Olanzapine–fluoxetine combination for the treatment of bipolar depression

Ecofriendly and smart spectrophotometric approaches for synchronized analysis of two antipsychotic drugs, fluoxetine and olanzapine: application to combined tablet dosages with assessment of method greenness

The present study was dedicated for solving the challenge of the overlapped spectra of olanzapine (OLZ) and fluoxetine (FLX) for their concurrent, accurate and precise determination without prior physical separation. The developed methods had to venture away from those that depend on chromatography, because of their negative effects on the environment due to using hazardous organic solvents as well as their high cost. The suggested methods were based on spectrophotometry combined with simple mathematical treatments of the spectra. These approaches are simple, rapid, inexpensive and reliable options for the effective assay of FLX and OLZ in pharmaceutical dosage forms. Ratio subtraction method was devoted for estimation of both drugs, while dual wavelength method and absorptivity factor method could be utilized in the estimation of FLX and OLZ, respectively. All the suggested methods were efficiently applied for the determination of the studied drugs in laboratory prepared mixtures and their pharmaceutical formulations. The environmental safety of the involved procedures was assessed by applying the Eco Score scale and complex modified GAPI methods. The methods were proved to be highly safe since no large volume of solvents were used, and no derivatizing reagent or drastic experimental conditions were involved. In addition, the procedures consume little energy and produce a small amount of waste. In conclusion, for FLX determination, the use of dual wavelength method is preferable because it needs very low mathematical treatment than the ratio subtraction method. However, for OLZ, the ratio subtraction method has higher sensitivity than absorptivity factor method although the latter is simpler.

Mood Stabilizers of First and Second Generation

The topic of this narrative review is mood stabilizers. First, the author's definition of mood-stabilizing drugs is provided. Second, mood-stabilizing drugs meeting this definition that have been employed until now are described. They can be classified into two generations based on the chronology of their introduction into the psychiatric armamentarium. First-generation mood stabilizers (FGMSs), such as lithium, valproates, and carbamazepine, were introduced in the 1960s and 1970s. Second-generation mood stabilizers (SGMSs) started in 1995, with a discovery of the mood-stabilizing properties of clozapine. The SGMSs include atypical antipsychotics, such as clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, aripiprazole, and risperidone, as well as a new anticonvulsant drug, lamotrigine. Recently, as a candidate for SGMSs, a novel antipsychotic, lurasidone, has been suggested. Several other atypical antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, and memantine showed some usefulness in the treatment and prophylaxis of bipolar disorder; however, they do not fully meet the author's criteria for mood stabilizers. The article presents clinical experiences with mood stabilizers of the first and second generations and with "insufficient" ones. Further, current suggestions for their use in preventing recurrences of bipolar mood disorder are provided.

Risk of Major Malformations Following First-Trimester Exposure to Olanzapine: Preliminary Data From the Massachusetts General Hospital National Pregnancy Registry for Psychiatric Medications

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND

Since its US Food and Drug Administration approval in 1996, olanzapine has been one of the most commonly prescribed atypical antipsychotics, making a better understanding of its reproductive safety profile critical. The goal of the current analysis was to determine the risk of major malformations among infants exposed to olanzapine during pregnancy compared with a group of nonexposed infants.

METHODS/PROCEDURES

The National Pregnancy Registry for Psychiatric Medications is a prospective pharmacovigilance program in which pregnant women are enrolled and interviewed during pregnancy and the postpartum period. Labor and delivery and pediatric medical records were screened for evidence of major malformations followed by adjudication by a dysmorphologist blinded to medication exposure. Infants with first-trimester exposure to olanzapine were compared with controls without second-generation antipsychotic exposure.

FINDINGS/RESULTS

As of April 18, 2022, 2619 women have enrolled in the study. At the time of data extraction, 49 olanzapine-exposed infants and 1156 infants in the comparison group were eligible for these analyses. There were no major malformations associated with olanzapine exposure in the first trimester. The absolute risk for major malformations in the exposure group was 0.00% (95% confidence interval, 0.00-7.25) for olanzapine compared with 1.64% (95% confidence interval, 0.99-2.55) in the control group.

IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS

In this prospective cohort, no major malformations were associated with olanzapine exposure during the first trimester. Although these data are preliminary and cannot rule out more modest effects, they are nonetheless important, adding to the growing reproductive safety data for olanzapine.

Guidelines for the management of psychosis in the context of mood disorders

Psychotic episodes occur in a substantial proportion of patients suffering from major mood disorders (both unipolar and bipolar) at some point in their lives. The nature of these episodes is less well understood than the more common, non-psychotic periods of illness and hence their management is also less sophisticated. This is a concern because the risk of suicide is particularly high in this subtype of mood disorder and comorbidity is far more common. In some cases psychotic symptoms may be signs of a comorbid illness but the relationship of psychotic mood to other forms of psychosis and in particular its interactions with schizophrenia is poorly understood. Therefore, our targeted review draws upon extant research and our combined experience to provide clinical context and a framework for the management of these disorders in real-world practice - taking into consideration both biological and psychological interventions.

Treatment of acute bipolar depression

Depression is the predominant pole of disability in bipolar disorder and compared with mania/hypomania, has less systematic research guiding the development of treatment especially in its acute phase (acute bipolar depression). The deficiency in the management of the acute bipolar depression largely reflects the natural divergence of opinion resulting from significant knowledge gaps. At present, there are only 3 approved drug treatments for acute bipolar depression: olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, quetiapine (immediate or extended release), and lurasidone (monotherapy or adjunctive to lithium or valproate). Nonapproved agents and nonpharmacologic treatment such as lamotrigine, antidepressants, modafinil, pramipexole, ketamine, and electroconvulsive therapy are often prescribed to treat acute bipolar depression. This article discusses the challenges of diagnosing bipolar depression, and reviews above treatment options for acute bipolar depression.

Treatment of bipolar depression: making sensible decisions

A major challenge in the treatment of major depressive episodes associated with bipolar disorder is differentiating this illness from major depressive episodes associated with major depressive disorder. Mistaking the former for the latter will lead to incorrect treatment and poor outcomes. None of the classic antidepressants, serotonin specific reuptake inhibitors, or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors have ever received regulatory approval as monotherapies for the treatment of bipolar depression. At present, there are only 3 approved medication treatments for bipolar depression: olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, quetiapine (immediate or extended release), and lurasidone (monotherapy or adjunctive to lithium or valproate). All 3 have similar efficacy profiles, but they differ in terms of tolerability. Number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH) can be used to quantify these similarities and differences. The NNTs for response and remission for each of these interventions vs placebo range from 4 to 7, and 5 to 7, respectively, with overlap in terms of their 95% confidence intervals. NNH values less than 10 (vs placebo) were observed for the spontaneously reported adverse events of weight gain and diarrhea for olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (7 and 9, respectively) and somnolence and dry mouth for quetiapine (3 and 4, respectively). There were no NNH values less than 10 (vs placebo) observed with lurasidone treatment. NNH values vs placebo for weight gain of at least 7% from baseline were 6, 16, 58, and 36, for olanzapine/fluoxetine combination, quetiapine, lurasidone monotherapy, and lurasidone combined with lithium or valproate, respectively. Individualizing treatment decisions will require consideration of the different potential adverse events that are more likely to occur with each medication. The metric of the likelihood to be helped or harmed (LHH) is the ratio of NNH to NNT and can illustrate the tradeoffs inherent in selecting medications. A more favorable LHH was noted for treatment with lurasidone. However, OFC and quetiapine monotherapy may still have utility in high urgency situations, particularly in persons who have demonstrated good outcomes with these interventions in the past, and where a pressing clinical need for efficacy mitigates their potential tolerability shortcomings. In terms of maintenance therapy, adjunctive quetiapine is the only agent where the NNT vs lithium or valproate alone is less than 10 for both the prevention of mania and the prevention of depression.

Weight gain and antipsychotics: a drug safety review

INTRODUCTION

Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are widely used in several psychiatric disease entities and exert to a different extent a risk for antipsychotic-induced weight gain (AIWG). As AIWG is associated with an increase in metabolic syndrome or cardiovascular events, knowledge of these risks is crucial for further monitoring and the initiation of counteractive measures.

AREAS COVERED

We searched PubMed and Web of Sciences for randomized-controlled trials and naturalistic observational studies published between 2010 and 2014 with sample sizes exceeding 100, including all marketed SGAs apart from zotepine, and providing data on weight increase. We also summarized relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses of head-to-head comparisons.

EXPERT OPINION

Recently published data still support the hierarchical ranking of SGAs already proposed in previous reviews ranking clozapine and olanzapine as having the highest risk, followed by amisulpride, asenapine, iloperidone, paliperidone, quetiapine, risperidone and sertindole in the middle, and aripiprazole, lurasidone and ziprasidone with the lowest risk. Number needed to harm varied considerably in our meta-analysis. Younger patients and patients with a lower baseline body mass index are most vulnerable. The greatest amount of weight gain occurs within the first weeks of treatment. AIWG occurs in all diagnostic groups and is also common in treatment with first-generation antipsychotics; therefore, awareness of this adverse event is essential for anyone prescribing antipsychotics.

Clinical assessment of lurasidone benefit and risk in the treatment of bipolar I depression using number needed to treat, number needed to harm, and likelihood to be helped or harmed

BACKGROUND

Prior to recent FDA approval of lurasidone for treatment of bipolar depression there were only two approved treatments for this condition (quetiapine and olanzapine-fluoxetine combination), and these were as likely to provide therapeutic benefit as adverse effects. We assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of lurasidone for major depressive episodes associated with bipolar I disorder, using number needed to treat (NNT, for benefits), number needed to harm (NNH, for harms), and likelihood of being helped or harmed (LHH, ratio of NNH to NNT, for trade-offs between benefits vs. harms).

METHODS

Data was collected from two 6-week multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, flexibly-dosed acute bipolar I depression studies, one using lurasidone monotherapy at 20-60mg/d or 80-120mg/d, and the other using lurasidone 20-120mg/d adjunctive to lithium or valproate. The NNT or NNH was calculated for lurasidone vs. placebo for the following dichotomous outcomes: response (≥50% reduction from baseline on Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score); remission (final MADRS total score ≤12); discontinuation due to an adverse event (AE); weight gain ≥7% from baseline; incidence of spontaneously reported AEs; and incidence of total cholesterol ≥240mg/dl, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥160mg/dl, fasting triglycerides ≥200mg/dl and glucose ≥126mg/dl post-baseline.

RESULTS

NNT vs. placebo for response was 5 for lurasidone monotherapy (both dose ranges) and 7 for adjunctive therapy. NNT vs. placebo for remission for lurasidone monotherapy was 6 for 20-60mg/d and 7 for 80-120mg/d and 7 for adjunctive lurasidone. NNH vs. placebo for discontinuation due to an AE for lurasidone monotherapy was 642 for 20-60mg/d and -181 for 80-120mg/d, and for adjunctive lurasidone was -54 (negative NNH denotes an advantage for lurasidone). Lurasidone was not associated with any clinically meaningful mean weight or metabolic changes compared to placebo; NNH vs. placebo for weight gain ≥7% was 29 for 20-60mg/d and 5550 for 80-120mg/d and 42 for adjunctive lurasidone. The three most frequently occurring AEs with the largest difference in incidence for lurasidone vs. placebo were nausea, akathisia, and somnolence, with NNH values for lurasidone vs. placebo ranging from 11 (nausea with lurasidone monotherapy 80-120mg/d) to 130 (somnolence with lurasidone monotherapy 20-60mg/d). LHH was substantially and consistently >1 (indicating benefit being more likely than harm) when contrasting response or remission vs. AEs or weight gain.

LIMITATIONS

Additional studies, including longer-term and open-label, "real world" data is needed to confirm the results reported here.

CONCLUSIONS

NNT, NNH, and LHH help quantify relative benefits (efficacy) and harms (side effects), thus placing lurasidone findings in research studies into clinical perspective. Lurasidone, compared to other treatments approved for bipolar depression, yielded comparable benefits (all had single-digit NNT vs. placebo for response or remission), and less risk of harm (double-digit or greater NNHs with lurasidone compared to single-digit NNHs for sedation with quetiapine and for ≥7% weight gain with olanzapine-fluoxetine combination), and thus a substantially more favorable LHH (> or >>1) with lurasidone monotherapy and adjunctive therapy, compared to quetiapine and olanzapine-fluoxetine combination (LHH<or ~1).

Antidepressants for bipolar disorder: A meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To examine the efficacy and safety of short-term and long-term use of antidepressants in the treatment of bipolar disorder.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search of randomized, double-blind, controlled trials published until December 2012 was performed using the PubMed, ISI Web of Science, Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. The keywords "bipolar disorder, bipolar I disorder, bipolar II disorder, bipolar mania, bipolar depression, cyclothymia, mixed mania and depression, rapid cycling and bipolar disorder", AND "antidepressant agent, antidepressive agents second- generation, antidepressive agents tricyclic, monoamine oxidase inhibitor, noradrenaline uptake inhibitor, serotonin uptake inhibitor, and tricyclic antidepressant agent" were used. The studies that were listed in the reference list of the published papers but were not retrieved in the above-mentioned databases were supplemented.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies selected were double-blind randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy and safety of antidepressants in patients with bipolar disorder. All participants were aged 18 years or older, and were diagnosed as having primary bipolar disorder. Antidepressants or antidepressants combined with mood stabilizers were used in experimental interventions. Placebos, mood stabilizers, antipsychotics and other antide pressants were used in the control interventions. Studies that were quasi-randomized studies, or used antidepressants in combination with antipsychotics in the experimental group were excluded. All analyses were conducted using Review Manager 5.1 provided by the Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the response and switching to mania. The secondary outcomes included remission, discontinuation rate, and suicidality.

RESULTS

Among 5 001 treatment studies published, 14 double-blind randomized controlled trials involving 1 244 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Eleven short-term studies and three maintenance studies were included. Studies suggested that patients treated with antidepressants were not significantly more likely to achieve higher response and remission rates in the short-term or long-term treatment than patients treated with placebo and other medications. Antidepressants were not associated with an increased risk of discontinuation, relapse or suicidality. When one antidepressant was compared with another, no significant difference in efficacy and tolerability was found.

CONCLUSION

Existing evidence of efficacy does not support the short-term or long-term application of antidepressant therapy in patients with bipolar disorder, although the tolerability and safety of antidepressants have been generally acknowledged. There is a need for large-sample, double-blind, randomized controlled trials to elucidate the role of antidepressants in patients with different subcategories of bipolar disorder.

A review of the pharmacology, efficacy and tolerability of recently approved and upcoming oral antipsychotics: an evidence-based medicine approach

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is a broad concept, but the key elements include the incorporation of clinical judgment (which requires clinical experience) together with relevant scientific evidence while remaining mindful of the individual patient's values and preferences. Using the framework and philosophy of EBM, this systematic review summarizes the pharmacology, efficacy, and tolerability of newly approved oral antipsychotics, including iloperidone, asenapine, and lurasidone, and outlines what is known about agents that are in late-stage clinical development, such as cariprazine, brexpiprazole, zicronapine, bitopertin, and EVP-6124. Potential advantages and disadvantages of these agents over existing antipsychotics are outlined, centered on clinically relevant issues such as the potential for weight gain and metabolic abnormalities, potential association with somnolence/sedation, extra-pyramidal side effects, akathisia, and prolongation of the electrocardiogram (ECG) QT interval, as well as practical issues regarding dosing instructions, titration requirements, and drug-drug interactions. Lurasidone appears to be best in class in terms of minimizing untoward alterations in body weight and metabolic variables. However, iloperidone, asenapine, lurasidone, and cariprazine differ among themselves in terms of on-label dosing frequency (once daily for lurasidone and, presumably, cariprazine versus twice daily for iloperidone and asenapine), the need for initial titration to a therapeutic dose for iloperidone and possibly cariprazine, requirement to be taken sublingually for asenapine, requirement for administration with food for lurasidone, lengthening of the ECG QT interval (greater for iloperidone than for asenapine and no effect observed with lurasidone), and adverse effects such as akathisia (seen with cariprazine, lurasidone, and asenapine but not with iloperidone) and sedation (most notable with asenapine).

Cariprazine: chemistry, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, and metabolism, clinical efficacy, safety, and tolerability

INTRODUCTION

Cariprazine is an atypical antipsychotic in clinical development for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar mania/mixed episodes.

AREAS COVERED

The purpose of this review is to describe the chemistry, pharmacodynamic profile, pharmacokinetics, and clinical profile of cariprazine.

EXPERT OPINION

Cariprazine is a dopamine D3-preferring D3/D2 receptor partial agonist. Doses ≥ 1.5 mg/d yielded 69 - 75% D2/D3 receptor occupancy as measured in positron emission tomography scans. Mean half-life for cariprazine was 2 - 5 d over a dose range of 1.5 - 12.5 mg. Cariprazine produces two clinically relevant metabolites: desmethyl-cariprazine and didesmethyl-cariprazine, the latter having a longer half-life than cariprazine. Exposure to didesmethyl-cariprazine exceeded that of the parent drug. Cariprazine is metabolized by CYP3A4 and to a lesser extent by CYP2D6. The efficacy and safety of cariprazine have been so far investigated only in a few short-term (unpublished) clinical trials; however, three studies in schizophrenia and three studies in bipolar mania/mixed episodes evidenced a statistically significant therapeutic effect compared to placebo for cariprazine at doses ranging from 1.5 to 12 mg/d. There does not appear to be clinically relevant adverse effects of cariprazine on metabolic variables. Commonly encountered adverse events associated with cariprazine include insomnia, extrapyramidal symptoms, akathisia, sedation, nausea, dizziness, and constipation.

Olanzapine plus fluoxetine for bipolar disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Olanzapine plus fluoxetine combination (OFC) is one of the current approaches for treating the depressive phase of bipolar disorder. Our objective was to synthesize the evidence on the efficacy of OFC therapy in bipolar depressed patients.

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on MEDLINE, Embase and other databases. Independent researchers selected the studies and extracted the data. The GRADE approach was used to assess the quality of the evidence. The Mantel-Haenszel random effect model was used to perform the meta-analyses.

RESULTS

From 627 unique records retrieved, four RCTs were included (1330 patients). OFC improved the response compared to olanzapine (relative risk [RR]=1.58; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.27, 1.97) and to placebo (RR=1.99; 95% CI: 1.49, 2.65) but not to lamotrigine (low-quality evidence). Similar results were found for remission and relapse rates. No differences were identified for levels of depression and mania symptoms (low-quality evidence) and incidence of mania (moderate-quality evidence). Adverse effects were more common in patients treated with OFC than in those treated with lamotrigine (RR=1.13; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.23), but no difference was found relative to the patients treated with olanzapine (low-quality evidence).

LIMITATIONS

Despite the totality of the evidence included, there are few RCTs available regarding the efficacy of OFC therapy for bipolar depression. The risk of attrition and reporting bias is also a concern.

CONCLUSIONS

OFC therapy improved the response, remission, and relapse rates among other outcomes. However, a worse profile of adverse reactions was observed in some comparisons. These data clarify the therapeutic use of OFC as an option to olanzapine in bipolar depression. The quality of the evidence could be improved by additional comparisons and higher rates of treatment adherence.

Efficacy and safety of fluoxetine monotherapy in bipolar depression: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The treatment of depressive episodes in bipolar disorder (BD) remains a challenge for clinicians and is a hot topic in current psychiatric practice. In the present review, we focused on efficacy and safety of fluoxetine monotherapy in order to identify published randomized double-blind trials and open-label trials, written in English, reporting the outcome of fluoxetine treatment in depressed bipolar patients.

AREAS COVERED

We searched Pubmed to identify published randomized double-blind trials and open-label trials, written in English, reporting the results of fluoxetine treatment in depressed bipolar patients. The following key words were used: fluoxetine AND bipolar AND depression AND treatment. A total number of seven prospective studies (four randomized clinical trials and three open-label trials) and one two-phase retrospective study were reviewed.

EXPERT OPINION

Fluoxetine showed to be efficacious in bipolar depression, confirming its well-known activity in major depressive episodes, with a low percentage of mood switch, despite the general view that antidepressants may increase the rate of manic/hypomanic episodes in BDs. More studies with larger sample sizes, comparing fluoxetine with other antidepressants, mood stabilizers and antipsychotics are needed.

Pharmacokinetic evaluation of olanzapine + fluoxetine for the treatment of bipolar depression

INTRODUCTION

A proprietary combination of the atypical antipsychotic drug olanzapine and the serotonin reuptake inhibitor fluoxetine (OFC, Symbyax) was approved for the treatment of bipolar depression based on a double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison of olanzapine, OFC, and placebo.

AREAS COVERED

This review considers published controlled and uncontrolled studies of the efficacy, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, interactions, and adverse effects of OFC. Beyond previously reviewed efficacy studies, an open-label 7-week study of 161 bipolar depressed patients (93% bipolar I), and an 8-week double-blind study of 833 bipolar I depressed patients with an open-label extension were identified. The structure and limitations of clinical trials of OFC are critically addressed.

EXPERT OPINION

OFC trades simplicity of administration for loss of flexibility of dosing and lack of a generic preparation, both of which are available for olanzapine and fluoxetine separately. Clinical trials are limited by short-term follow-up, exclusive use of symptom rating scale scores, limitation of subjects to those with depression that is not overly complex or comorbid, lack of consideration of subsyndromal hypomania and mood cycling, and high dropout rates. In the absence of comparisons to mood stabilizers combined with each other and/or antidepressants, the role of OFC in the treatment of bipolar depression remains unclear.