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.

Effectiveness and safety of repeat courses of hylan G-F 20 in patients with knee osteoarthritis

Objective: To compare the effectiveness and safety of repeat treatment with hylan G-F 20 based on data from a randomized, controlled trial [Raynauld JP, Torrance GW, Band PA, Goldsmith CH, Tugwell P, Walker V, et al. A prospective, randomized, pragmatic, health outcomes trial evaluating the incorporation of hylan G-F 20 into the treatment paradigm for patients with knee osteoarthritis (Part 1 of 2): clinical results. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2002;10:506-17]. The hypotheses tested were whether the single-course and repeat-course subgroups would be superior to appropriate care and not different from each other. Method: A total of 255 patients with knee osteoarthritis were randomized to appropriate care with hylan G-F 20 or appropriate care without hylan G-F 20. The hylan G-F 20 group was partitioned into two subgroups: (1) patients who received a single course of hylan G-F 20; and (2) patients who received two or more courses of hylan G-F 20. Results: For the primary effectiveness measure, change in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score as a percent of baseline, the single-course subgroup improved by 41%, the repeat-course subgroup by 35%, and the appropriate care group by 14%. Both subgroups improved significantly more than the appropriate care group (P < 0.05), and were not statistically significantly different from each other (70% power to detect a 20% difference). Secondary effectiveness measures showed similar results. In the repeat-course subgroup, no statistically significant differences were found in the number of local adverse events, the number of patients with local adverse events, or arthrocentesis rates between the first and repeat courses of treatment. Conclusions: Although the study was neither designed nor powered to examine repeat treatment, this a posteriori analysis provides support for a favorable effectiveness and safety profile of hylan G-F 20 in repeat course patients. (C) 2004 OsteoArthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Therapeutic efficacy and safety of chaperonin 10 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A double-blind randomised trial

Background Chaperonin 10 (heat shock protein 10, XToll(TM)) has anti-inflammatory properties related to the inhibition of Toll-like receptor signalling pathways. Our aim was to establish whether chaperonin 10 is safe and effective in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Methods in this randomised, double-blind, multicentre study, 23 patients with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis receiving disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were randomly allocated to three treatment groups receiving intravenous chaperonin 10 twice weekly for 12 weeks at doses of 5 mg (n=8), 7.5 mg (8), or 10 mg (7). The primary outcomes were change in disease activity score (DAS28) and improvement of core disease measures (American College of Rheumatology response score) from baseline to week 12. All analyses were done by intention to treat. This study is registered with the Australian Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRNO12606000041550. Findings Primary endpoint measures improved from day 14 in all groups and continued to improve to day 84. By end of study, a 20% improvement of core disease measures was seen in six (86%, 95% Cl 43-100), a 50% improvement in four (57%, 14-86), and a 70% improvement in two (29%, 0-57) patients given the highest dose of chaperonin 10. Clinical remission (as defined by a DAS28