Why olanzapine beats risperidone, risperidone beats quetiapine, and quetiapine beats olanzapine: an exploratory analysis of head-to-head comparison studies of second-generation antipsychotics. Clozapine and "high-dose" olanzapine in refractory early-onset schizophrenia: a 12-week randomized and double-blind comparison. Cognition, functioning and quality of life in schizophrenia treatment: results of a one-year randomized controlled trial of olanzapine and quetiapine. Effectiveness of clozapine versus olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone in patients with chronic schizophrenia who did not respond to prior atypical antipsychotic treatment. Clozapine v. conventional antipsychotic drugs for treatment-resistant schizophrenia: a re-examination. Childhood-onset schizophrenia: A double-blind, randomized clozapine-olanzapine comparison. Adverse effects and laboratory parameters of high-dose olanzapine vs. clozapine in treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Comparative efficacy and safety of atypical and conventional antipsychotic drugs in first-episode psychosis: a randomized, double-blind trial of olanzapine versus haloperidol. Atypical antipsychotic agents in the treatment of violent patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. Double-blind comparison of olanzapine versus clozapine in schizophrenic patients clinically eligible for treatment with clozapine. Clozapine, olanzapine, risperidone, and haloperidol in the treatment of patients with chronic schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. Cerebral D2 and 5-HT2 receptor occupancy in Schizophrenic patients treated with olanzapine or clozapine. Olanzapine versus clozapine in treatment-resistant or treatment-intolerant schizophrenia. Randomized double blind comparison of olanzapine vs. clozapine on subjective well-being and clinical outcome in patients with schizophrenia. Atypical and conventional antipsychotic drugs in treatment-naive first-episode schizophrenia: a 52-week randomized trial of clozapine vs chlorpromazine. Comparative effectiveness of second-generation antipsychotics and haloperidol in acute schizophrenia. Olanzapine-induced weight gain in patients with first-episode schizophrenia: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of fluoxetine addition. Olanzapine compared to lithium in mania: a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Some methodological considerations for the clinical evaluation of neuroleptics--comparative effects of clozapine and haloperidol on schizophrenics. A double-blind study of combination of clozapine with risperidone in patients with schizophrenia: effects on cognition. A double-blind, randomized comparative trial of amisulpride versus olanzapine for 6 months in the treatment of schizophrenia. Serum leptin and triglyceride levels in patients on treatment with atypical antipsychotics. Double-blind comparison of olanzapine versus risperidone in the treatment of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders. A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of olanzapine in the prevention of psychotic relapse. Efficacy of risperidone versus olanzapine in patients with schizophrenia previously on chronic conventional antipsychotic therapy: a switch study. Double-blind olanzapine vs. haloperidol D2 dopamine receptor blockade in schizophrenic patients: a baseline-endpoint. A double-blind, randomised comparative trial of amisulpride versus olanzapine in the treatment of schizophrenia: short-term results at two months. Efficacy of olanzapine and risperidone in schizophrenia: a randomized double-blind crossover design. A dose-ranging exploratory study of the effects of ethyl-eicosapentaenoate in patients with persistent schizophrenic symptoms. Effectiveness of olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone in patients with chronic schizophrenia following discontinuation of a previous atypical antipsychotic. The neurocognitive effects of aripiprazole: an open-label comparison with olanzapine. The efficacy of olanzapine for decreasing cue-elicited craving in individuals with schizophrenia and cocaine dependence: a preliminary report. Randomized, controlled, double-blind multicenter comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of ziprasidone and olanzapine in acutely ill inpatients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Clozapine versus placebo in Huntington's disease: a double blind randomised comparative study. The impact upon extra-pyramidal side effects, clinical symptoms and quality of life of a switch from conventional to atypical antipsychotics (risperidone or olanzapine) in elderly patients with schizophrenia.
In many parts of the world, second-generation antipsychotics have largely replaced typical antipsychotics as the treatment of choice for schizophrenia. Consequently, trials comparing two drugs of this class--so-called head-to-head studies--are gaining in relevance. The authors reviewed results of head-to-head studies of second-generation antipsychotics funded by pharmaceutical companies to determine if a relationship existed between the sponsor of the trial and the drug favored in the study's overall outcome.
                The authors identified head-to-head comparison studies of second-generation antipsychotics through a MEDLINE search for the period from 1966 to September 2003 and identified additional head-to-head studies from selected conference proceedings for the period from 1999 to February 2004. The abstracts of all studies fully or partly funded by pharmaceutical companies were modified to mask the names and doses of the drugs used in the trial, and two physicians blinded to the study sponsor reviewed the abstracts and independently rated which drug was favored by the overall outcome measures. Two authors who were not blinded to the study sponsor reviewed the entire report of each study for sources of bias that could have affected the results in favor of the sponsor's drug.
                Of the 42 reports identified by the authors, 33 were sponsored by a pharmaceutical company. In 90.0% of the studies, the reported overall outcome was in favor of the sponsor's drug. This pattern resulted in contradictory conclusions across studies when the findings of studies of the same drugs but with different sponsors were compared. Potential sources of bias occurred in the areas of doses and dose escalation, study entry criteria and study populations, statistics and methods, and reporting of results and wording of findings.
                Some sources of bias may limit the validity of head-to-head comparison studies of second-generation antipsychotics. Because most of the sources of bias identified in this review were subtle rather than compelling, the clinical usefulness of future trials may benefit from minor modifications to help avoid bias. The authors make a number of concrete suggestions for ways in which potential sources of bias can be addressed by study initiators, peer reviewers of studies under consideration for publication, and readers of published studies. The present study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of clozapine versus "high-dose" olanzapine in treatment-refractory adolescents with schizophrenia.
                Children, ages 10-18 years, who met DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia and who were resistant or intolerant to at least two antipsychotic drugs were randomized to receive 12 weeks of double-blind flexibly dosed treatment with clozapine (n = 18) or "high-dose" olanzapine (up to 30 mg/day) (n = 21). The primary efficacy measure was response (improvement), defined as a decrease of 30% or more in total Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale score from baseline and a Clinical Global Impression Scale improvement rating of "1" (very much improved) or "2" (much improved).
                Significantly more clozapine-treated adolescents met response criteria (66%) compared with olanzapine-treated subjects (33%). Clozapine was superior to olanzapine in terms of reduction of the psychosis cluster scores and negative symptoms from baseline to end point. However, both treatments were associated with significant weight-gain and related metabolic abnormalities.
                This double-blind randomized comparison of two second-generation antipsychotic drugs for treatment-refractory adolescents with schizophrenia supports clozapine as the agent of choice. The development of interventions to limit weight gain and metabolic side effects are needed to enhance the risk-benefit profile for both study treatments. Cognitive deficits are recognized as a critical determinant of functional outcomes in schizophrenia; and second generation antipsychotic drugs have been touted for their potential to enhance cognitive functioning and community tenure.
                The study examined the relative merits of olanzapine and quetiapine in improving cognitive deficits and enhancing psychosocial functioning in a sample of community dwelling adults previously treated with first generation antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia.
                In a prospective, rater-blinded study, 86 participants were randomized to receive either olanzapine or quetiapine, and assessed at baseline and after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Outcome measures included, besides symptoms and side effects rating scales, the subjective scale to investigate cognition in schizophrenia (SSTICS), a computer-assisted cognitive test battery (COGLAB), the sickness impact profile (SIP), the global assessment of functioning (GAF) scale, and the drug attitude inventory (DAI).
                Both olanzapine and quetiapine were equally effective in improving symptom severity and decreasing the neurological side effects. Quetiapine was significantly better tolerated (p=0.002), improved self-rated cognitive dysfunction (p=0.002) and subjects' performance on selected neurocognitive tasks (p=0.01). Olanzapine use was associated with greater symptom stability, fewer drop outs (p=0.01) and frequent metabolic aberrations (p=0.001). The accrued benefits of drug therapy, however, were not reflected as significant gains in daily functioning and quality of life.
                Quetiapine is noted to have specific cognition enhancing properties in schizophrenia that warrants further exploration. The observed clinical and cognitive benefits associated with quetiapine may likely be attributable to its loose binding to, and fast dissociation from the dopamine receptors. Olanzapine has proved to be a reliable antipsychotic drug with a greater liability to cause metabolic abnormalities. When a schizophrenia patient has an inadequate response to treatment with an antipsychotic drug, it is unclear what other antipsychotic to switch to and when to use clozapine. In this study, the authors compared switching to clozapine with switching to another atypical antipsychotic in patients who had discontinued treatment with a newer atypical antipsychotic in the context of the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials for Interventions Effectiveness (CATIE) investigation.
                Ninety-nine patients who discontinued treatment with olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, or ziprasidone in phase 1 or 1B of the trials, primarily because of inadequate efficacy, were randomly assigned to open-label treatment with clozapine (N=49) or blinded treatment with another newer atypical antipsychotic not previously received in the trial (olanzapine [N=19], quetiapine [N=15], or risperidone [N=16]).
                Time until treatment discontinuation for any reason was significantly longer for clozapine (median=10.5 months) than for quetiapine (median=3.3), or risperidone (median=2.8), but not for olanzapine (median=2.7). Time to discontinuation because of inadequate therapeutic effect was significantly longer for clozapine than for olanzapine, quetiapine, or risperidone. At 3-month assessments, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total scores had decreased more in patients treated with clozapine than in patients treated with quetiapine or risperidone but not olanzapine. One patient treated with clozapine developed agranulocytosis, and another developed eosinophilia; both required treatment discontinuation.
                For these patients with schizophrenia who prospectively failed to improve with an atypical antipsychotic, clozapine was more effective than switching to another newer atypical antipsychotic. Safety monitoring is necessary to detect and manage clozapine's serious side effects. Although there is a consensus that clozapine is more effective than conventional antipsychotic drugs for treatment-resistant schizophrenia, there is great heterogeneity among results of relevant trials.
                To re-evaluate the evidence comparing clozapine with conventional antipsychotics and to investigate sources of heterogeneity.
                Individual studies were inspected with assessment of clinical relevance of results. Meta-regression analysis was performed to investigate sources of heterogeneity.
                Ten trials were examined. Recent large-scale studies have not found a substantial advantage for clozapine, especially in terms of a clinically relevant effect. Meta-regression showed that shorter study duration, financial support from a drug company and higher baseline symptom score consistently predicted greater advantage of clozapine.
                It may be inappropriate to combine studies in meta-analysis, given the degree of heterogeneity between their findings. The benefits of clozapine compared with conventional treatment may not be substantial. Childhood-onset schizophrenia is a rare but severe form of the disorder that is frequently treatment resistant. The psychiatrist has a limited evidence base to guide treatment, particularly as there are no trials in children comparing atypical antipsychotics, the mainstay of current treatment.
                To compare the efficacy and safety of olanzapine and clozapine, hypothesizing that clozapine would be more efficacious.
                Double-blind randomized 8-week controlled trial, with a 2-year open-label follow-up.
                National Institute of Mental Health study, January 1998 to June 2005. Patients underwent reassessment 2 years after discharge.
                Children and adolescents recruited nationally, aged 7 to 16 years, meeting unmodified DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia, and resistant to treatment with at least 2 antipsychotics.
                After drug washout and a 1- to 3-week antipsychotic-free period, patients were randomized to treatment with clozapine (n = 12) or olanzapine (n = 13).
                The Clinical Global Impression Severity of Symptoms Scale and Schedule for the Assessment of Negative/Positive Symptoms.
                Clozapine was associated with a significant reduction in all outcome measures, whereas olanzapine showed a less consistent profile of clinical improvement. While there were moderate to large differential treatment effects in favor of clozapine, these reached significance only in the alleviation of negative symptoms from an antipsychotic-free baseline (P = .04; effect size, 0.89). Clozapine was associated with more overall adverse events. At 2-year follow-up, 15 patients were receiving clozapine with evidence of sustained clinical improvement, but additional adverse events emerged, including lipid anomalies (n = 6) and seizures (n = 1).
                While not demonstrating definitively the superiority of clozapine compared with olanzapine in treatment-refractory childhood-onset schizophrenia, the study suggests that clozapine has a more favorable profile of clinical response, which is balanced against more associated adverse events. Patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia pose a major challenge to caregivers since only clozapine is documented as having superior efficacy in this population. Although olanzapine is similar to clozapine in structure and receptor profile, it has not been proven to have superior efficacy for this patient group. Nonetheless, olanzapine is being increasingly used in higher doses as clinicians attempt to find a more effective and tolerable therapy for refractory patients. Furthermore, there are little data comparing olanzapine and clozapine in this population. Thirteen patients participated in a randomized double-blind 16-week crossover study of clozapine therapy (450 mg/day) compared to high doses of olanzapine (50 mg/day). No patients on olanzapine responded while 20% responded to clozapine treatment. Olanzapine patients tended to experience higher rates of anticholinergic effects such as dry mouth (80 vs. 20%) and blurry vision (40 vs. 0%). Clozapine-treated patients had higher rates of sialorrhea (80 vs. 10%), sweating (50 vs. 10%), dyspepsia (70 vs. 30%), and lethargy (90 vs. 60%). Neither treatment was associated with significant akathisia. Liver enzyme elevation and lipids were higher with clozapine treatment. Mean weight gain in the initial 8 weeks was 3.4 kg for olanzapine and 1.2 kg for clozapine. High doses of olanzapine during 8 weeks of treatment did not increase lipids and liver enzymes like clozapine did. Olanzapine at 50 mg/day may be associated with more anticholinergic effects and weight gain than clozapine. Few long-term studies have compared the efficacy and safety of typical and atypical antipsychotic medications directly in patients with a first episode of psychosis who met the criteria for schizophrenia or a related psychotic disorder. This study compared the acute and long-term effectiveness of haloperidol with that of olanzapine in patients with first-episode psychosis in a large, controlled clinical trial.
                Patients with first-episode psychosis (N=263) were randomly assigned under double-blind conditions to receive haloperidol or olanzapine and were followed for up to 104 weeks. Domains measured included psychopathology, psychosocial variables, neurocognitive functioning, and brain morphology and metabolism. This report presents data from clinical measures of treatment response and safety data from the 12-week acute treatment phase.
                Haloperidol and olanzapine were associated with substantial and comparable baseline-to-endpoint reductions in symptom severity, which did not differ significantly in last-observation-carried-forward analyses. However, in a mixed-model analysis, olanzapine-treated subjects had significantly greater decreases in symptom severity as measured by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score and negative and general scales and by the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale but not as measured by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale positive scale and by the Clinical Global Impression severity rating. Olanzapine-treated patients experienced a lower rate of treatment-emergent parkinsonism and akathisia but had significantly more weight gain, compared with the haloperidol-treated patients. Overall, significantly more olanzapine-treated subjects than haloperidol-treated subjects completed the 12-week acute phase of the study (67% versus 54%).
                As expected on the basis of previous studies, both olanzapine and haloperidol were effective in the acute reduction of psychopathological symptoms in this group of patients with first-episode psychosis. However, olanzapine had several relative advantages in therapeutic response. Although the nature of adverse events differed between the two agents, retention in the study was greater with olanzapine. Retention in treatment is important in this patient population, given their risk of relapse. Longer-term results are needed to determine whether treatment with atypical antipsychotics results in superior outcomes for a first episode of schizophrenia. Violent behavior of patients with schizophrenia prolongs hospital stay and interferes with their integration into the community. Finding appropriate treatment of violent behaviors is of primary importance.
                To compare the efficacy of 2 atypical antipsychotic agents, clozapine and olanzapine, with one another and with haloperidol in the treatment of physical assaults and other aggressive behaviors in physically assaultive patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder.
                Randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 12-week trial. Physically assaultive subjects with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder who were inpatients in state psychiatric facilities were randomly assigned to treatment with clozapine (n = 37), olanzapine (n = 37), or haloperidol (n = 36).
                Number and severity of physical assaults as measured by the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS) physical aggression score and the number and severity of all aggressive events as measured by the MOAS overall score. Psychiatric symptoms were assessed through the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS).
                Clozapine was superior to both olanzapine and haloperidol in reducing the number and severity of physical assaults as assessed by the MOAS physical aggression score and in reducing overall aggression as measured by the MOAS total score. Olanzapine was superior to haloperidol in reducing the number and severity of aggressive incidents on these 2 MOAS measures. There were no significant differences among the 3 medication groups in improvement of psychiatric symptoms as measured by the PANSS total score and the 3 PANSS subscales.
                Clozapine shows greater efficacy than olanzapine and olanzapine greater efficacy than haloperidol in reducing aggressive behavior. This antiaggressive effect appears to be separate from the antipsychotic and sedative action of these medications. The treatment of schizophrenic patients who fail to respond to adequate trials of neuroleptic drugs is a major challenge. Clozapine has been one treatment option; however, it is not universally effective and is limited in its use by safety concerns. With the introduction of newer agents, their performance relative to clozapine is of great clinical interest.
                The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of olanzapine versus clozapine among treatment resistant DSM-IV schizophrenic patients. The study was primarily designed to demonstrate the "noninferiority" of olanzapine compared to clozapine after 18 weeks of double-blind treatment. Conclusions were based on the one-sided lower 95% confidence limit about the treatment effect observed from the primary efficacy variable (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale [PANSS] Total).
                Mean changes from baseline to end point in PANSS Total score, using a last observation carried forward technique, showed that both agents were comparably effective in neuroleptic resistant patients, i.e., demonstrated the "noninferiority" of olanzapine when compared to clozapine. Overall, significantly fewer olanzapine-treated patients (4%) discontinued for an adverse event than their clozapine-treated (14%) counterparts (p =.022). Among spontaneously reported adverse events, increased salivation, constipation, dizziness, and nausea were reported significantly more often among clozapine-treated patients, whereas only dry mouth was reported more often among olanzapine-treated patients.
                Olanzapine was demonstrated to be noninferior to clozapine and better tolerated among resistant schizophrenic patients clinically eligible for treatment with clozapine. The authors compared the efficacy and safety of three atypical antipsychotics (clozapine, olanzapine, and risperidone) with one another and with haloperidol in the treatment of patients with chronic schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.
                In a double-blind trial, 157 inpatients with a history of suboptimal treatment response were randomly assigned to treatment with clozapine, olanzapine, risperidone, or haloperidol for 14 weeks (an 8-week escalation and fixed-dose period followed by a 6-week variable-dose period).
                Clozapine, risperidone, and olanzapine (but not haloperidol) resulted in statistically significant improvements in total score on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale. Improvements seen in total and negative symptom scores with clozapine and olanzapine were superior to haloperidol. The atypical drugs, particularly olanzapine and clozapine, were associated with weight gain.
                The effects of atypical antipsychotics in this population were statistically significant but clinically modest. The overall pattern of results suggests that clozapine and olanzapine have similar general antipsychotic efficacy and that risperidone may be somewhat less effective. Clozapine was the most effective treatment for negative symptoms. However, the differences among treatments were small. We report the results of a double-blind, randomized prospective trial on D2 and 5-HT2 receptor occupancy and the clinical effects of olanzapine versus clozapine in a sample of neuroleptic-refractory schizophrenic patients. Receptor occupancy was evaluated in different cortical areas and in basal ganglia using [18F] fluoro-ethyl-spiperone ([18F] FESP) and positron emission tomography (PET). A total of 15 neuroleptic-free patients completed the study undergoing a baseline and a post-treatment PET scan (olanzapine, nine patients, one female; clozapine, six patients, three female) 8 weeks after starting treatment. PET data were analysed both by regions of interest and on a voxel-by-voxel basis using Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM96). Olanzapine and clozapine induced a similar and significant inhibition of [18F] FESP binding index in the cortex. In the basal ganglia, receptor occupancy was significantly higher with olanzapine than with clozapine (p=0.0018). By contrast, no differences in receptor occupancy were detected at the level of the pituitary gland. Clinical outcomes, in particular a full extra pyramidal tolerability, were similar. In this sample of neuroleptic-refractory schizophrenic patients, olanzapine and clozapine showed a different pattern of occupancy of D2-like receptor despite a common lack of extrapyramidal side-effects. Clozapine has been the gold standard for treatment of patients with refractory schizophrenia but is associated with serious safety liabilities. This has prompted the search for therapeutic alternatives for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of olanzapine versus clozapine in schizophrenic patients who failed to respond adequately to antipsychotic medication or who experienced intolerable adverse effects associated with the medication. This 18-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel study compared treatment with either olanzapine (5-25 mg/day, n=75) or clozapine (100-500 mg/day, n=72) in patients with schizophrenia who were nonresponsive to, or intolerant of, standard acceptable antipsychotic therapy. At the 18-week endpoint, no statistically significant differences were found between olanzapine and clozapine in any efficacy measure used: Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total, positive, negative, or general psychopathology or Clinical Global Impression severity (CGI-S). Response rates based on the criteria of Kane et al. [Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 45 (1988) 789] were also not significantly different between olanzapine-treated (57.9%) and clozapine-treated patients (60.8%). There were no significant differences in measurements of extrapyramidal symptoms or electrocardiography, and no clinically and statistically significant changes were seen in vital signs or laboratory measures in either group. Both treatments were well tolerated. Olanzapine demonstrated similar efficacy to clozapine in patients who had failed previous treatment because of lack of efficacy (treatment resistance) or intolerable side effects (treatment intolerance). Olanzapine therefore presents a safe alternative in the treatment of refractory schizophrenia. This randomized double-blind multicenter trial evaluated the effects of olanzapine vs. clozapine on subjective well-being, quality of life (QOL) and clinical outcome.
                The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority of olanzapine, mean dosage 16.2 +/- 4.8 (5-25 mg/day) vs. clozapine, mean dosage 209 +/- 91 (100-400 mg/day) regarding improvement on the 'Subjective Well-Being under Neuroleptic Treatment' (SWN) Scale after 26 treatment weeks in 114 patients with schizophrenia. Secondary outcome parameters included: Munich QOL Dimension List (MLDL), Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS), Clinical Global Impression (CGI).
                SWN scores improved significantly in both groups, olanzapine was non-inferior to clozapine (group difference 3.2 points in favor of olanzapine; 95% CI: 4.2;10.5). MLDL-satisfaction, PANSS and CGI-S improved similarly, olanzapine yielded a higher CGI Therapeutic Index. Individual SWN and PANSS changes correlated only moderately (r = -0.45).
                Olanzapine was non-inferior to clozapine. The lack of a marked correlation between PANSS and SWN improvements indicates that patients and psychiatrists perceive treatment differently. The purported advantages of second-generation or "atypical" antipsychotics relative to first-generation antipsychotics have not been examined in patients with a first episode of schizophrenia. This flexible-dose study examined efficacy and safety in a randomized, double-blind, 52-week trial, comparing chlorpromazine (CPZ) and clozapine (CLZ) in treatment naive patients experiencing their first episode of schizophrenia. In all, 160 inpatients with first-episode schizophrenia or schizophreniform disorder were randomized to CPZ or CLZ and followed them for 52 weeks or until dropout. The primary efficacy measure was time to first remission and proportion of time remaining in remission. The analysis was supplemented by comparisons on a profile of clinical symptoms and side effects. Of these first-episode patients, 80% achieved remission within 1 year (79% CPZ, 81% CLZ). The Kaplan-Meier estimated median time to first remission was 8 weeks for CLZ vs 12 weeks for CPZ (chi(2)(1)=5.56, p=0.02). Both the rate of first achieving remission and the odds for being in remission during the trial were almost doubled for the CLZ group in comparison with the CPZ group. At 12 weeks, CLZ was superior on many rating scale measures of symptom severity while CPZ was not superior on any. These symptom differences remained significant when controlling for EPS differences. By 52 weeks many of the symptom differences between groups were no longer significantly different. Generally, CLZ produced fewer side effects than CPZ, particularly extrapyramidal side effects. There was no significant difference between treatments in weight change or glucose metabolism. For each prior year of untreated psychosis, there was a 15% decrease in the odds of achieving remission (OR=0.85; CI 0.75-0.95). A high proportion of first-episode patients remitted within 1 year. We detected no difference in the proportion of first-episode patients receiving CLZ or CPZ that achieved remission. However, first-episode patients receiving CLZ remitted significantly faster and remained in remission longer than subjects receiving CPZ. While the CLZ group showed significantly less symptomatology on some measures and fewer side effects at 12 weeks, the two treatment groups seemed to converge by 1 year. Longer duration of untreated psychosis was associated with lower odds of achieving remission. There is little information on the comparative effectiveness of second-generation antipsychotic agents.
                To determine if any of five second-generation antipsychotics or haloperidol is more effective in treating acutely ill patients with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or schizophreniform disorder.
                A sample of 327 newly admitted patients were randomised to open-label treatment with aripiprazole, haloperidol, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone or ziprasidone for a minimum of 3 weeks. Measures of effectiveness were improvement in mental status so that the patient no longer required acute in-patient care, and changes in Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) scores.
                By the first measure, haloperidol (89%), olanzapine (92%) and risperidone (88%) were significantly more effective than aripiprazole (64%), quetiapine (64%) and ziprasidone (64%). Changes in BPRS ratings were not significant among treatments.
                Haloperidol, olanzapine and risperidone are superior to aripiprazole, quetiapine and ziprasidone for the acute treatment of psychosis in hospitalised patients with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or schizophreniform disorder. Since olanzapine-induced weight gain may be attributable to the antagonistic activity of olanzapine at the serotonin-2C receptor, the authors hypothesized that it might be attenuated by addition of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor fluoxetine.
                First-episode hospitalized schizophrenia patients (N=30) were randomly assigned in an 8-week double-blind study of olanzapine, 10 mg/day, coadministered with either fluoxetine, 20 mg/day (N=15), or placebo (N=15).
                The group receiving olanzapine plus fluoxetine showed significantly less improvement in positive and disorganized symptom dimensions than the group receiving olanzapine plus placebo. The two groups demonstrated similar and substantial gradual weight gains.
                These results suggest that fluoxetine coadministration is clinically ineffective and cannot attenuate olanzapine-induced weight gain. Neuroleptics are of established efficacy in mania. Controlled data on the use of olanzapine in mania is however, absent. In this study, 30 patients meeting DSM-IV criteria for mania were randomly allocated to receive either olanzapine or lithium in a 4 week double-blind randomized controlled design. There were no significant outcome differences between the two groups on any of the primary outcome measures, the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (lithium 28.2; olanzapine 28.0; P = 0.44); Clinical Global Impression (CGI) improvement scale (lithium 2.75, olanzapine 2.36; P = 0.163) or the Mania Scale (lithium 13.2, olanzapine 10.2; P = 0.315). Olanzapine was however, significantly superior to lithium on the CGI-severity scale at week 4 (lithium 2.83, olanzapine 2.29; P = 0.025). Olanzapine did not differ from lithium in terms of treatment emergent extrapyramidal side-effects as measured by the Simpson-Angus Scale. Olanzapine appears to be at least as effective as lithium in the treatment of mania. For the purpose of evaluating objectively the characteristics of clinical effects of clozapine and haloperidol, a double-blind comparative trial was conducted on 91 schizophrenic in-patients. The changes of symptoms were assessed by means of several psychiatric and behavioral rating scales. The results were analyzed by means of nonparametric statistical methods. Furthermore, application of multivariate analysis was considered. After 12 weeks of treatment, though no significant difference in general improvement rate was noted between the two groups, a marked different spectrum of clinical effects was observed according to the rating scales. Clozapine is superior in anti-delusional, contact-promoting and sedative anxiolytic effect, while haloperidol is superior in anti-autistic effect. Among the side-effects, extrapyramidal symptoms appeared significatly more severe in the haloperidol group. The frequency of appearance of fever, was significantly greater in the clozapine group than the other. The four dropout cases of the clozapine group were all caused by fever. Through this clinical trial, clinical availability and validity of various statistical analytical methods were reconsidered. Atypical antipsychotic drugs produce improvement in some domains of cognition as well as psychopathology in patients with schizophrenia. However, the effect of combinations of atypical antipsychotic drugs on cognitive function is unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of risperidone or placebo on cognitive function in patients with schizophrenia who were previously treated with clozapine monotherapy.
                This prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 6-week study included 30 patients with DSM-IV schizophrenia. Patients whose psychopathology was no more than partially responsive to clozapine treatment were randomly assigned to receive adjunctive treatment with risperidone (N = 16) up to 6 mg/day or placebo (N = 14). Cognitive test scores for verbal learning and memory, verbal fluency, attention, executive function, verbal working memory, and motor function were the primary outcome measures. Secondary outcome measures included assessment of psychopathology, extrapyramidal side effects, and global functioning. Data were collected between November 2001 and July 2003.
                Significant improvement was found in both treatment groups in a variety of cognitive measures, but there was significantly greater improvement in the placebo-augmented group on measures of initial learning acquisition and attention. The improvement in cognition was not correlated with improvement in psychopathology. There were significant correlations between improvement in verbal working memory, verbal learning and memory, and attention and quality of life and global functioning in the placebo-augmented but not the risperidone-augmented group.
                Adjunctive treatment with risperidone for 6 weeks in patients with schizophrenia who had received chronic treatment with clozapine does not significantly improve cognitive function. Atypical antipsychotics offer advantages over earlier drugs for the treatment of schizophrenia, although few data exist on the relative merits of different atypical antipsychotics. A multicentre, double-blind, randomized trial was performed to compare amisulpride and olanzapine in the treatment of acute schizophrenia. Adult schizophrenic patients with dominant positive symptomatology received amisulpride (200-800 mg/day) or olanzapine (5-20 mg/day) for 6 months. The primary efficacy variable was change from baseline of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) score, assessed with a non-inferiority analysis. The evolution of positive and negative symptomatology, depression, social functioning and quality of life were assessed. Safety evaluation included adverse event reporting, neurological status and body weight. The improvement of BPRS score was 32.7% in the amisulpride group and 33.0% in the olanzapine group; thus, the efficacy of amisulpride was not inferior to that of olanzapine. All other secondary efficacy outcome variables evolved to a similar extent in both groups. Adverse event frequency was similar in both groups. Amenorrhoea was encountered only in the amisulpride group (6.2% of patients), whereas elevations of liver transaminases were more frequent in the olanzapine group (17% versus 3.7% of patients). The incidence and mean extent of clinically relevant weight gain were higher in the olanzapine group (35.1% and 3.9 kg) than in the amisulpride group (20.6% and 1.6 kg). The efficacy of amisulpride is not inferior to that of olanzapine in the treatment of acute schizophrenia. The side-effect profile of the two drugs differed. Weight gain is a common adverse effect associated with the use of most antipsychotic drugs. Leptin has been reported to be associated with antipsychotic-induced weight gain. Previous studies have demonstrated a relationship between the atypical antipsychotics clozapine and olanzapine and serum leptin levels. We planned to comparatively investigate the effects of the atypical antipsychotics quetiapine, olanzapine, risperidone, and clozapine on leptin and triglyceride levels and weight gain.
                The study population comprised 56 patients with DSM-IV schizophrenia, who were divided into 4 treatment groups: quetiapine (N = 14), olanzapine (N = 14), risperidone (N = 14), or clozapine (N = 14) monotherapy, and a control group of 11 patients receiving no psychopharmacologic treatment. The patients were evaluated at baseline and at the sixth week according to the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), body mass index (BMI), weight, and fasting serum leptin and triglyceride levels. Data were gathered in 2001 and 2002.
                Olanzapine and clozapine caused a marked increase in weight and serum triglyceride and leptin levels, though increases in these variables were modest in the patients receiving quetiapine and minimal in those receiving risperidone. There were positive correlations between serum leptin levels and BMI and triglyceride levels. Clinical efficacy, as indicated by decrease in total PANSS scores, was associated with leptin levels in all atypical antipsychotic groups.
                Our results suggest that leptin may be associated with olanzapine- and clozapine-induced weight gain and that quetiapine appears to have modest influence and risperidone appears to have minimal influence on leptin and triglyceride levels and weight gain compared with olanzapine and clozapine. Olanzapine and risperidone, both second-generation antipsychotic agents, represent two different pharmacologic strategies. Although they share some in vitro properties, they differ by virtue of their chemical structure, spectrum of receptor binding affinities, animal neuropharmacology, pharmacokinetics, and in vivo neuroimaging profile. Based on such differences, it was hypothesized that the two compounds would show distinct safety and/or efficacy characteristics. To test this hypothesis, an international, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, 28-week prospective study was conducted with 339 patients who met DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, or schizoaffective disorder. Results of the study indicated that both olanzapine and risperidone were safe and effective in the management of psychotic symptoms. However, olanzapine demonstrated significantly greater efficacy in negative symptoms (Scale for Assessment of Negative Symptoms summary score), as well as overall response rate (> or = 40% decrease in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score). Furthermore, a statistically significantly greater proportion of the olanzapine-treated than risperidone-treated patients maintained their response at 28 weeks based on Kaplan-Meier survival curves. The incidence of extrapyramidal side effects, hyperprolactinemia, and sexual dysfunction was statistically significantly lower in olanzapine-treated than risperidone-treated patients. In addition, statistically significantly fewer adverse events were reported by olanzapine-treated patients than by their risperidone-treated counterparts. Thus, the differential preclinical profiles of these two drugs were also evident in a controlled, clinical investigation. Olanzapine seemed to have a risk-versus-benefit advantage. Sustained response to antipsychotic therapy is an important outcome measure for patients with psychotic disorders. Placebo control in studies of relapse prevention contributes valuable information yet provokes much debate. This study, using placebo as a control, evaluated olanzapine's efficacy in preventing a psychotic relapse. Participants were stable minimally symptomatic outpatients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. The study included 4 phases: (1) 4-day to 9-day screening/evaluation (N = 583), (2) 6-week conversion to open-label olanzapine (N = 493; 10-20 mg/d), (3) 8-week stabilization on olanzapine (N = 458; 10-20 mg/d), and (4) 52-week randomized (2:1), double-blind maintenance with olanzapine (N = 224; 10-20 mg/d) or placebo (N = 102). Primary relapse criteria were clinically significant changes in the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) positive item cluster or rehospitalization due to positive symptoms. Statistical methodology allowed sequential real-time estimation of efficacy across blinded treatment groups and multiple interim analyses, which permitted study termination when efficacy was significantly different between treatments. A significant between-treatment difference emerged 210 days after first patient randomization to double-blind treatment. Thus, 151 (46.3%) of the randomized patients were discontinued early and 34 (10.4%) of the planned patient enrollment were not required. The olanzapine group had a significantly longer time to relapse (P < 0.0001) than the placebo group. The 6-month cumulative estimated relapse rate (Kaplan-Meier) was 5.5% for olanzapine-treated patients versus 55.2% for placebo-treated patients. The design of this study enabled appropriate statistical testing of the primary hypothesis while minimizing exposure of patients to a less effective treatment than olanzapine. In remitted stabilized patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, olanzapine demonstrated a positive benefit-to-risk profile in relapse prevention. The objective of the study was to examine whether patients with schizophrenia who were judged to be stable on long-term treatment with conventional antipsychotic medications would further benefit from a switch to an atypical antipsychotic drug. Thirty-six subjects with schizophrenia spectrum disorder, on conventional antipsychotic medication therapy for at least 2 years, were randomized in double-blind fashion to risperidone versus olanzapine. Patients were titrated up to 6 mg risperidone or 15 mg olanzapine as tolerated, followed by tapering and discontinuation of conventional antipsychotic medication. Atypical antipsychotic agents were then administered alone (monotherapy) for 12 weeks. Efficacy and tolerability were assessed using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Clinical Global Impression Scale, and Simpson Angus Scale. Body weight was measured at each visit. Both treatment groups exhibited marked and similar improvement in the total PANSS score from baseline to study endpoint (22 weeks) [risperidone: baseline=59.3 (SE 3.1), 22 weeks=44.3 (SE 2.3) (p<0.001); olanzapine: baseline=55.9 (SE 3.3), 22 weeks=46.9 (SE 3.2) (p<0.001). Both groups also exhibited significant reductions in PANSS factor scores for positive and negative symptoms and disorganized thoughts. Only risperidone-treated patients exhibited significant decreases in uncontrolled hostility/excitement and anxiety and depression. Of note, while positive factor scores exhibited the majority of change within the first 10 weeks, negative factor scores continued to decline significantly in both treatment groups throughout the study. Tolerability assessments did not differ between groups. The results indicate that both atypical antipsychotic medications provided significant additional improvement in symptom severity in patients with schizophrenia previously on conventional antipsychotic agents. The aim of this study was to compare in vivo striatal D2 dopamine receptor occupancy induced by olanzapine and haloperidol in schizophrenic patients using a baseline-endpoint [(123)I]IBZM single photon computed emission tomography (SPECT) design. The relationships of striatal D2 receptor occupancy with clinical efficacy and extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) were also assessed. Twenty-seven inpatients with schizophrenia or schizophreniform disorder were included in a 4-week prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel and comparative clinical trial. Thirteen patients were treated with haloperidol (10 mg/day) and 14 with olanzapine (10 mg/day). Ratings of clinical status and EPS were obtained weekly. The percentage of D2 receptor occupancy was estimated by using basal ganglia (striatum)/frontal cortex IBZM uptake ratios obtained from each patient before and after 4 weeks of maintained antipsychotic treatment. Olanzapine led to a mean striatal D2 receptor occupancy of 49% (range 28-69%), which was significantly lower than that induced by haloperidol (mean 64%, range 46-90%). The baseline-endpoint SPECT design used in this study revealed lower antipsychotic D2 occupancy percentage values than those reported in the literature, using other approaches. The degree of striatal D2 receptor occupancy correlated to the EPS, which predominantly appeared in patients on haloperidol. No relationship was found between the striatal D2 receptor occupancy and clinical improvement. Olanzapine induced a lower striatal D2 occupancy than haloperidol. This low striatal D2 occupancy, together with the lower incidence of EPS in olanzapine-treated patients, contributed to confirm the atypical behavior of this new antipsychotic drug. Nevertheless, conclusions based on SPECT-estimated percentages of antipsychotic D2 occupancy should be cautious, since the SPECT design could influence the results. In this regard, SPECT studies including baseline and endpoint examinations should be encouraged. To compare the efficacy and safety of the atypical antipsychotics amisulpride and olanzapine in the treatment of acute psychotic exacerbations of schizophrenia.
                A multinational, double-blind randomised clinical trial.
                Three hundred and seventy-seven patients with predominantly positive symptomatology were treated for six months with either amisulpride (200-800 mg/d) or olanzapine (5-20 mg/d).
                Short-term results were analysed after two months of treatment. The primary efficacy measure was the change of score on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS). Other measures of efficacy and safety were also evaluated.
                Psychotic symptoms, as measured on the BPRS score, improved with both treatments, amisulpride being equivalent to olanzapine. All BPRS factor scores, as well as depressive symptoms, improved to a similar extent with both treatments. Less than five per cent of patients withdrew for adverse events, and there was no evidence for the emergence of extrapyramidal symptoms with either treatment. Statistically significant greater weight gain (2.7 +/- 3.9 kg) was observed during the study in the olanzapine group, compared with the amisulpride group (0.9 +/- 3.2 kg, p < 0.0001).
                Amisulpride and olanzapine show equivalent efficacy at 2 months in the treatment of acute psychotic exacerbations of schizophrenia. Amisulpride offers a significant advantage in preserving body weight. This article compares the efficacy of olanzapine and risperidone for positive and negative symptoms using an 18-week, randomized, double-blind, crossover design. The hypotheses were that olanzapine would be more efficacious for treating negative symptoms, and that risperidone would be superior in treating positive symptoms. Positive and negative symptoms scores improved throughout treatment, regardless of medication type. Differences between the medications were found for negative and general psychopathology rating scales. Overall, olanzapine led to greater improvements in negative symptoms than did risperidone. When each scale was analyzed individually, greater improvements were found for olanzapine on Positive and Negative Symptoms Scale (PANSS) General,PANSS total, and Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS)attention. A nearly significant trend favoring olanzapine was found for the Calgary Depression Scale. Several negative symptom subscales followed a nonsignificant trend toward olanzapine being more efficacious than risperidone.Thus, there was a very consistent pattern of greater efficacy for olanzapine, particularly for negative symptoms. Despite the small number of subjects, this study shows the potential of a within-subject design to elucidate differences in efficacy. The objective was to test effects of ethyl eicosapentaenoate (E-E) on persistent ongoing symptoms in patients receiving different types of anti-schizophrenic drugs, typical antipsychotics, new atypical antipsychotics, and clozapine. 115 patients with DSM-IV-defined schizophrenia were studied, 31 on clozapine, 48 on new atypical drugs and 36 on typical antipsychotics. Placebo or 1, 2 or 4 g/day of E-E was given for 12 weeks in addition to the background medication. The main assessment was change from baseline to 12 weeks on the PANSS and its sub-scales. There were no treatment-related side effects or adverse biochemical or haematological effects. Patients on 2 and 4 g/day E-E showed significant reductions in triglyceride levels which had been elevated by clozapine. In patients given 2 g/day E-E there were improvements on the PANSS and its sub-scales, but there was also a large placebo effect in patients on typical and new atypical antipsychotics and no difference between active treatment and placebo. In patients on clozapine, in contrast, there was little placebo response, but a clinically important and statistically significant effect of E-E on all rating scales. This effect was greatest at 2 g/day. There was a positive relationship between improvement on rating scales and rise in red blood cell arachidonic acid concentration. In the treatment of schizophrenia, changing antipsychotics is common when one treatment is suboptimally effective, but the relative effectiveness of drugs used in this strategy is unknown. This randomized, double-blind study compared olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone in patients who had just discontinued a different atypical antipsychotic.
                Subjects with schizophrenia (N=444) who had discontinued the atypical antipsychotic randomly assigned during phase 1 of the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) investigation were randomly reassigned to double-blind treatment with a different antipsychotic (olanzapine, 7.5-30 mg/day [N=66]; quetiapine, 200-800 mg/day [N=63]; risperidone, 1.5-6.0 mg/day [N=69]; or ziprasidone, 40-160 mg/day [N=135]). The primary aim was to determine if there were differences between these four treatments in effectiveness measured by time until discontinuation for any reason.
                The time to treatment discontinuation was longer for patients treated with risperidone (median: 7.0 months) and olanzapine (6.3 months) than with quetiapine (4.0 months) and ziprasidone (2.8 months). Among patients who discontinued their previous antipsychotic because of inefficacy (N=184), olanzapine was more effective than quetiapine and ziprasidone, and risperidone was more effective than quetiapine. There were no significant differences between antipsychotics among those who discontinued their previous treatment because of intolerability (N=168).
                Among this group of patients with chronic schizophrenia who had just discontinued treatment with an atypical antipsychotic, risperidone and olanzapine were more effective than quetiapine and ziprasidone as reflected by longer time until discontinuation for any reason. Cognitive deficits are a core feature of schizophrenia. As a target of intervention, improvements in cognition may lead to improvements in functional outcome.
                The present paper is the first report, to our knowledge, on the neurocognitive effects of aripiprazole. Unlike other second-generation antipsychotics, aripiprazole is a D(2) and D(3) receptor partial agonist. It is unknown what effects this unusual pharmacological profile may yield on neurocognition.
                The present open-label study included data on 169 patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder who were randomly treated with aripiprazole or olanzapine. Subjects received a neurocognitive battery at baseline, week 8, and 26.
                The aripiprazole group had a significantly greater dropout rate than the olanzapine group. Neurocognitive data were reduced through a principal components analysis that yielded a three-factor solution. The factors were general cognitive functioning, executive functioning, and verbal learning. For general cognitive functioning, both groups improved from baseline and the effects were relatively stable over the 26-week protocol. There were no differential treatment effects. For executive functioning, neither group improved significantly from baseline. For verbal learning, the aripiprazole group improved significantly from baseline to the 8th and 26th week of assessment, and there was a between-group effect favoring aripiprazole over olanzapine that was largely attributable to the differences in performance within the 8th week. Separate analyses were conducted for a measure of sustained attention (Continuous Performance Test-Identical Pairs). There were no differential treatment effects on this measure.
                The findings from this open-label study suggest that the neurocognitive effects of aripiprazole are at least as good as those of olanzapine. Although a growing body of research suggests that atypical neuroleptic medications are efficacious in the treatment of cocaine addiction among individuals with schizophrenia, more rigorously controlled trials are needed. To extend this research, we performed a 6-week double-blind study comparing olanzapine to haloperidol with the primary objective of reducing cue-elicited cocaine craving and the secondary aims of decreasing substance use, improving psychiatric symptoms, and determining an effect size for future studies.
                Thirty-one subjects with cocaine dependence and schizophrenia were randomized to olanzapine or haloperidol, underwent a cue-exposure procedure, and completed psychiatric and substance abuse ratings.
                Individuals in the olanzapine group who completed the study had a significant reduction on the energy subscale of the Voris Cocaine Craving Scale at study completion compared with individuals in the haloperidol group. The olanzapine-treated group also had lower, but not statistically significant, PANSS General Psychopathology Subscale scores and fewer positive urine toxicology screens compared with those in the haloperidol group.
                This small, but rigorously controlled, pilot trial provides additional evidence for the use of atypical antipsychotics for the treatment of individuals with co-occurring schizophrenia and cocaine dependence. Reductions in craving were associated with medium to large effect sizes. Limited randomized, controlled trial data exist on possible differences between atypical antipsychotics in efficacy, overall tolerability, and important indices of health status. The authors compared the efficacy and tolerability of ziprasidone and olanzapine in the treatment of acutely ill inpatients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.
                In this 6-week, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-design, flexible-dose trial, patients were randomly assigned to receive ziprasidone (N=136) or olanzapine (N=133). Primary efficacy measures were improvement in Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) severity scale scores; secondary measures were scores on the CGI improvement scale, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, and Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia. Tolerability assessments included fasting lipid profiles, fasting glucose and insulin measurements, electrocardiography, and monitoring of vital signs and body weight.
                The overall mean daily doses were 129.9 mg (SD=27.3) for ziprasidone and 11.3 mg (SD=2.8) for olanzapine. Both antipsychotics were efficacious in improving symptoms and global illness severity. The two treatment groups did not differ significantly in primary or secondary efficacy measures at endpoint or in by-visit analysis. Both agents were well tolerated. Body weight, total cholesterol, triglycerides, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol significantly increased with olanzapine but not with ziprasidone; all between-group comparisons of these variables were significant and favored ziprasidone. Olanzapine, but not ziprasidone, was associated with significant increases in fasting insulin level. No patient in either group exhibited a corrected QT interval >/=500 msec.
                During 6 weeks' treatment, ziprasidone and olanzapine demonstrated comparable antipsychotic efficacy. Differences favoring ziprasidone were observed in metabolic parameters. To establish the effect of the atypical neuroleptic clozapine on chorea, voluntary motor performance, and functional disability in patients with Huntington's disease.
                Thirty three patients with Huntington's disease participated in a double blind randomised trial. A maximum of 150 mg/day clozapine or placebo equivalent was given for a period of 31 days. Assessments were performed in the week before and at the last day of the trial. Chorea was scored using the abnormal involuntary movement scale (AIMS), the chorea score of the unified Huntington's disease rating scale (UHDRS), and judgement of video recordings. Voluntary motor performance was assessed using the UHDRS motor scale. Patients and their partners completed a questionnaire regarding functional disability. Twelve patients already used other neuroleptic medication, which was kept unchanged during the trial period. Results of neuroleptic naive and neuroleptic treated patients were analysed separately.
                Clozapine tended to reduce chorea in neuroleptic naive patients only (AIMS); improvement seemed more pronounced in patients receiving higher doses of clozapine. Other measures of chorea (UHDRS chorea score, video ratings) showed no improvement. Clozapine had no beneficial effect on chorea in patients already receiving neuroleptic medication. Voluntary motor performance did not improve with clozapine. Neuroleptic naive patients reported aggravation of functional disability, possibly reflecting the frequent occurrence of side effects. Adverse reactions forced trial termination in six patients and dose reduction in another eight, and consisted mainly of drowsiness, fatigue, anticholinergic symptoms, and walking difficulties.
                Clozapine has little beneficial effect in patients with Huntington's disease, although individual patients may tolerate doses high enough to reduce chorea. Because adverse reactions are often encountered, clozapine should be used with restraint in this patient group. Atypical antipsychotics are commonly used in the management of schizophrenia in late life with evidence suggesting they induce lower rates of motor disturbance, but have similar efficacy to conventional antipsychotics. Trials in the elderly have been either retrospective, small, of short duration or of a single-arm design.
                To demonstrate the effects upon motor side-effects, efficacy, safety and quality of life (QOL) of switching elderly patients with schizophrenia from conventional antipsychotics to olanzapine or risperidone.
                Elderly patients with schizophrenia were randomly allocated to olanzapine or risperidone and followed through an open-label crossover period. Between and within group intention to treat analyses were conducted.
                66 patients were randomised (mean age 69.6 [SD +/- 6.2]). Four (11.8%) patients on olanzapine and 8 (26.7%) patients on risperidone failed to complete the crossover because of treatment failure [Odds Ratio (OR) = 2.73[0.73-10.2] p = 0.14]. The mean doses upon completion of switching in each arm were 9.9 mg (SD = 4.2) and 1.7 mg (SD = 1.2) for olanzapine and risperidone respectively. In both arms there was improvement in Parkinsonism, though only olanzapine was associated with a reduction in dyskinetic symptoms. The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, Scale for the assessment of Negative Symptoms and Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores all improved through the crossover period in both arms with no between group differences. Treatment with olanzapine was associated with a better response over risperidone on the psychological domain of the World Health Organisation-Quality Of Life [Brief] (WHO-QOL-BREF) scale ( p = 0.02). Patients in the olanzapine arm also demonstrated improvement from baseline in the WHO-QOL-BREF physical, psychological and health satisfaction domains, but risperidone had no effect on any Quality of Life (QOL) measure.
                After switching from a conventional antipsychotic, olanzapine and risperidone were associated with improvement in core symptoms of schizophrenia and motor side effects. Subjects switched to olanzapine were more likely to complete the switching process and show an improvement in psychological QOL.
                Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Olanzapine may be a somewhat more efficacious drug than some other second generation antipsychotic drugs. This small superiority in efficacy needs to be weighed against a larger weight gain and associated metabolic problems than most other second generation antipsychotic drugs, except clozapine. These conclusions are tentative due to the large number of people leaving the studies early which possibly limits the validity of the findings. Further large, well-designed trials are necessary to establish the relative effects of different second generation antipsychotic drugs.