Efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine in patients with schizophrenia who switched from haloperidol, olanzapine or risperidone
A post hoc analysis of the SPECTRUM trial was carried out to evaluate whether the improvements in efficacy and tolerability gained on switching to quetiapine occurred consistently for patients previously treated with either: haloperidol (n = 43); olanzapine (n = 66); or risperidone (n = 55) monotherapy. Patients were initiated with quetiapine to 400 mg/day over 7 days, and then flexibly dosed (300-750 mg/day) for 11 weeks. The mean (SD) modal dose of quetiapine was 501 (138) mg/day in the haloperidol subgroup, 472 (147) mg/day in the olanzapine subgroup and 485 (141) mg/day in the risperidone subgroup at the study endpoint. Switching to quetiapine induced significant improvements from baseline in PANSS scores, with least square mean changes in total scores of -32.5, -15.4, and -18.5 for patients previously treated with haloperidol, olanzapine and risperidone, respectively, (all p < 0.001 vs baseline). Significant improvements were also noted in CDSS scores, particularly for patients clinically depressed at baseline (all p < 0.001 vs baseline). There were significant reductions in EPS on the SAS and BAS for all subgroups (all p < 0.001 vs baseline). Switching to quetiapine produced efficacy and tolerability benefits regardless of whether their previous antipsychotic was haloperidol, olanzapine or risperidone.
Available from: Hugo A Jørgensen
- "Some studies have indicated a marked superiority of clozapine in reducing the risk of suicide and depressive symptoms compared to the other antipsychotics . In some recent studies quetiapine has demonstrated anti-depressive properties in both clinically depressed and non-depressed populations [9,21,22]. There are indications that studies sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry selectively report data in favour of the sponsored drug . "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Efficacy studies indicate anti-depressive effects of at least some second generation antipsychotics (SGAs). The Bergen Psychosis Project (BPP) is a 24-month, pragmatic, industry-independent, randomized, head-to-head comparison of olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone and ziprasidone in patients acutely admitted with psychosis. The aim of the study is to investigate whether differential anti-depressive effectiveness exists among SGAs in a clinically relevant sample of patients acutely admitted with psychosis.
Adult patients acutely admitted to an emergency ward for psychosis were randomized to olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone or ziprasidone and followed for up to 2 years. Participants were assessed repeatedly using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Depression factor (PANSS-D) and the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS).
A total of 226 patients were included. A significant time-effect showing a steady decline in depressive symptoms in all medication groups was demonstrated. There were no substantial differences among the SGAs in reducing the PANSS-D score or the CDSS sum score. Separate analyses of groups with CDSS sum scores > 6 or ≤6, respectively, reflecting degree of depressive morbidity, revealed essentially identical results to the primary analyses. There was a high correlation between the PANSS-D and the CDSS sum score (r = 0.77; p < 0.01).
There was no substantial difference in anti-depressive effectiveness among olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone or ziprasidone in this clinically relevant sample of patients acutely admitted to hospital for symptoms of psychosis. Based on our findings we can make no recommendations concerning choice of any particular SGA for targeting symptoms of depression in a patient acutely admitted with psychosis.
ClinicalTrials.gov ID; URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/: NCT00932529.
BMC Psychiatry 08/2011; 11(article 145):145. DOI:10.1186/1471-244X-11-145 · 2.21 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Quetiapine, in common with clozapine, has a greater affinity for 5-HT(2) receptors than D(2) receptors and preclinical studies have consistently predicted efficacy against schizophrenia, with a low potential for causing extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS). In clinical trials, the efficacy of quetiapine was consistently superior to placebo and it was effective against both positive and negative symptoms. Quetiapine was also at least as effective as chlorpromazine or haloperidol in improving the symptoms of acute schizophrenia and moreover was associated with higher response rates. The consistent, placebo-level incidence of EPS associated with quetiapine in clinical trials was not seen with haloperidol. Thus, the combination of efficacy comparable to other antipsychotic agents, with an acceptable side effect and tolerability profile, provides support for the use of quetiapine as a first-line antipsychotic agent in the long-term treatment of schizophrenia.
European Neuropsychopharmacology 11/2001; 11 Suppl 4:S405-13. DOI:10.1016/S0924-977X(01)00111-0 · 4.37 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Although the debate on whether new antipsychotics have advantages over the old neuroleptics has recently been refueled by the first publication of the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness results, one of the new challenges in the pharmacological management of schizophrenia patients is to choose among the new-generation drugs.
Earlier work has compared these medications primarily to traditional antipsychotics and until very recently there was little published information on the relative efficacy/safety of new-generation antipsychotics.
This review covers studies wherein therapeutic effects and adverse events of these drugs in schizophrenia patients were compared in head-to-head studies and that were published in 2005. Information is clearly more homogenous on the safety profile side, while the available evidence still offers little help for the clinicians' daily struggles to find the optimally effective antipsychotic for an individual schizophrenia patient.
Current Opinion in Psychiatry 04/2006; 19(2):128-34. DOI:10.1097/01.yco.0000214336.21754.8c · 3.94 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.