Search

Aim: Safety and efficacy of long-term olanzapine treatment in Japanese patients with bipolar depression were assessed., Methods: An integrated analysis of data from two studies was performed in olanzapine-treated patients (n = 165) with bipolar depression. Study 1 was a 6-week, double-blind, global study. Patients were randomly assigned to olanzapine or placebo followed by 18 weeks of open-label treatment. Study 2 was an open-label extension of Study 1 involving only Japanese patients. Patients assigned to Pre-olanzapine and Pre-placebo in Study 1 were treated for 24 weeks (total olanzapine exposure 42 or 48 weeks) and newly recruited patients (New-olanzapine) were treated for 48 weeks. Safety outcomes included treatment-emergent adverse events and changes in metabolic parameters. Efficacy outcome was assessed with Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score., Results: Forty-three percent of patients completed the 42- or 48-week olanzapine treatment period. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event was weight increased (47.9%). Significant increases were seen in weight (3.5 kg), and in fasting glucose (3.5 mg/dL), fasting total cholesterol (8.1 mg/dL), and fasting triglycerides (35.1 mg/dL). Remission rates (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score ≤12 at any time) were 79.8% for the Pre-olanzapine group, 90.2% for the Pre-placebo group, and 85.0% for the New-olanzapine group. No patents developed mania during treatment., Conclusions: Long-term use of olanzapine in a Japanese population with bipolar depression is associated with increases in weight and fasting metabolic measures, and also with improved depressive symptoms with avoidance of mania. Clinicians must carefully consider the benefits and risks of long-term therapy with olanzapine., (© 2014 The Authors. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences © 2014 Japanese Society of Psychiatry and Neurology.)

Background: Depot antipsychotic injections are an important tool for the management of patients with schizophrenia who have difficulty with adherence to oral medication. However, pain and discomfort at the injection site can be a potential impediment to the use of these long-acting formulations. We report here the results of a pooled analysis of injection site-related adverse events (AEs) collected during treatment with the olanzapine long-acting injection (olanzapine LAI)., Methods: Unsolicited injection site-related AEs were pooled from 7 olanzapine LAI clinical trials conducted in patients between March 2001 and December 2010. All patients had a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) or Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and were between the ages of 18 and 75. Doses ranged from 45 to 405 mg olanzapine LAI, and injection intervals were 2, 3, or 4 weeks. Events were evaluated for severity, timing, possible risk factors, and outcome. A criterion of p < .05 for statistical significance was used for all tests., Results: A total of 1752 patients received at least 1 olanzapine LAI injection. Of these, 92 patients (5.3%) reported at least 1 injection site-related AE, with "pain" being the most common type (2.9%). Most events were mild (81.4%) and the median duration was 3 days. Four patients (0.2%) discontinued due to injection site-related AEs. Dose volume and body mass index did not appear to affect the probability of injection site-related AEs. However, patients who experienced a post-injection delirium/sedation syndrome event (n = 37) were more likely to have or have had an injection site-related AE at some time during the study. Incidence of injection site-related AEs appeared to decrease over time. In 94.2% of the injection site-related AEs, no specific treatment or concomitant medication was reported; in 9 cases, patients received pharmacologic treatment for reaction, mass, abscess, rash, or pain., Conclusions: Injection site-related AEs with olanzapine LAI were generally mild. The incidence and nature of these injection site-related AEs were generally similar to those occurring during treatment with other injectable antipsychotics., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID; URL: NCT00094640, NCT00088478, NCT00088491, NCT00088465, and NCT00320489.

Objective: Recommended doses for olanzapine long-acting injection (olanzapine LAI) are 150 mg/2 weeks, 210 mg/2 weeks, 300 mg/2 or 4 weeks, and 405 mg/4 weeks. This analysis evaluated the dosing and interval patterns to compare the actual dosing patterns with the recommended dosing strategy., Research Design and Methods: These data, from March 2010 through September 2011, were collected as part of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy mandatory patient registry that captures all post-approval olanzapine injections in the US. This registry includes both active and inactive (60 + days since last injection) patients., Results: All patients with at least one olanzapine injection were included (n = 1694). The mean number of injections received was 6.6 (range of 1-40). The most frequent numbers of injections were one (26.3%) and two (12.9%). For the 11,228 olanzapine injections, the most common doses were 300 mg and 405 mg, accounting for 92.9% of injections. Although the most common time intervals between injections was about 14 days for 150 mg, 210 mg, and 300 mg, and about 28 days for 405 mg, the intervals ranged from less than 10 to more than 60 days for all doses. Among active patients (48.2% of registry), 68.2% had >120 days of treatment with any dose, and the number of days since the last injection was around 2 weeks or less for 61.2% of patients, around 3 weeks for 16.5% of patients, and around 4 weeks for 7.1% of patients. Among inactive patients (51.8% of registry), 48.6% had <30 days of treatment. For the pattern of the first five injections, most patients (70.9%) received four subsequent injections of the same dose as their initial injection., Conclusions: This registry will continue to change. There is a broad range in time between injections. Most patients continue to receive the same initial dose instead of switching to a maintenance dose. This may suggest that some clinicians are not reassessing the dose after the initial starting dose because the patient was stabilized on olanzapine oral before beginning olanzapine long-acting injection. The study is limited by a database that does not include reasons for dose and dosing interval decisions or reasons for delaying or discontinuing treatment.

Background: The efficacy and safety of olanzapine monotherapy are evaluated in Japanese patients from a large, global study of bipolar depression., Methods: This is an analysis of Japanese patients from a 6-week, global (Japan, China, Korea, Taiwan, and the United States), randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase 3 study of patients with a depressive episode of bipolar I disorder. The primary outcome was baseline-to-endpoint change in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. Secondary outcome measures included the Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar Version Severity of Illness Scale (CGI-BP), the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17) total score, the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score, and rates of response (≥50% baseline-to-endpoint reduction in MADRS total score), recovery, and remission., Results: Of the 156 Japanese patients, 104 had been allocated to olanzapine and 52 to placebo. All results are baseline-to-endpoint change. Compared to placebo, patients in the olanzapine group experienced greater improvement in the primary outcome measure, MADRS total score (-14.9 vs. -10.7; p = .01). They also had greater reductions in the following secondary measures: CGI- BP Depression (-1.41 vs. -0.89; p = .008), CGI-BP Bipolar (-1.31 vs. -0.83; p = .01), HAMD-17 (-11.7 vs. -7.9; p < .01), and YMRS (-0.32 vs. 0.34; p = .03). Differences in rates of response, recovery, and remission were not statistically significant. A greater proportion of olanzapine-treated patients reported treatment- emergent adverse events (87.5% vs. 59.6%; p < .001). Patients treated with olanzapine had greater increases in weight (p < .001) and fasting total cholesterol (p = .008); fasting triglycerides (p = .02), and fasting low-density lipoprotein (p = .01). There was a greater reduction in fasting high-density lipoprotein in olanzapine-treated patients (p = .01). Compared with placebo-group patients, more olanzapine-group patients shifted from borderline to high cholesterol (25.0% vs. 0.0%; p = .007) and had clinically significant weight gain (≥7% body weight) (20.2% vs. 1.9%; p = .001)., Conclusions: Results of this analysis support the efficacy and tolerability of olanzapine for the treatment of bipolar depression in Japanese patients. Results in this population were consistent with those seen in the more ethnically diverse parent study. In making treatment decisions for individual patients, clinicians should carefully consider the risks and benefits of olanzapine treatment., Trial Registration: Clinicatrials.gov ID NCT00510146 Olanzapine Treatment of Patients with Bipolar I Disorder.

Background: Atypical antipsychotics are widely used in bipolar mania. However, the efficacy of atypical antipsychotics in bipolar depression has not been comprehensively explored., Aims: To evaluate olanzapine monotherapy in patients with bipolar depression., Method: Patients with bipolar depression received olanzapine (5-20 mg/day, n = 343) or placebo (n = 171) for 6 weeks. The primary outcome was change from baseline to end-point in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. Secondary outcomes included: Clinical Global Impression - Bipolar Version (CGI-BP) scale, 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-17) and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) scores, and the rate of response (≥50% reduction in MADRS at end-point), recovery (MADRS ≤12 for ≥4 weeks plus treatment completion) and remission (MADRS ≤8). The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00510146)., Results: Olanzapine demonstrated: significantly greater (P<0.04) improvements on MADRS (least-squares mean change -13.82 v. -11.67), HRSD-17 and YMRS total scores and all CGI-BP subscale scores v. placebo; significantly (P≤0.05) more response and remission, but not recovery; significantly (P<0.01) greater mean increases in weight, fasting cholesterol and triglycerides; and significantly more (P<0.001) patients gained ≥7% body weight., Conclusions: Olanzapine monotherapy appears to be efficacious in bipolar depression. Additional long-term studies are warranted to confirm these results. Safety findings were consistent with the known safety profile of olanzapine.

Aim: To examine health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in adolescents with bipolar disorder before and after double-blind treatment with olanzapine or placebo., Methods: Parents or legal guardians of 160 adolescents with a manic or mixed episode associated with bipolar I disorder were asked to rate their child's health using the Child Health Questionnaire-Parental Form 50 at baseline, before receiving medication, and then again at the end of participation in a 3-week double-blind placebo-controlled study of olanzapine., Results: Adolescents in both treatment groups began and ended the study with significantly lower scores than normalized values of healthy peers on several HRQoL subscales (lower ratings indicate more impaired functioning), especially those assessing psychosocial factors. However, participants receiving olanzapine exhibited greater improvement than those in the placebo group across multiple HRQoL subscales, including the Behavior, Family activities, and Mental health subscales. Reduction in manic symptoms was associated with improvement in HRQoL values., Conclusions: As expected, manic adolescents with bipolar disorder exhibit abnormalities in psychosocial, rather than physical factors associated with HRQoL. Treatment with olanzapine had a greater effect on multiple domains of psychosocial functioning compared with placebo, suggesting that in addition to improving manic symptoms, pharmacologic interventions may lessen some of psychosocial deficits experienced by adolescents with bipolar disorder. However, following 3 weeks of treatment, adolescents with bipolar disorder continued to exhibit deficits in several aspects of psychosocial functioning, indicating that additional pharmacologic and psychosocial interventions may be necessary to further improve functional outcome., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess the effects of olanzapine long-acting injection (olanzapine-LAI) on levels of functioning in acutely ill patients with schizophrenia., Research Design and Methods: During this 8-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 404 inpatients were randomized to four treatment arms (olanzapine-LAI 210 mg/2 weeks = 106; olanzapine-LAI 300 mg/2 weeks = 100; olanzapine-LAI 405 mg/4 weeks = 100; placebo = 98). Also, data from the three active dosing arms were combined and compared to placebo data., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT00088478., Main Outcome Measures: The treatment group comparison of mean change from baseline to endpoint in the total score and four subdomains of the Heinrichs-Carpenter Quality of Life Scale (QLS) and in the 2 summary scores and 8 subscale scores of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) were assessed using an ANOVA model., Results: All three olanzapine-LAI treatment groups and the combined olanzapine-LAI group were superior to placebo on the QLS total score (all p-values < 0.01) and the Intrapsychic Foundations subdomain (all p-values < 0.02). Olanzapine-LAI 210 mg/2 weeks (p < 0.001), 300 mg/2 weeks (p = 0.006), and the combined olanzapine-LAI group (p = 0.003) were superior to placebo on the Interpersonal Relations subdomain. The 300 mg/2 weeks group (p = 0.027) and the combined olanzapine-LAI group (p = 0.014) were also superior to placebo on the Instrumental Role subdomain. For the SF-36, the 300 mg/2 weeks and 405 mg/4 weeks olanzapine-LAI groups and the combined olanzapine-LAI group were superior to placebo on the Mental component score (all p-values < 0.05). Each olanzapine-LAI group and the combined group were superior on the Mental Health scale (all p-values < 0.05). Significant negative correlations between PANSS scores and measures of functioning indicate that as symptoms decreased, functioning increased., Conclusion: These results suggest that olanzapine-LAI may improve level of functioning in acutely ill patients with schizophrenia within 8 weeks of initiating treatment.

Research has identified distinct trajectories of antipsychotic response in patients with chronic schizophrenia in short-duration trials (~12 weeks). This post-hoc analysis identified trajectories in patients with chronic schizophrenia treated for ≤24 weeks. We pooled data from 1990 patients with chronic schizophrenia from 6 randomized, double-blind, olanzapine-comparator trials of atypical antipsychotics. Trajectory analysis identified homogeneous subpopulations within the larger heterogeneous population. Baseline demographics were compared between the identified latent classes. Five distinct response trajectories based on Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) Total score were identified: Dramatic Responders (n=47/1990, 2.4%), severely-ill patients (PANSS=124) with rapid and sustained improvement (51%) by Week 3; Partial Responders (n=1802/1990, 90.6%), moderately-ill (PANSS=90) with minimal improvement (21%) by Week 4, and little further improvement; Partial Responders-Unsustained (Late) (n=32/1990, 1.6%), markedly-ill (PANSS=95) with minimal initial improvement followed by worsening after Week 12; Partial Responders-Unsustained (Early) (n=28/1990, 1.4%), markedly-ill (PANSS=102) with minimal initial improvement followed by worsening after Week 8; and Delayed Responders (n=81/1990, 4.1%), markedly-to-severely-ill (PANSS=113) with minimal (11%) improvement at Week 8, but noticeable improvement thereafter (49%). Significant differences were noted for several baseline characteristics (p<.05) and discontinuation rates (46%-72%). Dramatic Responders were younger and more likely to be female and Hispanic with higher baseline illness severity. Analysis of antipsychotic response over 24 weeks in a large, pooled, heterogeneous population treated for schizophrenia revealed 5 distinct trajectories. Most patients had modest and sustained improvements during atypical antipsychotic treatment, regardless of their baseline illness severity, representing a partial response to currently available treatments., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Early response to antipsychotic medication has been shown to accurately predict later response to continued use of the same treatment in patients with chronic schizophrenia. This study examines whether this predictive pattern exists for patients with first-episode psychosis. We used a data-driven threshold for early response of ≥ 26.2% improvement from baseline on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS(0-6)) Total score to determine whether response at Week 2 of treatment may predict response at Week 12 in a randomized, double-blind trial of olanzapine versus haloperidol for treatment of patients with first-episode psychosis (N=225). Later response was defined as a ≥ 40% and ≥ 50% improvement in PANSS Total(0-6) score and as remission. At Week 2, 43% (97/225) of patients were identified as early responders. At a threshold for later response of ≥ 50% improvement in PANSS(0-6) Total score, early non-response most strongly predicted later non-response, demonstrating high specificity (74%) and high negative predictive value (80%). As had been seen in the treatment of patients with chronic schizophrenia, early non-response was a robust predictor of subsequent non-response in the treatment of patients with first-episode psychosis., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Clinically significant weight gain has been reported during treatment with atypical antipsychotics. It has been suggested that weight changes in patients treated with olanzapine may be associated with increased appetite., Methods: Data were used from adult patients for whom both appetite and weight data were available from 4 prospective, 12- to 24-week clinical trials. Patients' appetites were assessed with Eating Behavior Assessment (EBA, Study 1), Platypus Appetite Rating Scale (PARS, Study 2), Eating Inventory (EI, Study 3), Food Craving Inventory (FCI, Study 3), and Eating Attitude Scale (EAS, Study 4)., Results: In Studies 1 (EBA) and 4 (EAS), patients who reported overall score increases on appetite scales, indicating an increase in appetite, experienced the greatest overall weight gains. However, in Studies 2 (PARS) and 3 (EI, FCI), patients who reported overall score increases on appetite scales did not experience greater weight changes than patients not reporting score increases. Early weight changes (2-4 weeks) were more positively correlated with overall weight changes than early or overall score changes on any utilized appetite assessment scale. No additional information was gained by adding early appetite change to early weight change in correlation to overall weight change., Conclusions: Early weight changes may be a more useful predictor for long-term weight changes than early score changes on appetite assessment scales., Clinical Trials Registration: This report represents secondary analyses of 4 clinical studies. Studies 1, 2, and 3 were registered at http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/home, under NCT00190749, NCT00303602, and NCT00401973, respectively. Study 4 predates the registration requirements for observational studies that are not classified as category 1 observational studies.

Background: The extent of heterogeneity in antipsychotic treatment response for over extended period is unclear. This study aimed to quantify treatment response trajectories and their characteristics up to 2 years in recent-onset psychosis., Method: Participants were from a double-blind randomized controlled trial of recent-episode psychosis (N = 263). Recurrent Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) administrations were used to index treatment response trajectories for up to 2 years. Trajectories were calculated with mixed-mode latent class regression modeling from which groups were derived. Group differences were examined on sex, age of first admission, duration of untreated psychosis, premorbid functioning, diagnoses of substance abuse and schizophrenia, and cognitive functioning., Results: Five trajectories based on PANSS total scores were identified at 2 years. In the trajectory group (23.1%) with the most improvement, approximately 62% met the PANSS 30% change criteria. Logistic regression modeling indicated that membership in the trajectory with the most improvement was significantly (P < 0.05) predicted by absence of a diagnosis of schizophrenia, better premorbid functioning, and higher cognitive scores. Membership in the trajectory with the least improvement was significantly predicted by higher PANSS baseline scores., Conclusions: Based on clinical trial data, treatment response in early episode psychosis seems to be characterized by amelioration and ongoing change. Premorbid functioning, cognitive functioning, and early symptom severity have prognostic value in predicting treatment response trajectories. Across trajectory studies, approximately 16% of patients experience a dramatic treatment response trajectory characterized by approximately a 60% to 80% symptom reduction.

Objective: To characterize response profiles of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination therapy in treatment-resistant depression (TRD) and to investigate predictive relationships of early improvement with olanzapine/fluoxetine combination for subsequent response/remission during the acute phase of treatment., Method: Results were pooled from 5 outpatient studies comparing oral olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, fluoxetine, or olanzapine for a maximum of 8 weeks in patients with TRD who had at least 1 historical antidepressant treatment failure during the current episode and who failed a prospective antidepressant therapy during the study lead-in period. Mean Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total and core mood items scores from the 8-week evaluation period were compared across treatment groups. Positive and negative predictive values (PPVs, NPVs) were computed from olanzapine/fluoxetine combination-treated patients demonstrating response and remission based on whether they demonstrated early improvement., Results: Mean olanzapine/fluoxetine combination MADRS score reductions were significantly greater than fluoxetine by week 0.5 and olanzapine by week 1. Significantly more olanzapine/fluoxetine combination patients demonstrated MADRS onset of response compared with fluoxetine and olanzapine patients (P < .001 for both MADRS total and core mood items). In olanzapine/fluoxetine combination patients, 38.1% exhibited MADRS total score response versus 26.9% of fluoxetine patients (P < .001) and 22.2% of olanzapine patients (P < .001). NPVs for MADRS total and core mood items response and remission ranged from 85.7% to 92.1%; PPVs ranged from 29.9% to 45.1%., Conclusions: Olanzapine/fluoxetine combination is superior to fluoxetine and olanzapine in producing early improvement in patients with TRD. The absence of early improvement is highly predictive for overall response failure., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00035321., (Copyright 2010 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC) versus olanzapine or fluoxetine monotherapy across all clinical trials of treatment-resistant depression sponsored by Eli Lilly and Company., Method: Efficacy and safety data from 1146 patients with a history of nonresponse during the current depressive episode who subsequently exhibited nonresponse during a 6- to 8-week antidepressant open-label lead-in phase and were randomly assigned to OFC (N = 462), fluoxetine (N = 342), or olanzapine (N = 342) for double-blind treatment were analyzed. All patients had a diagnosis of major depressive disorder as defined by DSM-III or DSM-IV criteria. The dates in which the trials were conducted ranged from May 1997 to July 2005., Results: After 8 weeks, OFC patients demonstrated significantly greater Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale improvement (mean change = -13.0) than fluoxetine (-8.6, p < .001) or olanzapine (-8.2, p < .001) patients, via a mixed-effects model repeated-measures analysis. Remission rates were 25.5% for OFC, 17.3% (p = .006) for fluoxetine, and 14.0% (p < .001) for olanzapine. Adverse events in >or= 10% of OFC patients were weight gain, increased appetite, dry mouth, somnolence, fatigue, headache, and peripheral edema. Random glucose mean change (mg/dL) was +7.92 for the OFC group, +1.62 for the fluoxetine group (p = .020), and +9.91 for the olanzapine group (p = .485). Random cholesterol mean change (mg/dL) was +12.4 for OFC, +2.3 for fluoxetine (p < .001), and +3.1 for olanzapine (p < .001); incidence of treatment-emergent increase from normal to high cholesterol (baseline < 200 mg/dL and >or= 240 subsequently) was significantly higher for the OFC group (10.2%) than for the fluoxetine group (3.1%, p = .017) but not the olanzapine group (8.0%, p = .569). Mean weight change (kg) was +4.42 for OFC, -0.15 for fluoxetine (p < .001), and +4.63 for olanzapine (p = .381), with 40.4% of OFC patients gaining >or= 7% body weight (vs. olanzapine: 42.9%, p = .515; fluoxetine: 2.3%, p < .001)., Conclusion: Results of this analysis showed that OFC-treated patients experienced significantly improved depressive symptoms compared with olanzapine- or fluoxetine-treated patients following failure of 2 or more antidepressants within the current depressive episode. Safety results for OFC were generally consistent with those for its component monotherapies. The total cholesterol increase associated with OFC was more pronounced than with olanzapine alone., (©Copyright 2009 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

Objective: Two parallel, 8-week double-blind studies compared olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, olanzapine, and fluoxetine in outpatients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD)., Method: Treatment-resistant depression was defined as a documented history of current-episode antidepressant failure plus a prospective failure on fluoxetine. Following an 8-week fluoxetine lead-in, 605 nonresponders with DSM-IV major depressive disorder were randomly assigned to olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, olanzapine, or fluoxetine. The primary outcome measure was baseline-to-endpoint mean change on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). The study was conducted from April 2002 to May 2005., Results: After 8 weeks of double-blind treatment, Study 1 revealed no statistically significant therapy differences in MADRS mean change (olanzapine/fluoxetine combination: -11.0, fluoxetine: -9.4, olanzapine: -10.5). In Study 2, olanzapine/fluoxetine combination demonstrated significantly greater MADRS improvement (-14.5) than fluoxetine (-8.6, p < .001) and olanzapine (-7.0, p < .001). Pooled study results revealed significant differences for olanzapine/ fluoxetine combination (-12.7) versus fluoxetine (-9.0, p < .001) and olanzapine (-8.8, p < .001). Pooled remission rates were 27% for olanzapine/ fluoxetine combination, 17% for fluoxetine, and 15% for olanzapine. Adverse events were consistent with previous studies. Cholesterol mean change (mg/dL) was +15.1 for olanzapine/ fluoxetine combination, +0.8 for fluoxetine, and +2.7 for olanzapine. Mean weight change (kg) was +4.9 for olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, +0.4 for fluoxetine, and +5.5 for olanzapine. Nonfasting glucose mean change (mg/dL) was +11.4 for olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, +4.9 for fluoxetine, and +9.9 for olanzapine., Conclusion: Patients with TRD (defined as treatment failure on 2 antidepressants) taking olanzapine/fluoxetine combination demonstrated significantly greater improvement in depressive symptoms than patients taking olanzapine or fluoxetine in 1 of 2 studies and in the pooled analysis. When considered within the context of all available evidence, olanzapine/fluoxetine combination is an efficacious therapy for patients with TRD., Clinical Trials Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00035321.

Objective: Olanzapine-fluoxetine combination has shown efficacy in the acute treatment of depressive episodes in patients with bipolar I disorder. The present analyses examined the efficacy and safety of longer term treatment with olanzapine-fluoxetine combination or olanzapine monotherapy in a 6-month open-label extension study., Method: 376 patients with DSM-IV bipolar I disorder, depressed, who completed an acute trial entered the open-label study and received 1 week of olanzapine monotherapy (5-20 mg/day). At all subsequent visits, patients could choose between olanzapine monotherapy or olanzapine-fluoxetine combination (6/25, 6/50, or 12/50 mg/day). Three treatment groups were defined retrospectively according to the medication course taken from week 1: olanzapine, olanzapine-fluoxetine combination, or switched. The efficacy measures were the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar Version, and Young Mania Rating Scale. The study was conducted from July 2000 to May 2002., Results: Among patients who started in remission, MADRS total scores did not change significantly from baseline to endpoint in the olanzapine-fluoxetine combination (0.8) or olanzapine (0.3) groups, but increased slightly in the switched (2.3, p = .02) group. For patients who started in nonremission, MADRS total scores decreased significantly in all groups (olanzapine-fluoxetine combination: -5.7, p = .001; olanzapine: -11.6, p = .004; switched: -6.4, p = .015). The majority of patients who entered the study in nonremission achieved remission (MADRS total score < or = 12) during the trial (olanzapine-fluoxetine combination: 66.7%, olanzapine: 64.7%, switched: 62.5%). The overall rate of depressive relapse was 27.4%, and the overall incidence of mania emergence was 5.9%., Conclusions: The present findings suggest that long-term treatment with olanzapine-fluoxetine combination may be a useful option for the management of depressive symptoms and carries a low risk of mania emergence.

Background: This 8-week, double-blind, multicenter study was undertaken to replicate, in a larger sample of patients with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder (MDD; DSM-IV criteria), the results of a pilot study of the olanzapine/fluoxetine combination., Method: The study was begun in August 1999. The primary entry criterion was a history of failure to respond to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). Patients (N = 500) who subsequently failed to respond to nortriptyline during an open-label lead-in phase were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatment groups: olanzapine (6-12 mg/day) plus fluoxetine (25-50 mg/day) combination, olanzapine (6-12 mg/day), fluoxetine (25-50 mg/day), or nortriptyline (25-175 mg/day). The primary outcome measure was baseline-to-endpoint mean change in score on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS)., Results: At the 8-week study endpoint, MADRS total scores decreased by a mean 8.7 points from baseline (28.5) with the olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, 7.0 points from baseline (28.4) with olanzapine (p = .08), 8.5 points from baseline (28.4) with fluoxetine (p = .84), and 7.5 points from baseline (28.8) with nortriptyline (p = .30), with no significant differences among the therapies. The olanzapine/fluoxetine combination was associated with significantly (p < or = .05) greater improvement (decrease) in MADRS scores than olanzapine at weeks 2, 4, 6, and 7; than fluoxetine at weeks 2 through 5; and than nortriptyline at weeks 1 through 4. A post hoc analysis of a subgroup of patients who had an SSRI treatment failure during their current MDD episode (N = 314) revealed that the olanzapine/fluoxetine combination group had a significantly (p = .005) greater decrease in MADRS scores than the olanzapine group at endpoint. Safety data for the olanzapine/fluoxetine combination were similar to those for its component monotherapies., Conclusions: The olanzapine/fluoxetine combination did not differ significantly from the other therapies at endpoint, although it demonstrated a more rapid response that was sustained until the end of treatment. The results raised several methodological questions, and recommendations are made regarding the criteria for study entry and randomization.

Background: Treatment-emergent mania is a potential risk when patients with bipolar disorder are treated with antidepressant agents. These subanalyses compare treatment-emergent mania rates in bipolar I depressed patients treated with olanzapine, placebo, or olanzapine/fluoxetine combination., Method: In this 8-week, double-blind investigation, patients with bipolar I depression (DSM-IV criteria) (N = 833, baseline Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score > or = 20) were randomly assigned to olanzapine (5-20 mg/day, N = 370), placebo (N = 377), or olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (6/25, 6/50, or 12/50 mg/day; N = 86). Treatment-emergent mania was evaluated with the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), the Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar Edition (CGI-BP) Severity of Mania scale, and adverse events records., Results: Overall rates of study discontinuation due to mania were low and not significantly different among the therapy groups (p = .358). Incidence of treatment-emergent mania (defined as a YMRS score < 15 at baseline and > or = 15 at any subsequent visit) did not differ significantly among therapy groups (olanzapine 5.7%, placebo 6.7%, olanzapine/fluoxetine combination 6.4%; p = .861). Subjects receiving olanzapine or olanzapine/fluoxetine combination had greater mean decreases in YMRS scores than those receiving placebo (p < .001 for both). Subjects receiving olanzapine or olanzapine/fluoxetine combination also had greater mean decreases in CGI-BP scores than those receiving placebo (p = .040 and p = .003, respectively)., Conclusion: These results suggest that olanzapine/fluoxetine combination does not present a greater risk of treatment-emergent mania compared to olanzapine or placebo over 8 weeks of acute treatment for bipolar I depression. Due to the cyclical nature of bipolar disorder, patients taking olanzapine/fluoxetine combination for bipolar depression should still be monitored for signs or symptoms of emerging mania.

Objectives: The current analysis investigated the onset of antidepressant effect of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination. Methods: Data for these post hoc analyses were obtained from a clinical trial comparing olanzapine, placebo, and olanzapine/fluoxetine combination in bipolar depression (BD). Subjects were 833 patients with a DSM-IV diagnosis of bipolar I disorder, depressed. The Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale measured depressive symptoms. Multiple analytic methods were applied, including traditional (mean differences) analysis, pattern analysis, survival analysis of sustained response, mixed-effects regression, and area-under-the-curve analysis. Results: Traditional analysis showed significantly greater improvement in depression scores at week 1 for olanzapine/fluoxetine combination versus placebo (−9.55 versus −5.08, p < 0.001) and for olanzapine versus placebo (−8.31 versus −5.08, p < 0.001). Pattern analysis revealed olanzapine/fluoxetine combination had a significantly greater percentage of early persistent responders than placebo or olanzapine (32.4% versus 12.7%, p < 0.001; and 18.3%, p < 0.05, respectively). Survival analysis showed a significantly shorter time to sustained response for the combination versus placebo (p < 0.001), for olanzapine versus placebo (p = 0.04), and for the combination versus olanzapine (p = 0.03). Mixed-effects regression analysis revealed a significant therapy-by-time interaction (p < 0.001). Early area-under-the-curve analysis revealed a significantly greater percentage of improvement for the combination versus placebo (26.7% versus 13.9%, p < 0.001) and for olanzapine versus placebo (22.0% versus 13.9%, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Based on consistent results from related methods of measuring onset, olanzapine/fluoxetine combination demonstrated rapid onset of antidepressant effect (within 7 days) compared to placebo that was sustained over 8 weeks of treatment in a sample of BD patients. Using multiple statistical techniques may help profile a drug's onset of effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on preliminary evidence of its usefulness in treatment-resistant depression (TRD), an olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC) was examined in comparison with olanzapine, fluoxetine, and venlafaxine in a TRD population. In this 12-week double-blind study, 483 subjects with unipolar, nonpsychotic TRD, with historic failure on a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) and prospective failure on open-label venlafaxine, were randomized to an OFC or to an olanzapine, fluoxetine, or venlafaxine monotherapy group. Venlafaxine was continued randomly in the double-blind acute phase to explore the benefits of continuation versus switching therapy. The Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total change score at end point was the primary outcome measure. The OFC group had significantly greater improvement in depressive symptoms by week 1 of treatment (MADRS mean change =-7.2, baseline =29.6), in comparison to olanzapine (-4.8, P=.03), fluoxetine (-4.7, P=.03), or venlafaxine (-3.7, P=.002) groups and maintained its statistical separation from all three monotherapy groups through week 6. At end point, the OFC group was significantly different only from the olanzapine group (-14.1 vs. -7.7, P<.001). Analysis of a subgroup of subjects who had an SSRI failure in their current depressive episode (n=334) revealed statistical separation from both olanzapine and fluoxetine (but not venlafaxine) at end point: OFC (-14.6) versus olanzapine (-9.4, P<.001) versus fluoxetine (-10.7, P=.006) versus venlafaxine (-14.7, P=.98). The OFC had a safety profile comparable to its component monotherapies (i.e., olanzapine and fluoxetine), showed a rapid onset of antidepressant effect, and was effective in this TRD sample. At the study end point, OFC, fluoxetine, venlafaxine, and low-dose OFC all appeared to be similarly effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]