Effect of galcanezumab in women with episodic migraine meeting criteria for menstrually related migraine: A post hoc analysis of EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2

BACKGROUND

We evaluated galcanezumab for migraine prevention in patients who met International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition criteria for menstrually related migraine (MRM).

METHODS

Patients were identified post hoc from three double-blind, randomized, phase 3 clinical trials in patients with episodic migraine. Patients completed a 1-month prospective baseline period and up to 6 months (EVOLVE-1 and -2, studies pooled) of double-blind treatment with galcanezumab (120 mg/month) or placebo. Menses and headache information were recorded by electronic daily diary. Patients with a migraine attack starting during the 5-day perimenstrual interval (first day of bleeding ± 2 days) for ≥2 of their first three diary-recorded menstrual cycles were categorized as having MRM. The primary efficacy measure was mean change in monthly migraine headache days from baseline, averaged over Months 4 through 6. Response rates, change in monthly perimenstrual migraine headache days, monthly non-perimenstrual migraine headache days, and quality of life were also assessed.

RESULTS

Post hoc MRM analysis criteria were met by 462/1133 women (41%). Mean (standard deviation) baseline monthly migraine headache days were 9.7 (±3.1; n = 146) for galcanezumab-treated patients and 9.6 (±2.8; n = 316) for placebo-treated patients. The mean change (standard error [SE]) in migraine headache days over Months 4 through 6 was -5.1 days (±0.39) for galcanezumab versus -3.2 (±0.35) for placebo (p < 0.001). The mean change (SE) in perimenstrual migraine headache days over Months 4 through 6 was -0.75 days (±0.08) for galcanezumab versus -0.49 (±0.07) for placebo (p = 0.004). For migraine headache days outside the perimenstrual period, the mean change in migraine headache days was -4.6 (±0.38) for galcanezumab and -2.8 (±0.33) for placebo (p < 0.001). Improvements in response rates and the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire were also observed over Months 4 through 6.

CONCLUSION

Galcanezumab was effective for migraine prevention in women with MRM.

Changes in migraine interictal burden following treatment with galcanezumab: Results from a phase III randomized, placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate changes in interictal burden with galcanezumab versus placebo in patients with episodic (EM) or chronic migraine (CM).

BACKGROUND

The disruptive effects of migraine occur both during attacks (ictal period) and between attacks (interictal period), affecting work, school, family, and social life. Migraine clinical trials typically assess ictal burden endpoints, neglecting interictal burden.

METHODS

CONQUER was a 3-month, double-blind study that randomized adult patients with EM or CM who had experienced failure of two to four standard-of-care migraine preventive medication categories to receive monthly galcanezumab (n = 232) or placebo (n = 230), followed by 3 months of open-label galcanezumab. The mean change in interictal burden, a secondary objective, was measured using the four-item Migraine Interictal Burden Scale (MIBS-4). The total score for MIBS-4 can range from zero to 12, with scores ≥5 indicating severe interictal burden. Post hoc analyses evaluated shifts in MIBS-4 severity categories and item-level improvement.

RESULTS

The MIBS-4 total score indicated severe interictal burden at baseline (mean [SD]: all patients, 5.5 [3.5]; EM, 5.0 [3.4]; CM, 6.2 [3.5]). Reductions in the MIBS-4 score were significantly greater with galcanezumab versus placebo at Month 3 (mean [SE]: all patients -1.9 [0.2] vs. -0.8 [0.2], p < 0.0001; EM, -1.8 [0.3] vs. -1.1 [0.3], p = 0.033; CM, -1.8 [0.4] vs. -0.3 [0.4], p < 0.001), with further improvement at Month 6 after all patients had received galcanezumab (mean [SE]: all patients, -2.4 [0.2] vs. -2.0 [0.2]; EM, -2.3 [0.3] vs. -2.2 [0.3]; CM, -2.1 [0.4] vs. -1.5 [0.4]). The percentage of patients with severe interictal burden decreased substantially for the galcanezumab-treated patients, from 59% (137/232) at baseline to 27% (58/217) at Month 6 (EM from 51% [70/137] to 23% [30/131]; CM from 71% [67/95] to 33% [28/86]).

CONCLUSION

In addition to the known efficacy of galcanezumab in the ictal period, these findings suggest treatment with galcanezumab results in a significant reduction in interictal burden.

Long-term treatment with galcanezumab in patients with chronic migraine: results from the open-label extension of the REGAIN study

BACKGROUND

Galcanezumab, a monoclonal antibody to calcitonin gene-related peptide, was found to be safe and efficacious for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine based on the randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind period of the REGAIN study. Long-term safety and efficacy were assessed in an open-label extension.

METHODS

Patients 18-65 years old with chronic migraine completing the 3-month double-blind period of REGAIN could enter a 9-month open-label extension (OLE; months 4-12). Upon entering the OLE, patients received a 240-mg galcanezumab loading dose, then 120 mg at the next month, with flexible dosing thereafter (120 or 240 mg/month). The primary efficacy measure was the mean change in the number of monthly migraine headache days from double-blind baseline to month 12. Other endpoints included response rates (based on percent reduction in monthly migraine headache days from double-blind baseline to month 12), safety and tolerability.

RESULTS

Of patients who completed double-blind treatment, 1022 (99%) entered the OLE, with 81% completing month 12. From a baseline of 19.4 monthly migraine headache days at the beginning of the double-blind period, patients at month 12 in the previous placebo, 120-mg, and 240-mg galcanezumab groups had a mean change of -8.5, -9.0, and -8.0, respectively (SE = 0.43 to 0.55, within-group p's < .001). At month 12, the percentage of patients with ≥50% response was 57%, 57%, and 53%, respectively. Percentage with ≥75% response was 32%, 31%, and 30%, respectively. Percentage with 100% response was 8%, 6%, and 6%, respectively. There were no significant new safety findings during the open-label period. The incidence of discontinuation from the OLE due to adverse events was 5%.

CONCLUSION

Galcanezumab was effective, safe, and well-tolerated, with high adherence, for up to 12 months of treatment in patients with chronic migraine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02614261; www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02614261.

Reductions in acute medication use and healthcare resource utilization in patients with chronic migraine: a secondary analysis of a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of galcanezumab with open-label extension (REGAIN)

AIMS

To analyze secondary objectives of the REGAIN study related to acute headache medication use and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) in patients with chronic migraine treated with galcanezumab, a monoclonal antibody to calcitonin gene-related peptide.

METHODS

Adults with chronic migraine (N = 1,113) were randomized (2:1:1) and treated with double-blind monthly injections of placebo, galcanezumab-120 mg, or galcanenzumab-240 mg for 3 months, followed by a 9-month open-label extension with 120 or 240 mg/month galcanezumab. Headache and medication information was collected by daily eDiary. HCRU was reported for the 6 months before randomization, monthly thereafter, and converted to rate per 100-patient-years.

RESULTS

At baseline, 63-64% of patients met criteria for acute headache medication overuse. At Month 3, incidence of headache medication overuse in the galcanezumab groups (33% and 33%) was significantly lower than in the placebo group (46%, both p < .001) and was 16% and 23% in the previous-galcanezumab groups at Month 12. From a baseline of 14.5 to 15.5, reduction in mean number of monthly migraine headache days with acute headache medication use was also significantly greater in the galcanezumab groups at Month 3 (-4.2 and -4.9) than in placebo (-2.6, both p < .001), with reductions of -6.8 and -7.6 in the previous-galcanezumab groups at Month 12. Migraine-specific HCRU rates decreased for all groups, with no significant between-group differences at Month 3. At Month 12, in the two previous-galcanezumab groups, emergency room visits decreased by 58% and 75%, hospital admissions by 100%, and healthcare professional visits by 54% and 67%.

LIMITATIONS

Only 3 months of double-blind, placebo-controlled data, a longer HCRU recall period for baseline than postbaseline, and patients receiving care in the clinical trial itself, may limit generalizability.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with galcanezumab resulted in significant reductions in headache medication overuse and migraine headache days requiring acute medication use, with notable reductions in migraine-specific HCRU.

Galcanezumab in Patients with Multiple Previous Migraine Preventive Medication Category Failures: Results from the Open-Label Period of the CONQUER Trial

INTRODUCTION

Results from the open-label extension of the phase 3b CONQUER trial are presented to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of galcanezumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide, for up to 6 months in patients with multiple prior migraine preventive treatment failures.

METHODS

Patients were 18-75 years old with episodic or chronic migraine and 2-4 standard-of-care migraine preventive medication category failures. After 3 months of randomized treatment with galcanezumab (120 mg/month with 240 mg loading dose; n = 232) or placebo (n = 230), patients entered a 3-month open-label extension (120 mg/month galcanezumab with a blinded 240 mg loading dose for previous-placebo patients). Primary efficacy measure was mean change from double-blind baseline in monthly migraine headache days.

RESULTS

A total of 432/449 patients (96%) who entered open-label treatment completed the study. Mean change in monthly migraine headache days in the total population, which was - 1.3 for placebo and - 4.4 for galcanezumab patients at the end of double-blind treatment (p < 0.001), was - 5.2 and - 5.6, respectively, at the end of open-label treatment with galcanezumab. Among patients with episodic migraine, mean change in monthly migraine headache days had been - 0.6 for placebo and - 2.8 for galcanezumab after double-blind treatment (p < 0.001) and was - 4.5 and - 3.8, respectively, after open-label treatment. Among patients with chronic migraine, mean change in monthly migraine headache days had been - 2.5 for placebo and - 6.6 for galcanezumab after double-blind treatment (p < 0.001) and was - 6.5 and - 8.2, respectively, after open-label treatment. Adverse events were similar to those observed during double-blind placebo treatment. Review of data in elderly patients (65-75 years of age) indicated that galcanezumab was well tolerated in this age group, with no safety issues identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Galcanezumab was effective and safe during open-label treatment in patients who had experienced failures of previous migraine preventives.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03559257.

Safety and efficacy of galcanezumab in patients for whom previous migraine preventive medication from two to four categories had failed (CONQUER): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3b trial

BACKGROUND

Many patients who require migraine preventive treatment have not been able to tolerate or have not responded to multiple previous preventive medications. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of galcanezumab, an antibody to calcitonin gene-related peptide, in patients with migraine who had not benefited from preventive medications from two to four categories.

METHODS

CONQUER was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3b trial done at 64 sites (hospitals, clinics, or research centres) in 12 countries (Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Japan, the Netherlands, South Korea, Spain, the UK, and the USA). Patients were 18-75 years of age, with episodic or chronic migraine, with migraine onset before the age of 50 years, who had a documented failure of preventive medications from two to four drug categories in the past 10 years owing to lack of efficacy or tolerability, or both. Patients were randomised 1:1 to receive subcutaneous placebo or galcanezumab 120 mg per month (with a 240 mg loading dose administered as two 120 mg injections) for 3 months. For masking purposes, patients receiving placebo also received two injections during the first dosing visit. Randomisation was done by a computer-generated random sequence by means of an interactive web-response system stratified by country and migraine frequency (low frequency episodic migraine, four to fewer than eight migraine headache days per month; high frequency episodic migraine, eight to 14 migraine headache days per month and fewer than 15 headache days per month; chronic migraine, at least eight migraine headache days per month and at least 15 headache days per month). The primary endpoint was the overall mean change from baseline in number of monthly migraine headache days during the 3-month treatment period in all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03559257, and is now completed.

FINDINGS

Between Sept 10, 2018, and March 21, 2019, 462 participants with episodic (269 [58%]) or chronic (193 [42%]) migraine were randomly assigned and received at least one injection with placebo (n=230) or galcanezumab (n=232). Galcanezumab-treated patients had significantly greater reduction in migraine headache days versus placebo across months 1-3. The galcanezumab group had on average 4·1 fewer monthly migraine headache days compared with baseline (13·4), while the placebo group had on average 1·0 fewer than at baseline (13·0; between-group difference -3·1 [95% CI -3·9 to -2·3]; p<0·0001; effect size=0·72). Types and number of treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between galcanezumab and placebo. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 122 (53%) of 230 patients in the placebo group and 119 (51%) of 232 patients in the galcanezumab group. There were four serious adverse events during the study, two (1%) reported in the placebo group and two (1%) reported in the galcanezumab group.

INTERPRETATION

Galcanezumab was superior to placebo in the preventive treatment of migraine and was safe and well tolerated in patients for whom multiple previous standard-of-care preventive treatments had failed. Galcanezumab might represent an important treatment option for patients who have not benefited from or tolerated previous standard-of-care treatments.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly.

Rapid Onset of Effect of Galcanezumab for the Prevention of Episodic Migraine: Analysis of the EVOLVE Studies

Objective

To evaluate onset of effect of galcanezumab in patients with episodic migraine.

Background

Galcanezumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to calcitonin gene‐related peptide and is indicated for preventive treatment of migraine.

Design/Methods

Data on the primary outcome measure were analyzed from 2 previously published double‐blind, Phase 3 studies (EVOLVE‐1 [N = 858] and EVOLVE‐2 [N = 915]) wherein adult patients with episodic migraine were randomized to receive monthly subcutaneous injections of galcanezumab 120 mg (with 240‐mg loading dose) or 240 mg or placebo for up to 6 months. Monthly onset of effect was defined as the earliest month at which galcanezumab achieved and subsequently maintained statistical superiority to placebo on the mean change from baseline in the number of monthly migraine headache days (MHDs). If onset occurred in Month 1, weekly onset was evaluated and defined as the earliest week at which galcanezumab statistically separated from placebo and maintained statistical separation for remaining weeks in that month. Day of onset of effect was also analyzed, as were monthly and weekly onset, for occurrence of ≥50% reduction from baseline in number of MHDs.

Results

For both studies, change from baseline in monthly MHDs showed a statistically significant separation of galcanezumab from placebo at Month 1 and each subsequent month (each P < .001). Analysis of the first month for both studies indicated onset of effect in the first week, with galcanezumab‐treated patients having significantly higher odds of having fewer MHDs in the first week (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] for EVOLVE‐1, 2.71 [2.00, 3.66], and for EVOLVE‐2, 2.88 [2.16, 3.86]; both P < .001) and each subsequent week compared with placebo‐treated patients (P ≤ .004). Daily analysis showed onset of effect at Day 1 (first day after injection day). Galcanezumab also demonstrated superiority to placebo on occurrence of ≥50% reduction in MHDs starting at Week 1 (percentage of patients with 50% response in galcanezumab group vs placebo group for EVOLVE‐1, 54.3% vs 32.4% [P < .001], and for EVOLVE‐2, 59.4% vs 38.0% [P < .001]).

Conclusion

Rapid onset of preventive effect on the first day after injection of galcanezumab was confirmed in both studies of episodic migraine.

Galcanezumab in chronic migraine: The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled REGAIN study

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of galcanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to calcitonin gene-related peptide, in the preventive treatment of chronic migraine.

Methods

A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of LY2951742 in patients with chronic migraine (Evaluation of Galcanezumab in the Prevention of Chronic Migraine [REGAIN]) was a phase 3 study with a 3-month double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment phase and a 9-month open-label extension. Eligible patients 18 to 65 years of age with chronic migraine were randomized 2:1:1 to monthly subcutaneous injections of placebo (n = 558), galcanezumab 120 mg (with a 240-mg loading dose, n = 278), or galcanezumab 240 mg (n = 277). The primary endpoint was the overall mean change from baseline in the number of monthly migraine headache days (MHDs) during the 3-month double-blind treatment phase.

Results

Mean number of monthly MHDs at baseline was 19.4 for the total sample. Both galcanezumab dose groups demonstrated greater overall mean reduction in the number of monthly MHDs compared to placebo (placebo −2.7, galcanezumab 120 mg −4.8, galcanezumab 240 mg −4.6) (p < 0.001 for each dose compared to placebo). There were no clinically meaningful differences between galcanezumab doses and placebo on any safety or tolerability outcome except for a higher incidence of treatment-emergent injection-site reaction (p < 0.01), injection-site erythema (p < 0.001), injection-site pruritus (p < 0.01), and sinusitis (p < 0.05) in the galcanezumab 240-mg group relative to placebo.

Conclusions

Both doses of galcanezumab were superior to placebo in reducing the number of monthly MHDs. Galcanezumab appears efficacious, safe, and well tolerated for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier

NCT02614261.

Classification of evidence

This interventional study provides Class I evidence that galcanezumab is superior to placebo in the reduction of the number of monthly MHDs.

Safety of galcanezumab in patients with episodic migraine: A randomized placebo-controlled dose-ranging Phase 2b study

Background Safety findings from a Phase 2b study of galcanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody against calcitonin gene-related peptide, for prevention of migraine (NCT02163993) are reported here. Methods Patients aged 18-65 years with episodic migraine were evaluated in this multicenter, double-blind, randomized study. After randomization, 410 patients were administered 5, 50, 120 or 300 mg of galcanezumab or placebo subcutaneously once every 4 weeks for 12 weeks, followed by a post-treatment off-drug period lasting 12 weeks. Results Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were primarily rated as mild to moderate. Serious adverse events reported in galcanezumab dose groups were appendicitis, Crohn's disease, suicidal ideation, and congenital ankyloglossia in an infant of a paternal pregnancy; each of these were reported by one patient. Adverse events leading to discontinuation with galcanezumab treatment were abdominal pain, visual impairment, and upper limb fracture, each reported by one patient. Treatment-emergent injection-site reactions were reported significantly more frequently ( p = 0.013) with galcanezumab (13.9%) than with placebo (5.8%). Injection-site pain was the most common injection-site reaction (galcanezumab 11.4%; placebo 2.9%, p = 0.004). Upper respiratory tract infection (galcanezumab 10.0%; placebo 8.8%) and nasopharyngitis (galcanezumab 7.0%; placebo 2.2%) also occurred more frequently with galcanezumab treatment. Potential hypersensitivity events were reported at similar frequencies in galcanezumab (3.3%) and placebo (5.1%) groups. Incidence of treatment-emergent anti-drug antibodies in galcanezumab dose groups (4.6% of patients during treatment period) did not appear to have any meaningful effects on safety, the pharmacokinetics of galcanezumab, or its ability to bind to the target ligand. Conclusion The results from this 3-month Phase 2b study support the initiation of larger Phase 3 trials of longer duration.

Quality of life in children and adolescents with bipolar I depression treated with olanzapine/fluoxetine combination

BACKGROUND

We examined the efficacy of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC) in improving health-related quality of life (QoL) in the treatment of bipolar depression in children and adolescents.

METHODS

Patients aged 10-17 years with bipolar I disorder, depressed episode, baseline children's depression rating scale-revised (CDRS-R) total score ≥40, Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score ≤15, and YMRS-item 1 ≤ 2 were randomized to OFC (6/25-12/50 mg/day olanzapine/fluoxetine; n = 170) or placebo (n = 85) for up to 8 weeks of double-blind treatment. Patients and parents completed the revised KINDL questionnaire for measuring health-related QoL in children and adolescents (KINDL-R) at baseline and endpoint. The mean change in CDRS-R total and item scores were used to compare improvement in symptomatology in patients taking OFC and placebo. Tests were 2-sided using a Type I error cutoff of 0.05, and no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.

RESULTS

Baseline QoL as measured by the KINDL-R was substantially impaired relative to published norms for a healthy school-based sample. OFC-treated patients demonstrated an improvement over placebo at endpoint with respect to mean change from baseline in the patient-rated KINDL-R Self-esteem subscale score (p = 0.028), and in the parent KINDL-R ratings of emotional well-being (p = 0.020), Self-esteem (p = 0.030), and Family (p = 0.006). At endpoint, OFC-treated patients still had a lower QoL compared to the normative population. OFC showed significant improvement (p ≤ 0.05) versus placebo on the CDRS-R total score and on 7 of the 17 CDRS-R items.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients aged 10-17 years with an acute episode of bipolar depression and their parents reported greater improvements (parents noticed improvements in more areas than did their offspring) on some aspects of QoL when treated with OFC compared with placebo. However, after 8 weeks of treatment, KINDL-R endpoint scores remained lower than those of the, presumably healthy, control population. Clinical trial registration information A Study for Assessing Treatment of Patients Ages 10-17 with Bipolar Depression; http://www.clinicaltrials.gov; NCT00844857.

A 52-Week Study of Olanzapine with a Randomized Behavioral Weight Counseling Intervention in Adolescents with Schizophrenia or Bipolar I Disorder

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the 52-week safety/tolerability of oral olanzapine for adolescents with schizophrenia or bipolar mania and compare effectiveness of a standard versus intense behavioral weight intervention in mitigating risk of weight gain.

METHODS

Patients 13-17 years old with schizophrenia (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale for Children [BPRS-C] total score >30; item score ≥3 for hallucinations, delusions, or peculiar fantasies) or bipolar I disorder (manic or mixed episode; Young Mania Rating Scale [YMRS] total score ≥15) received open-label olanzapine (2.5-20 mg/day) and were randomized to standard (n = 102; a single weight counseling session) or intense (n = 101; weight counseling at each study visit) weight intervention. The primary outcome measure was mean change in body mass index (BMI) from baseline to 52 weeks using mixed-model repeated measures. Symptomatology was also assessed.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences between groups were observed in mean baseline-to-52-week change in BMI (standard: +3.6 kg/m²; intense: +2.8 kg/m²; p = 0.150) or weight (standard: +12.1 kg; intense: +9.6 kg; p = 0.148). Percentage of patients at endpoint who had gained ≥15% of their baseline weight was 40% for the standard group and 31% for the intense group (p = 0.187). Safety/tolerability results were generally consistent with those of previous olanzapine studies in adolescents, with the most notable exception being the finding of a mean decrease in prolactin. On symptomatology measures, patients with schizophrenia had a mean baseline-to-52-week change in BPRS-C of -32.5 (standard deviation [SD] = 10.8), and patients with bipolar disorder had a mean change in YMRS of -16.7 (SD = 8.9), with clinically and statistically significant improvement starting at 3-4 days for each.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term weight gain was high in both groups, with no statistically significant differences between the standard or intense behavioral weight interventions in BMI or weight. Safety, tolerability, and effectiveness findings were generally consistent with the known profile of olanzapine in adolescents.

Clinical outcomes with olanzapine long-acting injection: impact of the 3-hour observation period on patient satisfaction and well-being

BACKGROUND

The objective of the present analysis is to determine the impact of the 3-hour observation period for olanzapine long-acting injection (LAI) on patient satisfaction and well-being by comparing data collected before and after its implementation.

METHODS

This is a post hoc analysis of patients treated with olanzapine LAI in 1) a 6-month fixed-dose randomized controlled trial and/or 2) a 6-year open-label safety study. This analysis was limited to patients with schizophrenia who were treated with olanzapine LAI consistent with the approved indication and dosing recommendations of the European Union Summary of Product Characteristics (N=966). Of the 966 patients, the analysis further focused only on those patients who received both 1) at least one injection before the implementation of the 3-hour observation period and 2) at least one injection after implementation of the 3-hour observation period (N=487). Patient satisfaction was assessed with the three-item Patient Satisfaction with Medication Questionnaire-Modified. Responses were averaged across all postbaseline visits occurring before (ie, without) the implementation of the 3-hour observation period and across all postbaseline visits occurring after (ie, with) the implementation of the 3-hour observation period. In addition, the rate of postinjection delirium/sedation syndrome events was calculated.

RESULTS

There was no meaningful change after implementation of the 3-hour observation period in satisfaction (before: mean [SD] =4.0 [1.02] and after: mean [SD] =4.1 [0.82]), preference for olanzapine LAI over oral medication (before: mean [SD] =4.0 [0.90] and after: mean [SD] =4.1 [0.77]), or ratings of satisfaction regarding side effects (before: mean [SD] =1.9 [0.79] and after: mean [SD] =1.8 [0.60]). For the total population (N=966), postinjection delirium/sedation syndrome occurred in 26 (0.07%) of 38,010 injections.

CONCLUSION

For patients with schizophrenia receiving treatment with olanzapine LAI, the 3-hour observation period had no impact on their satisfaction with the medication or on their subjective well-being.

Baseline characteristics and hospitalizations in patients with schizophrenia receiving olanzapine long-acting injection: an interim analysis from a non-interventional, prospective observational safety study

BACKGROUND

Depot antipsychotics are a treatment option for medication nonadherence in patients with schizophrenia. Nonadherence can lead to increased relapse and hospitalization rates. This article reports hospitalization data before and after initiation of olanzapine long-acting injection (LAI), a depot antipsychotic.

METHODS

Data were assessed from an ongoing, multinational, prospective, observational post-authorisation safety study being conducted to evaluate post-injection delirium/sedation syndrome (PDSS), an adverse reaction that can occur following injection of olanzapine LAI. Eligible patients were aged ≥18 years, diagnosed with schizophrenia, were prescribed olanzapine LAI, and lived outside the United States. Psychiatric hospitalization and medication data were collected retrospectively for the 6-month period before study entry and prospectively throughout the study. Paired t-tests and McNemar's tests were used to assess changes in hospitalization incidence and duration. Stepwise Cox proportional hazards models assessed factors associated with hospitalizations. Analyses were based on data from the first 3 years of the continuously enrolling study (N = 668).

RESULTS

The average duration of olanzapine LAI exposure for all patients was 0.768 years. Of the 529 patients who received at least 1 injection of olanzapine LAI and were not hospitalized at study entry, 8.1% had at least 1 subsequent psychiatric hospitalization with a mean duration of 2.0 days. Of the 288 patients who had a >6-month follow-up, 8.3% had at least 1 post-baseline psychiatric hospitalization with a mean duration of 2.3 days. The incidence of hospitalizations in the 6-month period after treatment was significantly lower than that in the 6-month period prior to treatment (8.3 vs 32.6%, respectively; P < 0.001). Furthermore, mean hospitalization duration decreased from 11.5 days in the 6-month period before treatment to 2.3 days in the 6-month period after treatment (P < 0.001). Psychiatric hospitalization in the prior 12 months (P < 0.0001) and recreational drug use within 24 h of baseline visit (P = 0.015) were identified as potential predictors of time to first psychiatric hospitalization after beginning to take olanzapine LAI. At the time of interim analysis, 5 PDSS events had occurred, which was too few for a full analysis of those events.

CONCLUSIONS

Results indicate a significant reduction in the incidence and days of hospitalization from the 6-month period before to the 6-month period after olanzapine LAI initiation, which suggests reduced relapse and hospitalization during treatment. Results should be interpreted with caution due to the observational nature of the study and use of retrospective baseline data.

Postmortem redistribution of olanzapine following intramuscular administration of olanzapine pamoate in dogs

The potential for postmortem redistribution of olanzapine was investigated in beagle dogs. Olanzapine pamoate monohydrate was administered once every 14 days by intramuscular injection for 3 months to fed male dogs (n=15) at a dose of 20 mg/kg olanzapine (equivalent to 46 mg/kg olanzapine pamoate monohydrate). Blood samples were collected after the fifth (Day 57) and sixth (Day 71) doses to determine olanzapine and N-oxide olanzapine concentrations. On Day 71 at 72 h postdose, dogs were euthanized and placed on their backs without additional manipulation and held for postmortem blood, urine, and tissue collection at room temperature for up to 168 h postdose (96 h after euthanasia). Concentrations of olanzapine and N-oxide olanzapine were determined by liquid chromatography-mass spectroscopy/mass spectroscopy (LC-MS/MS). Postmortem olanzapine concentrations in blood increased up to seven-fold compared to the last quantified antemortem blood concentration. Olanzapine concentrations in vein tissue samples (surrogates for peripheral blood) also increased, whereas other tissue concentrations, such as myocardium, lung, liver, and kidney decreased over the postmortem period. An increase in blood concentration of olanzapine after death was observed in all but one animal, suggesting that postmortem redistribution may occur in dogs following biweekly intramuscular administration of olanzapine pamoate monohydrate. The rise in olanzapine concentrations in blood after death in this study may potentially be attributed to diffusion from multiple tissues to blood and, to a lesser extent, reduction of the N-oxide olanzapine metabolite back to olanzapine. However, the generalizability of these results to humans cannot be confirmed by the present study.

Olanzapine long-acting injection: a review of first experiences of post-injection delirium/sedation syndrome in routine clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Olanzapine long-acting injection (LAI) for the treatment of schizophrenia was associated with a cluster of symptoms termed post-injection delirium/sedation syndrome (PDSS) in a small percentage (~2%) of patients during clinical trials. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the rate and clinical characteristics of PDSS since olanzapine LAI entered commercial use.

METHODS

Cases of PDSS were identified from all reported adverse events during worldwide commercial use of olanzapine LAI through to 1 March 2014. Data sources included two ongoing post-marketing safety studies as well as spontaneously reported adverse events from routine clinical practice over a 5-year period (1 March 2009 to 1 March 2014).

RESULTS

A total of 338 PDSS events were identified. Of these, 91% occurred within 1 hour of injection, and 52% of these occurred within 15 minutes. None of the PDSS events in this analysis were fatal, and most resolved within 72 hours. The most common symptoms (occurring in >30% of cases) were sedation (61%), confusion (56%), dysarthria (54%), somnolence (46%), dizziness (45%) and disorientation (35%). Overall, PDSS occurred with approximately 0.07% of injections and in 0.46-1.03% of patients (reporting and incidence rates from spontaneous reports and post-marketing safety studies, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The PDSS events reported during routine clinical use of olanzapine LAI are generally similar in incidence and presentation to those reported in clinical trials. Caution should be applied when interpreting spontaneously reported rates of adverse events, however, due to potential under-reporting. Implemented risk-minimisation activities may contribute substantially to the identification and appropriate management of patients with PDSS in clinical practice.

Within-drug benefit-risk evaluation of olanzapine long-acting injection at one and two years of treatment

We sought to evaluate the within-drug benefit-risk of olanzapine long-acting injection (LAI) using both quantitative and qualitative methods. Subjects included 1192 adult patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder who participated in clinical trials with the opportunity for at least two years of continuous treatment with olanzapine LAI (45-405 mg every two to four weeks). Using the Benefit Risk Action Team (BRAT) framework, we evaluated frequency versus duration of benefits and risks commonly observed with atypical antipsychotics. We then used the Transparent Uniform Risk/Benefit Overview (TURBO) method, which weighs the drug's two most medically serious and/or frequent adverse events versus its primary benefit (effectiveness) and an ancillary benefit. The most frequent events among all patients were remaining free of relapse (91.4% for an average of 306 days at one year, 88.4% for 546 days at two years) and symptomatic remission (81.7% for an average of 239 days at one year, 84.1% for 438 days at two years). One- and two-year incidence of ≥7% weight gain was 33.3% and 41.7%. Incidences for sexual dysfunction, hyperprolactinemia, and post-injection delirium/sedation syndrome (PDSS) were <2%. TURBO ratings unanimously selected PDSS and weight gain as key risks and resulted in an average score in the acceptable benefit-risk balance range.

A pooled analysis of injection site-related adverse events in patients with schizophrenia treated with olanzapine long-acting injection

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.

Efficacy of olanzapine long-acting injection in patients with acutely exacerbated schizophrenia: an insight from effect size comparison with historical oral data

BACKGROUND

To treat acute schizophrenia, a long-acting injectable antipsychotic needs a rapid onset of action and therapeutic profile similar to that of oral agents. The present post-hoc analyses compared results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of olanzapine long-acting injection (LAI) for acute schizophrenia with those observed in similarly designed trials of oral olanzapine.

METHODS

Six-week results from the olanzapine LAI study (N = 404) were compared with those of 3 oral studies (study 1: olanzapine vs. haloperidol vs. placebo [N = 335]; study 2: olanzapine vs. haloperidol vs. low-dose olanzapine [N = 431]; study 3: olanzapine vs. placebo vs. low-dose olanzapine [N = 152]). All patients had baseline Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) scores ≥24 (0-6 scale). Six-week effect sizes were calculated. Efficacy onset, pharmacokinetics, discontinuations, weight gain, and extrapyramidal symptoms were also assessed.

RESULTS

At 6 weeks, mean BPRS scores decreased by 14 to 15 points for olanzapine LAI (405 mg/4 weeks, 210 or 300 mg/2 weeks), by 8 to 16 for oral olanzapine (10 ± 2.5 or 15 ± 2.5 mg/day), and by 12 to 13 for haloperidol (15 ± 5 mg/day). For those same dose groups, effect sizes vs. placebo for the BPRS were 0.7 to 0.8 for olanzapine LAI, 0.5 to 0.7 for oral olanzapine, and 0.6 for haloperidol. The first statistically significant separation from placebo on the BPRS occurred at 3 days for the olanzapine LAI groups and at 1 week for oral olanzapine and haloperidol (15 ± 5 mg/day) in oral study 1 although as late as week 6 for the 10-mg/day olanzapine dose in oral study 3. Olanzapine concentrations were similar across studies. Weight gain ≥7% of baseline occurred in up to 35% of olanzapine LAI and oral patients versus up to 12% of haloperidol and placebo patients. Extrapyramidal symptoms were lowest in the olanzapine LAI groups and significantly greater in the haloperidol groups. No post-injection delirium/sedation syndrome events occurred in the olanzapine LAI study.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated acutely with olanzapine LAI showed a similar pattern of improvement to that seen historically with oral olanzapine. With the exception of injection-related adverse events, the efficacy and tolerability profile of olanzapine LAI is similar to oral olanzapine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ID; URL: http://http//www.clinicaltrials.gov/: NCT00088478; ClinicalStudyResults.org ID; URL: http://www.clinicalstudyresults.org/: 917, 978, 982, and 5984.

A dose comparison of olanzapine for the treatment of borderline personality disorder: a 12-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVE

To examine the efficacy and safety of olanzapine at low and moderate doses for the treatment of borderline personality disorder.

METHOD

In this 12-week randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial, 451 outpatients aged 18-65 years with DSM-IV borderline personality disorder received olanzapine 2.5 mg/d (n = 150), olanzapine 5-10 mg/d (n = 148), or placebo (n = 153). The trial was conducted from February 2004 through January 2006 at 59 community-based and academic study centers in 9 countries (United States, Italy, Poland, Romania, Turkey, Chile, Peru, Argentina, and Venezuela). The primary efficacy measure was mean change from baseline to last-observation-carried-forward endpoint on the Zanarini Rating Scale for Borderline Personality Disorder (ZAN-BPD) total score. Secondary measures included the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, the Modified Overt Aggression Scale, the Global Assessment of Functioning, the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised, and the Sheehan Disability Scale.

RESULTS

An overall mean baseline ZAN-BPD total score of 17.2 (SD = 4.9) indicated moderate symptom severity. Only treatment with olanzapine 5-10 mg/d was associated with significantly greater mean change from baseline to endpoint in ZAN-BPD total score relative to placebo (-8.5 vs -6.8, respectively; P = .010; effect size = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.06-0.52). Response rates (response indicated by ≥ 50% decrease from baseline in ZAN-BPD total score) were significantly higher for olanzapine 5-10 mg/d (73.6%) versus olanzapine 2.5 mg/d (60.1%; P = .018) and versus placebo (57.8%; P = .006). Time to response was also significantly shorter for patients taking olanzapine 5-10 mg/d than for placebo-treated patients (P = .028). Treatment-emergent adverse events reported significantly more frequently among olanzapine-treated patients included somnolence, fatigue, increased appetite, and weight increase (all P values < .05). Mean weight change from baseline to endpoint was significantly greater for olanzapine-treated than for placebo-treated patients (olanzapine 2.5 mg/d: 2.09 kg; olanzapine 5-10 mg/d: 3.17 kg; placebo: 0.02 kg; P < .001). The overall completion rate for the 12-week double-blind treatment period was 65.2% (ie, 64.7% for olanzapine 2.5 mg/d, 69.6% for olanzapine 5-10 mg/d, and 61.4% for placebo).

CONCLUSIONS

Olanzapine 5-10 mg/d showed a clinically modest advantage over placebo in the treatment of overall borderline psychopathology. This advantage in effectiveness should be weighed against the risk of adverse events (particularly weight gain), which were consistent with the known safety profile of olanzapine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00088036.

Early response predicts subsequent response to olanzapine long-acting injection in a randomized, double-blind clinical trial of treatment for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

In patients with schizophrenia, early non-response to oral antipsychotic therapy robustly predicts subsequent non-response to continued treatment with the same medication. This study assessed whether early response predicted later response when using a long-acting injection (LAI) antipsychotic.

METHODS

Data were taken from an 8-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of olanzapine LAI in acutely ill patients with schizophrenia (n = 233). Early response was defined as ≥ 30% improvement from baseline to Week 4 in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS0-6) Total score. Subsequent response was defined as ≥ 40% baseline-to-endpoint improvement in PANSS0-6 Total score. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and predictive accuracy were calculated. Clinical and functional outcomes were compared between Early Responders and Early Non-responders.

RESULTS

Early response/non-response to olanzapine LAI predicted later response/non-response with high sensitivity (85%), specificity (72%), PPV (78%), NPV (80%), and overall accuracy (79%). Compared to Early Non-responders, Early Responders had significantly greater improvement in PANSS0-6 Total scores at all time points and greater baseline-to-endpoint improvement in PANSS subscale scores, Quality of Life Scale scores, and Short Form-36 Health Survey scores (all p ≤ .01). Among Early Non-responders, 20% demonstrated response by Week 8. Patients who lacked early improvement (at Week 4) in Negative Symptoms and Disorganized Thoughts were more likely to continue being non-responders at Week 8.

CONCLUSIONS

Among acutely ill patients with schizophrenia, early response predicted subsequent response to olanzapine LAI. Early Responders experienced significantly better clinical and functional outcomes than Early Non-responders. Findings are consistent with previous research on oral antipsychotics.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY

F1D-MC-HGJZ: Comparison of Intramuscular Olanzapine Depot With Placebo in the Treatment of Patients With Schizophrenia http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00088478?term=olanzapine+depot&rank=3Registry identifier - NCT00088478.

Comparison of metabolic changes in patients with schizophrenia during randomized treatment with intramuscular olanzapine long-acting injection versus oral olanzapine

Metabolic changes were examined in patients with schizophrenia during treatment with either oral olanzapine or olanzapine long-acting injection (LAI). Data were collected from patients who had been stabilized on oral olanzapine (10, 15, or 20 mg/day) for ≥4 weeks and then randomized to either continued olanzapine oral treatment (n = 322) or LAI (n = 599; 150 mg/2 weeks, 405 mg/4 weeks, or 300 mg/2 weeks) for up to 24 weeks. Mean and categorical changes in metabolic parameters were analyzed. Mean changes in weight, glucose, and most lipids were generally not significantly different between treatment groups. Weight changes over time followed similar patterns and were not significantly different at endpoint between the two treatment-formulation groups. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol decreased significantly less among olanzapine LAI-treated patients. Percentages of patients with potentially clinically significant changes in blood glucose and lipid concentrations were similar for the two treatments. Percentages of patients experiencing adverse events related to weight, diabetes, or dyslipidemia were also not significantly different between treatments. Metabolic changes in patients with schizophrenia appeared generally similar during treatment with oral olanzapine or olanzapine LAI.

Long-Term Safety and Tolerability of Open-Label Olanzapine Long-Acting Injection in the Treatment of Schizophrenia: 190-Week Interim Results

The primary objective of this ongoing study is to examine the long-term safety and tolerability of olanzapine long-acting injection (LAI). Current results are from a 190-week interim analysis. Patients were 18–75 years of age with schizophrenia (N = 909) or schizoaffective disorder (N = 22) previously enrolled in 1 of 3 randomized clinical trials of olanzapine LAI. In this open-label extension study, all patients received flexibly-dosed olanzapine LAI every 2–4 weeks. At time of analysis, rate of study discontinuation was 46.3%. The 18-month discontinuation rate was 34.2%. Adverse events in ≥5% of patients were increased weight, insomnia, anxiety somnolence, headache, and nasopharyngitis. There were 26 occurrences of post-injection delirium/sedation syndrome which all fully resolved within 72 hours. Mean weight change was +1.81 kg, with 32.1% of patients experiencing ≥7% weight gain. Mean Clinical Global Impressions-Severity scores remained stable throughout (2.9 at baseline to 2.8 at endpoint). Pharmacokinetic analyses indicated consistent olanzapine plasma concentrations over time, with no evidence of long-term accumulation. Safety profile was consistent with that of oral olanzapine, with the exception of findings specific to intramuscular injection. During the study period, there were 16 (1.7%) occurrences of treatment-emergent diabetes and 1 occurrence of treatment-emergent diabetic ketoacidosis. Percentages of patients with EPS scale-defined treatment-emergent akathisia, parkinsonism, and dyskinesia were 3.3%, 6.6%, and 3.0%, respectively.

Post-injection delirium/sedation syndrome in patients with schizophrenia treated with olanzapine long-acting injection, II: investigations of mechanism

BACKGROUND

Olanzapine long-acting injection (LAI) is a salt-based depot antipsychotic combining olanzapine and pamoic acid. The slow intramuscular dissolution of this practically insoluble salt produces an extended release of olanzapine lasting up to 4 weeks. However, in a small number of injections (< 0.1%), patients experienced symptoms suggestive of olanzapine overdose, a phenomenon that has been termed "post-injection delirium/sedation syndrome" (PDSS). The authors conducted a series of parallel investigations into the possible reasons PDSS events occur.

METHODS

Healthcare providers involved in the PDSS cases were queried for clinical information around the events. Plasma samples from patients experiencing PDSS were collected when possible (12/30 cases) and olanzapine concentrations compared with the known pharmacokinetic profile for olanzapine LAI. Product batches and used vials from the PDSS cases were evaluated for compliance with established manufacturing standards and/or possible user error. Because this depot formulation depends upon slow dissolution at the intramuscular injection site, in-vitro experiments were conducted to assess solubility of olanzapine pamoate in various media.

RESULTS

Injection administrators reported no unusual occurrences during the injection. No anomalies were found with the product batches or the remaining suspension in the used vials. Olanzapine concentrations during PDSS events were higher than the expected 5-73 ng/mL range, with concentrations exceeding 100 ng/mL and in some cases reaching >600 ng/mL during the first hours after injection but then returning to the expected therapeutic range within 24 to 72 hours. Solubility and dissolution rate of olanzapine pamoate were also found to be substantially greater in plasma than in other media such as those approximating the environment in muscle tissue.

CONCLUSIONS

Manufacturing irregularities, improper drug reconstitution, and inappropriate dosing were ruled out as possible causes of PDSS. In-vitro solubility and in-vivo pharmacokinetic investigations suggest that PDSS is related to exposure of the injected product to a substantial volume of blood. This exposure is most likely the result of unintended partial intravascular injection or blood vessel injury during the injection (occurring even with proper injection technique) with subsequent seepage of the medication into the vasculature, which would produce higher than intended olanzapine concentrations and symptoms consistent with PDSS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ID; URL: http://http//www.clinicaltrials.gov/: NCT00094640, NCT00088478, NCT00088491, NCT00088465, and NCT00320489.

Post-injection delirium/sedation syndrome in patients with schizophrenia treated with olanzapine long-acting injection, I: analysis of cases

BACKGROUND

An advance in the treatment of schizophrenia is the development of long-acting intramuscular formulations of antipsychotics, such as olanzapine long-acting injection (LAI). During clinical trials, a post-injection syndrome characterized by signs of delirium and/or excessive sedation was identified in a small percentage of patients following injection with olanzapine LAI.

METHODS

Safety data from all completed and ongoing trials of olanzapine LAI were reviewed for possible cases of this post-injection syndrome. Descriptive analyses were conducted to characterize incidence, clinical presentation, and outcome. Regression analyses were conducted to assess possible risk factors.

RESULTS

Based on approximately 45,000 olanzapine LAI injections given to 2054 patients in clinical trials through 14 October 2008, post-injection delirium/sedation syndrome occurred in approximately 0.07% of injections or 1.4% of patients (30 cases in 29 patients). Symptomatology was consistent with olanzapine overdose (e.g., sedation, confusion, slurred speech, altered gait, or unconsciousness). However, no clinically significant decreases in vital signs were observed. Symptom onset ranged from immediate to 3 to 5 hours post injection, with a median onset time of 25 minutes post injection. All patients recovered within 1.5 to 72 hours, and the majority continued to receive further olanzapine LAI injections following the event. No clear risk factors were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-injection delirium/sedation syndrome can be readily identified based on symptom presentation, progression, and temporal relationship to the injection, and is consistent with olanzapine overdose following probable accidental intravascular injection of a portion of the olanzapine LAI dose. Although there is no specific antidote for olanzapine overdose, patients can be treated symptomatically as needed. Special precautions include use of proper injection technique and a post-injection observation period.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ID; URL: http://http//www.clinicaltrials.gov/: NCT00094640, NCT00088478, NCT00088491, NCT00088465, and NCT00320489.

Olanzapine long-acting injection: a 24-week, randomized, double-blind trial of maintenance treatment in patients with schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of olanzapine long-acting injection for maintenance treatment of schizophrenia.

METHOD

Outpatients with schizophrenia who had maintained stability on an oral regimen of olanzapine (10, 15, or 20 mg/day) for 4 to 8 weeks were randomly assigned to 24 weeks of double-blind treatment with "low" (150 mg every 2 weeks; N=140), "medium" (405 mg every 4 weeks; N=318), or "high" (300 mg every 2 weeks; N=141) doses of olanzapine long-acting injection; a very low reference dose of olanzapine long-acting injection (45 mg every 4 weeks; N=144); or their stabilized dose of oral olanzapine (N=322). Rates of and time to psychotic exacerbation were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methodology.

RESULTS

At 24 weeks, the majority of oral olanzapine-treated patients (93%), as well as most olanzapine long-acting injection-treated patients receiving high (95%), medium (90%), low (84%), and very low doses (69%), remained exacerbation free, with the therapeutic 4-week regimen (medium dose) and pooled 2-week regimen (low and high doses) demonstrating efficacy similar to that of oral olanzapine as well as to each other. The three standard long-acting doses were superior to the very low reference dose based on time to exacerbation. Incidence of weight gain > or = 7% of baseline was 21% for oral olanza-pine compared with 21%, 15%, 16%, and 8% for the high, medium, low, and very low olanzapine long-acting treatment groups, respectively. No clinically significant differences were observed between the long-acting injection and oral olanzapine groups in general safety parameters. Few injection-site reactions occurred (3%). Two patients experienced sedation and delirium consistent with olanzapine overdose following possible accidental intravascular injection.

CONCLUSIONS

Olanzapine long-acting injection was efficacious in maintenance treatment of schizophrenia for up to 24 weeks, with a safety profile similar to oral olanzapine except for injection-related adverse events.

Olanzapine for the treatment of borderline personality disorder: variable dose 12-week randomised double-blind placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Despite the prevalence and clinical significance of borderline personality disorder, its treatment remains understudied.

AIMS

To evaluate treatment with variably dosed olanzapine in individuals with borderline personality disorder.

METHOD

In this 12-week randomised, double-blind trial, individuals received olanzapine (2.5-20 mg/day; n=155) or placebo (n=159) (trial registry: NCT00091650). The primary efficacy measure was baseline to end-point change on the Zanarini Rating Scale for Borderline Personality Disorder (ZAN-BPD) using last-observation-carried-forward methodology.

RESULTS

Both olanzapine and placebo groups showed significant improvements but did not differ in magnitude at end-point (-6.56 v. -6.25, P=0.661). Response rates (50% reduction in ZAN-BPD) were 64.7% with olanzapine and 53.5% with placebo (P=0.062); however, time to response was significantly shorter for olanzapine (P=0.022). Weight gain was significantly greater (2.86 v. -0.35 kg, P<0.001), with higher incidence of treatment-emergent abnormal high levels of prolactin for the olanzapine group.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals treated with olanzapine and placebo showed significant but not statistically different improvements on overall symptoms of borderline personality disorder. The types of adverse events observed with olanzapine treatment appeared similar to those observed previously in adult populations.

Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of olanzapine as maintenance therapy in patients with bipolar I disorder responding to acute treatment with olanzapine

OBJECTIVE

In a placebo-controlled, double-blind study, the authors investigated the efficacy and safety of olanzapine as monotherapy in relapse prevention in bipolar I disorder.

METHOD

Patients achieving symptomatic remission from a manic or mixed episode of bipolar I disorder (Young Mania Rating Scale [YMRS] total score < or =12 and 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HAM-D] score <or =8) at two consecutive weekly visits following 6-12 weeks of open-label acute treatment with 5-20 mg/day of olanzapine were randomly assigned to double-blind maintenance treatment with olanzapine (N=225) or placebo (N=136) for up to 48 weeks. The primary measure of efficacy was time to symptomatic relapse into any mood episode (YMRS score > or =15, HAM-D score > or =15, or hospitalization).

RESULTS

Time to symptomatic relapse into any mood episode was significantly longer among patients receiving olanzapine (a median of 174 days, compared with a median of 22 days in patients receiving placebo). Times to symptomatic relapse into manic, depressive, and mixed episodes were all significantly longer among patients receiving olanzapine than among patients receiving placebo. The relapse rate was significantly lower in the olanzapine group (46.7%) than in the placebo group (80.1%). During olanzapine treatment, the most common emergent event was weight gain; during the open-label phase, patients who received olanzapine gained a mean of 3.1 kg (SD=3.4). In double-blind treatment, placebo patients lost a mean of 2.0 kg (SD=4.4) and patients who continued to take olanzapine gained an additional 1.0 kg (SD=5.2).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to placebo, olanzapine delays relapse into subsequent mood episodes in bipolar I disorder patients who responded to open-label acute treatment with olanzapine for a manic or mixed episode.

Long-term antidepressant efficacy and safety of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination: a 76-week open-label study

BACKGROUND

The olanzapine/fluoxetine combination has demonstrated effectiveness in treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Although this combination is being used by prescribers, this is the first study to examine long-term use. Long-term efficacy and safety were therefore investigated in a group of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) with and without TRD.

METHOD

560 patients who met DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for MDD were enrolled in this 76-week, open-label study (Feb. 2000-July 2002). The Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score was the primary efficacy measure. Safety was assessed via adverse events, vital signs, laboratory analytes, electrocardiography, and extrapyramidal symptom measures.

RESULTS

MADRS mean total scores decreased 7 points from baseline (31.6 [N = 552]) at 1/2 week of treatment, 11 points at 1 week of treatment, and 18 points at 8 weeks of treatment. This effect was maintained to endpoint with a mean decrease of 22 points at 76 weeks. Response and remission rates for the total sample were high (62% and 56%, respectively), and the relapse rate was low (15%). Response, remission, and relapse rates for TRD patients (N = 145) were 53%, 44%, and 25%, respectively. The most frequently reported adverse events were somnolence, weight gain, dry mouth, increased appetite, and headache. At endpoint, there were no clinically meaningful changes in vital signs, laboratory analytes, or electrocardiography. There were no significant increases on any measure of extrapyramidal symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

The olanzapine/fluoxetine combination showed rapid, robust, and sustained improvement in depressive symptoms in patients with MDD, including patients with TRD. The long-term safety profile of the combination was similar to that of its component monotherapies.