Pomaglumetad methionil (LY2140023 monohydrate) is a potent and highly selective agonist for the metabotropic glutamate mGluR2 and mGluR3 receptors. We present results of a pivotal clinical study H8Y-MC-HBBM assessing the efficacy of LY2140023 in improving symptoms as a monotherapy in patients with an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia. Enrolled adult patients (ages 18–65) with schizophrenia who had experienced an exacerbation of symptoms within 2 weeks prior to study entry. Patients (N = 1013) were randomized 2:2:2:1 to treatment with placebo, LY40 mg twice daily (BID), LY80 mg BID, or risperidone (RIS) 2 mg BID for 6 weeks after a one-week blinded placebo lead-in. The primary outcome assessed change from baseline in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score in an overall schizophrenia population and a predefined subpopulation which excluded non-Hispanic white patients with the A/A genotype at the HTR2A SNP rs7330461. Neither LY2140023 dose showed significant improvement compared to placebo on PANSS total in either population (1-sided p-value [significance level], overall: LY40, p = .154 [0.01]; LY80, p = .698 [0.01], subpopulation: LY40, p = .033 [0.0025]; LY80, p = .659 [0.0025], MMRM analysis). RIS statistically separated from placebo in both populations (p < .001 [0.05]). There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of serious adverse events, and no seizures on LY2140023. LY2140023 treatment did not demonstrate efficacy in populations studied. Overall, LY2140023 treatment was generally well tolerated with no new adverse safety findings compared to previous trials. Further understanding of the role of glutamate as a therapeutic target in schizophrenia is needed. A Phase 2, Multicenter, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Comparator Study of 2 Doses of LY2140023 Versus Placebo in Patients With DSM-IV-TR Schizophrenia ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01086748 .

Results of controlled clinical trials should be confirmed through safety and effectiveness studies in nonselected patient cohorts treated according to routine clinical practice. Outpatients with schizophrenia (ICD-10 criteria) entered this prospective, naturalistic study when they received a new prescription for an antipsychotic drug. Treatment assignment was based on purely clinical criteria, as the study did not include any experimental intervention. Safety was evaluated through the collection of spontaneous adverse events and a specific questionnaire for extrapyramidal symptoms. Global clinical status was measured through the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) and the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scales. From the 2967 patients included, 2128 patients were treated with olanzapine as monotherapy or combined with other drugs (olanzapine group), and 821 were treated with other antipsychotic drugs as monotherapy or combined with other drugs (control group). There were no statistical differences between treatment groups at baseline regarding age, gender, disease duration, or severity of symptoms. Olanzapine was well tolerated and effective in this study. Overall incidence of adverse events was significantly lower in the olanzapine group compared with the control group (p < .001). Somnolence and weight gain were significantly more frequent in the olanzapine group, and akathisia, dystonia, extrapyramidal syndrome, hypertonia, hypokinesia, and tremor were significantly higher in the control group. Clinical improvement at endpoint, measured through the mean change in the CGI-S and the GAF, was significantly higher in the olanzapine group compared with the control group (p = .004). These results show that olanzapine is safe and effective in nonselected schizophrenic outpatients and are consistent with the efficacy and safety profile that olanzapine has shown in previous controlled clinical trials.

In order to compare the effectiveness of different antipsychotic drugs in the treatment of schizophrenia it is very important to evaluate subjective response and compliance in patient cohorts treated according to routine clinical practice. Outpatients with schizophrenia entered this prospective, naturalistic study when they received a new prescription for an antipsychotic drug. Treatment assignment was based on purely clinical criteria, as the study did not include any experimental intervention. Patients treated with olanzapine, risperidone or haloperidol were included in the analysis. Subjective response was measured using the 10-item version of the Drug Attitude Inventory (DAI-10), and treatment compliance was measured using a physician-rated 4 point categorical scale. A total of 2128 patients initiated treatment (as monotherapy) with olanzapine, 417 with risperidone, and 112 with haloperidol. Olanzapine-treated patients had significantly higher DAI-10 scores and significantly better treatment compliance compared to both risperidone- and haloperidol-treated patients. Risperidone-treated patients had a significantly higher DAI-10 score compared to haloperidol-treated patients. Subjective response and compliance were superior in olanzapine-treated patients, compared to patients treated with risperidone and haloperidol, in routine clinical practice. Differences in subjective response were explained largely, but not completely, by differences in incidence of EPS.

Olanzapine rapid-acting intramuscular (IM) injection is an atypical antipsychotic drug already used overseas and recently approved in Japan. The objective of this study was to confirm the efficacy of rapid-acting IM olanzapine 10 mg was greater than IM placebo in patients with exacerbation of schizophrenia with acute psychotic agitation by comparing changes from baseline to 2 hours after the first IM injection, as measured by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Excited Component (PANSS-EC) total score. We conducted a placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study in Japanese patients diagnosed with schizophrenia according to the diagnostic criteria specified in the DSM-IV-TR. Patients were randomized to 2 treatment groups: IM olanzapine (10 mg) or IM placebo. The primary efficacy outcome was the change in PANSS-EC from baseline to 2 hours after the first IM injection. Treatment groups were compared with an analysis of variance model which included treatment and site as factors. During the 24-hour treatment period, safety was assessed by clinical examination and laboratory investigations, electrocardiograms, extrapyramidal symptoms scales, and recording spontaneously reported adverse events. Of the 91 randomized patients, 90 patients (45 IM olanzapine-group; 45 IM placebo-group) were in the full analysis set. The mean change of PANSS-EC total score from baseline to 2 hours after the first IM injection (mean±standard deviation) was −9.2±4.5 for the IM olanzapine group and −2.8±5.6 for the IM placebo group. The difference between treatment groups was statistically significant (p<.001). There were no deaths, serious adverse events, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) leading to discontinuation, severe TEAEs, or instances of oversedation in this study. There were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups in the proportion of patients with potentially clinically significant changes in laboratory tests, vital signs (blood pressure and pulse rate), electrocardiograms, and treatment-emergent extrapyramidal symptoms. The efficacy of IM olanzapine 10 mg in patients with exacerbation of schizophrenia with acute psychotic agitation was greater than IM placebo in the primary efficacy measure, PANSS-EC. Intramuscular olanzapine 10 mg was shown to be generally safe and tolerable, and could be a new option for treatment of schizophrenia in Japan. NCT00970281

The efficacy and safety of olanzapine monotherapy are evaluated in Japanese patients from a large, global study of bipolar depression. This is an analysis of Japanese patients from a 6-week, global (Japan, China, Korea, Taiwan, and the United States), randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase 3 study of patients with a depressive episode of bipolar I disorder. The primary outcome was baseline-to-endpoint change in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. Secondary outcome measures included the Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar Version Severity of Illness Scale (CGI-BP), the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17) total score, the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score, and rates of response (≥50% baseline-to-endpoint reduction in MADRS total score), recovery, and remission. Of the 156 Japanese patients, 104 had been allocated to olanzapine and 52 to placebo. All results are baseline-to-endpoint change. Compared to placebo, patients in the olanzapine group experienced greater improvement in the primary outcome measure, MADRS total score (−14.9 vs. −10.7; p = .01). They also had greater reductions in the following secondary measures: CGI- BP Depression (−1.41 vs. -0.89; p = .008), CGI-BP Bipolar (−1.31 vs. −0.83; p = .01), HAMD-17 (−11.7 vs. −7.9; p < .01), and YMRS (-0.32 vs. 0.34; p = .03). Differences in rates of response, recovery, and remission were not statistically significant. A greater proportion of olanzapine-treated patients reported treatment- emergent adverse events (87.5% vs. 59.6%; p < .001). Patients treated with olanzapine had greater increases in weight (p < .001) and fasting total cholesterol (p = .008); fasting triglycerides (p = .02), and fasting low-density lipoprotein (p = .01). There was a greater reduction in fasting high-density lipoprotein in olanzapine-treated patients (p = .01). Compared with placebo-group patients, more olanzapine-group patients shifted from borderline to high cholesterol (25.0% vs. 0.0%; p = .007) and had clinically significant weight gain (≥7% body weight) (20.2% vs. 1.9%; p = .001). Results of this analysis support the efficacy and tolerability of olanzapine for the treatment of bipolar depression in Japanese patients. Results in this population were consistent with those seen in the more ethnically diverse parent study. In making treatment decisions for individual patients, clinicians should carefully consider the risks and benefits of olanzapine treatment. Clinicatrials.gov ID NCT00510146 Olanzapine Treatment of Patients with Bipolar I Disorder

This study aims to confirm the initial pharmacogenetic finding observed within the clinical proof-of-concept trial of an enhanced response to treatment with pomaglumetad methionil (LY2140023 monohydrate) in Caucasian schizophrenia patients homozygous for T/T at single nucleotide polymorphism rs7330461 in the serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine) 2A receptor gene compared to A/A homozygous patients. The effect of the rs7330461 genotype on the response to pomaglumetad methionil treatment was assessed in three additional clinical trials and in an integrated analysis. Overall, this study includes data from 1115 Caucasian patients for whom genotyping information for rs7330461 was available, consisting of 513 A/A homozygous, 466 A/T heterozygous and 136 T/T homozygous patients. Caucasian T/T homozygous patients showed significantly (p ≤ 0.05) greater improvement in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total scores during treatment with pomaglumetad methionil 40 mg twice daily compared to A/A homozygous patients. Additionally, T/T homozygous patients receiving pomaglumetad methionil had significantly (p ≤ 0.05) greater improvements in PANSS total scores compared to placebo and similar improvements as T/T homozygous patients receiving standard-of-care (SOC) treatment. The findings reported here in conjunction with prior reports show that in Caucasian patients with schizophrenia, the T/T genotype at rs7330461 is consistently associated with an increased treatment response to pomaglumetad methionil compared to the A/A genotype.