Duggan L, Fenton M, Dardennes R M, El-Dosoky A, Indran S
Developmental Disabilities Division, St Andrew's Hospital, Billing Rd, Northampton, Northamptonshire, UK, NN1 5DG.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000(2):CD001359. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001359.
Olanzapine is an atypical antipsychotic that is reported to be effective without producing the disabling extrapyramidal side effects associated with the older, typical antipsychotic drugs.
To determine the clinical effects and safety of olanzapine as compared with placebo, typical and other atypical antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia and schizophreniform psychoses.
The reviewers undertook electronic searches of Biological Abstracts (1980-1999), The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 1999), The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (September 1999), EMBASE (1980-1999), MEDLINE (1966-1999), and PsycLIT (1974-1999). References of all identified studies were searched for further trials, and the reviewers contacted relevant pharmaceutical companies and authors of trials.
All randomised clinical trials comparing olanzapine to placebo or any antipsychotic treatment for those with schizophrenia or schizophreniform psychoses.
Data were independently extracted. For homogeneous dichotomous data the random effects relative risk (RR), the 95% confidence intervals (CI) and, where appropriate, the number needed to treat (NNT) were calculated on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data the reviewers calculated weighted mean differences.
Twenty trials are included. Attrition from olanzapine versus placebo studies was so great (olanzapine - 61%, placebo - 73% by six weeks, RR 0.85 CI 0. 7-0.98, NNT 8 CI 5-40) that interpretation of results is problematic. Olanzapine appeared superior to placebo at six weeks for the outcome of 'no important clinical response' (RR 0.88 CI 0.8-0.98, NNT 8 CI 5-27), but trial data regarding negative symptoms are equivocal for this comparison. Dizziness and dry mouth were more common in the olanzapine-treated group, and, although not statistically significant, the olanzapine group gained more weight. Data from several small trials are incomplete; but, for the short term outcome of 'no important clinical response', olanzapine seem as effective as typical antipsychotics (n=2778, RR 0.9 CI 0.76-1.06). Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) data tended to be equivocal but Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) rating of total score and negative and positive symptom sub-scores favoured olanzapine. With high attrition in both groups (olanzapine - 36%, typical drug - 49% by 6 weeks, n=2738, RR 0.85 CI 0.66-1.1; olanzapine - 83%, typical drug - 90% by 1 year, n=2738, RR 0.9 CI 0. 86-1.02), the assumptions included in all continuous data are considerable. Participants allocated olanzapine experienced fewer extrapyramidal side effects than people given haloperidol. Weight change data for the short term are not conclusive (n=2455, WMD 0.8kg CI -0.6-2.2) but the three to 12 month results suggest an average gain of four kilograms (n=233, WMD 4 CI 0.3-7.8). It is difficult to distinguish between olanzapine and other atypical drugs, although it may cause fewer extrapyramidal side effects than risperidone (n=339, RR 0.6 CI 0.4-0.9, NNH 8 CI 4-29). Olanzapine did cause more weight gain than its comparators but current data are not statistically significant (3-12 months, n=535, WMD 2.2kg CI -0.6-5). One study (n=180) found no clear differences between olanzapine and clozapine for people with treatment-resistant illness.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: For people with schizophrenia olanzapine may offer antipsychotic efficacy with fewer extrapyramidal side effects than typical drugs but more weight gain. The large proportions of participants leaving the studies early, in the large multi-centre trials makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions on clinical effects. Large, long-term randomised trials with participants, interventions and primary outcomes that are familiar to those wishing to help those with schizophrenia are long overdue.
奥氮平是一种非典型抗精神病药物,据报道其疗效显著,且不会产生与传统典型抗精神病药物相关的致残性锥体外系副作用。
比较奥氮平与安慰剂、典型及其他非典型抗精神病药物治疗精神分裂症和精神分裂症样精神病的临床疗效和安全性。
综述作者对《生物学文摘》(1980 - 1999年)、《考克兰图书馆》(1999年第2期)、《考克兰精神分裂症研究组注册库》(1999年9月)、《医学文摘数据库》(1980 - 1999年)、《医学索引》(1966 - 1999年)和《心理学文摘》(1974 - 1999年)进行了电子检索。对所有已识别研究的参考文献进行检索以寻找更多试验,综述作者还联系了相关制药公司和试验作者。
所有比较奥氮平与安慰剂或任何抗精神病药物治疗精神分裂症或精神分裂症样精神病患者的随机临床试验。
数据由独立人员提取。对于同质二分数据,在意向性分析基础上计算随机效应相对危险度(RR)、95%置信区间(CI),并在适当情况下计算治疗所需人数(NNT)。对于连续性数据,综述作者计算加权平均差。
纳入20项试验。奥氮平与安慰剂研究中的失访率非常高(6周时奥氮平组为61%,安慰剂组为73%,RR 0.85,CI 0.7 - 0.98,NNT 8,CI 5 - 40),这使得结果的解释存在问题。在6周时,对于“无重要临床反应”这一结果,奥氮平似乎优于安慰剂(RR 0.88,CI 0.8 - 0.98,NNT 8,CI 5 - 27),但关于阴性症状的试验数据在此比较中不明确。头晕和口干在奥氮平治疗组中更常见,并且尽管无统计学意义,但奥氮平组体重增加更多。几项小型试验的数据不完整;但对于“无重要临床反应”的短期结果,奥氮平似乎与典型抗精神病药物一样有效(n = 2778,RR 0.9,CI 0.76 - 1.06)。简明精神病评定量表(BPRS)数据往往不明确,但阳性和阴性症状量表(PANSS)总分及阴性和阳性症状子量表评分倾向于支持奥氮平。两组失访率都很高(6周时奥氮平组为36%,典型药物组为49%,n = 2738,RR 0.85,CI 0.66 - 1.1;1年时奥氮平组为83%,典型药物组为90%,n = 2738,RR 0.9,CI 0.86 - 1.02),所有连续性数据所包含的假设存在很大问题。分配接受奥氮平治疗的参与者比接受氟哌啶醇治疗的人锥体外系副作用更少。短期体重变化数据尚无定论(n = 2455,加权平均差0.8kg,CI - 0.6 - 2.2),但3至12个月的结果表明平均体重增加4千克(n = 233,加权平均差4,CI 0.3 - 7.8)。尽管奥氮平可能比利培酮引起的锥体外系副作用更少(n = 339,RR 0.6,CI 0.4 - 0.9,NNH 8,CI 4 - 29),但难以区分奥氮平与其他非典型药物。奥氮平确实比其对照药物导致更多体重增加,但目前数据无统计学意义(3至12个月,n = 535,加权平均差2.2kg,CI - 0.6 - 5)。一项研究(n = 180)发现,对于难治性疾病患者,奥氮平与氯氮平之间无明显差异。
对于精神分裂症患者,奥氮平可能具有抗精神病疗效,与典型药物相比锥体外系副作用更少,但体重增加更多。在大型多中心试验中,很大比例的参与者提前退出研究,这使得难以就临床疗效得出确切结论。早就应该开展大型、长期的随机试验,其参与者、干预措施和主要结局应是那些希望帮助精神分裂症患者的人所熟悉的。