Explore the vast range of titles available.

This study compared the effectiveness of four second-generation antipsychotic agents (olanzapine, risperidone, quetiapine, and ziprasidone) with that of an older agent, perphenazine, in patients with chronic schizophrenia. Olanzapine was the most effective agent but was associated with greater weight gain and more adverse metabolic changes. Perphenazine was as effective as risperidone, quetiapine, and ziprasidone. This study compared the effectiveness of four second-generation antipsychotic agents (olanzapine, risperidone, quetiapine, and ziprasidone) with that of an older agent, perphenazine, in patients with chronic schizophrenia. Antipsychotic drugs have become the cornerstone of treatment for schizophrenia. The first-generation “conventional” antipsychotic drugs are high-affinity antagonists of dopamine D2 receptors that are most effective against psychotic symptoms but have high rates of neurologic side effects, such as extrapyramidal signs and tardive dyskinesia. 1 The introduction of second-generation, or “atypical,” antipsychotic drugs promised enhanced efficacy and safety. 2 The atypical agents differ pharmacologically from previous antipsychotic agents in their lower affinity for dopamine D2 receptors and greater affinities for other neuroreceptors, including those for serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine 1A , 2A , 2C , 3 , 6 , and 7 ) and norepinephrine . . .

Objective To assess risks of mortality associated with use of individual antipsychotic drugs in elderly residents in nursing homes.Design Population based cohort study with linked data from Medicaid, Medicare, the Minimum Data Set, the National Death Index, and a national assessment of nursing home quality.Setting Nursing homes in the United States.Participants 75 445 new users of antipsychotic drugs (haloperidol, aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, ziprasidone). All participants were aged ≥65, were eligible for Medicaid, and lived in a nursing home in 2001-5.Main outcome measures Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare 180 day risks of all cause and cause specific mortality by individual drug, with propensity score adjustment to control for potential confounders.Results Compared with risperidone, users of haloperidol had an increased risk of mortality (hazard ratio 2.07, 95% confidence interval 1.89 to 2.26) and users of quetiapine a decreased risk (0.81, 0.75 to 0.88). The effects were strongest shortly after the start of treatment, remained after adjustment for dose, and were seen for all causes of death examined. No clinically meaningful differences were observed for the other drugs. There was no evidence that the effect measure modification in those with dementia or behavioural disturbances. There was a dose-response relation for all drugs except quetiapine.Conclusions Though these findings cannot prove causality, and we cannot rule out the possibility of residual confounding, they provide more evidence of the risk of using these drugs in older patients, reinforcing the concept that they should not be used in the absence of clear need. The data suggest that the risk of mortality with these drugs is generally increased with higher doses and seems to be highest for haloperidol and least for quetiapine.

In this randomized trial of atypical antipsychotic medications in patients with Alzheimer's disease and psychosis, aggression, or agitation, effectiveness (as measured by the time to drug discontinuation) was similar for olanzapine, risperidone, quetiapine, and placebo. Patients were more likely to stop taking placebo because of lack of efficacy and were likely to stop taking antipsychotic medications because of intolerability. In this trial of atypical antipsychotic medications in patients with Alzheimer's disease, effectiveness was similar for olanzapine, risperidone, quetiapine, and placebo. Patients were more likely to stop taking placebo because of lack of efficacy and to stop taking antipsychotic medications because of intolerability. Delusions, hallucinations, aggression, and agitation affect more than half of patients with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. 1 – 4 Antipsychotic drugs are used to treat these behaviors and symptoms and are among the most frequently used psychotropic drugs in Alzheimer's disease. 5 , 6 Second-generation (atypical) antipsychotic drugs have been considered to be at least as effective as conventional antipsychotic agents such as haloperidol, with a lower risk of most adverse effects, 7 and are used as first-line pharmacologic treatments for patients with dementia. 5 , 8 However, there is a dearth of placebo-controlled and active-drug–controlled, randomized trials and longer-term data from controlled trials regarding the . . .

Second-generation antipsychotic drugs were introduced over a decade ago for the treatment of schizophrenia; however, their purported clinical effectiveness compared with first-generation antipsychotic drugs is still debated. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of second-generation antipsychotic drugs with that of a low dose of haloperidol, in first-episode schizophrenia. We did an open randomised controlled trial of haloperidol versus second-generation antipsychotic drugs in 50 sites, in 14 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18–40 years, and met diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, or schizoaffective disorder. 498 patients were randomly assigned by a web-based online system to haloperidol (1–4 mg per day; n=103), amisulpride (200–800 mg per day; n=104), olanzapine (5–20 mg per day; n=105), quetiapine (200–750 mg per day; n=104), or ziprasidone (40–160 mg per day; n=82); follow-up was at 1 year. The primary outcome measure was all-cause treatment discontinuation. Patients and their treating physicians were not blinded to the assigned treatment. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN68736636. The number of patients who discontinued treatment for any cause within 12 months was 63 (Kaplan-Meier estimate 72%) for haloperidol, 32 (40%) for amisulpride, 30 (33%) for olanzapine, 51 (53%) for quetiapine, and 31 (45%) for ziprasidone. Comparisons with haloperidol showed lower risks for any-cause discontinuation with amisulpride (hazard ratio [HR] 0·37, [95% CI 0·24–0·57]), olanzapine (HR 0·28 [0·18–0·43]), quetiapine (HR 0·52 [0·35–0·76]), and ziprasidone (HR 0·51 [0·32–0·81]). However, symptom reductions were virtually the same in all the groups, at around 60%. This pragmatic trial suggests that clinically meaningful antipsychotic treatment of first-episode of schizophrenia is achievable, for at least 1 year. However, we cannot conclude that second-generation drugs are more efficacious than is haloperidol, since discontinuation rates are not necessarily consistent with symptomatic improvement. AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis.

Publication bias compromises the validity of evidence-based medicine, yet a growing body of research shows that this problem is widespread. Efficacy data from drug regulatory agencies, e.g., the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), can serve as a benchmark or control against which data in journal articles can be checked. Thus one may determine whether publication bias is present and quantify the extent to which it inflates apparent drug efficacy. FDA Drug Approval Packages for eight second-generation antipsychotics-aripiprazole, iloperidone, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, risperidone, risperidone long-acting injection (risperidone LAI), and ziprasidone--were used to identify a cohort of 24 FDA-registered premarketing trials. The results of these trials according to the FDA were compared with the results conveyed in corresponding journal articles. The relationship between study outcome and publication status was examined, and effect sizes derived from the two data sources were compared. Among the 24 FDA-registered trials, four (17%) were unpublished. Of these, three failed to show that the study drug had a statistical advantage over placebo, and one showed the study drug was statistically inferior to the active comparator. Among the 20 published trials, the five that were not positive, according to the FDA, showed some evidence of outcome reporting bias. However, the association between trial outcome and publication status did not reach statistical significance. Further, the apparent increase in the effect size point estimate due to publication bias was modest (8%) and not statistically significant. On the other hand, the effect size for unpublished trials (0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.07 to 0.39) was less than half that for the published trials (0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 0.54), a difference that was significant. The magnitude of publication bias found for antipsychotics was less than that found previously for antidepressants, possibly because antipsychotics demonstrate superiority to placebo more consistently. Without increased access to regulatory agency data, publication bias will continue to blur distinctions between effective and ineffective drugs.

Background In 2006, the National Institute of Clinical and Health Excellence (NICE) guidelines for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) recommended anti-psychotics as a class for SSRI treatment resistant OCD. The article aims to systematically review and conduct a meta-analysis on the clinical effectiveness of atypical anti-psychotics augmenting an SSRI. Methods Studies that were double-blind randomized controlled trials of an atypical antipsychotic against a placebo, for a minimum of 4 weeks, in adults with OCD, were included. Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) scores were the primary outcome measure. Inclusion criteria included Y-BOCS score of 16 or more and at least one adequate trial of a SSRI or clomipramine for at least 8 weeks prior to randomization. Data sources included Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), trial registries and pharmaceutical databases and manufacturers up to September 2013. Forest-plots were drawn to display differences between drug and placebo on the Y-BOCS. Results Two studies found aripiprazole to be effective in the short-term. There was a small effect-size for risperidone or anti-psychotics in general in the short-term. We found no evidence for the effectiveness of quetiapine or olanzapine in comparison to placebo. Conclusions Risperidone and aripiprazole can be used cautiously at a low dose as an augmentation agent in non-responders to SSRIs and CBT but should be monitored at 4 weeks to determine efficacy.

This study evaluated once-daily extended-release quetiapine fumarate (quetiapine XR) as adjunctive therapy in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) with inadequate response to ongoing antidepressant treatment. In this 8-wk (6-wk active treatment/2-wk post-treatment drug-discontinuation/follow-up), multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase III study, 446 patients were randomized to quetiapine XR 150 mg/d, 300 mg/d, or placebo adjunct to ongoing antidepressant treatment. The primary endpoint was the change from randomization to week 6 in Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. At week 6, MADRS total scores significantly improved with quetiapine XR 300 mg/d vs. placebo (−14.7 vs. −11.7, p<0.01). Quetiapine XR 300 mg/d showed significant improvements vs. placebo for: MADRS total score from week 1 onwards; MADRS response [(⩾50% total score reduction) 58.9% vs. 46.2%, p<0.05] and remission [(total score ⩽8) 42.5% vs. 24.5%, p<0.01] rates; Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) (−13.53 vs. −10.80, p<0.01) and Clinical Global Impression – Severity of illness (CGI-S) change (−1.52 vs. −1.23, p<0.05) at week 6. For quetiapine XR 150 mg/d, improvements were not significantly different vs. placebo, except for MADRS (weeks 1 and 2) and HAMD (week 6) total scores. Withdrawal rates due to adverse events (AEs) were: quetiapine XR 150 mg/d 11.5%, 300 mg/d 19.5%, and placebo 0.7%. The most common AEs (>10%) with quetiapine XR were dry mouth, somnolence, sedation, dizziness, constipation, nausea, insomnia, headache, and fatigue. In this study, quetiapine XR 300 mg/d as adjunctive therapy in patients with MDD with an inadequate response to ongoing antidepressant treatment was effective at week 6. However, the difference from placebo for quetiapine XR 150 mg/d at week 6 was not statistically significant. Both doses studied (150 and 300 mg/d) were effective at week 1 and generally well tolerated.

Atypical antipsychotic medications are widely used to treat delusions, aggression, and agitation in people with Alzheimer disease (AD) and other dementia. Several clinical trials have not shown efficacy, and there have been concerns about adverse events. The objective of this study was to assess the evidence for efficacy and adverse events of atypicals for people with dementia MEDLINE, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, meetings, presentations, and information obtained from sponsors were used in this study. Published and unpublished randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group trials in patients with AD or dementia of atypical antipsychotics marketed in the United States were studied. Clinical and trials characteristics, outcomes, and adverse events were extracted. Data were checked by a second reviewer. Fifteen trials including 16 contrasts of atypical antipsychotics with placebo met selection criteria: aripiprazole (k = 3), olanzapine (k = 5), quetiapine (k = 3), and risperidone (k = 5). A total of 3,353 patients were randomized to drug and 1,757 to placebo. Standard meta-analysis methods were used to summarize outcomes. Quality of the reporting of trials varied. Efficacy on rating scales was observed by meta-analysis for aripiprazole and risperidone, but not for olanzapine. Response rates were frequently not reported. There were smaller effects for less severe dementia, outpatients, and patients selected for psychosis. Approximately one-third dropped out without overall differences between drug and placebo. Adverse events were mainly somnolence and urinary tract infection or incontinence across drugs, and extrapyramidal symptoms or abnormal gait with risperidone or olanzapine. Cognitive test scores worsened with drugs. There was no evidence for increased injury, falls, or syncope. There was a significant risk for cerebrovascular events, especially with risperidone; increased risk for death overall was reported elsewhere. Small statistical effect sizes on symptom rating scales support the evidence for the efficacy of aripiprazole and risperidone. Incomplete reporting restricts estimates of response rates and clinical significance. Dropouts and adverse events further limit effectiveness. Atypicals should be considered within the context of medical need and the efficacy and safety of alternatives. Individual patient meta-analyses are needed to better assess clinical significance and effectiveness.

ABSTRACT Objective: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine in Chinese patients hospitalized with acute bipolar mania. Methods: This was a 4-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, lithium-controlled, parallel-group study. Secondary endpoints in the primary analysis were: response rate (≥ 50% decrease from baseline in YMRS total score) and remission rate as defined using 3 criteria: YMRS total score ≤ 12, YMRS total score ≤ 12 + MADRS total score ≤ 8, and YMRS total score ≤ 8. Other measures included: change from baseline at Day 28 in YMRS, PANSS, and MADRS total score. Adverse event (AE) data were collected throughout the study. Results: 73 (94.8%) quetiapine and 62 (80.5%) lithium patients completed the study. Mean (SD) quetiapine doses for the ITT population and responders were 648.2 (111.84) mg/dayand 637.5 (118.78) mg/day, respectively, while mean lithium concentrations for the ITT population and responders were 0.80 (0.28) mmol/L and 0.80 (0.22) mmol/L, respectively. Of patients who responded to quetiapine at Day 28, 88.3% were receiving 600-800 mg/day. At Day 28 YMRS response rate was significantly greater with quetiapine than lithium (77.9% vs. 59.7%, p = 0.0132), and remission rates using the 3 criteria were significantly greater with quetiapine than lithium: YMRS total score ≤ 12 (70.1% vs. 48.1%, p = 0.0071), YMRS ≤ 12 + MADRS ≤ 8 (70.1% vs. 48.1%; p = 0.0071), and YMRS ≤ 8 (51.9% vs. 32.5%; p = 0.0147). Significant decreases were observed in PANSS, YMRS, and MADRS total scores for both groups. The most common AEs experienced by patients receiving quetiapine were constipation, dizziness, diarrhea, alanine aminotransferase increase, palpitations, aspartate aminotransferase increase, pharyngolaryngeal pain, upper respiratory tract infection and dry mouth. In patients receiving lithium, the most common AEs were nausea (16.9%), constipation (13.0%), vomiting (13.0%), nasopharyngitis (11.7%), dizziness (6.5%), diarrhea (6.5%), and upper respiratory tract infection (6.5%). Conclusion: Quetiapine was shown to be clinically effective in patients with acute bipolar mania. There were side effects with quetiapine similar to those reported in other studies that included other ethnic populations of patients.

Objective: Quetiapine is an atypical antipsychotic with demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of adolescent schizophrenia and pediatric bipolar mania. Large, placebo-controlled studies of interventions in pediatric bipolar depression are lacking. The current study investigated the efficacy and safety of quetiapine extended-release (XR) in patients 10–17 years of age, with acute bipolar depression. Methods: This multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study investigated quetiapine XR (dose range, 150–300 mg/day) in pediatric outpatients with an American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed., Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) diagnosis of bipolar I or bipolar II disorder (current or most recent episode depressed) treated for up to 8 weeks (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00811473). The primary study outcome was mean change in Children's Depression Rating Scale–Revised (CDRS-R) total score. Secondary efficacy outcomes included CDRS-R-based response and remission rates. Results: Of 193 patients randomized to treatment, 144 patients completed the study (75.3% of quetiapine XR group [n=70]; 74.0% of placebo group [n=74]). Least squares mean changes in CDRS-R total score at week 8 were: −29.6 (SE, 1.65) with quetiapine XR and −27.3 (SE, 1.60) with placebo, a between-treatment group difference of −2.29 (SE, 1.99; 95% CI, −6.22, 1.65; p=0.25; mixed-model for repeated measures analysis). Rates of response and remission did not differ significantly between treatment groups. The safety profile of quetiapine XR was broadly consistent with the profile reported previously in adult studies of quetiapine XR and pediatric studies of quetiapine immediate-release (IR). Potentially clinically significant elevations in clinical chemistry values included triglycerides (9.3%, quetiapine XR; 1.4%, placebo group) and thyroid stimulating hormone (4.7%, quetiapine XR; 0%, placebo group). An adverse event potentially related to diabetes mellitus occurred in 3.3% of the quetiapine XR versus no adverse events in the placebo group. Conclusions: Quetiapine XR did not demonstrate efficacy relative to placebo in this 8 week study of pediatric bipolar depression. Quetiapine XR was generally safe and well tolerated.