Efficacy Of Olanzapine In Patients Research Articles

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of the Safety and Efficacy of Olanzapine for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Receiving Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy: Results of the Korean South West Oncology Group (KSWOG) Study.

PurposeData on the efficacy of olanzapine in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) are limited. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of olanzapine versus placebo in controlling nausea and vomiting in patients receiving MEC.Materials and MethodsWe conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to determine whether olanzapine can reduce the frequency of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and improve the quality of life (QOL) in patients receiving palonosetron and dexamethasone as prophylaxis for MEC-induced nausea and vomiting. The primary end point was complete response for the acute phase (0-24 hours after chemotherapy). The secondary end points were complete response for the delayed (24-120 hours) and overall phase (0-120 hours), proportion of significant nausea (visual analogue scale ≥ 25 mm), use ofrescue medications, and effect on QOL.ResultsFifty-six patients were randomized to the olanzapine (n=29) and placebo (n=27) groups. Complete response rates were not significantly different between the olanzapine and placebo groups in the acute (96.5% vs. 88.0%, p=0.326), delayed (69.0% vs. 48.0%, p=0.118), and overall phases (69.0% vs. 48.0%, p=0.118). However, the percentage of patients with significant nausea (17.2% vs. 44.0%, p=0.032) and the use of rescue medications (0.03±0.19 vs. 1.88±2.88, p=0.002) were lower in the olanzapine group than in the placebo. Furthermore, the olanzapine group demonstrated better QOL (p=0.015).ConclusionOlanzapine combined with palonosetron and dexamethasone significantly improved QOL and vomiting control among previously untreated patients receiving MEC, although the efficacy was limited to the reduction of the frequency of CINV.

Application of Plasma Levels of Olanzapine and N-Desmethyl-Olanzapine to Monitor Clinical Efficacy in Patients with Schizophrenia.

BackgroundThis therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) study aimed to determine the role of olanzapine (OLZ) and N-desmethyl-OLZ (DMO) levels in the therapeutic efficacy of OLZ in patients with schizophrenia.MethodPlasma concentrations of OLZ (COLZ) and DMO (CDMO) in schizophrenic patients 12 hours post-dose were assessed. The correlations of COLZ and CDMO with the various scores of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) were evaluated. A receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) was utilized to identify the threshold COLZ and COLZ/CDMO ratio for maintenance of satisfactory efficacy.ResultsA total of 151 samples from patients with schizophrenia were analyzed for individual COLZ and CDMO levels. The mean COLZ and CDMO levels were 37.0 ± 25.6 and 6.9 ± 4.7 ng/mL, respectively, and COLZ was ~50% higher in female or nonsmokers (p<0.01). In all patients, the daily dose of OLZ was positively correlated with COLZ and CDMO. Linear relationships between COLZ and OLZ dose were observed in both nonsmokers and smokers (rs = 0.306, 0.426, p<0.01), although CDMO was only correlated with OLZ dose in smokers (rs = 0.485, p<0.01) and not nonsmokers. In all patients, COLZ was marginally negatively correlated with the total PANSS score. The total PANSS score was significantly negatively correlated with the COLZ/CDMO ratio (p<0.005), except in smokers. The ROC analysis identified a COLZ/CDMO ratio ≥2.99 or COLZ ≥22.77 ng/mL as a predictor of maintenance of an at least mildly ill status (PANSS score ≤58) of schizophrenia in all patients.ConclusionsA significantly negative correlation between the steady-state COLZ/CDMO ratio and total PANSS score was observed in Taiwanese schizophrenic patients. TDM of both OLZ and DMO levels could assist clinical practice when individualizing OLZ dosage adjustments for patients with schizophrenia.

Efficacy of olanzapine in the treatment of bipolar mania with mixed features defined by DSM-5

BackgroundThese analyses compared efficacy of olanzapine in patients with bipolar mania with or without mixed features, as defined in the DSM-5. MethodsPooled data from 3 placebo-controlled olanzapine studies in patients having bipolar I disorder with manic/mixed episode were analyzed (N=228 olanzapine; N=219 placebo). Patients were categorized for mixed features by number of concurrent depressive symptoms at baseline (0, 1, and 2 [category A; without mixed features], and ≥3 [category B; with mixed features]), as determined by HAM-D17 item score ≥1. Depressive symptoms corresponded to 6 HAM-D17 items in the DSM-5 definition of manic episode with mixed features. Primary efficacy was evaluated by changes in the baseline-to-3-week YMRS total score. ResultsPatients were categorized into A (N=322; 72.0%) or B (N=125; 28.0%). Mean baseline YMRS total scores were 28.1 in category A and 27.8 in category B. Least-squares mean change of YMRS total scores in categories A and B (olanzapine versus placebo) were −11.78 versus −6.86 and −13.21 versus −4.72, respectively. Patients in the olanzapine- compared with placebo-group experienced a greater decrease in YMRS total score for both categories (p<0.001). An interaction between mixed features and treatment was seen in YMRS change at a 0.3 significance level (p=0.175). LimitationsThe results are from post-hoc analyses. ConclusionsOlanzapine was efficacious in the treatment of bipolar I mania, in patients both with and without mixed features, defined by DSM-5; however, greater efficacy was observed in patients with mixed features having more severe depressive symptoms.

Olanzapine in manic/mixed patients with or without substance abuse

To evaluate the efficacy of olanzapine in patients in their manic/mixed phase with or without comorbidity with substance abuse/dependence disorder. In this observational, controlled, prospective study, 60 patients with a DSM-IV-TR diagnosis of bipolar disorder, manic/mixed episode (30 patients with and 30 patient without comorbidity with a substance abuse/dependence disorder) were treated with olanzapine, evaluated at discharge, and followed-up for 8 weeks. Efficacy of olanzapine was assessed by comparing the proportion of responders (an at least 50% drop in Young Mania Rating Scale [YMRS] score from baseline) and remitters (YMRS ≤ 12 and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HAM-D] ≤ 8) in both groups. Craving and days of abuse/use were assessed with Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Time-line Follow-Back (TLFB), respectively. Differences in response and remission percentages were statistically not significant at discharge and during follow-up. A reduction of days of abuse has been observed in the drug-abuse group, while craving was only slightly decreased. These results suggest that olanzapine is effective in both groups and its efficacy in reducing the days of abuse appears to be independent from its action on craving.

Olanzapine versus propranolol in essential tremor

Purpose In this study, we evaluated the anti-tremor effect of olanzapine in patients with essential tremor (ET). Material and methods Thirty-eight patients with ET affecting upper limbs underwent a randomized, crossover study with olanzapine (20 mg/day) and propranolol (120 mg/day). Evaluation (baseline and 1 month after each drug) was done by using the tremor clinical rating scale and a self-reported disability scale. Results We did not find statistical difference in all tremor parameters before treatment in two groups. Both drugs improved essential tremor parameters. However, olanzapine significantly improved all tremor parameters except hygiene as compared to propronalol. Conclusion These results suggest that olanzapine might be efficacious for essential tremor. Further clinical trials are indicated to establish the efficacy of olanzapine in patients with ET.