A comparison of the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of divalproex sodium and olanzapine in the treatment of bipolar disorder. Olanzapine versus divalproex in the treatment of acute mania. Olanzapine versus divalproex sodium for the treatment of acute mania and maintenance of remission: a 47-week study. A 12-week, double-blind comparison of olanzapine vs haloperidol in the treatment of acute mania. Olanzapine versus placebo in the treatment of acute mania. Olanzapine HGEH Study Group. Comparative efficacy and safety of oxcarbazepine versus divalproex sodium in the treatment of acute mania: a pilot study. Efficacy of olanzapine in acute bipolar mania: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. The Olanzipine HGGW Study Group. Olanzapine versus lithium in the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder: a 12-month, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial. A double-blind, randomized comparative trial of amisulpride versus olanzapine for 6 months in the treatment of schizophrenia. Efficacy of divalproex vs lithium and placebo in the treatment of mania. The Depakote Mania Study Group. Adverse effects and laboratory parameters of high-dose olanzapine vs. clozapine in treatment-resistant schizophrenia.
This study compared the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of divalproex and olanzapine in the treatment of acute mania associated with bipolar disorder.
                This randomized, 12-week, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter study included DSM-IV-defined bipolar disorder type I patients hospitalized for acute mania and randomly assigned to treatment with divalproex or olanzapine. After an inpatient period of up to 21 days, subjects were followed as outpatients. Dose adjustment was permitted during the inpatient period. Efficacy was assessed using change from baseline in Mania Rating Scale (MRS) score to day 21; other efficacy measures included the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, and the Clinical Global Impressions-Part I, Severity of Illness scale. The primary safety endpoint was change from baseline in weight. Other safety and tolerability endpoints included spontaneous adverse event reporting and changes from baseline in laboratory measures and vital signs.
                120 subjects (N = 63 divalproex, N = 57 olanzapine) were randomly assigned to treatment. No significant differences between groups were found for any efficacy variable for change from baseline to day 21. Mean MRS score changes from baseline to day 21 were -14.8 for divalproex and -17.2 for olanzapine (p =.210). A significantly (p <.05) greater proportion of olanzapine-treated subjects experienced somnolence, weight gain, edema, rhinitis, and speech disorder (slurred speech); no adverse events were significantly greater in the divalproex group. A number of laboratory measures also demonstrated significant treatment differences, but the clinical significance of many of these is uncertain. Mean body weight changes were significantly greater in the olanzapine group (+ 8.8 lb [+ 4.0 kg]) than the divalproex group (+ 5.5 lb [+ 2.5 kg], p <.050). One death occurred during the study (olanzapine group, diabetic ketoacidosis).
                No significant difference in efficacy was found between treatment groups. Divalproex was associated with a more favorable adverse event profile and significantly less weight gain than olanzapine. The effects of olanzapine and divalproex for the treatment of mania were compared in a large randomized clinical trial.
                A 3-week, randomized, double-blind trial compared flexibly dosed olanzapine (5-20 mg/day) to divalproex (500-2500 mg/day in divided doses) for the treatment of patients hospitalized for acute bipolar manic or mixed episodes. The Young Mania Rating Scale and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale were used to quantify manic and depressive symptoms, respectively. Safety was assessed with several measures.
                The protocol defined baseline-to-endpoint improvement in the mean total score on the Young Mania Rating Scale as the primary outcome variable. The mean Young Mania Rating Scale score decreased by 13.4 for patients treated with olanzapine (N=125) and 10.4 for those treated with divalproex (N=123). A priori categorizations defined response and remission rates: 54.4% of olanzapine-treated patients responded (> or = 50% reduction in Young Mania Rating Scale score), compared to 42.3% of divalproex-treated patients; 47.2% of olanzapine-treated patients had remission of mania symptoms (endpoint Young Mania Rating Scale < or = 12), compared to 34.1% of divalproex-treated patients. The decrease in Hamilton depression scale score was similar in the two treatment groups. Completion rates for the 3-week study were similar in both groups. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (incidence >10%) occurring more frequently during treatment with olanzapine were dry mouth, increased appetite, and somnolence. For divalproex, nausea was more frequently observed. The average weight gain with olanzapine treatment was 2.5 kg, compared to 0.9 kg with divalproex treatment.
                The olanzapine treatment group had significantly greater mean improvement of mania ratings and a significantly greater proportion of patients achieving protocol-defined remission, compared with the divalproex treatment group. Significantly more weight gain and cases of dry mouth, increased appetite, and somnolence were reported with olanzapine, while more cases of nausea were reported with divalproex. Few double-blind trials have compared longer-term efficacy and safety of medications for bipolar disorder. The authors report a 47-week comparison of olanzapine and divalproex.
                This 47-week, randomized, double-blind study compared flexibly dosed olanzapine (5-20 mg/day) to divalproex (500-2500 mg/day) for manic or mixed episodes of bipolar disorder (N=251). The only other psychoactive medication allowed was lorazepam for agitation. The primary efficacy instrument was the Young Mania Rating Scale; a priori protocol-defined threshold scores were > or =20 for inclusion, < or =12 for remission, and > or = 15 for relapse. Analytical techniques included mixed model repeated-measures analysis of variance for change from baseline, Fisher's exact test (two-tailed) for categorical comparisons, and Kaplan-Meier estimates of time to events of interest.
                Over 47 weeks, mean improvement in Young Mania Rating Scale score was significantly greater for the olanzapine group. Median time to symptomatic mania remission was significantly shorter for olanzapine, 14 days, than for divalproex, 62 days. There were no significant differences between treatments in the rates of symptomatic mania remission over the 47 weeks (56.8% and 45.5%, respectively) and subsequent relapse into mania or depression (42.3% and 56.5%). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurring significantly more frequently during olanzapine treatment were somnolence, dry mouth, increased appetite, weight gain, akathisia, and high alanine aminotransferase levels; those for divalproex were nausea and nervousness.
                In this 47-week study of acute bipolar mania, symptomatic remission occurred sooner and overall mania improvement was greater for olanzapine than for divalproex, but rates of bipolar relapse did not differ. This randomized controlled trial compares the efficacy and safety of olanzapine vs haloperidol, as well as the quality of life of patients taking these drugs, in patients with bipolar mania.
                The design consisted of 2 successive, 6-week, double-blind periods and compared flexible dosing of olanzapine (5-20 mg/d, n = 234) with haloperidol (3-15 mg/d, n = 219).
                Rates of remission (Young-Mania Rating Scale score of < or =12 and 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score of < or =8 at week 6) were similar for olanzapine- and haloperidol-treated patients (52.1% vs 46.1%, respectively; P =.15). For the subgroup of patients whose index episode did not include psychotic features, rates of remission were significantly greater for the olanzapine group compared with the haloperidol group (56.7% vs 41.6%, P =.04). Relapse into an affective episode (mania and/or depression) occurred in 13.1% and 14.8% of olanzapine- and haloperidol-treated patients, respectively (P =.56). Switch to depression occurred significantly more rapidly with haloperidol than with olanzapine when using survival analysis techniques (P =.04), and significantly more haloperidol-treated patients experienced worsening of extrapyramidal symptoms, as indicated by several measures. Weight gain was significantly greater in the olanzapine group compared with the haloperidol group (2.82 vs 0.02 kg, P<.001). The olanzapine group had significant improvement in quality of life on several dimensions compared with the haloperidol group.
                These data suggest that olanzapine does not differ from haloperidol in achieving overall remission of bipolar mania. However, haloperidol carries a higher rate of extrapyramidal symptoms, whereas olanzapine is associated with weight gain. The primary intent of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of olanzapine and placebo in the treatment of acute mania.
                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.
                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.
                The results from this study suggest that compared with placebo, olanzapine has superior efficacy for the symptoms of acute mania. This study compared the efficacy and safety of oxcarbazepine and divalproex sodium in acute mania patients.
                In this 12 week, randomized, double-blind pilot study, 60 patients diagnosed with acute mania (DSM-IV) and a baseline Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score of 20 or more received flexibly dosed oxcarbazepine (1,000-2,400 mg/day) or divalproex (750-2,000 mg/day). The mean decrease in the YMRS score from baseline was used as the main outcome measure of response to treatment. A priori protocol-defined threshold scores were <or=12 for remission and >or=15 for relapse. Number of patients showing adequate response and the time taken to achieve improvement was compared. Adverse events were systematically recorded throughout the study.
                Over 12 weeks, mean improvement in YMRS scores was comparable for both the groups including the mean total scores as well as percentage fall from baseline. There were no significant differences between treatments in the rates of symptomatic mania remission (90% in divalproex and 80% in oxcarbazepine group) and subsequent relapse. Median time taken to symptomatic remission was 56 days in divalproex group while it was 70 days in the oxcarbazepine group (p=0.123). A significantly greater number of patients in divalproex group experienced one or more adverse drug events as compared to patients in the oxcarbazepine group (66.7% versus 30%, p<0.01).
                Oxcarbazepine demonstrated comparable efficacy to divalproex sodium in the management of acute mania. Also the overall adverse event profile was found to be superior for oxcarbazepine. We compared the efficacy and safety of olanzapine vs placebo for the treatment of acute bipolar mania.
                Four-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel study. A total of 115 patients with a DSM-IV diagnosis of bipolar disorder, manic or mixed, were randomized to olanzapine, 5 to 20 mg/d (n = 55), or placebo (n = 60). The primary efficacy measure was the Young-Mania Rating Scale (Y-MRS) total score. Response and euthymia were defined, a priori, as at least a 50% improvement from baseline to end point and as a score of no less than 12 at end point in the Y-MRS total score, respectively. Safety was assessed using adverse events, Extrapyramidal Symptom (EPS) rating scales, laboratory values, electrocardiograms, vital signs, and weight change.
                Olanzapine-treated patients demonstrated a statistically significant greater mean (+/- SD) improvement in Y-MRS total score than placebo-treated patients (-14.8 +/- 12.5 and -8.1 +/- 12.7, respectively; P<.001), which was evident at the first postbaseline observation 1 week after randomization and was maintained throughout the study (last observation carried forward). Olanzapine-treated patients demonstrated a higher rate of response (65% vs 43%, respectively; P =.02) and euthymia (61% vs 36%, respectively; P =. 01) than placebo-treated patients. There were no statistically significant differences in EPSs between groups. However, olanzapine-treated patients had a statistically significant greater mean (+/- SD) weight gain than placebo-treated patients (2.1 +/- 2.8 vs 0.45 +/- 2.3 kg, respectively) and also experienced more treatment-emergent somnolence (21 patients [38.2%] vs 5 [8.3% ], respectively).
                Olanzapine demonstrated greater efficacy than placebo in the treatment of acute bipolar mania and was generally well tolerated. The authors compared the efficacy of olanzapine and lithium in the prevention of mood episode relapse/recurrence.
                Patients with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder (manic/mixed), a history of two or more manic or mixed episodes within 6 years, and a Young Mania Rating Scale total score > or =20 entered the study and received open-label co-treatment with olanzapine and lithium for 6-12 weeks. Those meeting symptomatic remission criteria (Young Mania Rating Scale score < or =12; 21-item Hamilton depression scale score < or =8) were randomly assigned to 52 weeks of double-blind monotherapy with olanzapine, 5-20 mg/day (N=217), or lithium (target blood level: 0.6-1.2 meq/liter) (N=214).
                Symptomatic relapse/recurrence (score > or =15 on either the Young Mania Rating Scale or Hamilton depression scale) occurred in 30.0% of olanzapine-treated and 38.8% of lithium-treated patients. The noninferiority of olanzapine relative to lithium (primary objective) in preventing relapse/recurrence was met, since the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval on the 8.8% risk difference (-0.1% to 17.8%) exceeded the predefined noninferiority margin (-7.3%). Secondary results showed that compared with lithium, olanzapine had significantly lower risks of manic episode and mixed episode relapse/recurrence. Depression relapse/recurrence occurred in 15.7% of olanzapine-treated and 10.7% of lithium-treated patients. Mean weight gain during open-label co-treatment was 2.7 kg; during double-blind monotherapy, weight gain was significantly greater with olanzapine (1.8 kg) than with lithium (-1.4 kg).
                These results suggest that olanzapine was significantly more effective than lithium in preventing manic and mixed episode relapse/recurrence in patients acutely stabilized with olanzapine and lithium co-treatment. Both agents were comparable in preventing depression relapse/recurrence. 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. To compare the effectiveness of divalproex sodium with that of lithium and placebo in patients with acute mania.
                Randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study of treatment outcomes in patients with manic-depressive illness.
                A total of 179 hospitalized, acutely manic patients meeting the Research Diagnostic Criteria for manic disorder, approximately half of whom had been nonresponsive to lithium previously, were studied at nine university-affiliated hospitals.
                After a minimum 3-day washout period, random assignment for 21 days to divalproex, lithium, or placebo in a 2:1:2 ratio. Dosage of divalproex and lithium was increased if tolerated to a target concentration of 1041 mumol/L (150 micrograms/mL) or 1.5 mmol/L (conventionally expressed as milliequivalents per liter), respectively.
                Primary outcome measures were changes in the Mania Rating scale derived from the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia.
                Intent-to-treat analysis for efficacy was based on data from 68, 35, and 73 patients in the divalproex, lithium, and placebo groups, respectively. Groups were initially comparable except that all eight patients with four or more manic episodes in the previous year were in the divalproex group. In 30%, 33%, and 51% of the above groups, treatment was prematurely terminated due to lack of efficacy, with fewer premature terminations from divalproex than placebo (P = .017). The proportions of patients improving at least 50% were higher for divalproex and lithium groups than for the placebo group: 48% for divalproex (P = .004) and 49% for lithium (P = .025) vs 25% for placebo. Divalproex was as effective in rapid-cycling manic patients as in other patients.
                Both divalproex and lithium were significantly more effective than placebo in reducing the symptoms of acute mania. The efficacy of divalproex appears to be independent of prior responsiveness to lithium. Patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia pose a major challenge to caregivers since only clozapine is documented as having superior efficacy in this population. Although olanzapine is similar to clozapine in structure and receptor profile, it has not been proven to have superior efficacy for this patient group. Nonetheless, olanzapine is being increasingly used in higher doses as clinicians attempt to find a more effective and tolerable therapy for refractory patients. Furthermore, there are little data comparing olanzapine and clozapine in this population. Thirteen patients participated in a randomized double-blind 16-week crossover study of clozapine therapy (450 mg/day) compared to high doses of olanzapine (50 mg/day). No patients on olanzapine responded while 20% responded to clozapine treatment. Olanzapine patients tended to experience higher rates of anticholinergic effects such as dry mouth (80 vs. 20%) and blurry vision (40 vs. 0%). Clozapine-treated patients had higher rates of sialorrhea (80 vs. 10%), sweating (50 vs. 10%), dyspepsia (70 vs. 30%), and lethargy (90 vs. 60%). Neither treatment was associated with significant akathisia. Liver enzyme elevation and lipids were higher with clozapine treatment. Mean weight gain in the initial 8 weeks was 3.4 kg for olanzapine and 1.2 kg for clozapine. High doses of olanzapine during 8 weeks of treatment did not increase lipids and liver enzymes like clozapine did. Olanzapine at 50 mg/day may be associated with more anticholinergic effects and weight gain than clozapine.
Olanzapine is an effective treatment for mania and may be more efficacious than divalproex, though leads to more weight gain. Clinicians should consider both the relative efficacy and the different incidence of specific adverse effects of available drugs.