Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Atypical Antipsychotics Assessed at ACNP
Atypical Antipsychotics Assessed at ACNP
Do people like the term atypical? This question was asked by David Pickar,
M.D., chief of the National Institute of Mental Health's Experimental
Therapeutics Branch, who chaired the symposium "Tracking the Next
Generation of Antipsychotic Drugs."
"It's a term that has outlived its usefulness," rejoined the symposium
moderator, John Kane, M.D., department of psychiatry, Hillside Hospital, Glen
Oaks, N.Y. "What about 'novel?'" quipped Nina Schooler, Ph.D., professor of
psychiatry and director of the Psychosis Research Program, University of
Pittsburgh, amid discussion that quickly achieved consensus that new
antipsychotic agents which offer therapeutic advantages over older
neuroleptics will, themselves, soon become typical.
Kane then put semantics and categorizations aside, and challenged the
psychopharmacologists to conduct investigations of the new compounds that
will assist clinicians in choosing an optimal antipsychotic for a particular
patient at a particular stage in that patient's illness.
One limitation of the current antipsychotic research data base, Kane recounted,
is that subject populations have invariably comprised patients with chronic,
entrenched illness.
"The patient population that we're studying in most of the antipsychotic drug
development programs is really one segment of the population," said Kane,
who is professor of psychiatry at Albert Einstein College of Medicine. "We
have to make some decisions and choices based on the data that are generated
by those particular trials."
"Without having these comparative groups," he said, "it's difficult to know the
responsiveness of the population you're studying, and we can draw erroneous
conclusions about a new compound."
"We're ultimately interested in where patients end up," he said. "What patients
improve slightly or not at all? Were differences found between the new drug
and comparators clinically as well as statistically significant?"
Other areas that Kane hopes can be elucidated in future clinical trials include:
whether one antipsychotic offers sufficient therapeutic advantage to justify
switching from another agent; the extent to which such adverse effects as
akinesia and akathisia confound measures of clinical response; the optimal
doses of study drugs and comparators from investigations with multiple dosage
arms of each; and whether maintenance antipsychotic regimens can be
evaluated for long-term efficacy, safety and compliance.
For the olanzapine studies, Davis related finding the difference in effect size
favoring olanzapine to be highly statistically significant.
"With the introduction of these atypical agents," Tran said, "we have set a new
level of expectations for these [antipsychotic] compounds."
The three criteria set forth by the investigators to judge atypicality relative to
the effects of typical neuroleptics were: fewer extrapyramidal symptoms
(EPS); broader efficacy, especially in treating negative symptoms; and less
effect on the dopamine-sensitive hormone prolactin. Tran indicated that the
development of olanzapine and risperidone to achieve this atypical
antipsychotic profile has followed different paths, and resulted in the two
compounds having distinctly different chemical structures, receptor-binding
affinities, animal neuropharmacology, pharmacokinetics and clinical risk-
benefit profiles.
The severity of the patients' psychotic disorders at their entry into the study
was quantified as a minimum BPRS score of 24 (BPRS extracted from the
PANSS, items 0 to 6). Approximately two-thirds of the study population was
male; the average age of the entire study population was 36 years; and their
illness onset had occurred at an average age of 23 years.
The starting dose of olanzapine was 15 mg once daily for the first week; and 1
mg risperidone twice daily, increased by 1 mg per dose daily to 3 mg twice
daily for days 3 through 7, in accordance with the approved labeling. Each
drug was thereafter titrated for optimal effect within the respective daily dose
ranges of 5 mg to 20 mg olanzapine and 4 mg to 12 mg risperidone. The
resultant daily mean modal dose of olanzapine was 16.9 mg at eight weeks and
17.1 mg by 28 weeks; and the daily mean modal dose of risperidone was 7.3
mg at both times. Critical discussion at the study presentation included an
observation that the risperidone dosage required by this study population was
higher than the average risperidone dose that marketing data indicate is used in
the United States.
At the doses employed, olanzapine best met the investigators' first criteria for
atypicality by having less EPS liability than risperidone; as monitored with the
Simpson-Angus Scale (SAS) for parkinsonism, the Barnes Akathisia Scale
(BAS), the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) and in the
frequency of use of anti-EPS medications. A statistically significantly smaller
proportion of patients receiving olanzapine (17.9%) requested one or more
doses of anticholinergic medication during the eight-week acute treatment
phase than the 31.5% of patients receiving risperidone who required anti-EPS
medication during that period.
Tran summarized from this 28-week trial that olanzapine evidenced the key
criteria for atypical antipsychotic effects more often and to a greater degree
than risperidone. Olanzapine was associated with fewer side effects, less
elevation of prolactin and greater efficacy in mood symptoms. At the dosages
employed, he concluded, olanzapine was statistically significantly more likely
than risperidone to evoke greater initial therapeutic response and less likely to
be associated with relapse during maintenance therapy.
Marder indicated that he finds relatively small differences between the new
antipsychotics and typical neuroleptics in treating positive symptoms of
schizophrenia, and posits that their therapeutic advantages arise from other
properties.
"I think, now, people are beginning to look in much more refined ways at the
activities of the drugs," Marder commented. "In the past, clinicians focused on
positive symptoms. Now there is a greater focus on negative symptoms,
cognitive symptoms and mood."
Lieberman described the pattern and course of schizophrenia and the rationale
for early intervention with atypical anti-psychotics. Lieberman presented data
from a pilot study of risperidone and clozapine (Clozaril) in first-episode
schizophrenia, which he conducted with colleagues from Hillside Hospital
Research Department (poster presentation by Delbert Robinson, M.D., and
others).
The treatment response during the first episode has been found to be distinct
from that observed later in the course of illness, Lieberman explained, with
patients in this early stage often having both a better therapeutic response to an
antipsychotic and more sensitivity to its side effects (Lieberman 1996;
McEvoy and others). The apparently greater therapeutic response at this stage
of illness has then been associated with improved levels of recovery, as well as
better long-term functioning (Wyatt). The atypical antipsy-chotics may have
particular utility at this early stage, Lieberman suggested, not only for their
increased efficacy, but because they are more likely to be tolerated in
therapeutic doses than neuroleptics with greater EPS liability.
Lieberman posits an association between the duration of psychosis and poorer
treatment response and outcome. He suggested that the pathophysiologic
process underlying the psychiatric illness, when left unabated by incomplete
antipsychotic effect or delayed treatment, progresses to cause the persistent
morbidity of schizophrenia. The first episode of the illness is then, he
proposed, the most opportune time for therapeutic intervention.
Lieberman suggested that the question of "whether there is any added value"
from employing atypical antipsychotics earlier in illness onset should be
assessed with measures of antipsychotic efficacy beyond drug effects on
positive and negative symptoms. He urged assessment of the possible
antipsychotic benefit for cognitive deficits, affective symptoms, functional
impairment, as well as their effectiveness in preventing relapse and subsequent
deterioration.
A possible indication that olanzapine exerted greater efficacy and was better
tolerated than haloperidol was the higher number of olanzapine-treated patients
completing the six-week acute phase of the trial (72.9%) than did the 37.5% of
those treated with haloperidol. Analysis of the reasons patients dropped out of
the study revealed that 33.3% of haloperidol patients left the study due to lack
of drug efficacy, in comparison to 13.6% of those receiving olanzapine; and
16.7% of haloperidol-treated patients left because of adverse events, compared
to 1.7% of those receiving olanzapine.
The adverse events prompting patients receiving haloperidol to leave the study
were one report each of akathisia, hypertonia, abnormal thoughts and EPS,
while depression was the adverse condition reported by the single olanzapine-
treated patient to leave the study for any treatment-emergent event. Analysis of
all treatment-emergent adverse events in the first-episode cohort during the
six-week acute phase revealed that 18.6%, 15.3% and 15.3% of olanzapine-
treated patients, respectively, experienced somnolence, asthenia and headache
while no haloperidol-treated patients experienced these events. In turn, 8.3% of
haloperidol patients experienced agitation, 8.3% experienced movement
disorder and 16.7% experienced hypokinesia, reactions that did not occur in
patients receiving olanzapine. An approximate 29% incidence each of
hypertonia and of akathisia was associated with haloperidol compared to an
8.5% incidence of hypertonia and 5.1% incidence of akathisia associated with
olanzapine.
"This tells me," said Sanger, "that the first-episode [patients, in contrast to
those having multiple episodes] have a much greater advantage in going on the
atypical olanzapine, than a typical [neuroleptic]."
Treatment-Resistant Patients
Evidence that increased therapeutic benefit can occur from either changing
from a typical neuroleptic regimen to an atypical anti-psychotic or switching
one atypical antipsychotic compound for another is most pertinent for patients
who have not previously responded to treatment. Both olanzapine and
risperidone were investigated for their efficacy in treatment-resistant patients,
and these results were reported at the ACNP.
Stephen Erhart, M.D., research fellow at the West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs
Medical Center, presented the poster of a comparison of risperidone and
haloperidol in patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia conducted by his
colleagues (Ames and others). In their trial, 67 patients with schizophrenia
were identified with a history of nonresponse to typical neuroleptics. After
administering placebo during a one-week washout period, these patients were
randomly assigned in a double-blind manner to two four-week treatment
phases. In the initial month, patients received fixed daily doses of either 6 mg
risperidone or 15 mg haloperidol. In the subsequent month, their clinicians
could adjust their dose within ranges of between 3 mg and 15 mg of
risperidone and 5 mg to 30 mg of haloperidol. The patients were then
evaluated weekly during the two months of treatment with measures of
psychopathology, neurotoxicity, mood, obsessive-compulsive symptoms and
subjective response.
At the time Conley reported their interim results to the ACNP, 89 patients had
met the inclusion criteria for treatment resistance and had been titrated over
one week to either olanzapine 25 mg daily or chlorpromazine 1200 mg daily,
and maintained on these fixed- dose regimens for seven additional weeks.
Fifty-six patients completing the blinded trial then opted to continue, after a
washout period, in an open study of olanzapine treatment at an initial daily
dose of 10 mg for the first week, then titrated for optimal benefit and tolerance
up to 25 mg daily at the discretion of the investigator clinician. If responsive
after seven weeks of open olanzapine therapy, patients could continue on
olanzapine maintenance. The results were that 48% of the patients were found
improved, with a 20% or greater reduction in total BPRS scores or CGI scores
of less than or equal to 3 or a 1 point fall on the CGI.
After a washout period of five to nine days, 50 patients were enrolled for open-
label treatment with olanzapine initiated at 15 mg per day, and titrated for
optimal benefit within a daily dose range of 5 mg to 25 mg for a treatment
period of up to 18 weeks. Forty-five patients continued participation (64%
male, 36% female, mean age 38.7 years) and were evaluated for drug efficacy
weekly for the first six weeks and monthly for the remaining 12 weeks.
"At least [there is] the lack of relationship in the context of clinical trials or
clinical change," he explained. "That is, you can get large changes in
symptoms of schizophrenia without getting changes in the various cognitive
measures."
Barbara Cornblatt, Ph.D., Hillside Hospital, Glen Oaks, N.Y., described her
research findings which indicate that attentional deficits are independent of the
clinical symptoms of schizophrenia (Cornblatt and others). Her evidence,
which counters the traditional view that impaired attention is a component of
the schizophrenia clinical syndrome, includes a longitudinal study of more than
350 subjects at high and low risk for schizophrenia in which attentional
dysfunctions followed a different developmental course from the onset of
psychotic symptoms.
While there is little correlation between neurocognitive deficits and the clinical
syndrome of schizophrenia, Green summarized several studies which have
ascertained associations between specific deficits and patients' lack of
functioning (Green). For example, verbal memory is associated with all types
of functional outcomes; the level of vigilance is related to social problem
solving and skill acquisition. Measures of executive functioning relate to
community functioning, but not social problem-solving. And the negative
symptoms of schizophrenia are associated with social problem-solving, but not
skill acquisition.
"If we're going to start talking about the treatment of neurocognition and
psychotic symptoms--then it challenges the definition of treatment efficacy,"
he said. "It raises the question of whether or not 'symptom reduction,' narrowly
defined, should be broadened to include something more akin to 'disability
reduction.'"
The possibility that new antipsychotics may have greater utility in the
neurocognitive domain of schizophrenia than older neuroleptics was posed at
this symposium by separate studies related, respectively, by Marder and by
Dilip Jeste, M.D., professor of psychiatry and neuroscience, University of
California, San Diego, and the San Diego VAMC. Marder's group at the West
Los Angeles VAMC and at Camarillo State Hospital reported differential
effects of risperidone and haloperidol on both the spatial and verbal working
memory of patients with schizophrenia (Marder and others 1996b). The study
concluded that benztropine, which is more frequently administered to patients
taking haloperidol, has a negative effect on spatial working memory. The
relative benefit from risperidone appeared greatest among those patients
having the poorest initial performance on verbal working memory measures.
Jeste reported comparing the results of a global cognitive test--i.e., the Mini-
Mental State Examination (MMSE) in middle-aged and elderly patients with
schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders receiving risperidone in one study
and haloperidol and other conventional neuroleptics in another (Jeste and
others). While acknowledging that this comparison was not double-blinded,
Jeste indicated that there was a significant improvement in MMSE score with
risperidone which did not occur with older neuroleptics. The investigators
wrote in their conclusion, "It is not clear, however, whether atypical
antipsychotics such as risperidone produce cognitive enhancement directly, as
the effect might have been secondary to a greater improvement in
psychopathology along with fewer extrapyramidal symptoms compared to
typical neuroleptics."
References
1. Ames D, Wirshing WC, Barringer DM, et al. Risperidone versus haloperidol in treatment-
resistant schizophrenia. Presented at the 35th Annual Meeting of the American College of
Neuropsychopharmacology, Dec. 13, 1996; San Juan, P.R.
6. Davis JM, Janicak PG, Sharma RP. Does serotonin blockade augment antipsychotic drug
response? Presented at the 35th Annual Meeting of the American College of
Neuropsychopharmacology, Dec. 13, 1996; San Juan, P.R.