Intramuscular Olanzapine and Intramuscular Haloperidol in Acute Schizophrenia: Antipsychotic Efficacy and Extrapyramidal Safety During the First 24 Hours of Treatment

To determine the antipsychotic efficacy and extrapyramidal safety of intramuscular (IM) olanzapine and IM haloperidol during the first 24 hours of treatment of acute schizophrenia. Method: Patients (n = 311) with acute schizophrenia were randomly allocated (2:2: 1) to receive IM olanzapine (10.0 mg, n = 131), IM haloperidol (7.5 mg, n = 126), or IM placebo (n = 54). Results: After the first injection, IM olanzapine was comparable to IM haloperidol and superior to IM placebo for reducing mean change scores from baseline on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BRPS) Positive at 2 hours (-2.9 olanzapine, -2.7 haloperidol, and -1.5 placebo) and 24 hours (-2.8 olanzapine, -3.2 haloperidol, and -1.3 placebo); the BPRS Total at 2 hours (-14.2 olanzapine,-13.1 haloperidol, and -7.1 placebo) and 24 hours (-12.8 olanzapine, -12.9 haloperidol, and -6.2 placebo); and the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scale at 24 hours (-0.5 olanzapine, -0.5 haloperidol, and -0.1 placebo). Patients treated with IM olanzapine had significantly fewer incidences of treatment-emergent parkinsonism (4.3% olanzapine vs 13.3% haloperidol, P = 0.036), but not akathisia (1.1% olanzapine vs 6.5% haloperidol, P = 0.065), than did patients treated with IM haloperidol; they also required significantly less anticholinergic treatment (4.6% olanzapine vs 20.6% haloperidol, P < 0.001). Mean extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) safety scores improved significantly from baseline during IM olanzapine treatment, compared with a general worsening during IM haloperidol treatment (Simpson-Angus Scale total score mean change: -0.61 olanzapine vs 0.70 haloperidol; P < 0.001; Barnes Akathisia Scale global score mean change: -0.27 olanzapine vs 0.01 haloperidol; P < 0.05). Conclusion: IM olanzapine was comparable to IM haloperidol for reducing the symptoms of acute schizophrenia during the first 24 hours of treatment, the efficacy of both being evident within 2 hours after the first injection. In general, more EPS were observed during treatment with IM haloperidol than with IM olanzapine

Use of historical control data for assessing treatment effects in clinical trials

Clinical trials rarely, if ever, occur in a vacuum. Generally, large amounts of clinical data are available prior to the start of a study, particularly on the current study’s control arm. There is obvious appeal in using (i.e., ‘borrowing’) this information. With historical data providing information on the control arm, more trial resources can be devoted to the novel treatment while retaining accurate estimates of the current control arm parameters. This can result in more accurate point estimates, increased power, and reduced type I error in clinical trials, provided the historical information is sufficiently similar to the current control data. If this assumption of similarity is not satisfied, however, one can acquire increased mean square error of point estimates due to bias and either reduced power or increased type I error depending on the direction of the bias. In this manuscript, we review several methods for historical borrowing, illustrating how key parameters in each method affect borrowing behavior, and then, we compare these methods on the basis of mean square error, power and type I error. We emphasize two main themes. First, we discuss the idea of ‘dynamic’ (versus ‘static’) borrowing. Second, we emphasize the decision process involved in determining whether or not to include historical borrowing in terms of the perceived likelihood that the current control arm is sufficiently similar to the historical data. Our goal is to provide a clear review of the key issues involved in historical borrowing and provide a comparison of several methods useful for practitioners

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

Objective: This study assessed the efficacy of olanzapine in delaying or preventing conversion to psychosis and reducing symptoms in people with prodromal symptoms of schizophrenia. Method: 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. Results: 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). Conclusions: 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 warrante

40 Years of the Biopharmaceutical Section: Celebrating our Past, Planning for our Future

Over its long history, the Biopharmaceutical (BIOP) Section of the American Statistical Association (ASA) has fostered community and created a shared sense of purpose among statisticians in the medical product industry. BIOP was founded as the Pharmaceutical Subsection of the Biometrics Section in 1968. As a response to the subsection’s tremendous growth in membership over the succeeding 12 years, it was granted full section status in February 1980. This approval came with one condition, that at least 500 ASA members would join the new Section. Once the membership milestone was reached, the Biopharmaceutical Section (BIOP) formally came into existence on January 1st, 1981. Since its inception, the Biopharmaceutical Section has been one of the largest and most active sections within the ASA. BIOP sponsors the annual Regulatory-Industry Statistics Workshop and the biennial Nonclinical Biostatistics Conference which have been very successful at creating community among statisticians from across government, industry, and academia. BIOP members receive valuable benefits such as web-based training courses; paper, poster, and scholarship awards; membership to scientific working groups; leadership training; and mentoring services. This panel discussion will celebrate the 40th Anniversary of the Biopharmaceutical Section and discuss how the Section will continue to lead the way to address the challenges of medical product development in the 21st century. Six past chairs will participate in this panel discussion

A randomized placebo-controlled phase 3 study of mesenchymal stem cells induced to secrete high levels of neurotrophic factors in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

Introduction/aimsAmyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a fatal neurodegenerative illness with great unmet patient need. We aimed to evaluate whether mesenchymal stem cells induced to secrete high levels of neurotrophic factors (MSC-NTF), a novel autologous cell-therapy capable of targeting multiple pathways, could safely slow ALS disease progression.MethodsThis randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study enrolled ALS participants meeting revised El Escorial criteria, revised ALS Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS-R) ≥25 (screening) and ≥3 ALSFRS-R points decline prior to randomization. Participants received three treatments of MSC-NTF or placebo intrathecally. The primary endpoint evaluated efficacy of MSC-NTF through a responder analysis and safety. A change in disease progression post-treatment of ≥1.25 points/mo defines a clinical response. A pre-specified analysis leveraged baseline ALSFRS-R of 35 as a subgroup threshold.ResultsOverall, MSC-NTF treatment was well tolerated; there were no safety concerns. Thirty-three percent of MSC-NTF and 28% of placebo participants met clinical response criteria at 28 wk (odds ratio [OR]&nbsp;=&nbsp;1.33, P&nbsp;=&nbsp;.45); thus, the primary endpoint was not met. A pre-specified analysis of participants with baseline ALSFRS-R ≥ 35 (n&nbsp;=&nbsp;58) showed a clinical response rate at 28 wk of 35% MSC-NTF and 16% placebo (OR&nbsp;=&nbsp;2.6, P&nbsp;=&nbsp;.29). Significant improvements in cerebrospinal biomarkers of neuroinflammation, neurodegeneration, and neurotrophic factor support were observed with MSC-NTF, with placebo unchanged.DiscussionThe study did not reach statistical significance on the primary endpoint. However, a pre-specified subgroup suggests that MSC-NTF participants with less severe disease may have retained more function compared to placebo. Given the unmet patient need, the results of this trial warrant further investigation