Randomized, controlled, double-blind multicenter comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of ziprasidone and olanzapine in acutely ill inpatients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Amisulpride vs. risperidone in chronic schizophrenia: results of a 6-month double-blind study. A double-blind, randomised comparative trial of amisulpride versus olanzapine in the treatment of schizophrenia: short-term results at two months. Olanzapine versus ziprasidone: results of a 28-week double-blind study in patients with schizophrenia. Amisulpride versus risperidone in the treatment of schizophrenic patients: a double-blind pilot study in Taiwan. A double-blind, randomized comparative trial of amisulpride versus olanzapine for 6 months in the treatment of 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.
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. This multicenter, double-blind, randomized study evaluated the efficacy, safety and functional effects of two atypical antipsychotics, amisulpride and risperidone, in patients with chronic schizophrenia (DSM IV) with a recent worsening of symptoms. It was planned as a non-inferiority trial. 309 patients received amisulpride (400-1,000 mg/day) or risperidone (4-10 mg/day) for six months. Amisulpride was demonstrated to be not inferior to risperidone with respect to the decrease in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score from baseline (90% 2-sided confidence interval (-5.6; 4.0)). Symptomatic improvement measured with the Brief Psychiatry Rating Scale (BPRS), the PANSS positive subscale, and the Bech Rafaelsen Melancholia Scale was similar in both groups. Amisulpride was significantly (p <.05) superior to risperidone in terms of response (>/=50% improvement in PANSS and BPRS total scores or "very much/much improved" on the Clinical Global Impression Scale) and also demonstrated better functional effects and subjective response. Both treatments were well tolerated and had a similar low incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms; however, amisulpride was associated with less weight gain and endocrine/sexual symptoms. 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. 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. The atypical antipsychotics, amisulpride and risperidone, have different receptor affinity characteristics. Although the relative efficacy of both drugs compared to conventional antipsychotics is well established, it remains unclear how the efficacy of amisulpride compares with risperidone. There have been no controlled studies comparing amisulpride to risperidone in Asian patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of amisulpride with that of risperidone in Taiwanese schizophrenic patients.
                Patients with productive positive symptoms (n = 48) were enrolled into this double-blind, randomized pilot study for 6 weeks. Patients received either amisulpride (400-800 mg/day) or risperidone (4-8 mg/day). Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Clinical Global Impression (CGI), Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS), and patients' subjective responses to treatment were assessed during the trial period. Adverse events were recorded at each follow-up visit.
                At the end of the trial, the mean dosage was 630 +/- 134 mg/day and 6.88 +/- 1.54 mg/day for amisulpride and risperidone, respectively. There was no significant difference in the reduction of the PANSS total score (amisulpride -24.1 versus risperidone -28.4, p = 0.999), the PANSS positive subscale score (amisulpride -6.8 versus risperidone -8.3, p = 0.467), the PANSS negative subscale score (amisulpride -5.6 versus risperidone -6.4, p = 0.999), or the CGI score between the two groups. The extrapyramidal symptom ratings, the improvement in the SOFAS (amisulpride 11.1 versus risperidone 10.0) and the subjective response (amisulpride 82% versus risperidone 83%) were comparable. No serious adverse events were recorded in either treatment group. There was a statistically significant body weight gain in the risperidone group. In contrast, there was a statistically, though not clinically, significant reduction of blood pressure and heart rate in the amisulpride group.
                This study suggests that amisulpride is as effective as risperidone in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia. Both drugs were well tolerated, but had different side effect profiles. 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. 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.
There is little randomised evidence comparing amisulpride with other second generation antipsychotic drugs. We could only find trials comparing amisulpride with olanzapine, risperidone and ziprasidone. We found amisulpride may be somewhat more effective than ziprasidone, and more tolerable in terms of weight gain and other associated problems than olanzapine and risperidone. These data, however, are based on only ten short to medium term studies and therefore too limited to allow for firm conclusions.
Note: the 47 citations in the awaiting classification section of the review may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.