Biomedical subjects

S R David

Publications and source records attributed to S R David.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2001

Double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison of intramuscular olanzapine and intramuscular haloperidol in the treatment of acute agitation in schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: The authors evaluated the comparative efficacy and safety of intramuscular olanzapine, intramuscular haloperidol, and intramuscular placebo for the treatment of acute agitation in schizophrenia. METHOD: Hospitalized patients with schizophrenia received one to three injections of intramuscular olanzapine, 10 mg, intramuscular haloperidol, 7.5 mg, or intramuscular placebo over a 24-hour period. Agitation was measured with the excited component of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and two additional scales. RESULTS: According to scores on the excited component of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, both intramuscular olanzapine and intramuscular haloperidol reduced agitation significantly more than intramuscular placebo 2 and 24 hours following the first injection. Intramuscular olanzapine reduced agitation significantly more than intramuscular haloperidol 15, 30, and 45 minutes following the first injection. No patients treated with intramuscular olanzapine experienced acute dystonia, compared with 7% of those who were treated with intramuscular haloperidol. No significant QT(c) interval changes were observed in any patients. CONCLUSIONS: Intramuscular olanzapine represents a rapid, effective, and safe treatment for acute agitation in schizophrenia.

Acute Disease↗

PubMed2000

Neuropsychological change in early phase schizophrenia during 12 months of treatment with olanzapine, risperidone, or haloperidol. The Canadian Collaborative Group for research in schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this investigation was to test the efficacy of novel antipsychotic medications in the treatment of cognitive impairment in early phase schizophrenia. METHODS: Sixty-five patients in this multicenter double-blind study were randomly assigned to olanzapine (5-20 mg), risperidone (4-10 mg), or haloperidol (5-20 mg). Standard measures of clinical and motor syndromes were administered, as well as a comprehensive battery of tests to assess (1) motor skills, (2) attention span, (3) verbal fluency and reasoning, (4) nonverbal fluency and construction, (5) executive skills, and (6) immediate recall at baseline and after 6, 30, and 54 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: The general cognitive index derived from the 6 domain scores revealed a significantly greater benefit from treatment with olanzapine relative to haloperidol and olanzapine relative to risperidone, but no significant difference was shown between risperidone and haloperidol. The improvement related to olanzapine was apparent after 6 weeks and enhanced after 30 and 54 weeks of treatment. Exploratory within-group analyses of the 6 cognitive domains after a conservative Bonferroni adjustment revealed a significant improvement with olanzapine only on the immediate recall domain, and similar analyses of the 17 individual tests revealed a significant improvement with olanzapine only on the Hooper Visual Organization Test. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that olanzapine has some superior cognitive benefits relative to haloperidol and risperidone. A larger sample replication study is necessary to confirm and generalize the observations of this study and begin evaluation of the implications of this change to cerebral function and quality of life for people with schizophrenia.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2000

The effects of olanzapine, risperidone, and haloperidol on plasma prolactin levels in patients with schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: There is relatively little comparative information on elevations in plasma prolactin level (PRL) with conventional versus novel antipsychotic agents. OBJECTIVE: This paper examines the comparative effects on PRL of olanzapine, risperidone, and haloperidol based on data from 3 multicenter, double-blind, randomized clinical trials. Magnitude of response, dose dependency, time course, effects of sex and age, and response to switching from haloperidol to olanzapine are assessed. METHODS: The effects of olanzapine, risperidone, and haloperidol on PRL were assessed in patients with schizophrenia or related psychoses participating in 3 double-blind clinical trials: (1) a 6-week acute trial comparing olanzapine 5 to 20 mg/d (n = 1,336) and haloperidol 5 to 20 mg/d (n = 660), with a 1-year, open-label olanzapine extension for responders; (2) a 54-week study comparing olanzapine 5 to 20 mg/d (n = 21), risperidone 4 to 10 mg/d (n = 21), and haloperidol 5 to 20 mg/d (n = 23) in early illness; and (3) a 28-week study comparing olanzapine 10 to 20 mg/d (n = 172) and risperidone 4 to 12 mg/d (n = 167). RESULTS: PRL elevations were significantly greater with risperidone than with either olanzapine or haloperidol in study 2. and significantly greater than with olanzapine in study 3 (all, P < 0.001). PRL elevations were significantly greater with haloperidol than with olanzapine in study 1 (P < 0.001 ). A dose-response relationship was not consistently confirmed with any of the drug treatments. Risperidone-associated PRL elevations peaked relatively early in treatment. In haloperidol- and risperidone-treated patients, the mean change in PRL was greater in women than in men. PRL decreased significantly when treatment was switched from haloperidol to olanzapine. CONCLUSIONS: This side-by-side analysis of 3 independent studies suggests that with the 3 antipsychotic drugs studied, PRL is elevated moderately by olanzapine (mean change, 1-4 ng/mL), intermediately by haloperidol (mean change, approximately 17 ng/mL), and strongly by risperidone (mean change, 45-80 ng/mL). No consistent dose-response relationship was observed, and the time course and sex-dependency of the response differed between the 3 agents. Patients with haloperidol-induced hyperprolactinemia may benefit from a switch to olanzapine. Long-term studies examining the health consequences of chronic hyperprolactinemia during antipsychotic treatment are needed.

Antipsychotic Agents↗

PubMed1999

Olanzapine versus placebo in the treatment of acute mania. Olanzapine HGEH Study Group.

OBJECTIVE: The primary intent of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of olanzapine and placebo in the treatment of acute mania. METHOD: The design involved a random-assignment, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel group study of 3 weeks' duration. After a 2- to 4-day screening period, qualified patients were assigned to either olanzapine (N = 70) or placebo (N = 69). Patients began double-blind therapy with either olanzapine, 10 mg, or placebo given once per day. After the first day of treatment, the daily dose could be adjusted upward or downward, as clinically indicated, by one capsule (olanzapine, 5 mg/day) within the allowed range of one to four capsules. The primary efficacy measure in the protocol was defined as a change from baseline to endpoint in total score on the Young Mania Rating Scale. Clinical response was defined a priori as a decrease of 50% or more from baseline in Young Mania Rating Scale total score. RESULTS: The olanzapine group experienced significantly greater mean improvement in Young Mania Rating Scale total score than the placebo group. On the basis of the clinical response criteria, significantly more olanzapine-treated patients (48.6%) responded than those assigned to placebo (24.2%). Somnolence, dizziness, dry mouth, and weight gain occurred significantly more often with olanzapine. There were no statistically significant differences between the olanzapine-treated and placebo-treated patients with respect to measures of parkinsonism, akathisia, and dyskinesias. No discontinuations of treatment due to adverse events occurred in the olanzapine treatment group. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this study suggest that compared with placebo, olanzapine has superior efficacy for the symptoms of acute mania.

Acute Disease↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Accounting for dropout bias using mixed-effects models.

Treatment effects are often evaluated by comparing change over time in outcome measures. However, valid analyses of longitudinal data can be problematic when subjects discontinue (dropout) prior to completing the study. This study assessed the merits of likelihood-based repeated measures analyses (MMRM) compared with fixed-effects analysis of variance where missing values were imputed using the last observation carried forward approach (LOCF) in accounting for dropout bias. Comparisons were made in simulated data and in data from a randomized clinical trial. Subject dropout was introduced in the simulated data to generate ignorable and nonignorable missingness. Estimates of treatment group differences in mean change from baseline to endpoint from MMRM were, on average, markedly closer to the true value than estimates from LOCF in every scenario simulated. Standard errors and confidence intervals from MMRM accurately reflected the uncertainty of the estimates, whereas standard errors and confidence intervals from LOCF underestimated uncertainty.

Analysis of Variance↗