Search

A common approach used in quantifying the worth or benefit of electric service reliability is to estimate the customer costs (monetary losses) associated with power interruptions. Customer surveys are often used to determine interruption costs. The Power Systems Research Group has recently conducted surveys of Canadian electric utility customers in the residential, commercial and industrial sectors. These surveys were sponsored by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and seven participating utilities. This paper presents the overall results of these surveys with emphasis on the cost results.

OBJECTIVE: Minor depressive disorder is both common and associated with significant psychosocial impairment. This study examined antidepressant treatment efficacy in a large group of patients with minor depressive disorder. METHOD: One hundred sixty-two patients with minor depressive disorder were randomly assigned to receive fluoxetine or placebo in a 12-week, double-blind study; 73% (59 of 81) of the patients in each treatment group completed the study. Patients were evaluated weekly with standard depression rating instruments and measures of psychosocial impairment. Hypotheses were tested by last-observation-carried-forward analysis of variance (ANOVA) and confirmed by mixed (random-effects) regression analysis. RESULTS: At baseline, minor depressive disorder patients were mildly to moderately depressed, with a corresponding degree of functional impairment. Over 12 weeks of treatment, both ANOVA and mixed regression showed fluoxetine to be superior to placebo as indicated by significantly greater improvement of fluoxetine-treated patients in scores on the 30-item clinician-rated Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, the 17-item and 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the Beck Depression Inventory, and the Clinical Global Impression severity scale. Improvement in Global Assessment of Functioning Scale score was significantly greater for the fluoxetine group in mixed regression analysis only. Patients in both treatment groups reported a similar number and severity of adverse events during the 12-week treatment period. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians frequently encounter minor depressive disorder either as a prodromal or residual phase of illness in major depressive disorder or as de novo minor depressive disorder episodes. Fluoxetine is significantly superior to placebo in reducing minor depressive disorder symptoms within a 12-week period. Improvement in psychosocial function with fluoxetine may take longer than 12 weeks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Treatment-resistant depression is a significant public health concern; drug switching or augmentation often produce limited results. The authors hypothesized that fluoxetine could be augmented with olanzapine to successfully treat resistant depression.Method: An 8-week double-blind study was conducted with 28 patients who were diagnosed with recurrent, nonbipolar, treatment-resistant depression without psychotic features. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of three groups: olanzapine plus placebo, fluoxetine plus placebo, or olanzapine plus fluoxetine.Results: Fluoxetine monotherapy produced minimal improvement on various scales that rate severity of depression. The benefits of olanzapine monotherapy were modest. Olanzapine plus fluoxetine produced significantly greater improvement than either monotherapy on one measure and significantly greater improvement than olanzapine monotherapy on the other measures after 1 week. There were no significant differences between treatment groups on extrapyramidal measures nor significant adverse drug interactions.Conclusions: Olanzapine plus fluoxetine demonstrated superior efficacy for treating resistant depression compared to either agent alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Previous meta-analyses of fluoxetine as an antidepressant have many methodological problems, including diagnosis of major depression, validity of outcome measures and lack of intention-to-treat analyses.Aims: To provide an estimate of the effect of fluoxetine compared with placebo and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), and to investigate reasons for early discontinuation from acute treatment.Method: Randomised trials were analysed using both intention-to-treat, efficacy and end-point.Results: Fluoxetine was superior to placebo but effect size was low. In trials comparing fluoxetine v. TCA, the results for all trials and for the USA trials showed a trend in favour of fluoxetine. Those for the non-USA trials showed a trend in favour of TCA. When combined, the results showed that significantly fewer patients on fluoxetine discontinued treatment because of adverse events.Conclusion: Fluoxetine is superior to placebo, irrespective of the analytical approach use, whereas the results obtained v. TCAs depend on the approach used. Hence, the results should be interpreted in this light. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare, from the payor perspective, the clinical and economic outcomes of olanzapine to those of haloperidol for the treatment of schizophrenia.Design and Setting: Clinical, quality-of-life and resource utilisation data were prospectively collected for US-residing patients with schizophrenia who were participating in a multicentre, randomised, double-blind clinical trial comparing olanzapine and haloperidol. Direct medical costs were estimated by assigning standardised prices (1995 values) to the resource utilisation data.Patients and Participants: 817 patients with schizophrenia who had a baseline Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale score (BPRS) > or = 18 (items scored 0 to 6) and/or were no longer tolerating current antipsychotic therapy.Interventions: Olanzapine 5 to 20 mg/day (n = 551) or haloperidol 5 to 20 mg/day (n = 266) for 6 weeks. Patients showing a predefined level of clinical response entered a 46-week maintenance phase.Main Outcome Measures and Results: After acute treatment, BPRS-based clinical improvements were seen in 38 and 27% of olanzapine and haloperidol patients, respectively (p = 0.002). Clinically important improvements on the Quality of Life Scale were achieved during acute treatment in 33% of olanzapine recipients and 25% of haloperidol recipients (p = 0.094). Olanzapine treatment in the acute phase led to significantly lower inpatient ($US5125 vs $US5795, p = 0.038) and outpatient ($US663 vs $US692, p = 0.001) costs, resulting in a significant overall reduction in mean total medical costs of $US388 (p = 0.033). This significant reduction in total costs was found despite olanzapine mean medication costs being significantly greater than haloperidol medication costs ($US326 vs $US15, p < 0.001). No significant differences in clinical improvement were observed in the maintenance phase. Maintenance phase olanzapine mean total medical costs were $US636 lower than haloperidol total costs (p = 0.128). Although olanzapine medication costs were significantly higher than haloperidol medication costs ($US3461 vs $US95, p < 0.001), this difference was offset by significantly lower inpatient ($US8322 vs $US10,662, p = 0.044) and outpatient ($US3810 vs $US5473, p = 0.038) costs.Conclusions: In this study, olanzapine treatment was more effective than haloperidol in producing clinical response in the acute phase. In addition, olanzapine treatment led to reductions in inpatient and outpatient costs that more than offset olanzapine's higher medication costs relative to haloperidol. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Data concerning appropriate treatment in panic disorder following an initial response to acute therapy are limited.Aims: To assess the safety and efficacy of continued fluoxetine treatment following successful acute therapy of panic disorder.Method: Patients who responded to acute fluoxetine treatment were randomised to 24 weeks of continued fluoxetine or placebo.Results: Fluoxetine responders randomised to continue on their acute-phase fluoxetine dose experienced statistically significant improvement in panic attack frequency and phobia rating scale score over 24 weeks of therapy, while those switched to placebo experienced statistically significant worsening in Hamilton Anxiety (HAM-A), Hamilton Depression (HAM-D) and SCL-90-R rating scores.Conclusions: Fluoxetine was associated with improved clinical outcomes compared with placebo during continuation therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The effectiveness of antipsychotic monotherapy in schizoaffective disorder is limited, and further constrained by safety concerns.Aims: We aimed to compare the efficacy, tolerability and safety profile of the new pharmaceutical, olanzapine, with haloperidol.Method: Data were assessed from 300 DSM-III-R schizoaffective subjects from a larger double-blind prospective international study. Subjects were randomly allocated to six weeks of olanzapine (5-20 mg) or haloperidol (5-20 mg) treatment; responders were followed for up to one year of double-blind, long-term maintenance therapy.Results: Olanzapine-treated patients achieved a statistically significant greater improvement than haloperidol treated patients on overall measures of efficacy, including clinical response. Significantly fewer olanzapine patients left the study early, and fewer adverse events were observed among those receiving olanzapine. During maintenance, olanzapine-treated patients continued to experience additional improvement, with fewer EPS but more weight gain than those on haloperidol.Conclusions: Olanzapine demonstrated substantial advantages over the conventional antipsychotic haloperidol in the management of schizoaffective disorder. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Tardive dyskinesia is important in the side-effect profile of antipsychotic medication.Aims: The development of tardive dyskinesia was evaluated in patients treated with double-blind, randomly assigned olanzapine or haloperidol for up to 2.6 years.Methods: Tardive dyskinesia was assessed by the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) and Research Diagnostic Criteria for Tardive Dyskinesia (RD-TD), it was defined as meeting RD-TD criteria at two consecutive assessments. The risk of tardive dyskinesia, the relative risk, incidence rate, and incidence rate ratio were estimated.Results: The relative risk of tardive dyskinesia for the overall follow up period for haloperidol (n = 522) v. olanzapine (n = 1192) was 2.66 (95% CI = 1.50-4.70). Based on data following the initial six weeks of observation (during which patients underwent medication change and AIMS assessments as frequently as every three days), the one-year risk was 0.52% with olanzapine (n = 513) and 7.45% with haloperidol (n = 114). The relative risk throughout this follow-up period was 11.37 (95% CI = 2.21-58.60).Conclusion: Our results indicated a significantly lower risk of tardive dyskinesia with olanzapine than with haloperidol. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: It has been hypothesized that the morbidity and mortality associated with schizophrenia can be prevented by providing effective treatment during the first episode of psychosis. Hence, the authors examined patients with first-episode psychosis to determine the efficacy and safety of olanzapine and haloperidol treatment.Method: A subpopulation of first-episode patients (N=83) from a large prospective, multicenter, international, double-blind, 6-week acute treatment study was evaluated. These patients were selected from a pool of 1,996 patients who had a DSM-III-R diagnosis of schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or schizophreniform disorder and who also met the following criteria: 1) the length of their current psychotic episode had to be 5 or fewer years, and 2) patients had to be 45 years of age or younger at onset of first psychotic symptoms.Results: Compared to haloperidol, olanzapine showed a statistically significantly greater reduction in the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) total and negative scores and in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total and positive scores. Clinical response (defined as 40% or greater improvement in BPRS total score from baseline) was also statistically significantly higher in olanzapine-treated patients (67.2%) than in haloperidol-treated patients (29.2%). Olanzapine-treated patients further showed statistically significant improvements in the Simpson-Angus scale and Barnes Akathisia Scale scores, while haloperidol-treated patients showed a worsening on both measures. Compared to olanzapine-treated multiple-episode patients in the parent study, olanzapine-treated first-episode patients achieved an even statistically significantly higher response. Haloperidol-treated first-episode patients experienced statistically significantly more extrapyramidal symptoms than haloperidol-treated multiple-episode patients.Conclusions: In patients experiencing first-episode psychosis, olanzapine had a risk-benefit profile significantly superior to that of haloperidol. The study results suggest that novel antipsychotic agents such as olanzapine should be considered as a preferred option in first-episode psychosis, on the basis of both safety and efficacy advantages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Three studies compared olanzapine and haloperidol given orally in maintenance therapy for schizophrenia and related psychoses.Method: Data were from double-blind extensions of acute studies. The subjects met criteria for schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder or schizoaffective disorder. Subjects had responded to acute therapy (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale total score decreased > or = 40% from baseline (Studies 1, 2, and 3) or was < or = 18 (Studies 1 and 2)) and were out-patients at their last acute phase visit. Relapse was defined as hospitalisation for psychopathology. Subjects treated with olanzapine in the three studies were pooled to form the olanzapine group and subjects treated with haloperidol were pooled to form the haloperidol group.Results: Olanzapine-treated subjects experienced less relapse (P = 0.034). The Kaplan-Meier estimated one-year risk of relapse was 19.7% with olanzapine and 28% with haloperidol.Conclusion: Olanzapine was superior to haloperidol in the maintenance therapy of schizophrenia and related psychoses.Declaration Of Interest: This work was sponsored by Eli Lilly and Company. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Two studies compared the efficacy of standard-dose oral olanzapine (5 to 15 mg a day) with placebo and with ineffective-dose olanzapine (1 mg a day) in maintenance therapy of schizophrenia.Methods: The studies were 46-week double-blind extensions of multicenter studies that assessed the efficacy of olanzapine in the acute treatment of schizophrenia. Subjects were 120 adults who met DSM-III-R criteria for schizophrenia with an acute exacerbation and who had a minimum score of 24 on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, who had responded to acute therapy (defined as at least a 40 percent reduction in the BPRS score from baseline or a score of 18 or less during up to six weeks of treatment), and who were outpatients at their last acute-phase visit. Relapse was defined as hospitalization for psychopathology. Relapse risk was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and life table analysis. Patients who relapsed were discontinued from the studies.Results: In the first study (N = 58), patients in the standard-dose olanzapine group experienced a significantly lower relapse risk (p = .002) over one year than patients treated with placebo. The estimated one-year risk of relapse with olanzapine was 28.6 percent, compared with 69.9 percent with placebo. Results were similar in the second study (N = 62); patients treated with standard-dose olanzapine had a significantly reduced risk of relapse (p = .018) over one year compared with patients treated with ineffective-dose olanzapine. The estimated one-year risks of relapse were 19.6 percent for standard-dose olanzapine and 45.5 percent for ineffective-dose olanzapine.Conclusions: Olanzapine is superior to placebo and ineffective-dose olanzapine in the maintenance therapy of schizophrenia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The authors investigated whether primary negative symptoms of schizophrenia are enduring or treatment-responsive.Methods: Previously, a double-blind, random-assignment trial of the novel antipsychotic olanzapine (in low, medium, and high dose ranges), placebo, or haloperidol (10-20 mg/day) for 335 schizophrenic inpatients was conducted for up to 52 weeks. Changes in the treatment groups from baseline to endpoint in summary scores on the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS) and several secondary measures were compared. This article describes a path analysis to determine to what extent the total treatment effect on negative symptoms was direct or indirect (i.e., mediated by differential effects on positive symptoms, extrapyramidal symptoms, or mood).Results: Significantly greater improvement was achieved with high-dose olanzapine than with placebo or haloperidol. Olanzapine had a significantly greater direct effect than placebo on all SANS dimensions except anhedonia-asociality. Olanzapine also demonstrated a significantly greater direct effect than haloperidol on negative symptoms, especially on the dimensions of affective flattening and avolition-apathy. Olanzapine's superior effects were replicated in a subgroup with SANS-defined prominent negative symptoms (N = 116) and a subgroup with a BPRS-defined cross-sectional proxy for the deficit state (N = 117).Conclusions: These results suggest that the negative symptoms of schizophrenia are directly responsive to treatment. The significantly greater direct and indirect effects of olanzapine than of haloperidol on negative symptoms are likely related to olanzapine's pleotrophic pharmacology, which includes dopaminergic, serotonergic, muscarinic, and adrenergic activities. The results contribute to the hypothesis that negative symptoms may be under the influence of several neurotransmitters within one or more neuroanatomic circuits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This international, multicenter double-blind trial was designed to compare the therapeutic profile of an atypical antipsychotic, olanzapine, with that of a conventional dopamine D2 antagonist, haloperidol.Method: A total of 1,996 patients at 174 sites in Europe and North America were randomly assigned to treatment with olanzapine (N = 1,336) or haloperidol (N = 660) over 6 weeks. The primary efficacy analysis involved the mean change from baseline to endpoint in total scores on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS). Secondary analyses included comparisons of the mean change in positive and negative symptoms, comorbid depression, extrapyramidal symptoms, and overall drug safety.Results: Olanzapine demonstrated clinical results superior to those of haloperidol on overall improvement according to the BPRS and on every secondary measure, including depression. Olanzapine was also associated with significantly fewer discontinuations of treatment due to lack of drug efficacy or adverse events. Substantially more olanzapine-treated patients (66.5%) than haloperidol-treated patients (46.8%) completed 6 weeks of therapy. Statistically significant advantages of olanzapine treatment were related to 1) change in negative symptoms, 2) extrapyramidal symptom profile, 3) effect on prolactin levels, and 4) response rate.Conclusions: Olanzapine shows a superior and broader spectrum of efficacy in the treatment of schizophrenic psychopathology, with a substantially more favorable safety profile, than haloperidol. It meets several of the criteria for a novel atypical antipsychotic agent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented regarding the use of alprazolam and buspirone for the treatment of anxiety.

Examines the safety and efficacy of olanzapine compared to divalproex for people with acute bipolar mania. Tools used to measure manic and depressive symptoms; Mean improvement in Young Mania Rating Scale; Confirmation of the effectiveness of olanzapine in the treatment of mania symptoms and remission compared to divalproex. INSET: COMMENT, by Mong-Liang Lu..

Objective The objective of this analysis was to compare the treatment-emergent central anticholinergic-like adverse events experienced during treatment with olanzapine versus placebo in patients with psychosis and/or agitation due to Alzheimer's disease (AD). In addition, changes in cognition were assessed in a subgroup of patients with mild to moderate cognitive impairment. Methods Double-blind data were compared for placebo and three fixed olanzapine dosages (5 mg/day, 10 mg/day, and 15 mg/day) in 206 nursing home-residing patients with AD for five a priori selected central nervous system anticholinergic-like adverse events: confusion, delirium, delusions, hallucinations, abnormal thinking. Mean change from baseline to endpoint on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale—Cognitive (ADAS-Cog) was measured for a subgroup of 43 patients who had mild to moderate cognitive impairment at baseline. Results There were no significant differences in central anticholinergic-like adverse events at any olanzapine dose compared to placebo. Additionally, in the 43-patient subgroup, there were no significant differences in mean change in ADAS-Cog scores between placebo and the three olanzapine dose subgroups. Conclusion Olanzapine did not differ significantly from placebo for any of the five central nervous system anticholinergic events nor on the ADAS-Cog. Olanzapine's initially reported potent in vitro muscarinic receptor affinity is not consistent with this clinical study of central nervous system anticholinergic-like adverse events in patients with AD. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]