Dataset Information

Assessment of strategies for switching patients from olanzapine to risperidone: a randomized, open-label, rater-blinded study.

ABSTRACT: In clinical practice, physicians often need to change the antipsychotic medications they give to patients because of an inadequate response or the presence of unacceptable or unsafe side effects. However, there is a lack of consensus in the field as to the optimal switching strategy for antipsychotics, especially with regards to the speed at which the dose of the previous antipsychotic should be reduced. This paper assesses the short-term results of strategies for the discontinuation of olanzapine when initiating risperidone.In a 6-week, randomized, open-label, rater-blinded study, patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, on a stable drug dose for more than 30 days at entry, who were intolerant of or exhibiting a suboptimal symptom response to more than 30 days of olanzapine treatment, were randomly assigned to the following switch strategies (common risperidone initiation scheme; varying olanzapine discontinuation): (i) abrupt strategy, where olanzapine was discontinued at risperidone initiation; (ii) gradual 1 strategy, where olanzapine was given at 50% entry dose for 1 week after risperidone initiation and then discontinued; or (iii) gradual 2 strategy, where olanzapine was given at 100% entry dose for 1 week, then at 50% in the second week, and then discontinued.The study enrolled 123 patients on stable doses of olanzapine. Their mean age was 40.3 years and mean (+/- standard deviation (SD)) baseline Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score of 75.6 +/- 11.5. All-cause treatment discontinuation was lowest (12%) in the group with the slowest olanzapine dose reduction (gradual 2) and occurred at half the discontinuation rate in the other two groups (25% in abrupt and 28% in gradual 1). The relative risk of early discontinuation was 0.77 (confidence interval 0.61-0.99) for the slowest dose reduction compared with the other two strategies. After the medication was changed, improvements at endpoint were seen in PANSS total score (-7.3; p < 0.0001) and in PANSS positive (-3.0; p < 0.0001), negative (-0.9; p = 0.171) and anxiety/depression (-1.4; p = 0.0005) subscale scores. Severity of movement disorders and weight changes were minimal.When switching patients from olanzapine to risperidone, a gradual reduction in the dose of olanzapine over 2 weeks was associated with higher rates of retention compared with abrupt or less gradual discontinuation. Switching via any strategy was associated with significant improvements in positive and anxiety symptoms and was generally well tolerated.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00378183.

SUBMITTER: Ganguli R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2474645 | biostudies-literature | 2008 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessment of strategies for switching patients from olanzapine to risperidone: a randomized, open-label, rater-blinded study.

Ganguli Rohan R Brar Jaspreet S JS Mahmoud Ramy R Berry Sally A SA Pandina Gahan J GJ

BMC medicine 20080630

<h4>Background</h4>In clinical practice, physicians often need to change the antipsychotic medications they give to patients because of an inadequate response or the presence of unacceptable or unsafe side effects. However, there is a lack of consensus in the field as to the optimal switching strategy for antipsychotics, especially with regards to the speed at which the dose of the previous antipsychotic should be reduced. This paper assesses the short-term results of strategies for the disconti ...[more]

PMID: 18590519

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:This randomized, 24-week, flexible-dose study compared changes in glucose metabolism in patients with DSM-IV schizophrenia receiving initial exposure to olanzapine, quetiapine, or risperidone. METHOD:The hypothesized primary endpoint was change (baseline to week 24) in area under the curve (AUC) 0- to 2-hour plasma glucose values during an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT); primary analysis: olanzapine versus quetiapine. Secondary endpoints included mean change in AUC 0- to 2-hour plasma insulin values, insulin sensitivity index, and fasting lipids. The first patient enrolled on April 29, 2004, and the last patient completed the study on October 24, 2005. RESULTS:Mean weight change (kg) over 24 weeks was +3.7 (quetiapine), +4.6 (olanzapine), and +3.6 (risperidone). Based on data from 395 patients (quetiapine, N = 115 [mean dose = 607.0 mg/day], olanzapine, N = 146 [mean dose = 15.2 mg/day], and risperidone, N = 134 [mean dose = 5.2 mg/day]), mean change in AUC 0- to 2-hour glucose value (mg/dL x h) at week 24 was significantly lower for quetiapine versus olanzapine (t = 1.98, df = 377, p = .048). Increases in AUC 0- to 2-hour glucose values were statistically significant with olanzapine (+21.9 mg/dL x h, 95% CI = 11.5 to 32.4 mg/dL x h) and risperidone (+18.8 mg/dL x h, 95% CI = 8.1 to 29.4 mg/dL x h), but not quetiapine (+9.1 mg/dL x h, 95% CI = -2.3 to 20.5 mg/dL x h). AUC 0- to 2-hour insulin values increased statistically significantly with olanzapine (+24.5%, 95% CI = 11.5% to 39.0%), but not with quetiapine or risperidone. Reductions in insulin sensitivity index were statistically significant with olanzapine (-19.1%, 95% CI = -27.9% to -9.3%) and risperidone (-15.8%, 95% CI = -25.1% to -5.4%), but not quetiapine. Total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein levels increased statistically significantly with olanzapine (+21.1 mg/dL, 95% CI = 13.0 to 29.2 mg/dL, and +20.5 mg/dL, 95% CI = 13.8 to 27.1 mg/dL, respectively) and quetiapine (+13.1 mg/dL, 95% CI = 4.3 to 21.9 mg/dL, and +13.3 mg/dL, 95% CI = 6.1 to 20.5 mg/dL, respectively), but not risperidone. Statistically significant increases in triglycerides (+30.9 mg/dL, 95% CI = 10.9 to 51.0 mg/dL), total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein (HDL) ratio (0.5, 95% CI = 0.2 to 0.8), and triglyceride/HDL ratio (0.3, 95% CI = 0.0 to 0.6) were observed with olanzapine only. CONCLUSION:The results indicate a significant difference in the change in glucose tolerance during 6 months' treatment with olanzapine versus quetiapine, with significant reductions on olanzapine and risperidone, but not quetiapine; these differential changes were largely explained by changes in insulin sensitivity. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00214578.

Project description:This multisite randomized trial addressed risks and benefits of staying on long-acting injectable haloperidol or fluphenazine versus switching to long-acting injectable risperidone microspheres.From December 2004 through March 2008, adult outpatients with a Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders-Patient Edition diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder who were taking haloperidol decanoate (n = 40) or fluphenazine decanoate (n = 22) were randomly assigned to stay on current long-acting injectable medication or switch to risperidone microspheres and followed for 6 months under study protocol and an additional 6 months naturalistic follow-up. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were used to examine the primary outcome (time to treatment discontinuation), and random regression models were used to examine secondary outcomes.Groups did not differ significantly in time to treatment discontinuation through 6 months of protocol-driven treatment. When the 6-month naturalistic follow-up period was included, time to treatment discontinuation was significantly shorter for individuals assigned to switch than for individuals assigned to stay (10% of stayers discontinued versus 31% of switchers; P = .01). Groups did not differ with respect to psychopathology, hospitalizations, sexual side effects, new-onset tardive dyskinesia, or new-onset extrapyramidal symptoms. However, those randomized to switch to long-acting injectable risperidone microspheres had greater increases in body mass (increase of 1.0 body mass index [BMI] versus decrease of -0.3 BMI; P = .00) and prolactin (maximum increase to 23.4 ng/mL versus decrease to 15.2 ng/mL, P = .01) compared to those randomized to stay.Switching from haloperidol decanoate or fluphenazine decanoate to risperidone microspheres resulted in more frequent treatment discontinuation as well as significant weight gain and increases in prolactin.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00044655.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia are at an increased risk for developing metabolic syndrome, which is associated with greater cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Treatment with some commonly used antipsychotic medications may increase the risk of developing metabolic syndrome. The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety of lurasidone in patients who continued lurasidone or switched from risperidone to lurasidone. A secondary aim was assessment of the effect of long-term lurasidone on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). METHODS:The treatment sample in the current study consisted of clinically stable patients with schizophrenia (N?=?223) who had completed a 12-month, double-blind study of lurasidone vs. risperidone. In the current extension study, all patients received 6?months of open-label treatment with lurasidone, either continuing lurasidone assigned during the preceding double-blind trial, or switching from double-blind risperidone to lurasidone. Safety and tolerability parameters included body weight, prolactin, and metabolic laboratory tests. RESULTS:Six months of OL treatment with lurasidone was generally well-tolerated, with a low incidence of parkinsonism (4.5%) and akathisia (3.1%). Overall, few adverse events were rated as severe (4.9%), and discontinuation due to an adverse event was low in the lurasidone continuation vs. risperidone switch groups (3.7% vs. 6.9%). In the lurasidone continuation versus risperidone switch groups, change from OL baseline to 6-month endpoint (observed case) was observed in mean body weight (-?0.6 vs. -2.6?kg), median total cholesterol (-?4.0 vs. +?4.5?mg/dL), triglycerides (-?4.5 vs. -5.5?mg/dL), glucose (0.0 vs. -3.0?mg/dL) and prolactin (males, +?0.15 vs. -11.2?ng/mL; females, +?1.3 vs. -30.8?ng/mL). Improvement in PANSS total score was maintained, from OL baseline to endpoint in the continuation vs. switch groups (+?1.0 vs. -1.0; OC). CONCLUSIONS:In this 6-month extension study, lurasidone treatment was generally well-tolerated and associated with minimal effects on weight, metabolic parameters, and prolactin levels. Patients who switched from risperidone to lurasidone experienced reductions in weight, metabolic parameters and prolactin levels commensurate with increases in these safety parameters experienced during the previous 12?months of treatment with risperidone. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00641745 (Date of Registration: March 24, 2008).

Project description:ObjectivesAlthough selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have become the standard of care for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), limited data exist to support their use in MDD with atypical features. The current study investigates the efficacy of the SSRI escitalopram in an 8-week, open-label, flexible-dose, rater-blinded trial.MethodSeventeen DSM-IV MDD subjects aged from 18 through 65 years completed screening procedures, provided informed consent, and went through a minimum 2-week washout from preexisting antide-pressants except fluoxetine (a minimum 4-week wash-out). They subsequently received escitalopram (10-20 mg/day) for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy measure was a change in score from baseline to end of treatment on the Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression-Seasonal Affective Disorder version (SIGH-SAD), which includes a set of items for atypical symptoms. Secondary efficacy measures were defined as changes from baseline to end of treatment in scores on the SIGH-SAD atypical symptoms subscale (consisting of 8 items specific to atypical features), Beck Depression Inventory-II, Beck Anxiety Inventory, Sheehan Disability Scale, and Epworth Sleepiness Questionnaire. The study was conducted from October 2005 to November 2006.ResultsThe mean age was 43.9 years, and 70.6% of subjects were women. The dropout rate was 11.8% (N = 2/17). The mean dose of escitalopram was 18.3 mg/day. The total SIGH-SAD score (mean ± SD) reduced by 53.8% from baseline (33.3 ± 8.2) to end of treatment (15.4 ± 9.4) (t = 4.24, p < .001). The atypical symptoms subscale score reduced by 44.5% from baseline (11.0 ± 4.3) to end of treatment (6.1 ± 2.8) (t = 5.26, p = .001). Ten subjects (62.5%) were classified as responders at end of treatment as defined by ≥ 50% reduction in SIGH-SAD total score. Overall, escitalopram was well tolerated.ConclusionsOur preliminary study indicates that escitalopram may be beneficial in the treatment of MDD with atypical features. Adequately powered, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials are necessary to determine the efficacy of escitalopram in this disorder.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00610506.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adjunctive aripiprazole treatment in schizophrenia patients with risperidone-induced hyperprolactinemia. METHODS:One hundred and thirteen patients who were receiving a stable dose of risperidone were randomly assigned to either adjunctive aripiprazole treatment (10 mg/day) (aripiprazole group) or no additional treatment (control group) at a 1:1 ratio for 8 weeks. Schizophrenia symptoms were measured using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). Rating scales and safety assessments (RSESE, BARS, UKU) were performed at baseline and at weeks 4 and 8. Serum levels of prolactin were determined at baseline and at weeks 2, 4, 6 and 8. Metabolic parameters were determined at baseline and again at weeks 4 and 8. RESULTS:One hundred and thirteen patients were enrolled in this study, and 107 patients completed the study (54 in the aripiprazole group, and 53 in the control group). PANSS-total scores in the aripiprazole group decreased significantly at week 4 (P = 0.003) and week 8 (P = 0.007) compared with the control group. PANSS-negative scores in the aripiprazole group also decreased significantly at week 4 (P = 0.005) and week 8 (P< 0.001) compared with the control group. Serum levels of prolactin in the aripiprazole group decreased significantly at week 2 (P< 0.001), week 4 (P< 0.001), week 6 (P< 0.001) and week 8 (P< 0.001) compared with the control group. There were no significant differences in changes of Fasting Plasma Glucose, Total cholesterol, Triglycerides and High Density Lipoprotein within each group at week 4 and 8 execpt low density lipoproteins. There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS:Adjunctive aripiprazole treatment may be beneficial in reducing serum levels of prolactin and improving negative symptoms in schizophrenia patients with risperidone-induced hyperprolactinemia. TRIAL REGISTRATION:chictr.org ChiCTR-IOR-15006278.

Project description:Little is known about the comparative effectiveness of atypical antipsychotics in long-acting injection formulation. Due to the absence of head-to-head studies comparing olanzapine long-acting injection and risperidone long-acting injection, this study was intended to make exploratory, indirect, cross-study comparisons between the long-acting formulations of these two atypical antipsychotics in their effectiveness in treating patients with schizophrenia.Indirect, cross-study comparisons between olanzapine long-acting injection and risperidone long-acting injection used 12-month treatment-completion rates, because discontinuation of an antipsychotic for any cause is a recognized proxy measure of the medication's effectiveness in treating schizophrenia. Following a systematic review of the literature, two indirect comparisons were conducted using open-label, single-cohort studies in which subjects were stabilized on an antipsychotic medication before depot initiation. The first analysis compared olanzapine long-acting injection (one study) with pooled data from nine identified risperidone long-acting injection studies. The second analysis was a "sensitivity analysis," using only the most similar studies, one for olanzapine long-acting injection and one for risperidone long-acting injection, which shared near-identical study designs and involved study cohorts with near-identical patient characteristics. Pearson Chi-square tests assessed group differences on treatment-completion rates.Comparison of olanzapine long-acting injection data (931 patients) with the pooled data from the nine risperidone long-acting injection studies (3950 patients) provided almost identical 12-month treatment-completion rates (72.7% versus 72.4%; P = 0.87). When the two most similar studies were compared, the 12-month completion rate for olanzapine long-acting injection was significantly higher than for risperidone long-acting injection (81.3% versus 47.0%; P < 0.001). However, any conclusions drawn from this comparison may be limited by differences in the studies' geographic catchment areas.Using treatment-completion rates as a proxy measure of medication effectiveness, olanzapine long-acting injection did not differ significantly from risperidone long-acting injection when including all eligible studies. However, the findings of this exploratory analysis should be interpreted with caution, considering the methodological limitations of these indirect, cross-study comparisons.

Project description:ObjectivesBecause of the limitations of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies, a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE) study may be an appropriate alternative, as the design allows the assessment of clinical outcomes in clinical practice settings. The Gastrointestinal (GI) Randomized Event and Safety Open-Label Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drug (NSAID) Study (GI-REASONS) was designed to reflect standard clinical practice while including endpoints rigorously evaluated by a blinded adjudication committee. The objective of this study was to assess if celecoxib is associated with a lower incidence of clinically significant upper and/or lower GI events than nonselective NSAIDs (nsNSAIDs) in standard clinical practice.MethodsThis was a PROBE study carried out at 783 centers in the United States, where a total of 8,067 individuals aged ≥ 55 years, requiring daily NSAIDs to treat osteoarthritis, participated. The participants were randomized to celecoxib or nsNSAIDs (1:1) for 6 months and stratified by Helicobacter pylori status. Treatment doses could be adjusted as per the United States prescribing information; patients randomized to nsNSAIDs could switch between nsNSAIDs; crossover between treatment arms was not allowed, and patients requiring aspirin at baseline were excluded. The primary outcome was the incidence of clinically significant upper and/or lower GI events.ResultsSignificantly more nsNSAID users met the primary endpoint (2.4% (98/4,032) nsNSAID patients and 1.3% (54/4,035) celecoxib patients; odds ratio, 1.82 (95% confidence interval, 1.31-2.55); P = 0.0003). Moderate to severe abdominal symptoms were experienced by 94 (2.3%) celecoxib and 138 (3.4%) nsNSAID patients (P=0.0035). Other non-GI adverse events were similar between treatment groups. One limitation is the open-label design, which presents the possibility of interpretive bias.ConclusionsCelecoxib was associated with a lower risk of clinically significant upper and/or lower GI events than nsNSAIDs. Furthermore, this trial represents a successful execution of a PROBE study, where therapeutic options and management strategies available in clinical practice were incorporated into the rigor of a prospective RCT.

Project description:Background and purposeBlinded outcome assessment in trials with prospective randomized open blinded end point design is challenging. Unblinding can result in misclassified outcomes and biased treatment effect estimates. An outcome adjudication committee assures blinded outcome assessment, but the added value for trials with prospective randomized open blinded end point design and subjective outcomes is unknown. We aimed to assess the degree of misclassification of modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores by a central assessor and its impact on treatment effect estimates in a stroke trial with prospective randomized open blinded end point design.MethodsWe used data from the MR CLEAN (Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands). The primary outcome was the mRS at 90 days. Standardized, algorithm-based telephone interviews to assess the mRS were conducted from a central location by an experienced research nurse, unaware but not formally blinded to treatment allocation (central assessor). Masked reports of these interviews were adjudicated by a blinded outcome committee. Misclassification was defined as an incorrect classification of the mRS by the central assessor. The effect of endovascular treatment on the mRS was assessed with multivariable ordinal logistic regression.ResultsIn MR CLEAN, 53/500 (10.6%) of the mRS scores were misclassified. The degree and direction of misclassification did not differ between treatment arms (P=0.59). Benefit of endovascular treatment was shown on the mRS when scored by the central assessor (adjusted common odds ratio, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.16-2.21]) and the outcome adjudication committee (adjusted common odds ratio, 1.67 [95% CI, 1.21-2.20]).ConclusionsMisclassification by the central assessor was small, randomly distributed over treatment arms, and did not affect treatment effect estimates. This study suggests that the added value of a blinded outcome adjudication committee is limited in a stroke trial with prospective randomized open blinded end point design applying standardized, algorithm-based outcome assessment by a central assessor, who is unaware but not formally blinded to treatment allocation. Registration: URL: https://www.isrctn.com; Unique identifier: ISRCTN10888758.

Dataset Information

Assessment of strategies for switching patients from olanzapine to risperidone: a randomized, open-label, rater-blinded study.

Publications

Assessment of strategies for switching patients from olanzapine to risperidone: a randomized, open-label, rater-blinded study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets