Paroxetine efficacy in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder. Zuclopenthixol decanoate and haloperidol decanoate in chronic schizophrenia: a double-blind multicentre study. [Zotepine versus perazine in patients with paranoid schizophrenia: a double-blind controlled trial of its effectiveness]. Prior benzodiazepine use and buspirone response in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder. A 24-week randomized study of olanzapine versus ziprasidone in the treatment of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder in patients with prominent depressive symptoms. Efficacy and safety of lesopitron in outpatients with generalized anxiety disorder. Efficacy and tolerability of ziprasidone versus risperidone as augmentation in patients partially responsive to clozapine: a randomised controlled clinical trial. Efficacy and safety of a putative anxiolytic agent: ipsapirone. The neurocognitive effects of aripiprazole: an open-label comparison with olanzapine. A placebo-controlled, randomized, double-masked, variable dosage, clinical trial of azathioprine with and without methylprednisolone in multiple sclerosis. Comparison of efficacy of zotepine and thiothixene in schizophrenia in a double-blind study. Clozapine and risperidone in chronic schizophrenia: effects on symptoms, parkinsonian side effects, and neuroendocrine response. Antidepressants for the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder. A placebo-controlled comparison of imipramine, trazodone, and diazepam. Comparative efficacy and safety of atypical and conventional antipsychotic drugs in first-episode psychosis: a randomized, double-blind trial of olanzapine versus haloperidol. 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. Effectiveness of clozapine versus olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone in patients with chronic schizophrenia who did not respond to prior atypical antipsychotic treatment. [Effectiveness and tolerance of zotepine in a double-blind comparison with perazine in schizophrenic patients].
Recently, there has been a renewed interest in alternatives to the benzodiazepines for the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy of paroxetine vs. imipramine and 2'-chlordesmethyldiazepam in 81 patients with a DSM-IV diagnosis of GAD. Approximately two-thirds of the patients who completed the study improved greatly or moderately on all three active drugs. During the first 2 weeks of treatment, 2'-chlordesmethyldiazepam treatment resulted in the greatest improvement in anxiety ratings. Both paroxetine and imipramine treatment resulted in more improvement than 2'-chlordesmethyldiazepam by the fourth week of treatment. Paroxetine and imipramine affect predominantly psychic symptoms, whereas 2'-chlordesmethyldiazepam affects predominantly somatic symptoms. Our results suggest that paroxetine is effective for the treatment of GAD. Zuclopenthixol decanoate (ZPT-D) and haloperidol decanoate (HAL-D) were compared in the maintenance treatment of chronic schizophrenic patients. All patients were treated with either ZPT-D or HAL-D for at least 3 months and were then randomly allocated to treatment with either ZPT-D (100-600 mg every 4 weeks) or HAL-D (38-200 mg every 4 weeks) for 9 months. Sixty-four patients entered the study. Three patients were only assessed at baseline. Four patients in the HAL-D group were withdrawn because of deterioration. One patient in the ZPT-D group committed suicide. Fifty-six patients completed the trial. The assessment programme comprised Clinical Global Impressions by psychiatrists and nurses, the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), UKU Side Effect Scale and Simpson-Angus Scale, Ratings were made at baseline and after 12, 24 and 36 weeks of treatment. The severity of illness scores remained almost constant. The only between-group difference was recorded at month 6 in favour of ZPT-D. The BPRS total scores were reduced significantly in both groups with no between-group differences. The depression scores on the MADRS were very low. Both treatments caused few and mild side effects according to the UKU Side Effect Scale and the Simpson-Angus scale, and there were no significant differences between the groups. Both ZPT-D and HAL-D seem to be effective in the maintenance treatment of chronic schizophrenic patients and cause few side effects. The injections of ZPT-D and HAL-D can be given at 4-week intervals. The dibenzothiepine zotepine is a new potential "atypical" neuroleptic exhibiting powerful antiserotonergic and antidopaminergic properties. The efficacy of zotepine was evaluated in a double-blind controlled trial versus the tricyclic neuroleptic perazine in 41 patients suffering mainly from the paranoid-hallucinatory type of schizophrenia. The key outcome variable was the extent of mental disturbance as defined by the total score of the BPRS. Additional outcome variables were GAS and CGI. In addition, adverse reactions and extrapyramidal side effects were assessed according to the FSUCL scale and the Gerlach and AIMS rating scale, respectively. Additional variables recorded were blood pressure, heart rate and routine laboratory parameters as well as electrocardiogram and electroencephalogram. In the first two days, standard equivalent doses of both drugs were administered. Thereafter, doses were administered as required. The efficacy of both substances was compared after 7, 14 and 28 days of treatment. Both drugs showed a similar antipsychotic efficacy. Under zotepine treatment a 55% improvement of the BPRS total score was observed while perazine led to a 41% BPRS score reduction. After 7 days the zotepine group was significantly more improved than the perazine group, possibly due to a dosing effect in the perazine group. In the zotepine group, fewer adverse reactions and a better benefit/risk index were observed although the differences between the two treatment groups did not reach levels of statistical significance. There were no drug-specific abnormal laboratory findings. Thus, in the present study there was no significant difference between zotepine and perazine with respect to antipsychotic efficacy and side-effect rates. However, zotepine showed a trend to a better benefit/risk index at the end of treatment. An earlier preliminary report suggested that prior treatment with benzodiazepines might predict a reduced response to buspirone in patients diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). To confirm or refute this hypothesis, the present data analysis was conducted.
                One large data set (N = 735) of GAD patients (DSM-III) treated with buspirone, a benzodiazepine, and a placebo was analyzed by dividing all patients into 3 prior benzodiazepine (BZ) treatment groups: no prior BZ treatment, recent (< 1 month) BZ treatment, and remote (> or = 1 month) BZ treatment. Using an intent-to-treat last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) data set, acute 4-week treatment response was assessed in terms of clinical improvement, attrition, and adverse events as a function of these 3 prior benzodiazepine treatment groups.
                Patient attrition was significantly higher (p < .05) in the recent BZ treatment group than in the remote and no prior BZ treatment groups with lack of efficacy given as the primary reason by patients receiving buspirone but not benzodiazepine or placebo. In the buspirone group, adverse events occurred more frequently in the recent BZ treatment group than in the remote BZ treatment and no prior BZ treatment groups. Finally, clinical improvement with buspirone was similar to benzodiazepine improvement in the no prior BZ treatment and remote BZ treatment groups, but less than benzodiazepine improvement in the recent BZ treatment group, leading to the smallest buspirone/placebo differences in improvement in the recent BZ treatment group.
                These data suggest that the initiation of buspirone therapy in GAD patients who have only recently terminated benzodiazepine treatment should be undertaken cautiously and combined with appropriate patient education. The objective of this study is to compare olanzapine with ziprasidone therapy in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and experiencing depressive symptoms.
                This randomized, double-blind, 24-week, fixed-dose study compared olanzapine (n = 202) and ziprasidone (n = 192) for patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and experiencing prominent depressive symptoms. Outcome measures included change in Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS) score from baseline to 8 weeks (primary outcome) and changes in CDSS, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scales, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, and Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scores for 24 weeks. Statistical analyses included mixed-effects model repeated measures (primary analysis) and change from baseline to last observation carried forward (LOCF).
                At baseline, patients had moderate depressive symptoms (mean Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scales total score, 27.3). For 8 weeks, patients treated with olanzapine or ziprasidone had significant improvements on CDSS. Treatment group differences were not statistically significant (P = 0.493, mixed-effects model repeated measures; P = 0.497, LOCF). For 24 weeks, olanzapine-treated patients showed significantly greater improvements in depressive symptoms (results varied by depression measure and statistical approach) and GAF (P < 0.017, LOCF). A significantly higher proportion of olanzapine-treated patients completed the study (44.6% vs 29.7%; P = 0.003) and remained longer on medication (median, 163 vs 73 days, P < 0.001), compared with ziprasidone-treated patients. Olanzapine-treated patients experienced significantly (P < 0.05) greater increases in triglycerides, HgbA1c, and weight.
                For 24 weeks, olanzapine-treated patients had greater and more sustained participation in treatment, during which time significantly greater improvements were observed in depressive symptoms and GAF scores, along with increases in weight and certain metabolic parameters as compared with ziprasidone-treated patients. To compare the relative efficacy and safety of lesopitron 4-80 mg/d versus lorazepam 2-4 mg/d and placebo in a subgroup of patients with anxiety history taken from a larger study of patients with a primary diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD).
                Six-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel, placebo and lorazepam-controlled, Phase II, single-center, outpatient study.
                Outpatient clinic.
                One hundred sixty-one patients with GAD were randomized in the main study; 68 with a documented history of GAD or anxiety disorder not otherwise specified were included in the subgroup.
                After a one-week placebo lead-in, patients were randomized to receive placebo, lesopitron, or lorazepam twice daily for six weeks, followed by a one-week taper period. Efficacy was assessed using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A) and the Clinical Global Impressions scale. Safety was assessed through physical examinations, monitoring of vital signs, 12-lead electrocardiograms, laboratory analyses, and adverse event monitoring.
                An overall mean improvement in the HAM-A total score between baseline and end point for all three treatment groups was seen, with mean changes of 3.4 (95% CI 2.0 to 4.8), 6.1 (95% CI 4.1 to 8.1), and 6.1 (95% CI 4.6 to 7.6) for the placebo, lesopitron, and lorazepam groups, respectively (omnibus p = 0.044, uncorrected). Positive treatment effects were also observed in the subgroup population on several other measures and suggest that additional therapeutic trials may be warranted. Future trials could be stratified on the basis of referral status (symptomatic volunteer vs. clinical patient with preexisting illness) or previous exposure to anxiolytics, and use a fixed-dose rather than flexible-fixed-dose design.
                The subgroup analysis represents a comparison of treatment outcome in GAD patients presenting with a history of previous episodes of GAD or anxiety disorder not otherwise specified compared with those who were experiencing their first episode of GAD and reported no anxiety history. Although the overall study analysis was equivocal, for the approximately 40% of patients with recurrent anxiety disorder, beneficial effects for both lesopitron and lorazepam are suggested. 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. Ipsapirone is an azopirone derivative that selectively interacts with serotonin-1A (5-HT1A) receptors and fails to affect other neurotransmitter receptors. In this study, ipsapirone at 15 mg or 30 mg was compared with diazepam at 15 mg and placebo in a double-blind, random assignment study design in patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). During 4 weeks of treatment, both active drugs were therapeutically superior to placebo, without significant drug vs. drug therapeutic differences. The side-effect profile of ipsapirone at 15 mg was favorable compared to diazepam, but at 30 mg ipsapirone produced significant gastrointestinal disturbances. 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. Ninety-eight patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) in the chronic progression phase entered a 3-year clinical trial to determine if azathioprine (AZ) alone or with adrenal cortical steroids stabilizes the course of MS. In group AM, the patients took AZ throughout and methylprednisolone (MP) for the first 36 weeks. Group AP received AZ and placebo instead of MP. Group PP took placebos for both drugs. We adjusted the AZ to maintain the total white blood cell count within 3,000 to 4,000/mm3; we gave the MP in a fixed dose "pulse" and alternate-day regimen. The "intent-to-treat" groups had no statistically significant differences in the rates of progression among the 3 treatments. Subgroup analysis suggests that patients in the AM group who completed treatment exactly according to protocol did statistically significantly better than the placebo recipients using the sum of Standard Neurological Examination scores, slightly better using the quantitative neuro-performance tests, but no better using Mickey's Illness Severity Scores or Kurtzke's Disability Status Scale. Also, the AZ-treated groups had half the relapse rate of the placebo-treated group. Adverse reactions to AZ accounted for most withdrawals. Hematologic and hepatic abnormalities were significantly associated with AZ, but serious non-MS abnormalities were uncommon and were equally distributed among the 3 groups. Addition of MP to the AZ slightly improved the efficacy of the treatment, but also increased the adverse effects. The benefits of AZ with or without steroids did not outweigh the risks, and therefore we do not recommend this treatment for patients with chronic progressive MS. Zotepine and thiothixene were compared for clinical efficacy and safety in a double-blind trial. Using overall improvement ratings and Gorham's BPRS, zotepine rated higher improvement in motor retardation, suspiciousness, mannerisms and posturing symptoms, suggesting that it has both activating and antipsychotic activities. Thiothixene produced higher improvement ratings in symptoms such as hallucinatory behavior, somatic concerns, anxiety, guilt feelings, tension, depressive mood and uncooperativeness. As for side effects, there was a significantly lower frequency of dry mouth and insomnia with zotepine when compared with thiothixene. The lower incidence of insomnia is interesting in view of zotepine's clinical activating effects. There were no abnormal laboratory findings. Clozapine and risperidone were the first two "second-generation" antipsychotic drugs approved for schizophrenia. There is currently little information about their comparative efficacy from head-to-head clinical trials. The purpose of this study was to examine the comparative efficacy of clozapine and risperidone for positive and negative symptoms, depression, parkinsonian side effects, and indexes of neuroendocrine function in schizophrenic patients who met a priori criteria for partial response to traditional neuroleptic agents.
                After a baseline fluphenazine treatment period, 29 patients participated in a 6-week, double-blind, parallel-group comparison of the effects of these agents.
                Clozapine was superior to risperidone for positive symptoms and parkinsonian side effects, but there were no significant differences between the drugs on two measures of negative symptoms, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale total scores, and depression scores. The clozapine patients, but not the risperidone patients, demonstrated significant reductions from the fluphenazine baseline in positive symptoms, total symptoms, and depression. In addition, clozapine produced fewer effects on plasma prolactin than risperidone or fluphenazine. The mean daily doses during week 6 of the trial were 403.6 mg of clozapine and 5.9 mg of risperidone.
                The findings from this study indicate that these drugs have both important differences and similarities in their comparative efficacy in chronically ill, partially responsive patients with schizophrenia. Further research on second-generation antipsychotic drugs in this patient population that addresses key methodological issues, such as optimal dose and treatment duration, are needed. The current study examines whether antidepressants, contrary to current thinking, are safe and effective treatments for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) not complicated by depression or panic disorder.
                Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, flexible-dose, 8-week treatment study comparing imipramine hydrochloride (mean maximum daily dose, 143 mg), trazodone hydrochloride (255 mg), and diazepam (26 mg).
                Two hundred thirty patients with a DSM-III diagnosis of GAD in whom major depression and panic disorder has been excluded, and who had a Hamilton Anxiety Scale total score of at least 18.
                Seventy-five percent of patients were treated in family practice settings in the community, with the remainder treated in psychiatric practices, either academic or private.
                Patients treated with diazepam showed the most improvement in anxiety ratings during the first 2 weeks of treatment, with somatic symptoms being most responsive. From week 3 through week 8 trazodone achieved comparable, and imipramine somewhat better, anxiolytic efficacy when compared with diazepam, with psychic symptoms of tension, apprehension, and worry being more responsive to the antidepressants. Among completers, moderate to marked improvement was reported by 73% of patients treated with imipramine, 69% of patients treated with trazodone, 66% of patients treated with diazepam, but only 47% of patients treated with placebo. Overall, patients treated with antidepressants reported a higher rate of adverse effects than diazepam-treated patients, but attention rates were the same across all treatments.
                The results of the study need replication, but suggest a potentially important role for antidepressants, particularly imipramine, in patients suffering from GAD. 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. 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. 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. 40 inpatients suffering from a schizophrenia (ICD-9) were treated with either zotepine or perazin. The study was continued for a period of 28 days. Assessment of clinical efficacy was effected via BPRS, AMDP, CGI and SANS; tolerance was assessed by means of Simpson's scale. In addition, EEG, ECG and laboratory controls were conducted. The overall therapeutic efficacy was good, and it was not possible to distinguish one group from the other, i.e. both substances were equally effective, judged by means of the psychopathometric tools that were at our disposal. In 11 patients of the zotepine group and in 9 patients of the perazin group, slight extrapyramidal symptoms were observed. No clinically relevant changes were seen in EEG, ECG and laboratory controls in both groups.
Azapirones appeared to be useful in the treatment of GAD, particularly for those participants who had not been on a benzodiazepine. Azapirones may not be superior to benzodiazepines and do not appear as acceptable as benzodiazepines. Side effects appeared mild and non serious in the azapirone treated group. Longer term studies are needed to show that azapirones are effective in treating GAD, which is a chronic long-term illness.