with bipolar disorder without prior glucose metabolism-related diagnoses. The pharmacotherapies compared were lithium, mood-stabilizing anticonvulsants, antipsychotics, and antidepressants (monotherapy and multi-class polypharmacy). Cox regression modeling included fixed pre-treatment covariates and time-varying drug exposure covariates to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) of each treatment versus "No drug".

RESULTS

The annual incidence of new-onset diabetes during the exposure period was 3.09 % (22,951 patients). The HR of drug-dependent DM ranged from 0.79 to 2.37. One-third of the studied pharmacotherapies, including most of the antipsychotic-containing regimens, had a significantly higher risk of DM compared to "No drug". A significantly lower DM risk was associated with lithium, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine and bupropion monotherapies, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) mono-class therapy and several drug combinations containing bupropion and an SSRI. As additional drugs were combined in more complex polypharmacy, higher HRs were consistently observed.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an increased risk of diabetes mellitus associated with antipsychotic and psychotropic polypharmacy use in bipolar disorder. The evidence of a lower-than-baseline risk of DM with lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, lithium, and bupropion monotherapy should be further investigated.

Early prediction of olanzapine-induced weight gain for schizophrenia patients

The aim of this study was to determine whether weight changes at week 2 or other factors predicted weight gain at week 6 for schizophrenia patients receiving olanzapine. This study was the secondary analysis of a six-week trial for 94 patients receiving olanzapine (5 mg/d) plus trifluoperazine (5 mg/d), or olanzapine (10 mg/d) alone. Patients were included in analysis only if they had completed the 6-week trial (per protocol analysis). Weight gain was defined as a 7% or greater increase of the patient's baseline weight. The receiver operating characteristic curve was employed to determine the optimal cutoff points of statistically significant predictors. Eleven of the 67 patients completing the 6-week trial were classified as weight gainers. Weight change at week 2 was the statistically significant predictor for ultimate weight gain at week 6. A weight change of 1.0 kg at week 2 appeared to be the optimal cutoff point, with a sensitivity of 0.92, a specificity of 0.75, and an AUC of 0.85. Using weight change at week 2 to predict weight gain at week 6 is favorable in terms of both specificity and sensitivity. Weight change of 1.0 kg or more at 2 weeks is a reliable predictor.

Industry sponsorship and research outcome

BACKGROUND

Clinical research affecting how doctors practice medicine is increasingly sponsored by companies that make drugs and medical devices. Previous systematic reviews have found that pharmaceutical-industry sponsored studies are more often favorable to the sponsor's product compared with studies with other sources of sponsorship. A similar association between sponsorship and outcomes have been found for device studies, but the body of evidence is not as strong as for sponsorship of drug studies. This review is an update of a previous Cochrane review and includes empirical studies on the association between sponsorship and research outcome.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether industry sponsored drug and device studies have more favorable outcomes and differ in risk of bias, compared with studies having other sources of sponsorship.

SEARCH METHODS

In this update we searched MEDLINE (2010 to February 2015), Embase (2010 to February 2015), the Cochrane Methodology Register (2015, Issue 2) and Web of Science (June 2015). In addition, we searched reference lists of included papers, previous systematic reviews and author files.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses that quantitatively compared primary research studies of drugs or medical devices sponsored by industry with studies with other sources of sponsorship. We had no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two assessors screened abstracts and identified and included relevant papers. Two assessors extracted data, and we contacted authors of included papers for additional unpublished data. Outcomes included favorable results, favorable conclusions, effect size, risk of bias and whether the conclusions agreed with the study results. Two assessors assessed risk of bias of included papers. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)).

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-seven new papers were included in this update and in total the review contains 75 included papers. Industry sponsored studies more often had favorable efficacy results, RR: 1.27 (95% CI: 1.17 to 1.37) (25 papers) (moderate quality evidence), similar harms results RR: 1.37 (95% CI: 0.64 to 2.93) (four papers) (very low quality evidence) and more often favorable conclusions RR: 1.34 (95% CI: 1.19 to 1.51) (29 papers) (low quality evidence) compared with non-industry sponsored studies. Nineteen papers reported on sponsorship and efficacy effect size, but could not be pooled due to differences in their reporting of data and the results were heterogeneous. We did not find a difference between drug and device studies in the association between sponsorship and conclusions (test for interaction, P = 0.98) (four papers). Comparing industry and non-industry sponsored studies, we did not find a difference in risk of bias from sequence generation, allocation concealment, follow-up and selective outcome reporting. However, industry sponsored studies more often had low risk of bias from blinding, RR: 1.25 (95% CI: 1.05 to 1.50) (13 papers), compared with non-industry sponsored studies. In industry sponsored studies, there was less agreement between the results and the conclusions than in non-industry sponsored studies, RR: 0.83 (95% CI: 0.70 to 0.98) (six papers).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sponsorship of drug and device studies by the manufacturing company leads to more favorable efficacy results and conclusions than sponsorship by other sources. Our analyses suggest the existence of an industry bias that cannot be explained by standard 'Risk of bias' assessments.

Subjective Versus Objective Weight Gain During Acute Treatment With Second-Generation Antipsychotics in Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder

OBJECTIVES

To compare objective and subjective weight gain of second-generation antipsychotics in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

METHODS

English-language literature published and cited in PubMed (MEDLINE) from January 1966 to December 2015 was searched with the keywords antipsychotic, atypical antipsychotic, or generic/brand name of atypical antipsychotics, and schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, bipolar mania, or bipolar depression, and safety, tolerability, weight gain, and randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials. The absolute risk increases and the numbers needed to treat to harm (NNH) for ≥7% weight gain (objective) and self-report weight gain (subjective) were estimated.

RESULTS

In schizophrenia, the NNH for 7% or greater weight gain ranged from 5 to 62, and the NNH for self-reported weight gain was from 11 to -224. The ratio of self-reported NNH to 7% or greater NNH was from 1.5 to 8.0. In bipolar mania, the NNH for 7% or greater weight gain ranged from 7 to -101 and the NNH for self-reported weight gain was from 13 to 84. The ratio of self-reported NNH to 7% or greater NNH was from 0.9 to 2.5. In bipolar depression, the NNH for 7% or greater weight gain ranged from 5 to 69, and the NNH for self-reported weight gain was from 8 to 17. The ratio of self-reported NNH to 7% or greater NNH was 1.2 to 1.6.

CONCLUSIONS

Subjective reporting underestimated the risk of antipsychotic-related weight gain compared with objectively measured weight change. Self-awareness of antipsychotic-related weight gain was lower in patients with schizophrenia than in patients with bipolar disorder. Measuring weight change during antipsychotic treatment should be a routine practice.

Antipsychotic switching in schizoaffective disorder: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the evidence about the switching of antipsychotics in SZA in acute and maintenance treatment.

METHODS

A systematic review following the PRISMA statement identifying studies specifically conducted on, or including, SZA patients.

RESULTS

One analysis considered uniquely a SZA population, 13 more studies including an adequate SZA subsample were considered. Most of the studies were aimed at switching antipsychotic treatments to improve tolerability issues. Despite the absolute lack of trials specifically conducted on SZA populations, we found limited evidence on the use of aripiprazole, lurasidone, and, to a lesser extent, risperidone and ziprasidone as possible agents to substitute previous treatments whereas efficacy or, more frequently, tolerability issues arise. Evidence supports also the switch to risperidone long-acting injectable when the adherence to oral treatment may be a concern.

CONCLUSIONS

Antipsychotic switching in SZA is a neglected topic that would need better profiling. Clinicians should keep in mind the receptor binding characteristics of drugs in order to optimize transitions. Evidence supports the switch to aripiprazole and lurasidone, less strongly to risperidone and ziprasidone. The switch to risperidone long-acting injectable is supported, especially in patients with limited treatment adherence to oral therapy.

Post authorization safety study comparing quetiapine to risperidone and olanzapine

OBJECTIVES

To compare rates of specific adverse outcomes between patients starting quetiapine, olanzapine, or risperidone use in the Netherlands.

METHODS

Observational study using the PHARMO Database Network, including patients starting quetiapine (4658), olanzapine (5856), or risperidone (7229) in 2000-2009, comparing rates of all-cause mortality, failed suicide attempts, extrapyrimidal symptoms (EPS), diabetes mellitus (DM), hypothyroidism, and acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

KEY FINDINGS

Median follow-up until discontinuation/end of follow-up was 0.6 years. Prescribed doses were generally lower than the approved defined daily doses, especially for quetiapine. Quetiapine was significantly associated with lower EPS rates (HR 0.18; 95% CI 0.13-0.24), but higher failed suicide attempt rates (HR 2.07; 95% CI 1.35-3.16) compared to risperidone. Quetiapine was significantly associated with lower EPS rates (HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.42-0.84) and DM rates (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.44-0.97) compared to olanzapine. Rates for all-cause mortality, hypothyroidism, and stroke were similar between groups. AMI events were too infrequent to draw conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

Quetiapine was associated with lower EPS, but higher failed suicide attempt rates compared to risperidone. Quetiapine was associated with lower EPS and DM rates compared to olanzapine. The results should be interpreted with caution because of possible channelling and residual confounding. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Evaluation of the safety profile of Zolafren®, a generic olanzapine formulation, in patients with bipolar disorder: a post-authorization safety study

INTRODUCTION

Prior to registration, no clinical trial evaluating safety and tolerability of Zolafren® (Adamed Sp. z o.o., Czosnów, Poland), a generic olanzapine formulation, had been performed. Therefore, the aim of this post-authorization safety study (PASS) was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of Zolafren in patients with bipolar disorder (BD).

METHODS

Adverse events (AEs) associated with the use of Zolafren were recorded in a PASS, in an open-label, non-randomized, multicenter observational study involving 20,698 outpatients with BD.

RESULTS

Zolafren was used in both monotherapy (82.8%) and polytherapy (17.2%) at a mean dose of 12.1±4.2 mg. The most commonly used formulation was coated tablets (70.9%). Orally dissolving tablets (19.7%) and hard capsules (9.4%) were less commonly used. During a period of 171±47 days of exposure to Zolafren, 5883 AEs were reported in 2138 patients (10.3% of the study population). None of the reported AEs were severe. Zolafren-associated AEs were the reason for discontinuation in 43 patients and the reason for dose reduction in a further 762 patients. The most common AE was weight gain (by 1.6±3.3 kg) which was considered unrelated to the dose of Zolafren. During follow-up, the percentage of patients with very good tolerance with Zolafren increased from 44.4% to 59.8%. The percentage of patients who had confidence in Zolafren also increased.

CONCLUSION

The results of this PASS support the safety of Zolafren use and indicate a high tolerance in patients treated for BD.

FUNDING

Adamed Sp. z o.o., Czosnów, Poland.

Weight gain and antipsychotics: a drug safety review

INTRODUCTION

Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are widely used in several psychiatric disease entities and exert to a different extent a risk for antipsychotic-induced weight gain (AIWG). As AIWG is associated with an increase in metabolic syndrome or cardiovascular events, knowledge of these risks is crucial for further monitoring and the initiation of counteractive measures.

AREAS COVERED

We searched PubMed and Web of Sciences for randomized-controlled trials and naturalistic observational studies published between 2010 and 2014 with sample sizes exceeding 100, including all marketed SGAs apart from zotepine, and providing data on weight increase. We also summarized relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses of head-to-head comparisons.

EXPERT OPINION

Recently published data still support the hierarchical ranking of SGAs already proposed in previous reviews ranking clozapine and olanzapine as having the highest risk, followed by amisulpride, asenapine, iloperidone, paliperidone, quetiapine, risperidone and sertindole in the middle, and aripiprazole, lurasidone and ziprasidone with the lowest risk. Number needed to harm varied considerably in our meta-analysis. Younger patients and patients with a lower baseline body mass index are most vulnerable. The greatest amount of weight gain occurs within the first weeks of treatment. AIWG occurs in all diagnostic groups and is also common in treatment with first-generation antipsychotics; therefore, awareness of this adverse event is essential for anyone prescribing antipsychotics.

The multidimensional nature of metabolic syndrome in schizophrenia: lessons from studies of one-carbon metabolism and DNA methylation

Large data sets indicate that the prevalence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) is significantly higher in patients with schizophrenia in comparison with the general population. Given that interactions between genes and the environment may underlie the etiology of MetS in subjects with schizophrenia, it is feasible that epigenetic phenomena can serve as the etiological consensus between genetic and environmental factors. However, there is still a striking scarcity of studies aimed at investigating the role of aberrant DNA methylation in the development of MetS in this group of patients. This article provides an update on the epigenetics of schizophrenia and reviews studies on the role of one-carbon metabolism and aberrant DNA methylation in the development of MetS.