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.

Prolonged effects of a home-based intervention in patients with chronic illness

Background: Data on the long-term benefits of nonspecific disease management programs are limited. We performed a long-term follow-up of a previously published randomized trial. Methods: We compared all-cause mortality and recurrent hospitalization during median follow-up of 7.5 years in a heterogeneous cohort of patients with chronic illness initially exposed to a multidisciplinary, homebased intervention (HBI) (n = 260) or to usual postdischarge care (n = 268). Results: During follow-up, HBI had no impact on all-cause mortality (relative risk, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.35) or event-free survival from death or unplanned hospitalization (relative risk, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-1.24). Initial analysis suggested that HBI had only a marginal impact in reducing unplanned hospitalization, with 677 readmissions vs 824 for the usual care group (mean +/- SD rate, 0.72 +/- 0.96 vs 0.84 +/- 1.20 readmissions/patient per year; P = .08). When accounting for increased hospital activity in HBI patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease during follow-up for 2 years, post hoc analyses showed that HBI reduced readmissions by 14% within 2 years in patients without this condition (mean +/- SD rate, 0.54 +/- 0.72 vs 0.63 +/- 0.88 readmission/patient per year; P =. 04) and by 21% in all surviving patients within 3 to 8 years (mean +/- SD rate, 0.64 +/- 1.26 vs 0.81 +/- 1.61 readmissions/ patient per year; P =. 03). Overall, recurrent hospital costs were significantly lower ( 14%) in the HBI group (mean +/- SD, $ 823 +/- $ 1642 vs $ 960 +/- $ 1376 per patient per year; P =. 045). Conclusion: This unique study suggests that a nonspecific HBI provides long-term cost benefits in a range of chronic illnesses, except for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.