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.

The other side of the coin: safety of complementary and alternative medicine

Most consumers consider complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) products inherently safe. The growing simultaneous use of CAM products and pharmaceutical drugs by Australian consumers increases the risk of CAM-drug interactions. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has a two-tier, risk-based regulatory system for therapeutic goods - CAM products are regulated as low risk products and are assessed for quality and safety; and sponsors of products must hold the evidence for any claim of efficacy made about them. Adverse reactions to CAM products can be classified as intrinsic (innate to the product), or extrinsic (where the risk is not related to the product itself, but results from the failure of good manufacturing practice). Adverse reactions to CAM practices can be classified as risks of commission (which includes removal of medical therapy) and risks of omission (which includes failure to refer when appropriate). While few systematic studies of adverse events with CAM exist, and under-reporting is likely, most CAM products and practices do not appear to present a high risk; their safety needs to be put into the perspective of wider safety issues. A priority for research is to rigorously define the risks associated with both CAM products and practices so that their potential impact on public health can be assessed.

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.

Safety of neuraminidase inhibitors for influenza

Neuraminidase inhibitors, oseltamivir and zanamivir, are used for the treatment of, and protection from, influenza. The safety of these compounds has been assessed in systematic reviews. However, the data presented are somewhat limited by the paucity of good quality adverse event data available. The majority of safety outcomes are based on evidence from just one or two randomised controlled trials. The results of the systematic reviews suggest that neuraminidase inhibitors have a reasonable side effect and adverse effect profile if they are to be used to treat or protect patients against a life-threatening disease. However, if these compounds are to be prescribed in situations in which avoidance of inconvenience or minor discomfort is hoped for, then the balance of harms to benefits will be more difficult to judge.

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

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.

Continuous infusion of ticarcillin-clavulanate for home treatment of serious infections: clinical efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics

Continuous infusion (CI) ticarcillin-clavulanate is a potential therapeutic improvement over conventional intermittent dosing because the major pharmacodynamic (PD) predictor of efficacy of beta-lactams is the time that free drug levels exceed the MIC. This study incorporated a 6-year retrospective arm evaluating efficacy and safety of CI ticarcillin-clavulanate in the home treatment of serious infections and a prospective arm additionally evaluating pharmacokinetics (PK) and PD. In the prospective arm, steady-state serum ticarcillin and clavulanate levels and MIC testing of significant pathogens were performed. One hundred and twelve patients (median age, 56 years) were treated with a CI dose of 9.3-12.4 g/day and mean CI duration of 18.0 days. Infections treated included osteomyelitis (50 patients), septic arthritis (6), cellulitis (17), pulmonary infections (12), febrile neutropenia (7), vascular infections (7), intra-abdominal infections (2), and Gram-negative endocarditis (2); 91/112 (81%) of patients were cured, 14 (13%) had partial response and 7 (6%) failed therapy. Nine patients had PICC line complications and five patients had drug adverse events. Eighteen patients had prospective PK/PD assessment although only four patients had sufficient data for a full PK/PD evaluation (both serum steady-state drug levels and ticarcillin and clavulanate MICs from a bacteriological isolate), as this was difficult to obtain in home-based patients, particularly as serum clavulanate levels were found to deteriorate rapidly on storage. Three of four patients with matched PK/PD assessment had free drug levels exceeding the MIC of the pathogen. Home Cl of ticarcillin-clavulanate is a safe, effective, convenient and practical therapy and is a therapeutic advance over traditional intermittent dosing when used in the home setting. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. and the International Society of Chemotherapy. All rights reserved.