PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Peter D Feldman

Publications and source records attributed to Peter D Feldman.

15 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Effect of comorbid symptoms of oppositional defiant disorder on responses to atomoxetine in children with ADHD: a meta-analysis of controlled clinical trial data.

RATIONALE: Up to 60% of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) suffer from comorbid affective or behavioral impairments, the most common condition being oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), which occurs in 40-60% of children with ADHD. OBJECTIVES: This post hoc meta-analysis was performed to determine the effect of the presence of comorbid ODD symptoms on clinical outcomes among pediatric and adolescent subjects being treated for ADHD. METHODS: Acute-phase data were analyzed from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in outpatients aged 6-16 and meeting the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition, criteria for ADHD. Subjects received placebo or atomoxetine (max 1.8 mg/kg/day, daily) for 6-8 weeks. Patients were diagnosed with comorbid ODD on structured diagnostic interview (Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-aged Children-Present and Lifetime Versions). RESULTS: Of the 512 subjects studied, 158 were diagnosed with comorbid ODD. Relative to placebo, atomoxetine treatment significantly reduced ADHD symptoms in both ODD-comorbid and noncomorbid subjects irrespective of the comorbidity with ODD. ADHD subjects also showed significant improvements from baseline on most of the psychosocial measures of the child health questionnaire irrespective of the comorbidity with ODD. Reduction in ODD symptoms was highly related to the magnitude of ADHD response. CONCLUSIONS: Atomoxetine treatment significantly reduced ADHD symptoms in both ODD-comorbid and noncomorbid subjects to similar extents, indicating that the presence of comorbid symptoms of oppositionality does not affect clinical outcomes of treatment of ADHD with atomoxetine.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2006

Long-term atomoxetine treatment in adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of atomoxetine in adolescent subjects treated for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) for up to 2 years. STUDY DESIGN: Data from 13 atomoxetine studies (6 double-blind, 7 open-label) were pooled for subjects age 12 to 18 with ADHD as defined by the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV. RESULTS: Of the 601 atomoxetine-treated subjects in this meta-analysis, 537 (89.4%) completed 3 months of acute treatment. A total of 259 subjects (48.4%) are continuing atomoxetine treatment; 219 of these subjects have completed at least 2 years of treatment. The mean dose of atomoxetine at endpoint was 1.41 mg/kg/day. Mean ADHD Rating Scale IV, parent version, investigator-administered and -scored total scores showed significant improvement (P < .001) over the first 3 months. Symptoms remained improved up to 24 months without dosage escalation. During the 2-year treatment period, 99 (16.5%) subjects discontinued treatment due to lack of effectiveness, and 31 (5.2%) subjects discontinued treatment due to adverse events. No clinically significant abnormalities in height, weight, blood pressure, pulse, mean laboratory values, or electrocardiography parameters were found. CONCLUSIONS: Two-year data from this ongoing study indicate that atomoxetine maintains efficacy among adolescents with ADHD, with no evidence of drug tolerance and no new or unexpected safety concerns.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2006

Effects of long-term atomoxetine treatment for young children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this 13-study (seven double-blind/placebo-controlled, six open-label) meta-analysis is to determine the effectiveness and tolerability of long-term atomoxetine treatment among young children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHOD: Data were pooled from 6- and 7-year-olds (N = 272) who met DSM-IV criteria for ADHD, received atomoxetine treatment, and were enrolled in clinical trials of > or =2 years. Of these, 97 subjects reached the 24-month time point, providing data for long-term trend analysis of safety and effectiveness. RESULTS: Effectiveness for most subjects was maintained over long-term treatment, as demonstrated by total scores and total T scores on the Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Rating Scale-IV-Parent Version, investigator administered and scored. During the 2-year period, 25.7% discontinued because of lack of effectiveness, but adverse events were clinically minor and transient, and only 4.0% of children discontinued because of an adverse event. Notable effects on growth were seen during early phases of the study, with attenuation occurring by the 2-year time point. Statistically significant increases in pulse and blood pressure and decreases in cardiac PR interval were seen, but no changes were deemed both statistically significant and clinically meaningful among any vital signs, electrocardiographic measures, or laboratory tests. CONCLUSION: Long-term atomoxetine treatment appears generally well tolerated and effective in the treatment of young children with ADHD.

Adrenergic Uptake Inhibitors↗
PubMed2005

Comparison of olanzapine and risperidone in the treatment of psychosis and associated behavioral disturbances in patients with dementia.

OBJECTIVE: The authors compared efficacy of olanzapine versus placebo and risperidone as measured by the Neuropsychiatric Inventory and Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Psychosis scale in patients with dementia-related psychosis. METHODS: Patients with moderate-to-severe psychotic symptoms associated with dementia were recruited from outpatient or residential settings and randomly assigned to 10-week, double-blind, flexible-dose treatment with olanzapine (N=204; 2.5 mg-10 mg/day; mean: 5.2 mg/day), risperidone (N=196; 0.5 mg-2 mg/day; mean: 1.0 mg/day) or placebo (N=94). RESULTS: Most measures of neuropsychiatric functioning improved in all treatment groups, including the placebo group, and no significant treatment differences occurred. Overall discontinuation was lowest in the placebo group, and the olanzapine group had a significantly higher incidence of discontinuation due to adverse events (16.2%) relative to placebo (3.2%) and risperidone (8.7%) groups. Treatment-emergent extrapyramidal symptoms were more numerous for risperidone- than placebo- or olanzapine-treated patients. Abnormally high prolactin levels occurred in 78.0% of risperidone patients, compared with 16.7% for olanzapine and 5.0% for placebo. The incidence of weight gain greater than 7% from baseline was higher in the olanzapine group relative to risperidone, but neither active-treatment group showed a statistical difference from placebo (1.1%). No other statistically significant and clinically relevant differences were seen for any other vital sign, electrocardiographic measure, or laboratory hematology and chemistry, including glucose, except for cholesterol, which decreased from baseline to endpoint in both active-treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' neuropsychiatric functioning improved with olanzapine, risperidone, and placebo treatment. There was a substantial response in the placebo group, and no significant differences emerged among treatments.

Aged↗
PubMed2004

Olanzapine versus placebo in the treatment of psychosis with or without associated behavioral disturbances in patients with Alzheimer's disease.

OBJECTIVES: Psychotic symptoms and behavioral disturbances are a concern in the care of elderly patients with Alzheimer's dementia (AD). This study was conducted to compare the efficacy of olanzapine versus placebo in patients with psychotic symptoms associated with AD in long-term or continuing-care settings. METHODS: Patients (n = 652) with AD and delusions or hallucinations were randomly assigned to 10 weeks of double-blind treatment with placebo or fixed-dose olanzapine (1.0, 2.5, 5.0, 7.5 mg/day). RESULTS: Mean age was 76.6+/-10.4 years. Repeated-measures analysis showed significant improvement from baseline in NPI/NH Psychosis Total scores (sum of Delusions, Hallucinations items-primary efficacy measure) in all five treatment groups (p<0.001), but no pairwise treatment differences were seen at the 10-week endpoint. However, under LOCF analysis, improvement in the 7.5 mg olanzapine group (-6.2 +/- 4.9) was significantly greater than with placebo (-5.0 +/- 6.1, p = 0.008), while endpoint CGI-C scores showed the greatest improvement in the Olz 2.5 olanzapine group (2.8 +/- 1.4, p = 0.030) relative to placebo (3.2 +/- 1.4). There were significant overall treatment-group differences in increased weight, anorexia, and urinary incontinence, with olanzapine showing numerically higher incidences. However, neither the incidence of any other individual events, including extrapyramidal symptoms, nor of total adverse events occurred with significantly higher frequency in any olanzapine group relative to placebo. No clinically relevant significant changes were seen across groups in cognition or any other vital sign or laboratory measure, including glucose, triglyceride, and cholesterol. CONCLUSIONS: While 1.0 mg olanzapine did not show significant differences from placebo, the 2.5 mg dose was a reasonable starting dose. Olanzapine at 7.5 mg/day significantly decreased psychosis and overall behavioral disturbances (NPI/NH, BPRS) and was well tolerated.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Olanzapine versus clozapine in treatment-resistant or treatment-intolerant schizophrenia.

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.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2004

Relapse prevention in bipolar I disorder: 18-month comparison of olanzapine plus mood stabiliser v. mood stabiliser alone.

BACKGROUND: Few controlled studies have examined the use of atypical antipsychotic drugs for prevention of relapse in patients with bipolar I disorder. Aims To evaluate whether olanzapine plus either lithium or valproate reduces the rate of relapse, compared with lithium or valproate alone. METHOD: Patients achieving syndromic remission after 6 weeks'treatment with olanzapine plus either lithium (0.6-1.2 mmol/l) or valproate (50-125 microg/ml) received lithium or valproate plus either olanzapine 5-20 mg/day (combination therapy) or placebo (monotherapy), and were followed in a double-masked trial for 18 months. RESULTS: The treatment difference in time to relapse into either mania or depression was not significant for syndromic relapse (median time to relapse: combination therapy 94 days, monotherapy 40.5 days; P=0.742), but was significant for symptomatic relapse (combination therapy 163 days, monotherapy 42 days; P=0.023). CONCLUSIONS: Patients taking olanzapine added to lithium or valproate experienced sustained symptomatic remission, but not syndromic remission, for longer than those receiving lithium or valproate monotherapy.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Olanzapine in the acute treatment of bipolar I disorder with a history of rapid cycling.

BACKGROUND: A substantial proportion of patients with bipolar disorder are characterized by a rapidly cycling course and are particularly resistant to conventional treatment. METHODS: This secondary analysis, defined a priori, was conducted on a larger data set from patients with bipolar I disorder to determine the efficacy of a 3-week treatment with the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine (5-20 mg/day, n=19) versus placebo (n=26) in patients with >or=4 episodes in the preceding year. RESULTS: Significantly fewer placebo patients completed treatment (34.6 vs. 73.7%, P=0.016), and more than half discontinued due to lack of efficacy (53.8 vs. 21.1%, P=0.035). Olanzapine reduced Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total scores significantly more than placebo (-13.9 vs. -4.1, P=0.011). Clinical responses, defined as >or=50% improvement in YMRS, were achieved in 58% of olanzapine patients, compared with 28% of placebo patients (P=0.066). Extrapyramidal symptoms were not significantly changed in either group. Somnolence was the most common adverse event in both groups (olanzapine: 52.6%, placebo: 23.1%; P=0.060). No event occurred significantly more frequently with olanzapine than with placebo. No patients discontinued due to an adverse event. LIMITATIONS: The duration of this study was limited to 3 weeks, precluding conclusions about long-term efficacy of olanzapine. Moreover, a sizeable placebo effect was obtained, possibly masking optimal therapeutic effect. Despite these limitations, treatment differences in efficacy were highly significant. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that olanzapine was effective in reducing symptoms of mania and well tolerated in patients with bipolar I disorder with a rapid-cycling course.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Comparison of risperidone and olanzapine in the control of negative symptoms of chronic schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders in patients aged 50 to 65 years.

BACKGROUND: This analysis compares the efficacy of risperidone and olanzapine in controlling negative and positive symptoms of chronic psychosis in older patients. METHOD: Post hoc assessments were made in a subset of risperidone-treated (N = 19) and olanzapine-treated (N = 20) older patients (aged 50 to 65 years) from a large international, multicenter, parallel, double-blind, 28-week study of patients aged 18 to 65 years (N = 339) randomly assigned to receive risperidone (4-12 mg/day) or olanzapine (10-20 mg/day). Assessments were made using repeated-measures analysis. RESULTS: At both 8 weeks and 28 weeks, the magnitude of changes in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) positive symptom subscale scores did not differ between treatment groups (8 weeks: risperidone, -6.5; olanzapine, -6.8, p = .866; 28 weeks: risperidone, -6.5; olanzapine, -7.0; p = .804). However, by the 8-week timepoint, olanzapine had reduced PANSS negative subscale scores significantly more than risperidone (-8.8 vs. -4.9, p = .032). By the 28-week endpoint, olanzapine had continued to maintain significantly greater reduction in baseline-to-endpoint PANSS negative scores (-8.1 vs. -3.5, p = .032) and led to significantly greater reduction in scores on the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS) dimensions of affective flattening (-5.2 vs. -0.6, p = .033) and alogia (-3.8 vs. -0.3, p = .007). Patients in the olanzapine treatment group also demonstrated numerically greater reduction of both SANS summary (-3.7 vs. -1.0, p = .078) and SANS composite scores (-14.1 vs. -4.1, p = .075). CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate that, in older patients with schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders, risperidone and olanzapine have approximately equal efficacy in controlling positive symptoms. However, olanzapine appears to be more efficacious in maintaining control over negative symptoms.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Olanzapine in the treatment of dopamimetic-induced psychosis in patients with Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Studies in elderly patients demonstrate antipsychotic efficacy and favorable safety profiles for olanzapine. We report results from two placebo-controlled, double-blind studies of olanzapine for treatment of dopamimetic drug-induced psychosis in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). METHODS: Patients were treated with olanzapine or placebo for 4 weeks while dopamimetic therapy was held constant. Olanzapine was initiated at 2.5 mg/day, with 2.5-mg/day increases allowed every 3 to 4 days up to the maximum dose of 15 mg/day. RESULTS: Olanzapine patients showed significant improvements from baseline on positive symptoms and most efficacy measures, but no significant treatment-group differences were observed. Olanzapine performed significantly worse than placebo in both studies on the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) total, Motor, and Activities of Daily Living scales, but not the UPDRS Tremor item or Complications scores. Corrected QT interval, vital signs, and body weight were not significantly different from placebo. CONCLUSIONS: These findings did not demonstrate superior efficacy of olanzapine for treatment of dopamimetic-induced psychosis in PD. The initial dose-titration schedule and mild baseline levels of psychosis may account for these findings. Future studies involving gradual dose titration are needed to explore further olanzapine's optimum use for patients with PD with treatment-related psychosis.

Aged↗
PubMed2002

Efficacy of olanzapine in combination with valproate or lithium in the treatment of mania in patients partially nonresponsive to valproate or lithium monotherapy.

BACKGROUND: A 6-week double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted to determine the efficacy of combined therapy with olanzapine and either valproate or lithium compared with valproate or lithium alone in treating acute manic or mixed bipolar episodes. METHODS: The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy of olanzapine (5-20 mg/d) vs placebo when added to ongoing mood-stabilizer therapy as measured by reductions in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) scores. Patients with bipolar disorder (n = 344), manic or mixed episode, who were inadequately responsive to more than 2 weeks of lithium or valproate therapy, were randomized to receive cotherapy (olanzapine + mood-stabilizer) or monotherapy (placebo + mood-stabilizer). RESULTS: Olanzapine cotherapy improved patients' YMRS total scores significantly more than monotherapy (-13.11 vs -9.10; P = .003). Clinical response rates (> or = 50% improvement on YMRS) were significantly higher with cotherapy (67.7% vs 44.7%; P< .001). Olanzapine cotherapy improved 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-21) total scores significantly more than monotherapy (4.98 vs 0.89 points; P< .001). In patients with mixed-episodes with moderate to severe depressive symptoms (DSM-IV mixed episode; HAMD-21 score of > or = 20 at baseline), olanzapine cotherapy improved HAMD-21 scores by 10.31 points compared with 1.57 for monotherapy (P< .001). Extrapyramidal symptoms (Simpson-Angus Scale, Barnes Akathisia Scale, Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale) were not significantly changed from baseline to end point in either treatment group. Treatment-emergent symptoms that were significantly higher for the olanzapine cotherapy group included somnolence, dry mouth, weight gain, increased appetite, tremor, and slurred speech. CONCLUSION: Compared with the use of valproate or lithium alone, the addition of olanzapine provided superior efficacy in the treatment of manic and mixed bipolar episodes.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2002

Comparison of rapidly acting intramuscular olanzapine, lorazepam, and placebo: a double-blind, randomized study in acutely agitated patients with dementia.

This double-blind study investigated the efficacy and safety of rapid-acting intramuscular olanzapine in treating agitation associated with Alzheimer's disease and/or vascular dementia. At 2 h, olanzapine (5.0 mg, 2.5 mg) and lorazepam (1.0 mg) showed significant improvement over placebo on the PANSS Excited Component (PANSS-EC) and Agitation-Calmness Evaluation Scale (ACES), and both 5.0 mg olanzapine and lorazepam showed superiority to placebo on the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory. At 24 h, both olanzapine groups maintained superiority over placebo on the PANSS-EC; lorazepam did not. Olanzapine (5.0 mg) and lorazepam improved ACES scores more than placebo. Simpson-Angus and Mini-Mental State Examination scores did not change significantly from baseline. Sedation (ACES > or =8), adverse events, and laboratory analytes were not significantly different from placebo for any treatment. No significant differences among treatment groups were seen in extrapyramidal symptoms or in corrected QT interval at either 2 h or 24 h, and no significant differences among treatment groups were seen in vital signs, including orthostasis. Intramuscular injection of olanzapine may therefore provide substantial benefit in rapidly treating inpatients with acute dementia-related agitation.

Acute Disease↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Drug-induced psychosis in Parkinson disease: phenomenology and correlations among psychosis rating instruments.

OBJECTIVES: To describe further the phenomenology of drug-induced psychosis (DIP) in patients with Parkinson disease (PD) and assess which items on two common psychosis rating instruments-the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI)-are the best measure of DIP by comparing them with the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGIS). METHODS: Baseline data from two placebo-controlled, double-blind studies of olanzapine in PD patients with DIP were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 157 of 160 patients had hallucinations, with visual hallucinations being the most common (97% of subjects), followed by auditory (48%), tactile (23%), and olfactory (16%). Seventy-six percent of subjects experienced delusions, and all types of delusions occurred with relatively equal frequency. The CGIS correlated with suspiciousness, hallucinatory behavior, unusual thought content, and hostility on the BPRS; and delusions, hallucinations, agitation, aberrant motor behavior, and sleep on the NPI. CONCLUSION: Nonvisual hallucinations and delusions may occur more frequently in DIP than previously thought. These symptoms, plus agitation and hostility, may ultimately be the best measure of DIP in patients with PD.

Aged↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Retrospective cohort study of diabetes mellitus and antipsychotic treatment in a geriatric population in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate risk of diabetes among elderly patients during treatment with antipsychotic medications. DESIGN: We conducted a longitudinal, retrospective study assessing the incidence of new prescription claims for antihyperglycemic agents during antipsychotic therapy. SETTING: Prescription claims from the AdvancePCS claim database were followed for 6 to 9 months. PARTICIPANTS: Study participants consisted of patients in the United States aged 60+ and receiving antipsychotic monotherapy. The following cohorts were studied: an elderly reference population (no antipsychotics: n = 1,836,799), those receiving haloperidol (n = 6481) or thioridazine (n = 1658); all patients receiving any conventional antipsychotic monotherapy (n = 11,546), clozapine (n = 117), olanzapine (n = 5382), quetiapine (n = 1664), and risperidone (n = 12,244), and all patients receiving any atypical antipsychotic monotherapy (n = 19,407). MEASUREMENTS: We used Cox proportional hazards regression to determine the risk ratio of diabetes for antipsychotic cohorts relative to the reference population. Covariates included sex and exposure duration. RESULTS: New antihyperglycemic prescription rates were higher in each antipsychotic cohort than in the reference population. Overall rates were no different between atypical and conventional antipsychotic cohorts. Among individual antipsychotic cohorts, rates were highest among patients treated with thioridazine (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.1- 5.7), lowest with quetiapine (95% CI, 1.3-2.9), and intermediate with haloperidol, olanzapine, and risperidone. Among atypical cohorts, only risperidone users had a significantly higher risk (95% CI, 1.05-1.60; P = 0.016) than for haloperidol. Conclusions about clozapine were hampered by the low number of patients. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that diabetes risk is elevated among elderly patients receiving antipsychotic treatment. However, causality remains to be demonstrated. As a group, the risk for atypical antipsychotic users was not significantly different than for users of conventional antipsychotics.

Aged↗