An exploratory haloperidol-controlled dose-finding study of ziprasidone in hospitalized patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Intramuscular ziprasidone compared with intramuscular haloperidol in the treatment of acute psychosis. Ziprasidone I.M. Study Group. Olanzapine versus ziprasidone: results of a 28-week double-blind study in patients with schizophrenia.
Ninety patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder according to DSM-III-R criteria participated in this double-blind, exploratory, dose-ranging trial. After a single-blind washout period of 4 to 7 days, patients were randomly assigned to receive one of four fixed doses of the new antipsychotic, ziprasidone 4 (N = 19), 10 (N = 17), 40 (N = 17), or 160 (N = 20) mg/day or haloperidol 15 mg/day (N = 17) for 4 weeks. A dose-response relationship among ziprasidone groups was established for improvements in Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) score (p = 0.002) but not in Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) total score (p = 0.08). The intent-to-treat analysis of mean changes from baseline in the BPRS total, BPRS Psychosis core, and CGI-S scores demonstrated that ziprasidone 160 mg/day was comparable with haloperidol in reducing overall psychopathology and positive symptoms and was superior to ziprasidone 4 mg/day. Despite the small sample size and short duration of the trial, the improvement in CGI-S with both ziprasidone 160 mg/day and haloperidol 15 mg/day was statistically significantly greater than with ziprasidone 4 mg/day (p = 0.001 andp = 0.005, respectively). The percentage of patients classified as responders on both the BPRS total (> or = 30% improvement) and CGI-Improvement (score of 1 or 2) scales in the ziprasidone 160 mg/day group was similar to that in the haloperidol group and nonsignificantly greater than that in the ziprasidone 4 mg/day group. On all assessments of clinical efficacy, the improvements associated with ziprasidone 4 mg/day, 10 mg/day, and 40 mg/day were similar. Concomitant benztropine use at any time during the study was less frequent with ziprasidone 160 mg/day (15%) than with haloperidol (53%). Haloperidol was associated with a sustained hyperprolactinemia, unlike ziprasidone, where only transient elevations in prolactin that returned to normal within the dosing interval were observed. Ziprasidone was well tolerated, and the incidence of adverse events was similar in all groups. The results of this study suggest that ziprasidone 160 mg/day is as effective as haloperidol 15 mg/day in reducing overall psychopathology and positive symptoms of an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder but has a lower potential to induce extrapyramidal symptoms. This 7-day, randomized, open-label, multicenter, international study compared the efficacy and tolerability of intramuscular (i.m.) ziprasidone with haloperidol i.m. and the transition from i.m. to oral treatment in hospitalized patients with acute psychotic agitation (related to DSM-III-R diagnoses).
                Patients received up to 3 days of flexible-dose ziprasidone i.m. (N = 90) or haloperidol i.m. (N = 42) followed by oral treatment to day 7. After an initial ziprasidone i.m. dose of 10 mg, subsequent i.m. doses of 5 to 20 mg could be given every 4 to 6 hours (maximum daily dose = 80 mg) if needed, followed by oral ziprasidone, 80-200 mg/day. Haloperidol i.m. doses of 2.5 to 10 mg were given on entry, followed by 2.5 to 10 mg i.m. every 4 to 6 hours (maximum daily dose = 40 mg) if needed, then by oral haloperidol, 10-80 mg/day.
                The mean reductions in Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) total, BPRS agitation items, and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity scale scores were statistically significantly greater (p < .05, p < .01, and p < .01, respectively) after ziprasidone i.m. treatment compared with haloperidol i.m. treatment. Further reductions in these scores also occurred in both groups following transition to oral treatment. Ziprasidone was associated with a lower incidence of movement disorders and a reduced requirement for anticholinergic medication during both i.m. and oral treatment compared with haloperidol. Movement disorder scale scores improved with ziprasidone i.m. and oral treatment, but deteriorated with haloperidol. Other adverse events were rare with both treatments.
                Ziprasidone i.m. was significantly more effective in reducing the symptoms of acute psychosis and was better tolerated than haloperidol i.m., particularly in movement disorders. The transition from ziprasidone i.m. to oral ziprasidone was effective and well tolerated. The efficacy and safety of olanzapine were compared with those of ziprasidone.
                This was a multicenter randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 28-week study of patients with schizophrenia. Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with 10-20 mg/day of olanzapine or 80-160 mg/day of ziprasidone. The primary efficacy measure was the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score. Secondary efficacy and safety measures included Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale subscales as well as mood, quality of life, and extrapyramidal symptom scales. Safety was evaluated by recording treatment-emergent adverse events and measuring vital signs and weight.
                The study was completed by significantly more olanzapine-treated patients (165 of 277, 59.6%) than ziprasidone-treated patients (115 of 271, 42.4%). At 28 weeks, the olanzapine-treated patients showed significantly more improvement than the ziprasidone-treated patients on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale overall scale and all subscales and on the Clinical Global Impression ratings of severity of illness and improvement. The responder rate was higher for olanzapine than for ziprasidone. Extrapyramidal symptoms were not significantly different between groups in change-to-endpoint analyses, but results favored olanzapine on baseline-to-maximum changes. Weight change was significantly greater with olanzapine (mean=3.06 kg, SD=6.87) than with ziprasidone (mean=-1.12 kg, SD=4.70). Fasting lipid profiles were significantly superior in the ziprasidone group; there was no significant difference in fasting glucose level.
                Olanzapine treatment resulted in significantly greater psychopathology improvement and higher response and completion rates than ziprasidone treatment, while ziprasidone was superior for weight change and lipid profile.
Currently data are limited. Ziprasidone may be an effective antipsychotic with less extrapyramidal effects than haloperidol. It also, however, causes more nausea and vomiting than the typical drugs, and, at present, there is no data suggesting that it is different to other atypical compounds. Well planned, conducted and reported long term randomised trials are needed if ziprasidone is to be accepted into everyday use.