A comparison of the efficacy and safety of olanzapine versus haloperidol during transition from intramuscular to oral therapy

Background: Acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia who receive intramuscular (IM) medications typically are switched to oral (PO) antipsychotic maintenance therapy Objective: The goal of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of olanzapine versus those of haloperidol during transition from IM to PO therapy We used additional data from a previously reported trial to test the hypothesis that the reduction in agitation achieved by IM olanzapine 10 mg or IM haloperidol 7.5 mg would be maintained following transition to 4 days of PO olanzapine or PO haloperidol (5-20 mg/d for both). We also hypothesized that olanzapine would maintain its more favorable extrapyramidal symptom (EPS) safety profile. Methods: This was a multinational (hospitals in 13 countries), double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Acutely agitated inpatients with schizophrenia were treated with 1 to 3 IM injections of olanzapine 10 mg or haloperidol 7.5 mg over 24 hours and were entered into a 4-day PO treatment period with the same medication (5-20 mg/d for both). The primary efficacy measurement was reduction in agitation, as measured by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Excited Component (PANSS-EC) score. Adverse events and scores on EPS rating scales were assessed. Results: A total of 311 patients (204 men, 107 women; mean [SD] age, 38.2 [11.6] years) were enrolled (131, 126, and 54 patients in the olanzapine, haloperidol, and placebo groups, respectively). In all, 93.1% (122/131) of olanzapine-treated patients and 92.1% (116/126) of haloperidol-treated patients completed the IM period and entered the PO period; 85.5% (112/131) of olanzapine-treated patients and 84.1% (106/126) of haloperidol-treated patients completed the PO period. IM olanzapine and IM haloperidol effectively reduced agitation over 24 hours (mean [SD] PANSS-EC change, -7.1 [4.8] vs -6.7 [4.3], respectively). Reductions in agitation were sustained throughout the PO period with both study drugs (mean [SD] change from PO period baseline, -0.6 [4.8] vs -1.3 [4.4], respectively). During PO treatment, haloperidol-treated patients spontaneously reported significantly more acute dystonia than olanzapine-treated patients (4.3% [5/116] vs 0% [0/122], respectively; P = 0.026) and akathisia (5.2% [6/116] vs 0% [0/122], respectively; P = 0.013). Significantly more haloperidol-treated patients than olanzapine-treated patients met categorical criteria for treatment-emergent akathisia (18.5% [17/92] vs 6.5% [7/107], respectively; P = 0.015). Conclusions: In the acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia in this study, both IM olanzapine 10 mg and IM haloperidol 7.5 mg effectively reduced agitation over 24 hours. This alleviation of agitation was sustained following transition from IM therapy to 4 days of PO treatment (5-20 mg/d for both). During the 4 days of PO treatment, olanzapine-treated patients did not spontaneously report any incidences of acute dystonia, and olanzapine had a superior EPS safety profile to that of haloperidol. The combination of IM and PO olanzapine may help improve the treatment of acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia. Copyright (C) 2003 Excerpta Medica, Inc.

Intramuscular Olanzapine and Intramuscular Haloperidol in Acute Schizophrenia: Antipsychotic Efficacy and Extrapyramidal Safety During the First 24 Hours of Treatment

To determine the antipsychotic efficacy and extrapyramidal safety of intramuscular (IM) olanzapine and IM haloperidol during the first 24 hours of treatment of acute schizophrenia. Method: Patients (n = 311) with acute schizophrenia were randomly allocated (2:2: 1) to receive IM olanzapine (10.0 mg, n = 131), IM haloperidol (7.5 mg, n = 126), or IM placebo (n = 54). Results: After the first injection, IM olanzapine was comparable to IM haloperidol and superior to IM placebo for reducing mean change scores from baseline on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BRPS) Positive at 2 hours (-2.9 olanzapine, -2.7 haloperidol, and -1.5 placebo) and 24 hours (-2.8 olanzapine, -3.2 haloperidol, and -1.3 placebo); the BPRS Total at 2 hours (-14.2 olanzapine,-13.1 haloperidol, and -7.1 placebo) and 24 hours (-12.8 olanzapine, -12.9 haloperidol, and -6.2 placebo); and the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scale at 24 hours (-0.5 olanzapine, -0.5 haloperidol, and -0.1 placebo). Patients treated with IM olanzapine had significantly fewer incidences of treatment-emergent parkinsonism (4.3% olanzapine vs 13.3% haloperidol, P = 0.036), but not akathisia (1.1% olanzapine vs 6.5% haloperidol, P = 0.065), than did patients treated with IM haloperidol; they also required significantly less anticholinergic treatment (4.6% olanzapine vs 20.6% haloperidol, P < 0.001). Mean extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) safety scores improved significantly from baseline during IM olanzapine treatment, compared with a general worsening during IM haloperidol treatment (Simpson-Angus Scale total score mean change: -0.61 olanzapine vs 0.70 haloperidol; P < 0.001; Barnes Akathisia Scale global score mean change: -0.27 olanzapine vs 0.01 haloperidol; P < 0.05). Conclusion: IM olanzapine was comparable to IM haloperidol for reducing the symptoms of acute schizophrenia during the first 24 hours of treatment, the efficacy of both being evident within 2 hours after the first injection. In general, more EPS were observed during treatment with IM haloperidol than with IM olanzapine.

Dose determination of haloperidol, risperidone and olanzapine using an in vivo dopamine D-2-receptor occupancy method in the rat

The purpose of the present study was to determine antipsychotic doses that achieve 80% striatal doparnine D-2-receptor occupancy for haloperidol, risperidone and olanzapine in rats. Wistar rats were treated with normal saline vehicle (controls), haloperidol (0.25 and 0.5 mg/kg/ day), risperidone (3, 5 and 6 mg/kg/day) and olanzapine (5 and 10 mg/kg/day) for 7 days via osmotic minipumps. Striatal and cerebellar tissue were collected and in vivo dopamine D2-receptor occupancies were determined using H-3-raclopride. The doses required to achieve dopamine D-2-receptor occupancy of 80% in 11- and 24-week old rats were: haloperidol 0.25 mg/kg/day, risperidone 5 mg/kg/day and olanzapine 10 mg/kg/day. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V All rights reserved.

Olanzapine treatment is associated with reduced high molecular weight adiponectin in serum: A potential mechanism for Olanzapine-induced insulin resistance in patients with schizophrenia

Treatment of schizophrenia with olanzapine and other atypical antipsychotic agents is associated with insulin resistance and diabetes mellitus. The mechanism for this is not understood. Adiponectin is an insulin-sensitizing cytokine secreted by adipocytes. It is present in serum in multimers of varying size. Trimers and hexamers are referred to as low molecular weight (LMW) adiponectin. Larger multimers (12-, 18-, and 24-mers) have been designated high molecular weight (HMW) adiponectin and seem responsible for the insulin-sensitizing action of this adipokine. The aim of this study was to examine total adiponectin and LMW and HMW multimers in serum from patients with schizophrenia treated with either olanzapine (n = 9) or other typical antipsychotics (n = 9) and compare results with 16 healthy sex-, body mass index-, and age-matched controls. The effects of olanzapine on adiponectin protein expression and secretion in in vitro-differentiated primary human adipocytes were also examined. Patients receiving olanzapine had significantly lower total serum adiponectin as compared with those on conventional treatment and controls (5.23 +/- 1.53 ng/mL vs. 8.20 +/- 3.77 ng/mL and 8.78 +/- 3.8 ng/mL; P < 0.05 and P < 0.01, respectively). The HMW adiponectin was also reduced in patients on olanzapine as compared with the disease and healthy control groups (1.67 +/- 0.96 ng/mL vs. 3.87 +/- 2.69 ng/mL and 4.07 +/- 3.2 ng/mL; P < 0.05 for both). The LMW adiponectin was not different between patient groups (P = 0.15) but lower in patients on olanzapine as compared with controls (3.56 +/- 10.85 ng/mL vs. 4.70 +/- 1.4 ng/mL; P < 0.05). In vitro, short duration (up to 7 days) olanzapine exposure had no effect on total adiponectin expression or multimer composition of secreted protein. In summary, this study demonstrates a correlation between olanzapine treatment and reduced serum adiponectin, particularly HMW multimers. This may not be a direct effect of olanzapine on adipocyte expression or secretion of adiponectin. These observations provide insights into possible mechanisms for the association between olanzapine treatment and insulin resistance.

Assessing cost-effectiveness of drug interventions for schizophrenia

Objective: To assess from a health sector perspective the incremental cost-effectiveness of eight drug treatment scenarios for established schizophrenia. Method: Using a standardized methodology, costs and outcomes are modelled over the lifetime of prevalent cases of schizophrenia in Australia in 2000. A two-stage approach to assessment of health benefit is used. The first stage involves a quantitative analysis based on disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted, using best available evidence. The robustness of results is tested using probabilistic uncertainty analysis. The second stage involves application of 'second filter' criteria (equity, strength of evidence, feasibility and acceptability) to allow broader concepts of benefit to be considered. Results: Replacing oral typicals with risperidone or olanzapine has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of A$48 000 and A$92 000/DALY respectively. Switching from low-dose typicals to risperidone has an ICER of A$80 000. Giving risperidone to people experiencing side-effects on typicals is more cost-effective at A$20 000. Giving clozapine to people taking typicals, with the worst course of the disorder and either little or clear deterioration, is cost-effective at A$42 000 or A$23 000/DALY respectively. The least cost-effective intervention is to replace risperidone with olanzapine at A$160 000/DALY. Conclusions: Based on an A$50 000/DALY threshold, low-dose typical neuroleptics are indicated as the treatment of choice for established schizophrenia, with risperidone being reserved for those experiencing moderate to severe side-effects on typicals. The more expensive olanzapine should only be prescribed when risperidone is not clinically indicated. The high cost of risperidone and olanzapine relative to modest health gains underlie this conclusion. Earlier introduction of clozapine however, would be cost-effective. This work is limited by weaknesses in trials (lack of long-term efficacy data, quality of life and consumer satisfaction evidence) and the translation of effect size into a DALY change. Some stakeholders, including SANE Australia, argue the modest health gains reported in the literature do not adequately reflect perceptions by patients, clinicians and carers, of improved quality of life with these atypicals.