Auditory and Visual Hallucinations in a Congenitally Deaf Patient with Schizophrenia: A Case Report and Brief Literature Review.

This report discusses the case of a 54-year-old woman with a complex psychiatric history including schizophrenia, tardive dyskinesia, borderline intellectual function, and congenital deafness that reported auditory and visual hallucinations during an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia. After resuming a previous lithium regimen and introducing olanzapine, the patient improved and was discharged without hallucinations. In our report we explore some of the challenges we faced, discuss similar cases, and examine the unresolved debate about whether congenitally deaf patients can experience auditory hallucinations.

Haloperidol (oral) versus olanzapine (oral) for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders.

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia is often a severe and disabling psychiatric disorder. Antipsychotics remain the mainstay of psychotropic treatment for people with psychosis. In limited resource and humanitarian contexts, it is key to have several options for beneficial, low-cost antipsychotics, which require minimal monitoring. We wanted to compare oral haloperidol, as one of the most available antipsychotics in these settings, with a second-generation antipsychotic, olanzapine. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical benefits and harms of haloperidol compared to olanzapine for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia study-based register of trials, which is based on monthly searches of CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, ISRCTN, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed and WHO ICTRP. We screened the references of all included studies. We contacted relevant authors of trials for additional information where clarification was required or where data were incomplete. The register was last searched on 14 January 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials comparing haloperidol with olanzapine for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Our main outcomes of interest were clinically important change in global state, relapse, clinically important change in mental state, extrapyramidal side effects, weight increase, clinically important change in quality of life and leaving the study early due to adverse effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently evaluated and extracted data. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) and the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial or harmful outcome (NNTB or NNTH) with 95% CI. For continuous data, we estimated mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs. For all included studies, we assessed risk of bias (RoB 1) and we used the GRADE approach to create a summary of findings table. MAIN RESULTS: We included 68 studies randomising 9132 participants. We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in clinically important change in global state (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.02; 6 studies, 3078 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in relapse (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.02; 7 studies, 1499 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Haloperidol may reduce the incidence of clinically important change in overall mental state compared to olanzapine (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.81; 13 studies, 1210 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every eight people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience this improvement. The evidence suggests that haloperidol may result in a large increase in extrapyramidal side effects compared to olanzapine (RR 3.38, 95% CI 2.28 to 5.02; 14 studies, 3290 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every three people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one additional person would experience extrapyramidal side effects. For weight gain, the evidence suggests that there may be a large reduction in the risk with haloperidol compared to olanzapine (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.61; 18 studies, 4302 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every 10 people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience weight increase. A single study suggests that haloperidol may reduce the incidence of clinically important change in quality of life compared to olanzapine (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.91; 828 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every nine people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience clinically important improvement in quality of life. Haloperidol may result in an increase in the incidence of leaving the study early due to adverse effects compared to olanzapine (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.47; 21 studies, 5047 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every 22 people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience this outcome. Thirty otherwise relevant studies and several endpoints from 14 included studies could not be evaluated due to inconsistencies and poor transparency of several parameters. Furthermore, even within studies that were included, it was often not possible to use data for the same reasons. Risk of bias differed substantially for different outcomes and the certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to low. The most common risks of bias leading to downgrading of the evidence were blinding (performance bias) and selective reporting (reporting bias). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the certainty of the evidence was low to very low for the main outcomes in this review, making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions. We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in terms of clinically important global state and relapse. Olanzapine may result in a slightly greater overall clinically important change in mental state and in a clinically important change in quality of life. Different side effect profiles were noted: haloperidol may result in a large increase in extrapyramidal side effects and olanzapine in a large increase in weight gain. The drug of choice needs to take into account side effect profiles and the preferences of the individual. These findings and the recent inclusion of olanzapine alongside haloperidol in the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines should increase the likelihood of it becoming more easily available in low- and middle- income countries, thereby improving choice and providing a greater ability to respond to side effects for people with lived experience of schizophrenia. There is a need for additional research using appropriate and equivalent dosages of these drugs. Some of this research needs to be done in low- and middle-income settings and should actively seek to account for factors relevant to these. Research on antipsychotics needs to be person-centred and prioritise factors that are of interest to people with lived experience of schizophrenia.

Comparative efficacy and safety of olanzapine and risperidone in the treatment of psychiatric and behavioral symptoms of Alzheimer's disease: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Olanzapine and risperidone have emerged as the most widely used drugs as short-term prescription in the treatment of behavioral disturbances in dementia. The present systematic review and meta-analysis was hence performed to investigate the effectiveness and safety profile of olanzapine and risperidone in the treatment of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD), aiming to provide updated suggestion for clinical physicians and caregivers. DESIGN: Prospective controlled clinical studies were included, of which available data was extracted. Outcomes of BEHAVE-AD scores with the variation of grades, specific behaviors variables, as well as safety signals were pooled for the analysis by odds rates and weighted mean differences, respectively. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and WanFang. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Prospective, controlled clinical studies, conducted to compare the effectiveness and safety profile of olanzapine and risperidone in the treatment of BPSD. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Interested data including baseline characteristics and necessary outcomes from the included studies were extracted independently by 2 investigators. BEHAVE-AD scale was adopted to assess the efficacy in the present study. All behaviors were evaluated at the time of the initiation of the treatment, as well as the completion of drugs courses. Adverse events were assessed with the criteria of Treatment Emergent Symptom Scale, or Coding Symbols for a Thesaurus of Adverse Reaction Terms dictionary. Weighted mean difference was used for the pooled analysis. RESULTS: A total of 2427 participants were included in the present meta-analysis. Comparative OR on response rate, and remarkable response rate between olanzapine and risperidone was 0.65 (95% CI: 0.51-0.84; P = .0008), and 0.62 (95% CI: 0.50-0.78; P < .0001), respectively. There were statistical differences observed by olanzapine on the improvement of variables including delusions (WMD, -1.83, 95% CI, -3.20, -0.47), and nighttime behavior disturbances (WMD, -1.99, 95% CI, -3.60, -0.38) when compared to risperidone. CONCLUSION: Our results suggested that olanzapine might be statistically superior to risperidone on the reduction of BPSD of Alzheimer's disease, especially in the relief of delusions and nighttime behavior disturbances. In addition, olanzapine was shown statistically lower risks of agitation, sleep disturbance, and extrapyramidal signs.

A prospective randomized controlled clinical trial investigating the efficacy of low-dose olanzapine in preventing nausea and vomiting associated with oxaliplatin-based and irinotecan-based chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess the clinical efficacy of a 5 mg dosage of olanzapine in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) associated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) among female patients diagnosed with gastrointestinal tract tumors. METHODS: Patients undergoing the oxaliplatin/irinotecan chemotherapy regimen were enrolled in this prospective controlled study. The olanzapine group received a 5 mg dosage of olanzapine along with palonosetron and dexamethasone, while the control group received a standard two-combination regimen consisting of dexamethasone and palonosetron. The primary endpoints included the total protection (TP) rates for the entire age group and the subgroup aged 60 years and above. Secondary endpoints encompassed the total protection rates during the acute and delayed phases within the two age brackets, as well as the total control (TC) rates and complete remission (CR) rates across all three phases (total, acute, and delayed). Additionally, the study involved the assessment of quality of life and the collection of adverse events associated with the interventions. RESULTS: 1) Regarding the primary endpoint, the total phase TP rates within both the entire age group and the age group exceeding 60 years demonstrated superiority in the olanzapine group when compared to the control group (66.7% vs 37.25%, P = 0.003; 68.8% vs 44.4%, P = 0.044). 2) In terms of secondary endpoints, the olanzapine group exhibited superior acute phase TP rates in both age brackets when compared to the control group (P < 0.05). The olanzapine group also demonstrated higher delayed-phase TP rates, TC rates across all three phases, and CR rates within the two age brackets, although the differences were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Furthermore, the quality of life in the olanzapine group surpassed that of the control group for both age brackets (P < 0.05), characterized by enhanced appetite and a higher incidence of drowsiness in the patients treated with olanzapine when compared to those in the control group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Olanzapine can enhance CINV induced by MEC regimen in female patients across all age groups, including the elderly, and therefore improve the quality of life for these patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www.chictr.org.cn/index.html , identifier: ChiCTR20000368269, 25/08/2020.

Cognitive Outcomes in Nonacute Patients With Schizophrenia Treated With Long-Acting Injectable Antipsychotics Versus Oral Antipsychotics.

BACKGROUND: Patients with schizophrenia often face challenges related to cognitive function, affecting their daily functioning and overall quality of life. The choice of antipsychotic treatment may play a crucial role in determining cognitive outcomes. STUDY QUESTION: Our study aimed to investigate whether there was a difference in cognitive ability between the patients with schizophrenia receiving oral antipsychotics (OAP) versus long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAI-APs). STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a cross-sectional study using analytical methods between January 1, 2020, and January 1, 2022. Participants were divided into 2 groups: patients undergoing treatment with OAP and patients undergoing treatment with LAI-AP. All participants underwent version A of Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia (BACS). MEASURES AND OUTCOMES: The primary objective was to compare cognitive function in patients with schizophrenia treated with LAI antipsychotics versus OAP using BACS. Primary outcome measures include overall BACS score, with secondary measures focusing on specific cognitive domains. This study contributes to the understanding of the cognitive effects of different antipsychotic formulations in schizophrenia treatment. RESULTS: Although there was a slightly higher intelligence quotient in the LAI-AP group (102.2 vs. 101.32, P = 0.5401), it was not statistically significant. Olanzapine was the most commonly prescribed antipsychotic, with 48% of patients in the LAI-AP group and 40% in the OAP group. The LAI-AP group outperformed in all BACS evaluations. The most notable difference was in the token motor task (57.78 ± 17.03 vs. 50.04 ± 18.82, P = 0.0335), while the Tower of London test showed the smallest difference (17.26 ± 2.61 vs. 15.48 ± 3.47, P = 0.0046). Regression analysis revealed no significant variance in intelligence quotient scores; however, a significant discrepancy in BACS scores was evident, favoring the LAI treatment for better cognitive outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The use of long-acting antipsychotic treatment in individuals with schizophrenia offers promising advantages in preserving cognitive function.

Atypical Antipsychotic Prescribing in Australian Children and Adolescents: A Survey of Medical Practitioners.

OBJECTIVE: Prescriptions for atypical antipsychotics in children and adolescents are increasing globally. However, a precise understanding of the clinical variables and evidence that prescribers consider before using these agents is lacking. While empirical literature on the long-term safety and efficacy of these medications is available, the literature concerning their use in these younger age groups is relatively sparse. In this study, we examined the current prescribing patterns of medical professionals employed by a public health service in Australia. METHODS: A survey examining their current practice when prescribing atypical antipsychotics to children and adolescents was completed by 103 physicians. Questions were asked about commonly prescribed atypical antipsychotics, indications, dose ranges, target symptoms, duration of treatment, and the evidence base(s) used when making treatment decisions. RESULTS: Physicians prescribed atypical antipsychotics for a wide range of indications in this age group, with the most common agents being risperidone, quetiapine, and olanzapine. Adverse effects were reported as the main reason for treatment discontinuation. More than half of the respondents indicated that the most common source of guidance/evidence they referred to when initiating prescriptions were peers or expert opinion. CONCLUSIONS: Children and adolescents were prescribed a number of atypical antipsychotics for a variety of indications, with variable perceived confidence and a relatively heavy reliance on "own or peer experience" as opposed to good quality evidence. Challenges exist for both prescribers and policymakers, and further "head-to-head" studies are needed in this age group to ensure that a balance is maintained between therapeutic benefit and safety.

Mortality risk and mood stabilizers in bipolar disorder: a propensity-score-weighted population-based cohort study in 2002-2018.

AIMS: Accumulating studies have assessed mortality risk associated with mood-stabilizers, the mainstay treatment for bipolar disorder (BD). However, existing data were mostly restricted to suicide risk, focused on lithium and valproate and rarely adequately adjusted for potential confounders. This study aimed to assess comparative mortality risk with all, natural and unnatural causes between lithium, valproate and three frequently prescribed second-generation antipsychotics (SGA), with adjustment for important confounders. METHODS: This population-based cohort study identified 8137 patients with first-diagnosed BD, who had exposed to lithium (n = 1028), valproate (n = 3580), olanzapine (n = 797), quetiapine (n = 1975) or risperidone (n = 757) between 2002 and 2018. Data were retrieved from territory-wide medical-record database of public healthcare services in Hong Kong. Propensity-score (PS)-weighting method was applied to optimize control for potential confounders including pre-existing chronic physical diseases, substance/alcohol use disorders and other psychotropic medications. PS-weighted Cox proportional-hazards regression was conducted to assess risk of all-, natural- and unnatural-cause mortality related to each mood-stabilizer, compared to lithium. Three sets of sensitivity analyses were conducted by restricting to patients with (i) length of cumulative exposure to specified mood-stabilizer ≥90 days and its medication possession ratio (MPR) ≥90%, (ii) MPR of specified mood-stabilizer ≥80% and MPR of other studied mood-stabilizers <20% and (iii) monotherapy. RESULTS: Incidence rates of all-cause mortality per 1000 person-years were 5.9 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.5-7.6), 8.4 (7.4-9.5), 11.1 (8.3-14.9), 7.4 (6.0-9.2) and 12.0 (9.3-15.6) for lithium-, valproate-, olanzapine-, quetiapine- and risperidone-treated groups, respectively. BD patients treated with olanzapine (PS-weighted hazard ratio = 2.07 [95% CI: 1.33-3.22]) and risperidone (1.66 [1.08-2.55]) had significantly higher all-cause mortality rate than lithium-treated group. Olanzapine was associated with increased risk of natural-cause mortality (3.04 [1.54-6.00]) and risperidone was related to elevated risk of unnatural-cause mortality (3.33 [1.62-6.86]), relative to lithium. The association between olanzapine and increased natural-cause mortality rate was consistently affirmed in sensitivity analyses. Relationship between risperidone and elevated unnatural-cause mortality became non-significant in sensitivity analyses restricted to low MPR in other mood-stabilizers and monotherapy. Valproate- and lithium-treated groups did not show significant differences in all-, natural- or unnatural-cause mortality risk. CONCLUSION: Our data showed that olanzapine and risperidone were associated with higher mortality risk than lithium, and further supported the clinical guidelines recommending lithium as the first-line mood-stabilizer for BD. Future research is required to further clarify comparative mortality risk associated with individual SGA agents to facilitate risk-benefit evaluation of alternative mood-stabilizers to minimize avoidable premature mortality in BD.

The effect of differences in trial design on estimates of efficacy of olanzapine in randomized studies.

BACKGROUND: Differences in trial design may affect estimates of efficacy of psychotropic drugs. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate whether the use of Olanzapine (OLZ) as either investigational or control drug affects the observed efficacy of OLZ. METHODS: We performed a search for Randomized-Controlled Trials (RCTs) in which the efficacy of OLZ is assessed in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. We assessed overall efficacy of OLZ and performed subgroup analyses of studies with OLZ as intervention or comparator. Mixed-effect meta-regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of the 25 RCTs included, OLZ was considered as investigational drug or active control in 13 and 12 studies, respectively. The reduction of PANSS score was greater in trials in which OLZ was used as investigational drug. Multivariate meta-regression models showed that a higher PANSS score at baseline and trial duration were the main predictors of greater PANSS score reduction. CONCLUSIONS: Trials with OLZ used as investigational drug differ from those of trials with OLZ as comparator for baseline PANSS scores and study duration; these differences may produce differences in estimates of efficacy. As a consequence, the severity of illness at enrollment and trial duration should be carefully considered to ensure the reliability of indirect comparisons among antipsychotics.

Precipitated opioid withdrawal in a patient started on olanzapine/samidorphan.

BACKGROUND: Olanzapine/Samidorphan (Lybalvi®) is a novel oral agent for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar I disorder. It was designed to reduce weight gain associated with olanzapine. Samidorphan is an analog of naltrexone, initially intended to treat substance use disorders by antagonizing mu, delta, and kappa opioid receptors. CASE REPORT: We present the case of a 36-year-old who took their first dose of olanzapine/samidorphan shortly before calling for emergency services. The patient took diphenhydramine and an epinephrine autoinjector for what they thought was an allergic reaction but continued to have symptoms. EMS reported involuntary muscle movements thought to be due to dystonia from olanzapine. In the ED, they experienced generalized muscle spasms lasting for several seconds and diaphoresis. Initially, the staff treated for a presumed dystonic reaction to olanzapine and administered diphenhydramine 25 mg IV, diazepam 2 mg IV, midazolam 5 mg IV, and benztropine 1 mg IV without improvement. It was later determined that the patient took 16 mg of buprenorphine SL daily. With this information, precipitated opioid withdrawal was felt to be the likely cause of symptoms. The patient received 16 mg of buprenorphine for an initial Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) score of 11 with repeat COWS of 6. Why should an emergency physician be aware of this? Initiating olanzapine/samidorphan in the setting of chronic opioid therapy may result in precipitated opioid withdrawal. Additional SL buprenorphine may be a reasonable treatment modality.

Olanzapine for young PEople with aNorexia nervosa (OPEN): A protocol for an open-label feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: Antipsychotics are routinely prescribed off-label for anorexia nervosa (AN) despite limited evidence. This article presents a protocol of a study aiming to assess the feasibility of a future definitive trial on olanzapine in young people with AN. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In an open-label, one-armed feasibility study, 55 patients with AN or atypical AN, aged 12-24, receiving outpatient, inpatient or day-care treatment who are considered for olanzapine treatment will be recruited from NHS sites based in England. Assessments will be conducted at screening, baseline and at 8-, 16 weeks, 6- and 12 months. Primary feasibility parameters will be proportions of patients who agree to take olanzapine and who adhere to treatment and complete study assessments. Qualitative methods will be used to explore acceptability of the intervention and study design. Secondary feasibility parameters will be changes in body mass index, psychopathology, side effects, health-related quality of life, carer burden and proportion of participants who would enrol in a future randomised controlled trial. The study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research via Health Technology Assessment programme. DISCUSSION: Olanzapine for young PEople with aNorexia nervosa will inform a future randomised controlled trial on the efficacy and safety of prescribing olanzapine in young people with AN.

Association between olanzapine plasma concentrations and treatment response: A systematic review, meta-analysis and individual participant data meta-analysis.

AIMS: By meta-analysing pooled studies and available individual participant data, we aim to provide new insight on olanzapine therapeutic drug monitoring in schizophrenia. METHOD: We conducted a computerized search of bibliographic databases (Pubmed, Cochrane library, Web of Science and PsycINFO) to identify studies that assessed the relationship between olanzapine plasma concentration and the change in patients' clinical scores. We investigated this relationship with olanzapine plasma level 12h00 post-intake using a random-effects model. RESULTS: 7 studies were included in the pooled data analysis (781 patients). We found no difference in oral dose between responders and non-responders but a significantly higher concentration of 4.50 µg/L in responders (p < 0.01). Olanzapine concentration above the thresholds identified in each study was associated with response (odd ratio = 3.50, p = 0.0007). We identified that non-responder patients showed greater inter-individual variability than responders. In the individual data analysis (159 patients), we found no relationship between dose and clinical response but an association between plasma level and response in the shape of a parabolic curve. The Receiver Operating Characteristic curve found a threshold of 22.07 µg/L to identify responders (96% sensitivity, 86% specificity) and a threshold of 56.47 µg/L to identify a decreased probability of response. CONCLUSION: In contrast to oral dose, our work confirmed that plasma olanzapine levels are associated with clinical response and should therefore be used to optimise treatment. We determined a treatment response threshold of 22.07 µg/L and suggest that a concentration above the therapeutic window may result in a decreased response.

Investigating the efficacy and safety of olanzapine prophylaxis for opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (JORTC-PAL20): a study protocol for an open-label, single-arm exploratory study.

INTRODUCTION: In opioid therapy for cancer pain, opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) occur in 20%-40% of patients during initial opioid treatment or increasing opioid doses. OINV result in failure to achieve pain relief due to poor opioid adherence. Therefore, antiemetics are used to prevent OINV, but their efficacy and safety in this context have not yet been fully elucidated. Olanzapine is a promising antiemetic for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This single-arm, single-centre exploratory study will evaluate the prophylactic antiemetic efficacy and safety of 5 mg olanzapine in patients with cancer pain who are withholding initial regular opioid therapy. Thirty-five patients will be enrolled. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients achieving complete control (CC) of OINV during 5 days of opioid treatment. CC was defined as the absence of emetic episodes, no need for rescue medication to treat nausea, and minimal or no nausea (3 or less on an 11-point categorical scale). Secondary endpoints include the complete response, defined as no emetic episodes and no use of rescue medication during the overall assessment period, the time from opioid initiation to first emetic episode, the time from opioid initiation to first rescue antiemetic administration, and adverse events graded by Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 1.0 and CTCAE version 5.0. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study protocol was approved by National Cancer Center Hospital Certified Review Board. The results will be used as preliminary data to conduct a validation study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCT) jRCTs031220008.

Effectiveness of antipsychotics for managing agitated delirium in patients with advanced cancer: a secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective observational study in Japan (Phase-R).

PURPOSE: Delirium is a common and serious comorbidity in patients with advanced cancer, necessitating effective management. Nonetheless, effective drugs for managing agitated delirium in patients with advanced cancer remain unclear in real-world settings. Thus, the present study aimed to explore an effective pharmacotherapy for this condition. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective observational study in Japan. The analysis included patients with advanced cancer who presented with agitated delirium and received pharmacotherapy. Agitation was defined as a score of the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale for palliative care (RASS-PAL) of ≥ 1. The outcome was defined as -2 ≤ RASS-PAL ≤ 0 at 72 h after the initiation of pharmacotherapy. Multiple propensity scores were quantified using a multinomial logistic regression model, and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for haloperidol, chlorpromazine, olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone. RESULTS: The analysis included 271 patients with agitated delirium, and 87 (32%) showed -2 ≤ RASS-PAL ≤ 0 on day 3. The propensity score-adjusted OR of olanzapine was statistically significant (OR, 2.91; 95% confidence interval, 1.12 to 7.80; P = 0.030). CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that olanzapine may effectively improve delirium agitation in patients with advanced cancer.

Pharmacological treatments for psychotic depression: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There are no recommendations based on the efficacy of specific drugs for the treatment of psychotic depression. To address this evidence gap, we did a network meta-analysis to assess and compare the efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments for psychotic depression. METHODS: In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov, CENTRAL, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to Nov 23, 2023 for randomised controlled trials published in any language that assessed pharmacological treatments for individuals of any age with a diagnosis of a major depressive episode with psychotic features, in the context of major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder in any setting. We excluded continuation or maintenance trials. We screened the study titles and abstracts identified, and we extracted data from relevant studies after full-text review. If full data were not available, we requested data from study authors twice. We analysed treatments for individual drugs (or drug combinations) and by grouping them on the basis of mechanisms of action. The primary outcomes were response rate (ie, the proportion of participants who responded to treatment) and acceptability (ie, the proportion who discontinued treatment for any reason). We calculated risk ratios and did separate frequentist network meta-analyses by using random-effects models. The risk of bias of individual studies was assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the confidence in the evidence with the Confidence-In-Network-Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42023392926. FINDINGS: Of 6313 reports identified, 16 randomised controlled trials were included in the systematic review, and 14 were included in the network meta-analyses. The 16 trials included 1161 people with psychotic depression (mean age 50·5 years [SD 11·4]). 516 (44·4%) participants were female and 422 (36·3%) were male; sex data were not available for the other 223 (19·2%). 489 (42·1%) participants were White, 47 (4·0%) were African American, and 12 (1·0%) were Asian; race or ethnicity data were not available for the other 613 (52·8%). Only the combination of fluoxetine plus olanzapine was associated with a higher proportion of participants with a treatment response compared with placebo (risk ratio 1·91 [95% CI 1·27-2·85]), with no differences in terms of safety outcomes compared with placebo. When treatments were grouped by mechanism of action, the combination of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor with a second-generation antipsychotic was associated with a higher proportion of treatment responses than was placebo (1·89 [1·17-3·04]), with no differences in terms of safety outcomes. In head-to-head comparisons of active treatments, a significantly higher proportion of participants had a response to amitriptyline plus perphenazine (3·61 [1·23-10·56]) and amoxapine (3·14 [1·01-9·80]) than to perphenazine, and to fluoxetine plus olanzapine compared with olanzapine alone (1·60 [1·09-2·34]). Venlafaxine, venlafaxine plus quetiapine (2·25 [1·09-4·63]), and imipramine (1·95 [1·01-3·79]) were also associated with a higher proportion of treatment responses overall. In head-to-head comparisons grouped by mechanism of action, antipsychotic plus antidepressant combinations consistently outperformed monotherapies from either drug class in terms of the proportion of participants with treatment responses. Heterogeneity was low. No high-risk instances were identified in the bias assessment for our primary outcomes. INTERPRETATION: According to the available evidence, the combination of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and a second-generation antipsychotic-and particularly of fluoxetine and olanzapine-could be the optimal treatment choice for psychotic depression. These findings should be taken into account in the development of clinical practice guidelines. However, these conclusions should be interpreted cautiously in view of the low number of included studies and the limitations of these studies. FUNDING: None.