Randomized, double-blind trial of olanzapine versus placebo in patients prodromally symptomatic for psychosis

Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
American Journal of Psychiatry (Impact Factor: 13.56). 06/2006; 163(5):790-9. DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.163.5.790
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This study assessed the efficacy of olanzapine in delaying or preventing conversion to psychosis and reducing symptoms in people with prodromal symptoms of schizophrenia.
This randomized trial occurred at four North American clinics in the Prevention Through Risk Identification, Management, and Education project. Outpatients received olanzapine (5-15 mg/day, N=31) or placebo (N=29) during a 1-year double-blind treatment period and no treatment during a 1-year follow-up period. Efficacy measures included the conversion-to-psychosis rate and Scale of Prodromal Symptoms scores.
During the treatment year, 16.1% of olanzapine patients and 37.9% of placebo patients experienced a conversion to psychosis, a nearly significant difference. The hazard of conversion among placebo patients was about 2.5 times that among olanzapine-treated patients, which also approached significance. In the follow-up year, the conversion rate did not differ significantly between groups. During treatment, the mean score for prodromal positive symptoms improved more in the olanzapine group than in the placebo group, and the mixed-model repeated-measures least-squares mean score showed significantly greater improvement between weeks 8 and 28 with olanzapine. The olanzapine patients gained significantly more weight (mean=8.79 kg, SD=9.05, versus mean=0.30 kg, SD=4.24).
A significant treatment difference in the conversion-to-psychosis rate was not demonstrated. However, these results may be influenced by low power. The nearly significant differences suggest that olanzapine might reduce the conversion rate and delay onset of psychosis. Olanzapine was efficacious for positive prodromal symptoms but induced weight gain. Further treatment research in this phase of illness is warranted.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The concept of indicated prevention has proliferated in psychiatry, and accumulating evidence suggests that it may indeed be possible to prevent or delay the onset of a first episode of psychosis though adequate interventions in individuals deemed at clinical high risk (CHR) for such an event. One challenge undermining these efforts is the relatively poor predictive accuracy of clinical assessments used in practice for CHR individuals, often leading to diagnostic and therapeutic uncertainty reflected in clinical guidelines promoting a 'watch and wait' approach to CHR patients. Using data from published studies, and employing predictive models based on the odds-ratio form of Bayes' rule, we simulated scenarios where clinical interview, neurocognitive testing, structural magnetic resonance imaging and electrophysiology are part of the initial assessment process of a CHR individual (extended diagnostic approach). Our findings indicate that for most at-risk patients, at least three of these assessments are necessary to arrive at a clinically meaningful differentiation into high- intermediate-, and low-risk groups. In particular, patients with equivocal results in the initial assessments require additional diagnostic testing to produce an accurate risk profile forming part of the comprehensive initial assessment. The findings may inform future research into reliable identification and personalized therapeutic targeting of CHR patients, to prevent transition to full-blown psychosis.
    Journal of Neural Transmission 10/2014; DOI:10.1007/s00702-014-1325-9 · 2.87 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Cognitive deficits are a distinct feature among people at ultra-high risk (UHR) for psychosis and pose a barrier to functional recovery. Insufficient evidence exists on how to ameliorate these cognitive deficits in patients at UHR for psychosis and hence improve daily living and quality of life. The aim of the trial is to investigate whether cognitive remediation can improve cognitive and psychosocial function in patients at UHR for psychosis.Methods The FOCUS trial (Function and Overall Cognition in Ultra-high risk States) is a randomised, parallel group, observer-blinded clinical trial enrolling 126 patients meeting the standardised criteria of being at UHR for psychosis. Patients are recruited from psychiatric in- and outpatient facilities in the Copenhagen catchment area. Patients are randomised to one of the two treatment arms: cognitive remediation plus standard treatment versus standard treatment. The cognitive remediation consists of 24 weekly group-based and manualised sessions targeting neurocognition and social cognition. In addition to the group sessions, the patients will be offered 12 individual sessions aiming at maximising the transfer of the effects of the cognitive training to their everyday lives. Follow-up assessments will be conducted at 6 and 12 months after randomisation. The primary outcome is the composite score on the Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia at cessation of treatment after 6 months. Secondary outcomes are social and daily functioning, psychosis-like symptoms, negative symptomatology, and depressive symptomatology as measured with the Personal and Social Performance Scale, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale-Expanded Version, Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms, and the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale.DiscussionThis is the first trial to evaluate the effects of neurocognitive and social cognitive remediation in UHR patients. The FOCUS trial results will provide evidence on the effect of targeted and comprehensive cognitive rehabilitation on cognition, daily living, and symptomatology as well as long-term outcome in preventing transition to psychosis in UHR patients.Trial NCT 02098408. Date of registration 18 March 2014.
    Trials 01/2015; 16(1):25. DOI:10.1186/s13063-014-0542-8 · 2.12 Impact Factor
  • Schizophrenia Research 04/2010; 117(2-3):291-291. DOI:10.1016/j.schres.2010.02.484 · 4.43 Impact Factor


Available from
May 27, 2014