Randomized, controlled, double-blind multicenter comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of ziprasidone and olanzapine in acutely ill inpatients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Olanzapine versus ziprasidone: results of a 28-week double-blind study in patients with schizophrenia. Efficacy and tolerability of ziprasidone versus risperidone as augmentation in patients partially responsive to clozapine: a randomised controlled clinical trial. Efficacy and tolerability of ziprasidone versus risperidone in patients with acute exacerbation of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder: an 8-week, double-blind, multicenter trial. Effectiveness of olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone in patients with chronic schizophrenia following discontinuation of a previous atypical antipsychotic.
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. 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. Patients suffering from schizophrenic psychoses sometimes insufficiently respond to antipsychotic monotherapy and then combination approaches are preferred. We aimed in validating the add-on of ziprasidone and risperidone to clozapine, and we performed a randomised head-to-head trial. Patients with partial response to clozapine were randomly attributed to augmentation with ziprasidone (n = 12) or risperidone (n = 12). Efficacy assessments included the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS), the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD), the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) and the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF). Furthermore, several safety and tolerability measures were obtained. After six weeks, both groups showed significant reductions of positive and negative symptoms. In addition, affective state, psychosocial functioning and clozapine side effects improved without significant differences between the groups. Both approaches were well tolerated. However, the ziprasidone group experienced a small elongation of the QTc interval and a reduction of extrapyramidal symptoms. Patients under clozapine-risperidone therapy developed a rise of serum prolactin levels. The clozapine augmentation with ziprasidone or risperidone resulted in significant psychopathological improvements. The side effects differed between the treatment groups. Further head-to-head comparisons of atypical antipsychotics as add-on to clozapine are necessary. More head-to-head comparisons of antipsychotics are needed to discern the relative efficacy and safety profiles of these compounds. Thus, we compared ziprasidone and risperidone in patients with acute exacerbation of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.
                Patients with DSM-III-R acute exacerbation of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder were randomly assigned to double-blind ziprasidone 40 to 80 mg b.i.d. (N = 149) or risperidone 3 to 5 mg b.i.d (N = 147) for 8 weeks. Primary efficacy measures included Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale (CGI-S) score; secondary measures included scores on the PANSS negative sub-scale, CGI-Improvement scale (CGI-I), and PANSS-derived Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRSd) total and core items. Safety assessments included movement disorder evaluations, laboratory tests, electrocardiography, vital signs, and body weight. Efficacy analyses employed a prospectively defined Evaluable Patients cohort. Treatment equivalence was conferred if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the ziprasidone/risperidone ratio of least-squares mean change from baseline was > 0.60. Data were gathered from August 1995 to January 1997.
                Equivalence was demonstrated in PANSS total scores, CGI-S scores, PANSS negative subscale scores, BPRSd total and core item scores, and PANSS total and CGI-I responder rates. Both agents were well tolerated. Risperidone exhibited a significantly higher Movement Disorder Burden (MDB) score (p < .05) and higher incidences of prolactin elevation and clinically relevant weight gain. However, compared with current recommendations, study dosing may have been high for some risperidone-treated patients (mean dose = 7.4 mg/day) and low for some ziprasidone-treated patients (mean dose = 114.2 mg/day).
                Both agents equally improved psychotic symptoms, and both were generally well tolerated, with ziprasidone demonstrating a lower MDB score and less effect on prolactin and weight than risperidone. 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.
Ziprasidone may be a slightly less efficacious antipsychotic drug than amisulpride, olanzapine and risperidone. Its main advantage is the low propensity to induce weight gain and associated adverse effects. However, the high overall rate of participants leaving the studies early limits the validity of any findings.