METHODS: This was an open-label, prospective, observational study involving 339 patients from Indonesia, Pakistan, Malaysia, Thailand, and Singapore. Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Clinical Global Impression Severity scale (CGI-S), and safety parameters were assessed.
RESULTS: 62% of patients responded to olanzapine treatment, defined a priori as a reduction in BPRS of > 40% from baseline. Following the 8-week treatment period, the BPRS total, BPRS positive, BPRS negative, and CGI-S scores decreased by 18.7 (95% CI: 17.4, 20.2), 6.1 (5.6, 6.6), 2.9 (2.6, 3.2), and 1.5 points (median 1.0), respectively (p < 0.0001). In total, 31 of the 339 patients (9.1%) failed to complete the study according to the study description. Loss to follow-up and personal conflict were the most common reasons for discontinuation. There were 30 treatment-emergent adverse events with six serious cases, assessed as unrelated to study drug, reported.
CONCLUSION: This study further demonstrates the effectiveness and safety of olanzapine in actual clinical practice settings, in reducing the severity of psychopathological symptoms in Asian patients with schizophrenia.
METHODS: This is a naturalistic study conducted in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Patients with first-episode schizophrenia and related psychosis were recruited from Kuala Lumpur Hospital. WHOQOL-BREF, side effects of medications and other variables were assessed after 1 year of treatment in routine clinical situation.
RESULTS: The study comprised 120 adults. There were no significant statistical differences between groups concerning subjective quality of life, extrapyramidal side effects and employment. Significant less benzhexol usage was reported among AAs (P<0.001) compared to CAs and sulpiride.
CONCLUSION: Patients treated with CAs, sulpiride or AAs experienced similar quality of life, clinical and health outcomes after 1 year commencing treatment. Overall, the results are in line with other major pragmatic clinical trials. This study also found sulpiride cost-effective.