Olanzapine versus haloperidol in the treatment of patients with chronic schizophrenia: results of the Japan multicenter, double-blind olanzapine trial

Haloperidol (oral) versus olanzapine (oral) for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is often a severe and disabling psychiatric disorder. Antipsychotics remain the mainstay of psychotropic treatment for people with psychosis. In limited resource and humanitarian contexts, it is key to have several options for beneficial, low-cost antipsychotics, which require minimal monitoring. We wanted to compare oral haloperidol, as one of the most available antipsychotics in these settings, with a second-generation antipsychotic, olanzapine.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical benefits and harms of haloperidol compared to olanzapine for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia study-based register of trials, which is based on monthly searches of CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, ISRCTN, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed and WHO ICTRP. We screened the references of all included studies. We contacted relevant authors of trials for additional information where clarification was required or where data were incomplete. The register was last searched on 14 January 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing haloperidol with olanzapine for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Our main outcomes of interest were clinically important change in global state, relapse, clinically important change in mental state, extrapyramidal side effects, weight increase, clinically important change in quality of life and leaving the study early due to adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently evaluated and extracted data. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) and the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial or harmful outcome (NNTB or NNTH) with 95% CI. For continuous data, we estimated mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs. For all included studies, we assessed risk of bias (RoB 1) and we used the GRADE approach to create a summary of findings table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 68 studies randomising 9132 participants. We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in clinically important change in global state (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.02; 6 studies, 3078 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in relapse (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.02; 7 studies, 1499 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Haloperidol may reduce the incidence of clinically important change in overall mental state compared to olanzapine (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.81; 13 studies, 1210 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every eight people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience this improvement. The evidence suggests that haloperidol may result in a large increase in extrapyramidal side effects compared to olanzapine (RR 3.38, 95% CI 2.28 to 5.02; 14 studies, 3290 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every three people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one additional person would experience extrapyramidal side effects. For weight gain, the evidence suggests that there may be a large reduction in the risk with haloperidol compared to olanzapine (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.61; 18 studies, 4302 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every 10 people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience weight increase. A single study suggests that haloperidol may reduce the incidence of clinically important change in quality of life compared to olanzapine (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.91; 828 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every nine people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience clinically important improvement in quality of life. Haloperidol may result in an increase in the incidence of leaving the study early due to adverse effects compared to olanzapine (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.47; 21 studies, 5047 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every 22 people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience this outcome. Thirty otherwise relevant studies and several endpoints from 14 included studies could not be evaluated due to inconsistencies and poor transparency of several parameters. Furthermore, even within studies that were included, it was often not possible to use data for the same reasons. Risk of bias differed substantially for different outcomes and the certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to low. The most common risks of bias leading to downgrading of the evidence were blinding (performance bias) and selective reporting (reporting bias).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the certainty of the evidence was low to very low for the main outcomes in this review, making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions. We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in terms of clinically important global state and relapse. Olanzapine may result in a slightly greater overall clinically important change in mental state and in a clinically important change in quality of life. Different side effect profiles were noted: haloperidol may result in a large increase in extrapyramidal side effects and olanzapine in a large increase in weight gain. The drug of choice needs to take into account side effect profiles and the preferences of the individual. These findings and the recent inclusion of olanzapine alongside haloperidol in the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines should increase the likelihood of it becoming more easily available in low- and middle- income countries, thereby improving choice and providing a greater ability to respond to side effects for people with lived experience of schizophrenia. There is a need for additional research using appropriate and equivalent dosages of these drugs. Some of this research needs to be done in low- and middle-income settings and should actively seek to account for factors relevant to these. Research on antipsychotics needs to be person-centred and prioritise factors that are of interest to people with lived experience of schizophrenia.

The effect of differences in trial design on estimates of efficacy of olanzapine in randomized studies

BACKGROUND

Differences in trial design may affect estimates of efficacy of psychotropic drugs. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate whether the use of Olanzapine (OLZ) as either investigational or control drug affects the observed efficacy of OLZ.

METHODS

We performed a search for Randomized-Controlled Trials (RCTs) in which the efficacy of OLZ is assessed in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. We assessed overall efficacy of OLZ and performed subgroup analyses of studies with OLZ as intervention or comparator. Mixed-effect meta-regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Of the 25 RCTs included, OLZ was considered as investigational drug or active control in 13 and 12 studies, respectively. The reduction of PANSS score was greater in trials in which OLZ was used as investigational drug. Multivariate meta-regression models showed that a higher PANSS score at baseline and trial duration were the main predictors of greater PANSS score reduction.

CONCLUSIONS

Trials with OLZ used as investigational drug differ from those of trials with OLZ as comparator for baseline PANSS scores and study duration; these differences may produce differences in estimates of efficacy. As a consequence, the severity of illness at enrollment and trial duration should be carefully considered to ensure the reliability of indirect comparisons among antipsychotics.

Efficacy and safety of antipsychotic treatments for schizophrenia: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials in Japan

BACKGROUND

We examined the efficacy and safety of using antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia using only randomized trials of antipsychotic for schizophrenia conducted in Japan to avoid the biological and environmental heterogeneities caused by pooling data from various races and ethnicities.

METHODS

We searched for eligible studies on Embase, PubMed, and CENTRAL. Primary outcomes were improvement in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score (PANSS-T) and all-cause discontinuation. Other outcomes were improvement in PANSS subscale scores, discontinuation due to adverse events or inefficacy, and the incidence of 16 adverse events.

RESULTS

We calculated mean difference or risk ratios and 95% credible intervals. We identified 34 RCTs (6798 patients; mean study duration, 9.0 ± 4.24 weeks; proportion of male patients, 53.7%; mean age, 43.3 years). Besides placebo, studies included aripiprazole, asenapine, blonanserin, blonanserin-patch, brexpiprazole, clocapramine (no PANSS data), clozapine (no PANSS data), haloperidol, lurasidone, mosapramine, olanzapine, paliperidone, perospirone, quetiapine, and risperidone. Efficacy and safety profiles differed for antipsychotics used with schizophrenia in Japanese patients. All active treatments other than haloperidol and quetiapine outperformed placebo to improve PANSS-T. Asenapine, olanzapine, paliperidone, and risperidone outperformed placebo for all-cause discontinuation. Asenapine, blonanserin, blonanserin-patch, haloperidol, lurasidone, mosapramine, olanzapine, paliperidone, and risperidone outperformed placebo to improve PANSS positive subscale scores. Aripiprazole, asenapine, blonanserin, blonanserin-patch, brexpiprazole, lurasidone, olanzapine, paliperidone, perospirone, and risperidone outperformed placebo to improve PANSS negative subscale scores. The confidence in evidence of most outcomes was low or very low.

CONCLUSION

Our results are similar to those of previous network meta-analysis involving various races and ethnicities.

Dyskinesia is most centrally situated in an estimated network of extrapyramidal syndrome in Asian patients with schizophrenia: findings from research on Asian psychotropic prescription patterns for antipsychotics

BACKGROUND

Network analysis provides a new viewpoint that explicates intertwined and interrelated symptoms into dynamic causal architectures of symptom clusters. This is a process called 'symptomics' and is concurrently applied to various areas of symptomatology.

AIMS

Using the data from Research on Asian Psychotropic Prescription Patterns for Antipsychotics (REAP-AP), we aimed to estimate a network model of extrapyramidal syndrome in patients with schizophrenia.

METHODS

Using data from REAP-AP, extrapyramidal symptoms of 1046 Asian patients with schizophrenia were evaluated using the nine items of the Drug-Induced Extrapyramidal Symptoms Scale (DIEPSS). The estimated network of the ordered-categorical DIEPSS items consisted of nodes (symptoms) and edges (interconnections). A community detection algorithm was also used to identify distinctive symptom clusters, and correlation stability coefficients were used to evaluate the centrality stability.

RESULTS

An interpretable level of node strength centrality was ensured with a correlation coefficient. An estimated network of extrapyramidal syndrome showed that 26 (72.2%) of all possible 35 edges were estimated to be greater than zero. Dyskinesia was most centrally situated within the estimated network. In addition, earlier antipsychotic-induced extrapyramidal symptoms were divided into three distinctive clusters - extrapyramidal syndrome without parkinsonism, postural instability and gait difficulty-dominant parkinsonism, and tremor-dominant parkinsonism.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings showed that dyskinesia is the most central domain in an estimated network structure of extrapyramidal syndrome in Asian patients with schizophrenia. These findings are consistent with the speculation that acute dystonia, akathisia, and parkinsonism could be the risk factors of tardive dyskinesia.

Safety and effectiveness of oral blonanserin for schizophrenia: A review of Japanese post-marketing surveillances

Schizophrenia significantly limits social functioning with positive and negative symptoms and cognitive dysfunction. Blonanserin (LONASEN®), a novel second-generation antipsychotic approved for treating schizophrenia in Japan in 2008, reportedly shows beneficial effects on cognitive function as well as positive and negative symptoms, with potential for improving social functioning. To understand the safety and effectiveness of blonanserin in the real clinical practice, five Japanese post-marketing surveillances have been conducted and published to date. In this article, we reviewed all the Japanese post-marketing surveillances and discussed the clinical usefulness of blonanserin in patients with schizophrenia having diverse clinical characteristics. Adverse drug reactions, such as akathisia and extrapyramidal symptoms, were common in all surveillances. However, those specific to second-generation antipsychotics, such as weight gain and abnormalities in glycometabolism or lipid metabolism, were rarely observed. In addition, no adverse drug reactions apart from clinical trial results were found. Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale total scores in all surveillances significantly lowered at the last evaluation than at baseline. These results were consistent through 1-year of treatment, suggesting that effectiveness is maintained even after long-term use. In conclusion, blonanserin is considered a beneficial drug in real clinical practice for patients with schizophrenia having diverse characteristics.

Blonanserin vs risperidone in Japanese patients with schizophrenia: A post hoc analysis of a phase 3, 8-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled study

OBJECTIVE

To report the efficacy and safety of blonanserin in patients with schizophrenia compared with risperidone in a Japanese multicenter, randomized, double-blind study based on post hoc sensitivity analysis in addition to the previous results reported by Miura and discuss the current approaches for schizophrenia treatment.

METHODS

Of 302 patients randomized, 156 received blonanserin (8-24 mg/d) and 145 received risperidone (2-6 mg/d) for 8 weeks. Efficacy variables included the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score for the primary outcome, PANSS subscale, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) for secondary outcomes. Safety variables included treatment-emergent adverse events, Drug Induced Extrapyramidal Symptoms Scale scores, laboratory data, vital signs, electrocardiogram, etc RESULTS: Blonanserin was not inferior to risperidone in the change in PANSS total score at a non-inferior margin of -7 (intergroup difference, -0.46; 95% CI, -4.40 to 3.48). Post hoc analyses wholly supported the primary result. No major difference was found in the changes in BPRS scores and the improvement rate on CGI-I between the drugs. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two drugs. Blonanserin was associated with a lower risk of prolactin increase, weight gain, and orthostatic hypotension compared with risperidone. However, blonanserin was associated with a higher incidence of akathisia and excitability compared with risperidone. Most of the adverse events were mild to moderate in severity with no specific events of predominant high severity in the both drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Blonanserin exerted the similar efficacy to risperidone in both positive and negative symptoms in schizophrenia with a lower risk of prolactin increase, weight gain, and orthostatic hypotension compared with risperidone. Blonanserin will serve as a favorable treatment option for schizophrenia in daily clinical practice.

Blonanserin versus haloperidol in Japanese patients with schizophrenia: A phase 3, 8-week, double-blind, multicenter, randomized controlled study

OBJECTIVE

This Japanese, multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial, evaluating the efficacy and safety of blonanserin compared with haloperidol in patients with schizophrenia, was previously published by Murasaki in the Japanese language. In this article, we present the results of the trial based on full analysis dataset instead of per protocol dataset formerly reported and discuss the findings in light of the latest knowledge of pharmacological treatment for schizophrenia.

METHODS

A total of 265 patients were randomized to receive blonanserin (8 to 24 mg/d) or haloperidol (4 to 12 mg/d) twice daily for 8 weeks. Efficacy assessments included the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS).

RESULTS

Blonanserin was not inferior to haloperidol with a margin of 10% with respect to the improvement rate on CGI-I at end of study (60.5% vs 50.0%, P < 0.001). The decrease in the PANSS total score did not differ between the drugs (-10.3 vs -7.1). For the PANSS negative symptom score, the decrease was significantly greater with blonanserin than with haloperidol (P = 0.006). Blonanserin was well tolerated. The incidence of adverse events was similar for the two drugs. Extrapyramidal adverse events, sedation, hypotension, and prolactin increase were rarer with blonanserin than with haloperidol. No clinically important weight gain was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Blonanserin is as effective as haloperidol for the treatment of schizophrenia. Blonanserin is more effective for negative symptoms with a lower risk of extrapyramidal symptoms compared with haloperidol.

Comparative efficacy and safety of antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia: a network meta-analysis in a Japanese population

BACKGROUND

The relative efficacy and tolerability of antipsychotics for schizophrenia are considerably well studied. This study aimed to examine whether previous findings could be replicated in a genetically distinct and homogenous group (ie, Japanese patients with schizophrenia) and whether previous findings could be extended to a broader range of antipsychotics with previously unclear relative efficacy and tolerability.

METHODS

Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed in which randomized trials comparing any of the following interventions were included: second-generation antipsychotics, haloperidol, or placebo. The primary outcomes for efficacy and acceptability were the response rate and all-cause discontinuation. The secondary outcomes included the improvement of Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale scores, discontinuation because of adverse events, and individual adverse events.

RESULTS

Eighteen relevant studies were identified (total n=3,446; aripiprazole =267, blonanserin =285, clozapine =47, clocapramine =295, haloperidol =857, mosapramine =493, olanzapine =179, paliperidone =136, perospirone =146, placebo =138, quetiapine =212, and risperidone =338; mean study duration =8.33±1.41 weeks). In primary outcomes, olanzapine and paliperidone showed efficacy than placebo, and olanzapine and paliperidone showed superior acceptability compared with placebo. There were differences in the incidences of individual adverse events (the best antipsychotic: extrapyramidal symptoms = olanzapine, hyperprolactinemia- related symptoms = quetiapine, sedation = paliperidone, and weight change = blonanserin) among antipsychotics.

CONCLUSION

Although the current analysis exclusively included Japanese patients with schizophrenia, no remarkable differences were observed in efficacy and safety compared with previous meta-analyses. Diverse hierarchies in safety outcomes also support the implication that individual risk expectations for adverse events can guide clinical decisions. However, the sample size was relatively limited. Additional efficacy and safety data are required to fully obtain a conclusive understanding.

Placebo response in antipsychotic clinical trials: a meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Because increasing placebo response rates decrease drug-placebo differences and increase the number of failed trials, it is imperative to determine what is causing this trend.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the relationship between antipsychotic medication and placebo response by publication year, and to identify associated study design and implementation variables.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and PubMed were searched to identify randomized clinical trials of antipsychotic medications published from 1960 to July 2013.

STUDY SELECTION

Included were randomized clinical trials lasting 4 to 24 weeks, contrasting antipsychotic medication with placebo or an active comparator, and enrolling patients 18 years of age or older with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Standardized mean change scores were calculated for each treatment arm, plotted against publication year, and tested with Spearman rank correlation coefficients. Hierarchical linear modeling identified factors associated with the standardized mean change across medication and placebo treatment arms.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

We hypothesized that the mean change in placebo-treated patients would significantly increase from 1960 to the present, that a greater change would be observed in active comparator vs placebo-controlled trials, and that more protocol visits would increase the symptom change observed.

RESULTS

In the 105 trials examined, the mean change observed in placebo arms increased significantly with year of publication (n=39, r=0.52, P=.001), while the mean change in effective dose medication arms decreased significantly (n=208, r=-0.26, P<.001). Significant interactions were found between assignment to effective dose medication and publication year (t260=-5.55, P<.001), baseline severity (t260=5.08, P<.001), and study duration (t260=-3.76, P<.001), indicating that the average drug-placebo difference significantly decreased over time, with decreasing baseline severity and with increasing study duration. Medication treatment in comparator studies was associated with significantly more improvement than medication treatment in placebo-controlled trials (t93=2.73, P=.008).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The average treatment change associated with placebo treatment in antipsychotic trials increased since 1960, while the change associated with medication treatment decreased. Changes in randomized clinical trials leading to inflation of baseline scores, enrollment of less severely ill participants, and higher expectations of patients may all be responsible.

Acute psychiatric inpatient care: a cross-cultural comparison between two hospitals in Germany and Japan

BACKGROUND

Intercultural differences influence acute inpatient psychiatric care systems.

AIMS

To evaluate characteristics of acute inpatient care in a German and a Japanese hospital.

METHOD

Based on a sample of 465 admissions to the Psychiatric State Hospital Regensburg (BKR) and 91 admissions to the Hirakawa Hospital (HH) over a six-month period in 2008, data from the psychiatric basic documentation system (BADO) were analysed with regard to socio-demographic characteristics, treatment processes and outcome indicators.

RESULTS

Schizophrenia and related psychosis was the most common diagnosis in both hospitals. Cases at the BKR were admitted more quickly after onset of the present episode. Global Assessment of Psychosocial Functioning (GAF) ratings at admission were lower at the HH. Most admissions to both hospitals received psychopharmacological treatment, but more at the HH received psychotherapy. Length of stay was significantly longer at the HH (75 days) than at the BKR (28 days). Admissions to the HH were more improved with regard to GAF and clinical global impression (CGI).

CONCLUSIONS

Acute admissions in Germany provide intensive care with short hospitalization as crisis intervention. For acute admissions in Japan, comprehensive care for severe mental illness precedes emergency admissions and achieves greater improvement with longer hospitalization.

World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) Guidelines for Biological Treatment of Schizophrenia, part 1: update 2012 on the acute treatment of schizophrenia and the management of treatment resistance

These updated guidelines are based on a first edition of the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry Guidelines for Biological Treatment of Schizophrenia published in 2005. For this 2012 revision, all available publications pertaining to the biological treatment of schizophrenia were reviewed systematically to allow for an evidence-based update. These guidelines provide evidence-based practice recommendations that are clinically and scientifically meaningful and these guidelines are intended to be used by all physicians diagnosing and treating people suffering from schizophrenia. Based on the first version of these guidelines, a systematic review of the MEDLINE/PUBMED database and the Cochrane Library, in addition to data extraction from national treatment guidelines, has been performed for this update. The identified literature was evaluated with respect to the strength of evidence for its efficacy and then categorised into six levels of evidence (A-F; Bandelow et al. 2008b, World J Biol Psychiatry 9:242). This first part of the updated guidelines covers the general descriptions of antipsychotics and their side effects, the biological treatment of acute schizophrenia and the management of treatment-resistant schizophrenia.

Predictors of continuation with olanzapine during the 1-year naturalistic treatment of patients with schizophrenia in Japan

PURPOSE

Treatment continuation is considered an important measure of antipsychotic effectiveness in schizophrenia, reflecting the medication's efficacy, safety, and tolerability from both patients' and clinicians' perspectives. This study identified characteristics of patients with schizophrenia who continue olanzapine therapy for a 1-year period in Japan.

METHODS

In a large (N = 1850), prospective, observational study, Japanese patients with schizophrenia who initiated treatment with olanzapine were followed for 1 year. Baseline characteristics were compared using t-tests and chi-square tests. Stepwise logistic regression was used to identify independent baseline predictors of treatment continuation.

RESULTS

Most patients (68.2%) continued with olanzapine therapy for the full 1-year study period, with an average duration of 265.5 ± 119.4 days. At baseline, patients who continued were significantly more likely to be male, older, and inpatients; have longer illness duration, higher negative and cognitive symptoms, better health-related quality of life, and prior anticholinergic use. Continuers were significantly less likely to engage in social activities, live independently, work for pay, or have prior antidepressant use. Continuers showed significantly greater early (3-month) improvement in global symptom severity. Logistic regression found that continuation was significantly predicted by longer illness duration, lower positive symptoms, higher negative symptoms, and better health-related quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large naturalistic study in Japan, most patients with schizophrenia stayed on olanzapine therapy for the full 1-year study period. Treatment completion with olanzapine was independently predicted by longer illness duration, lower positive symptoms, higher negative symptoms, and better health-related quality of life.

Antipsychotic medication for early episode schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Long-term treatment with antipsychotic medications in early episode schizophrenia spectrum disorders is common, but both short and long-term effects on the illness are unclear. There have been numerous suggestions that people with early episodes of schizophrenia appear to respond differently than those with multiple prior episodes. The number of episodes may moderate response to drug treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of antipsychotic medication treatment on people with early episode schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group register (July 2007) as well as references of included studies. We contacted authors of studies for further data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies with a majority of first and second episode schizophrenia spectrum disorders comparing initial antipsychotic medication treatment with placebo, milieu, or psychosocial treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Working independently, we critically appraised records from 681studies, of which five studies met inclusion criteria. John Rathbone from the Schizophrenia Group supported us with the data extraction. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) where possible. For continuous data, we calculated mean difference (MD). We calculated numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH) where appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies with a combined N = 998 met inclusion criteria. Four studies (N = 724) provided leaving the study early data and results suggested that individuals treated with a typical antipsychotic medication are less likely to leave the study early than those treated with placebo (Chlorpromazine: 3 RCTs N = 353, RR 0.4 CI 0.3 to 0.5, NNT 3.2, Fluphenaxine: 1 RCT N = 240, RR 0.5 CI 0.3 to 0.8, NNT 5; Thioridazine: 1 RCT N = 236, RR 0.44 CI 0.3 to 0.7, NNT 4.3, Trifulperazine: 1 RCT N = 94, RR 0.96 CI 0.3 to 3.6). Two studies (Cole 1964; May 1976) contributed data to assessment of side effects and present a general pattern of more frequent side effects among individuals treated with typical antipsychotic medications compared to placebo. Rappaport 1978 suggested a higher rehospitalisation rate for those receiving chlorpromazine compared to placebo (N = 80, RR 2.29 CI 1.3 to 4.0, NNH 2.9). However, a higher attrition in the placebo group is likely to have introduced a survivor bias into this comparison, as this difference becomes non-significant in a sensitivity analysis on intent-to-treat participants (N = 127, RR 1.69 CI 0.9 to 3.0). One study (May 1976) contributes data to a comparison of trifluoperazine to psychotherapy on long-term health in favour of the trifluoperazine group (N = 92, MD 5.8 CI 1.6 to 0.0); however, data from this study are also likely to contain biases due to selection and attrition. One study (Mosher 1995) contributes data to a comparison of typical antipsychotic medication to psychosocial treatment on six-week outcome measures of global psychopathology (N = 89, MD 0.01 CI -0.6 to 0.6) and global improvement (N = 89, MD -0.03 CI -0.5 to 0.4), indicating no between-group differences. On the whole, there is very little useable data in the few studies meeting inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

With only a few studies meeting inclusion criteria, and with limited useable data in these studies, it is not possible to arrive at definitive conclusions. The preliminary pattern of evidence suggests that people with early episode schizophrenia treated with typical antipsychotic medications are less likely to leave the study early, but more likely to experience medication-related side effects. Data are too sparse to assess the effects of antipsychotic medication on outcomes in early episode schizophrenia.

Dropout rates in randomized clinical trials of antipsychotics: a meta-analysis comparing first- and second-generation drugs and an examination of the role of trial design features

Dropout is often used as an outcome measure in clinical trials of antipsychotic medication. Previous research is inconclusive regarding (a) differences in dropout rates between first- and second-generation antipsychotic medications and (b) how trial design features reduce dropout. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antipsychotic medication was conducted to compare dropout rates for first- and second-generation antipsychotic drugs and to examine how a broad range of design features effect dropout. Ninety-three RCTs that met inclusion criteria were located (n = 26 686). Meta-analytic random effects models showed that dropout was higher for first- than second-generation drugs (odds ratio = 1.49, 95% confidence interval: 1.31-1.66). This advantage persisted after removing study arms with excessively high dosages, in flexible dose studies, studies of patients with symptom exacerbation, nonresponder patients, inpatients, and outpatients. Mixed effects models for meta-analysis were used to identify design features that effected dropout and develop formulae to derive expected dropout rates based on trial design features, and these assigned a pivotal role to duration. Collectively, dropout rates are lower for second- than first-generation antipsychotic drugs and appear to be partly explained by trial design features thus providing direction for future trial design.

Effectiveness and safety of olanzapine in the treatment of schizophrenia among Asian patients switching from conventional antipsychotics

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were: (1) to investigate, in a clinical practice setting, the effectiveness of olanzapine in the treatment of schizophrenia among partially-responding, symptomatic Asian patients who switch from conventional antipsychotic treatment, (2) to assess the safety of olanzapine and (3) to assess the change in quality of life in Asian patients with schizophrenia who switch to olanzapine.

METHODS

Effectiveness, safety and quality of life were assessed in outpatients with schizophrenia (n=1267) who lacked symptomatic control with conventional antipsychotics and were switched to olanzapine therapy. Data for this prospective, observational study were collected for 12 months from Asian patients in China, Hong Kong, the Philippines, South Korea and Taiwan.

RESULTS

Significant clinical improvements (P<0.05) were observed following 12 months of olanzapine treatment and 87.3% of the subjects responded to treatment at endpoint (i.e. Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale Total score reduced by > or =30% relative to baseline; last observation carried forward). Abnormal involuntary movements (mean change in Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale: -3.20, P<0.001) and quality of life were significantly improved in patients treated with olanzapine. However, some patients experienced significant weight gain (3.60+/-4.50 kg, P<0.001) with olanzapine treatment, relative to baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that switching to olanzapine may be effective in improving symptoms, may be well-tolerated and may improve the quality of life in Asian patients who are only partially responsive to treatment with conventional antipsychotics. The pragmatic design and naturalistic setting of this large study make the findings relevant for treating patients from some Asian countries in routine clinical practice.

EPS profiles: the atypical antipsychotics are not all the same

Within the first few years after chlorpromazine began to be used to treat psychosis, it was observed that it could cause many kinds of neurologic reactions that resembled those seen in idiopathic Parkinson's disease. These reactions were termed "extrapyramidal side effects" (EPS) because of their resemblance to the signs of Parkinson's disease, which were associated with degeneration of the dopamine nerve tracks located in the extrapyramidal region of the central nervous system. Eventually this association of dopamine loss, antipsychotics, and parkinsonism became a central part of the dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia. Unfortunately, this association was also used to support the hypothesis that EPS were absolutely necessary for antipsychotic efficacy--hence the term "neuroleptic" rather than "antipsychotic." This theory, now discredited, was used to justify the practice of inducing EPS as a means to gauge whether an antipsychotic would be effective. The demonstration that clozapine, an antipsychotic virtually devoid of EPS, has better efficacy for psychosis than any other "neuroleptic" disproved the theory that EPS were fundamentally linked to efficacy. Because the idea of a relationship between EPS and efficacy was so ingrained in clinical practice, clozapine was called "atypical." Our understanding of the relationship between EPS and antipsychotic response has come full circle. With the introduction of clozapine and other newer antipsychotics, it has become clear that EPS are harmful and serve no beneficial purpose. The availability of newer antipsychotics with a lower EPS burden means that, at least in theory, it is now possible to treat psychosis without EPS in the vast majority of patients. In practice, however, EPS remain a significant problem even in the era of atypical or second generation antipsychotics (SGAs). One limitation is that the concept of "atypicality," when used to denote antipsychotic efficacy without EPS, is a relative not an absolute concept. Because all of the post-clozapine SGAs still affect the dopamine D2 receptor, it may be more accurate to say these medications have lower EPS liabilities that the earlier "neuroleptic" antipsychotics; i.e., relatively fewer patients will get EPS at therapeutic doses of one of the newer medications and, when EPS do occur, they tend to be less severe. Nonetheless, reduced EPS are not the same as no EPS, and most of the newer antipsychotics can still cause EPS in some patients. The incidence of EPS differs among the SGAs, with risperidone associated with the most and clozapine and quetiapine with the fewest EPS. The likelihood of developing EPS with a first-line SGA depends not only on the specific agent, but also on the rapidity of dose escalation, the target dose, and the patient's intrinsic vulnerability to EPS. Even with the SGAs, clinicians should not be lulled into believing EPS cannot happen, but need to be able to recognize and manage both overt and subtle manifestations of EPS. This review discusses differences among the SGAs in EPS liability, relationships between dosing and type of EPS, and situations in which differences in EPS liability among the SGAs are clinically relevant.

Diabetes risk associated with use of olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone in veterans health administration patients with schizophrenia

To evaluate risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes associated with use of selected antipsychotic agents, the authors conducted a new-user cohort study in a national sample of US Veterans Health Administration patients with schizophrenia (and no preexisting diabetes). The authors studied 15,767 patients who initiated use of olanzapine, risperidone, quetiapine, or haloperidol in 1999-2001 after at least 3 months with no antipsychotic prescriptions. Patients were followed for just over 1 year. New-onset diabetes was identified through diagnostic codes and prescriptions for diabetes medication. In Cox proportional hazards regression adjusting for potential confounders, with patients initiating haloperidol use designated the reference group, diabetes risk was increased equally with new use of olanzapine (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.64, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.22, 2.19), risperidone (HR = 1.60, 95% CI: 1.19, 2.14), or quetiapine (HR = 1.67, 95% CI: 1.01, 2.76). Diabetes risks were higher in patients under age 50 years. When data were reanalyzed with prevalent-user cohorts and matched case-control designs, results were similar, with slightly less elevated risk estimates. Assuming that the observed associations are causal, approximately one third of new cases of diabetes may be attributed to use of olanzapine, risperidone, and quetiapine in patients taking these medications. Prescribers should be mindful of diabetes risks when treating patients with schizophrenia.

Treatment with olanzapine, risperidone or typical antipsychotic drugs in Asian patients with schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

To examine clinical outcomes in Asian patients with schizophrenia receiving monotherapy with olanzapine, risperidone or typical antipsychotics in naturalistic settings.

METHOD

In this report, data from the first 12 months of the prospective, observational, 3-year Intercontinental Schizophrenia Outpatient Health Outcomes study are presented for patients from participating Asian countries (Korea, Taiwan and Malaysia) who were started on, or switched to, monotherapy with olanzapine (n = 484), risperidone (n = 287) or a typical antipsychotic drug (n = 127) at baseline.

RESULTS

At 12 months, overall reduction in the score of Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness rating scale was greatest with olanzapine (p < 0.001 vs typical agents), followed by risperidone (p = 0.007 vs typical agents) treatment. Olanzapine treatment was found to have significantly better effects than typical agents on negative and depressive symptom scores, and significantly greater improvements than risperidone on negative and cognitive symptoms. The occurrence of extrapyramidal symptoms was least likely with olanzapine (p < 0.001 vs typical agents, and p = 0.012 vs risperidone), while the estimated odds of tardive dyskinesia were greatest in the typical treatment group (p = 0.046 vs olanzapine, and p = 0.082 vs risperidone). Mean weight increase was greater for olanzapine-treated patients compared with the other agents (p = 0.030 vs typical agents and p < 0.001 vs risperidone). The risk of menstrual disturbance was relatively high with risperidone when compared with olanzapine treatment (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this observational study indicate that, in Asian patients with schizophrenia, olanzapine may offer benefits when compared with typical agents or risperidone. However, the significantly greater odds of weight gain should be considered in the clinical management of olanzapine-treated patients.

Pharmacological management of akathisia in combination with psychological interventions by a mental health nurse consultant

The article describes the management of akathisia by a mental health nurse (MHN) prescriber, working in partnership with the patient. A single-case design was used to evaluate this. It highlights three features: first, MHN can safely prescribe psychiatric medication in combination with concordance therapy. Second, the value base underpinning prescribing practice is partnership, honesty and choice for the patient. Finally, the pharmacological mechanism of antipsychotic medication, which contributes towards akathisia, requires further analysis.

Receptor occupancy-based analysis of the contributions of various receptors to antipsychotics-induced weight gain and diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVE

Among various adverse reactions of atypical antipsychotics, weight gain and impaired glucose tolerance are clinically significant. The aim of this study is to analyze quantitatively the contributions of various receptors to these antipsychotics-induced adverse reactions based on the receptor occupancy theory.

METHODS

Two indices of antipsychotics-induced weight gain (the values estimated by a meta-analysis and the observed values in clinical trials) and the morbidity rate of type 2 diabetes mellitus during treatment with antipsychotics were taken from the literature. We calculated the estimated mean receptor occupancies of alpha1 adrenergic, alpha2 adrenergic, dopamine D2, histamine H1, muscarinic acetylcholine (mACh), serotonin 5-HT1A, 5-HT2A and 5-HT2C receptors by antipsychotics by using the pharmacokinetic parameters and receptor dissociation constants, and analyzed the correlation between the occupancies and the extent of adverse reactions as assessed using the aforementioned indices.

RESULTS

There were statistically significant correlations between the estimated occupancies of H1 and mACh receptors and antipsychotics-induced weight gain estimated by meta-analysis (r(s) = 0.81 and r(s) = 0.83, respectively, p < 0.01). There were also statistically significant correlations between these receptor occupancies and observed weight gain in clinical trials (r(s) = 0.66 in each case, p < 0.01). The morbidity rate of type 2 diabetes mellitus was highly correlated with H1, mACh, and 5-HT2C receptor occupancies (r(s) = 0.90 in each case, p < 0.05). However, H1 receptor occupancy was also highly correlated with mACh receptor occupancy among antipsychotics, so that only one of them may be critically associated with the adverse reactions. Considering that these adverse reactions have not been reported for drugs with mACh receptor antagonistic action, other than antipsychotics, the H1 receptor may contribute predominantly to the antipsychotics-induced weight gain and diabetes mellitus.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

Model analysis based on receptor occupancy indicates that H1 receptor blockade is the primary cause of antipsychotics-induced weight gain and diabetes mellitus.

Estimating transitions between symptom severity states over time in schizophrenia: a Bayesian meta-analytic approach

We obtain the posterior predictive distribution of transition probabilities between symptom severity states over time for patients with schizophrenia by (i) employing a Bayesian meta-analysis of published clinical trials and observational studies to estimate the posterior distribution of parameters that guide changes in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) scores over time and under the influence of various drugs and (ii) by propagating the variability from the posterior distributions of the parameters through a micro-simulation model that is formulated based on schizophrenia progression. Results show detailed differences among haloperidol, risperidone and olanzapine in controlling various levels of severities of positive, negative and joint symptoms over time. For example, risperidone seems best in controlling severe positive symptoms while olanzapine is the worst in that during the first quarter of drug treatment; however, olanzapine seems to be best in controlling severe negative symptoms across all four quarters of treatment while haloperidol is the worst in this regard. These details may further serve to better estimate quality of life of patients and aid in resource utilization decisions in treating schizophrenic patients. In addition, consistent estimation of uncertainty in the time-profile parameters also has important implications for the practice of cost-effectiveness analysis and for future resource allocation policies in schizophrenia treatment.

World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) guidelines for biological treatment of schizophrenia, Part 1: acute treatment of schizophrenia

These guide lines for the biological treatment of schizophrenia were developed by an international Task Force of the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBO). The goal during the development of these guidelines was to review systematically all available evidence pertaining to the treatment of schizophrenia, and to reach a consensus on a series of practice recommendations that are clinically and scientifically meaningful based on the available evidence. These guidelines are intended for use by all physicians seeing and treating people with schizophrenia. The data used for developing these guidelines have been extracted primarily from various national treatment guidelines and panels for schizophrenia, as well as from meta-analyses, reviews and randomised clinical trials on the efficacy of pharmacological and other biological treatment interventions identified by a search of the MEDLINE database and Cochrane Library. The identified literature was evaluated with respect to the strength of evidence for its efficacy and then categorised into four levels of evidence (A-D). This first part of the guidelines covers disease definition, classification, epidemiology and course of schizophrenia, as well as the management of the acute phase treatment. These guidelines are primarily concerned with the biological treatment (including antipsychotic medication, other pharmacological treatment options, electroconvulsive therapy, adjunctive and novel therapeutic strategies) of adults suffering from schizophrenia.

Efficacy of olanzapine and ziprasidone for the treatment of schizophrenia: a systematic review

It is difficult to determine the relative efficacy of atypical antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia, based on the available literature. The purpose of this article is to review and compare the efficacy of two atypical antipsychotics: olanzapine and ziprasidone.This review focused on randomised trials in which these two antipsychotics were compared with placebo, conventional antipsychotics and each other. Common efficacy measures were the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and Schedule for Assessment of Negative Symptoms. When sufficient data were available, the mean treatment effect (with 95% confidence intervals) was computed and presented. Olanzapine was consistently found to be significantly superior to placebo and comparable with, or superior to, haloperidol for the treatment of overall, positive and negative schizophrenic symptoms. Ziprasidone appears to have significantly greater efficacy than placebo for overall and negative symptoms, but it remains uncertain whether ziprasidone is comparable in efficacy with conventional antipsychotics such as haloperidol. Two unpublished clinical trials have directly compared olanzapine and ziprasidone. One of these trials found no significant efficacy differences between the two drugs, whereas the results of the other study favoured olanzapine. Compared with ziprasidone, olanzapine has a larger body of evidence supporting its efficacy, and a greater proportion of findings for olanzapine have been published, allowing for greater scrutiny of results. Both drugs appear to be superior to placebo for the treatment of overall and negative symptoms of schizophrenia, but olanzapine generally compares more favourably with conventional antipsychotics. Firm conclusions regarding the comparison between olanzapine and ziprasidone require additional published trials on ziprasidone, particularly in direct comparison with olanzapine.

Olanzapine for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Olanzapine is an atypical antipsychotic reported to be effective without producing disabling extrapyramidal adverse effects associated with older, typical antipsychotic drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effects and safety of olanzapine compared with placebo, typical and other atypical antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia and schizophreniform psychoses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We updated the first search [Biological Abstracts (1980-1999), The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 1999), EMBASE (1980-1999), MEDLINE (1966-1999), PsycLIT (1974-1999) and The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (October 2000)] in October 2004 using the Cochrane Schizophrenia's Group's register of trials. We also searched references of all included studies for further trials, and contacted relevant pharmaceutical companies and authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing olanzapine with placebo or any antipsychotic treatment for people with schizophrenia or schizophreniform psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently extracted data and, for homogeneous dichotomous data, calculated the random effects relative risk (RR), the 95% confidence intervals (CI) and the number needed to treat (NNT) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data we calculated weighted mean differences.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty five trials are included (total n>10000 people with schizophrenia). Attrition from olanzapine versus placebo studies was >50% by six weeks, leaving interpretation of results problematic. Olanzapine appeared superior to placebo at six weeks for the outcome of 'no important clinical response' (any dose, 2 RCTs n=418, RR 0.88 CI 0.8 to 0.1, NNT 8 CI 5 to 27). Although dizziness and dry mouth were reported more frequently in the olanzapine-treated group, this did not reach statistical significance. The olanzapine group gained more weight. When compared with typical antipsychotic drugs, data from several small trials are incomplete. With high attrition in both groups (14 RCTs, n=3344, 38% attrition by six weeks, RR 0.81 CI 0.65 to 1.02) the assumptions included in all data are considerable. For the short term outcome of 'no important clinical response', olanzapine seems as effective as typical antipsychotics (4 RCTs, n=2778, RR 0.90 CI 0.76 to 1.06). People allocated olanzapine experienced fewer extrapyramidal adverse effects than those given typical antipsychotics. Weight change data for the short term are not statistically significant but results between three to 12 months suggest a clinically important average gain of four kilograms for people given olanzapine (4 RCTs, n=186, WMD 4.62, CI 0.6 to 8.64). Twenty three percent of people in trials of olanzapine and other atypical drugs left by eight weeks; 48% by three to12 months (11 RCTs, n=1847, RR 0.91 CI 0.82 to 1.00). There is little to choose between the atypicals, although olanzapine may cause fewer extrapyramidal adverse effects than other drugs in this category. Olanzapine produces more weight gain than other atypicals with some differences reaching conventional levels of statistical significance (1 RCT, n=980, RR gain at 2 years 1.73 CI 1.49 to 2.00, NNH 5 CI 4 to 7). There are very few data for people with first episode illness (1 RCT, duration 6 weeks, n=42). For people with treatment-resistant illness there were no clear differences between olanzapine and clozapine (4 RCTs, n=457).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The large proportion of participants leaving studies early in these trials makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions on olanzapine's clinical effects. For people with schizophrenia it may offer antipsychotic efficacy with fewer extrapyramidal adverse effects than typical drugs, but more weight gain. There is a need for further large, long-term randomised trials with more comprehensive data.

Treatment of schizophrenia: implications derived from an intercultural hospital comparison between Germany and Japan

OBJECTIVES

The study was aimed at evaluating facets of psychiatric inpatient care of patients with schizophrenia in a German and a Japanese hospital.

METHODS

Based upon a sample of 865 inpatients of the Psychiatric State Hospital Regensburg (BKR) and 50 inpatients of the Tokyo Women's Medical University (TWMU) admitted in 1997, data of a psychiatric basic documentation system (BADO) were analysed with regard to essential process and outcome indicators.

RESULTS

Despite dissimilarities between both patient groups with respect to schizophrenic subtype, duration of illness as well as severity of illness and psychosocial functioning, the differences regarding therapeutic treatment and outcome were marked. In 1997, the rate of atypical neuroleptics was 18% at the BKR and 12% at the TWMU. Inpatients of the TWMU were given benzodiazepines and anticholinergic drugs significantly more frequently. Male patients of the TWMU showed more severe side-effects. Psychotherapy and sociotherapy were less frequently applied at the TWMU. Although the patient groups did not differ with regard to suicidal behaviour and overt aggressions during hospitalisation, we found a higher rate of mechanical restraints at the TWMU. In 1997, the average length of stay was significantly higher at the TWMU (153 days) than at the BKR (52 days), but inpatients of the TWMU improved only slightly better with regard to global psychosocial functioning (GAF) and severity of illness (CGI).

CONCLUSIONS

The revealed differences in treatment are likely due to differences in service provision and national practices in Germany and Japan and provide clues for quality improvements. The BADO is a useful tool for continuous quality management and an ongoing international exchange concerning psychiatric inpatient care.

Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic Analysis of Antipsychotics-induced Extrapyramidal Symptoms based on Receptor Occupancy Theory Incorporating Endogenous Dopamine Release

We aimed to analyze the risks of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) induced by typical and atypical antipsychotic drugs using a common pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) model based on the receptor occupancy. We collected the data for EPS induced by atypical antipsychotics, risperidone, olanzapine and quetiapine, and a typical antipsychotic, haloperidol from literature and analyzed the following five indices of EPS, the ratio of patients obliged to take anticholinergic medication, the occurrence rates of plural extrapyramidal symptoms (more than one of tremor, dystonia, hypokinesia, akathisia, extrapyramidal syndrome, etc.), parkinsonism, akathisia, and extrapyramidal syndrome. We tested two models, i.e., a model incorporating endogenous dopamine release owing to 5-HT2A receptor inhibition and a model not considering the endogenous dopamine release, and used them to examine the relationship between the D2 receptor occupancy of endogenous dopamine and the extent of drug-induced EPS. The model incorporating endogenous dopamine release better described the relationship between the mean D2 receptor occupancy of endogenous dopamine and the extent of EPS than the other model, as assessed by the final sum of squares of residuals (final SS) and Akaike's Information Criteria (AIC). Furthermore, the former model could appropriately predict the risks of EPS induced by two other atypical antipsychotics, clozapine and ziprasidone, which were not incorporated into the model development. The developed model incorporating endogenous dopamine release owing to 5-HT2A receptor inhibition may be useful for the prediction of antipsychotics-induced EPS.

An analysis of the effect of funding source in randomized clinical trials of second generation antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

The effect of funding source on the outcome of randomized controlled trials has been investigated in several medical disciplines; however, psychiatry has been largely excluded from such analyses. In this article, randomized controlled trials of second generation antipsychotics in schizophrenia are reviewed and analyzed with respect to funding source (industry vs. non-industry funding).

METHOD

A literature search was conducted for randomized, double-blind trials in which at least one of the tested treatments was a second generation antipsychotic. In each study, design quality and study outcome were assessed quantitatively according to rating scales. Mean quality and outcome scores were compared in the industry-funded studies and non-industry-funded studies. An analysis of the primary author's affiliation with industry was similarly performed.

RESULTS

Results of industry-funded studies significantly favored second generation over first generation antipsychotics when compared to non-industry-funded studies. Non-industry-funded studies showed a trend toward higher quality than industry-funded studies; however, the difference between the two was not significant. Also, within the industry-funded studies, outcomes of trials involving first authors employed by industry sponsors demonstrated a trend toward second generation over first generation antipsychotics to a greater degree than did trials involving first authors employed outside the industry (p=0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

While the retrospective design of the study limits the strength of the findings, the data suggest that industry bias may occur in randomized controlled trials in schizophrenia. There appears to be several sources by which bias may enter clinical research, including trial design, control of data analysis and multiplicity/redundancy of trials.

Comparison of the effects of intrathecal ropivacaine, levobupivacaine, and bupivacaine for Caesarean section

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to detect if intrathecal (i.t.) ropivacaine and levobupivacaine provided anaesthesia (satisfactory analgesia and muscular relaxation) and postoperative analgesia of similar quality to bupivacaine in patients undergoing Caesarean section.

METHODS

Ninety parturients were enrolled. A combined spinal-epidural technique was used. Patients were randomly assigned to receive one of the following isobaric i.t. solutions: bupivacaine 8 mg (n=30), levobupivacaine 8 mg (n=30), or ropivacaine 12 mg (n=30), all combined with sufentanil 2.5 microg. An i.t. solution was considered effective if an upper sensory level to pinprick of T4 or above was achieved and if intraoperative epidural supplementation was not required. Sensory changes and motor changes were recorded.

RESULTS

Anaesthesia was effective in 97, 80, and 87% of patients in the bupivacaine 8 mg, levobupivacaine 8 mg, and ropivacaine 12 mg groups, respectively. Bupivacaine 8 mg was associated with a significantly superior success rate to that observed in the levobupivacaine group (P<0.05). It also provided a longer duration of analgesia and motor block (P<0.05 vs levobupivacaine and ropivacaine).

CONCLUSIONS

The racemic mixture of bupivacaine combined with sufentanil remains an appropriate choice when performing Caesarean sections under spinal anaesthesia.

Olanzapine in Chinese treatment-resistant patients with schizophrenia: an open-label, prospective trial

The role of olanzapine in treatment-resistant schizophrenia has still not been clearly resolved. In addressing this issue, the current report presents an open-label, prospective, 13 week trial with olanzapine use in Chinese schizophrenic patients who were resistant to more than two different classes of antipsychotics during a minimal 4 week treatment period for each antipsychotic drug at adequate dosage. Fifty-one inpatients were recruited after a cross-titration period and given 10-25 mg of olanzapine daily, without any concomitant antipsychotic medication. Patients were evaluated with the Brief Psychotic Rating Scale (BPRS), the Positive and Negative Symptoms Scale, the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI), the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale, the Simpson-Angus scale, and the Barnes Akathisia Scale. The olanzapine-treated patients showed significant improvement in both the positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia by the end of the study. Overall, 20 of 51 (39.2%) responded to 10-25 mg of olanzapine per day as measured by the BPRS and CGI scores. Five patients dropped out due to the worsening of their psychotic symptoms, two patients discontinued owing to poor drug compliance, and the remaining patient complained of a lack of efficacy. Extrapyramidal side-effects were mild, and anticholinergic medications required has decreased. The present open study suggests that olanzapine may be effective and well-tolerated in Chinese treatment-resistant schizophrenic patients. Further double-blinded trials are needed to confirm this result.

Treatment for delirium with risperidone: results of a prospective open trial with 10 patients

Delirium is a common psychiatric illness among medically compromised patients. There is an increasing opportunity to use atypical antipsychotics to treat delirium. The effects of these drugs on delirium, however, the most appropriate way to use them, and the associated adverse effects remain unclear. To clarify these points, a prospective open trial on risperidone was carried out in 10 patients with delirium. At a low dose of 1.7 mg/d, on average, risperidone was effective in 80% of patients, and the effect appeared within a few days. There were no serious adverse effects. However, sleepiness (30%) and mild drug-induced parkinsonism (10%) were observed; the symptom of sleepiness was a reason for not increasing the dose. One patient responded to a dose as low as 0.5 mg/d, so it is recommended that treatment start at a low dose, which may then be increased gradually. This trial is a preliminary open study with a small sample size, and further controlled studies will be necessary.

The new and evolving pharmacotherapy of schizophrenia

Based on the evidence presented here, the following tentative conclusions can be drawn. Atypical antipsychotics (except amisulpride) have shown superiority over placebo in acute schizophrenia. Compared with conventional antipsychotics, they are at least as effective. Generally, analyses employing conservative criteria (e.g., Cochrane reviews) report few efficacy differences between atypical and conventional agents. There are now many well-controlled studies indicating modest advantages for the atypical antipsychotics, however, particularly in specific symptom domains. For the treatment of negative symptoms, olanzapine and to a lesser extent amisulpride seem most promising. Risperidone, olanzapine, and quetiapine display advantages in improving cognitive and depressive symptoms. There are indications that the atypical antipsychotics are associated with decreased likelihood of rehospitalization and improved quality of life. In head-to-head comparisons of atypical antipsychotics, none have shown consistent efficacy advantages. In severely refractory samples, no atypical antipsychotics have consistently been shown to be as effective as clozapine or superior to conventional agents. There are indications, however, that risperidone, olanzapine, and quetiapine have advantages over conventional agents in less severely refractory patients. Few maintenance RCTs have been published, and efficacy advantages for atypical antipsychotics in prospective RCTs in first-episode schizophrenia have not been reported.

Metric characteristics of the drug-induced extrapyramidal symptoms scale (DIEPSS): a practical combined rating scale for drug-induced movement disorders

The metric properties of the Drug-Induced Extrapyramidal Symptoms Scale (DIEPSS) were examined in 182 subjects treated with antipsychotics. Inter-rater reliability, test-retest reliability, and concurrent validity with other rating scales for EPS were high. Four factors were identified and the optimal diagnostic cut-off scores were obtained. These results suggest that the DIEPSS is a reliable and valid multidimensional rating scale.

Extrapyramidal symptom profiles in Japanese patients with schizophrenia treated with olanzapine or haloperidol

Previous clinical trials have clearly shown the superiority of olanzapine to haloperidol in the improvement of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) in schizophrenic patients. The primary purpose of this study was to compare EPS profiles in Japanese schizophrenic patients treated with an atypical antipsychotic, olanzapine, or a typical antipsychotic, haloperidol, as measured by the Drug-Induced Extrapyramidal Symptoms Scale (DIEPSS). The DIEPSS, which consists of eight individual parameters and one global assessment (overall severity), was used to evaluate 182 patients enrolled in this 8-week study. The primary safety analysis was maximum change (that could be either a decrease or increase) from baseline in DIEPSS total score. Secondary analyses included change from baseline to maximum in DIEPSS total score, change from baseline to endpoint (LOCF) in DIEPSS total score, and the rank sum of the maximum change (that could be either a decrease or increase) from baseline in the DIEPSS individual items. Incidence of treatment-emergent EPS adverse events using the DIEPSS scale was also analyzed. The olanzapine group showed statistically significant superiority to the haloperidol group on the primary analysis (p<0.001). Secondary analyses also demonstrated olanzapine's superiority in DIEPSS total, parkinsonism, akathisia and overall severity scores (all p< or =0.014). Categorical analysis of treatment-emergent akathisia and parkinsonism syndromes at endpoint showed improvement in the olanzapine group but worsening in the haloperidol group. The results from this study suggest that olanzapine, as in Caucasian populations, is a safe treatment in Japanese patients chronically ill with schizophrenia.