olanzapine and Gambling

Pharmacological interventions for disordered and problem gambling have been employed in clinical practice. Despite the availability of several reviews of the efficacy of pharmacological interventions for disordered or problem gambling, few have employed systematic search strategies or compared different categories of pharmacological interventions. Systematic reviews of high-quality evidence are therefore essential to provide guidance regarding the efficacy of different pharmacological interventions for disordered or problem gambling.. The primary aims of the review were to: (1) examine the efficacy of major categories of pharmacological-only interventions (antidepressants, opioid antagonists, mood stabilisers, atypical antipsychotics) for disordered or problem gambling, relative to placebo control conditions; and (2) examine the efficacy of these major categories relative to each other.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO (all years to 11 January 2022).. We included randomised trials evaluating a pharmacological intervention for the treatment of disordered or problem gambling. Eligible control conditions included placebo control groups or comparisons with another category of pharmacological intervention.. We used standard methodological procedures, including systematic extraction of included study characteristics and results and risk of bias assessment. Our primary outcome was reduction in gambling symptom severity. Our secondary outcomes were reduction in gambling expenditure, gambling frequency, time spent gambling, depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and functional impairment; and responder status. We evaluated treatment effects for continuous and dichotomous outcomes using standardised mean difference (SMD) and risk ratios (RR), respectively, employing random-effects meta-analyses. A minimum of two independent treatment effects were required for a meta-analysis to be conducted (with only meta-analytic findings reported in this abstract).. We included 17 studies in the review (n = 1193 randomised) that reported outcome data scheduled for end of treatment. Length of treatment ranged from 7 to 96 weeks.  Antidepressants: Six studies (n = 268) evaluated antidepressants, with very low to low certainty evidence suggesting that antidepressants were no more effective than placebo at post-treatment: gambling symptom severity (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.74 to 0.09, n = 225), gambling expenditure (SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.06, n = 144), depressive symptoms (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.23, n = 90), functional impairment (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.22, n = 110), and responder status (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.66, n = 268). Opioid antagonists: Four studies (n = 562) evaluated opioid antagonists, with very low to low certainty evidence showing a medium beneficial effect of treatment on gambling symptom severity relative to placebo at post-treatment (SMD -0.46, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.19, n = 259), but no difference between groups in responder status (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.86 to 3.14, n = 562). Mood stabilisers: Two studies (n = 71) evaluated mood stabilisers (including anticonvulsants), with very low certainty evidence suggesting that mood stabilisers were no more effective than placebo at post-treatment: gambling symptom severity (SMD -0.92, 95% CI -2.24 to 0.39, n = 71), depressive symptoms (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -1.14 to 0.83, n = 71), and anxiety symptoms (SMD -0.17, 95% CI -0.64 to 0.30, n = 71). Atypical antipsychotics:Two studies (n = 63) evaluated the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine, with very low certainty evidence showing a medium beneficial effect of treatment on gambling symptom severity relative to placebo at post-treatment (SMD -0.59, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.08, n = 63). Comparative effectiveness: Two studies (n = 62) compared antidepressants with opioid antagonists, with very low certainty evidence indicating that antidepressants were no more effective than opioid antagonists on depressive symptoms (SMD 0.22, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.72, n = 62) or anxiety symptoms (SMD 0.21, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.72, n = 62) at post-treatment. Two studies (n = 58) compared antidepressants with mood stabilisers (including anticonvulsants), with very low certainty evidence indicating that antidepressants were no more effective than mood stabilisers on depressive symptoms (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.56, n = 58) or anxiety symptoms (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.70, n = 58) at post-treatment. Tolerability and adverse events: Several com. This review provides preliminary support for the use of opioid antagonists (naltrexone, nalmefene) and atypical antipsychotics (olanzapine) to produce short-term improvements in gambling symptom severity, although a lack of available evidence precludes a conclusion regarding the degree to which these pharmacological agents can improve other gambling or psychological functioning indices. In contrast, the findings are inconclusive with regard to the effects of mood stabilisers (including anticonvulsants) in the treatment of disordered or problem gambling, and there is limited evidence to support the efficacy of antidepressants. However, these conclusions are based on very low to low certainty evidence characterised by a small number of included studies, high risk of bias, modest pooled sample sizes, imprecise estimates, moderate between-study heterogeneity, and exclusion of participants with psychiatric comorbidities. Moreover, there were insufficient studies to conduct meta-analyses on many outcome measures; to compare efficacy across and within major categories of interventions; to explore dosage effects; or to examine effects beyond post-treatment. These limitations suggest that, despite recommendations related to the administration of opioid antagonists in the treatment of disordered or problem gambling, pharmacological interventions should be administered with caution and with careful consideration of patient needs. A larger and more methodologically rigorous evidence base with longer-term evaluation periods is required before definitive conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness and durability of pharmacological treatments for disordered or problem gambling.

Topics: Anticonvulsants; Antidepressive Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Gambling; Headache; Humans; Naltrexone; Narcotic Antagonists; Nausea; Olanzapine

We have previously shown that patients with schizophrenia treated with typical antipsychotics were impaired on the weather prediction probabilistic classification learning (PCL) task that relies on striatal function, and that similar patients treated with atypical antipsychotics were impaired on the Iowa gambling task (IGT) that depends on medial prefrontocortical function.. We tested the hypothesis that test performance of patients treated with risperidone will be more similar to those treated with typical rather than atypical antipsychotics.. Groups of schizophrenia patients treated with risperidone, olanzapine, clozapine or typical antipsychotics did not differ on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale or the Mini Mental State Exam (MMSE) but scored lower than controls on the MMSE. For the PCL task, patients treated with clozapine improved over trials while those treated with typical antipsychotics, olanzapine, or risperidone did not. For the IGT, patients treated with typical antipsychotics or risperidone improved over trials while those treated with clozapine or olanzapine did not.. Results generally supported the hypothesis that patients treated with risperidone perform more like those treated with typical antipsychotics than those treated with other atypical antipsychotics.

Topics: Adult; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Clozapine; Decision Making; Female; Gambling; Humans; Learning; Male; Middle Aged; Neuropsychological Tests; Olanzapine; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; Risperidone; Schizophrenia

Pathological gambling is associated with bipolar disorder and dopamine dysfunction. Olanzapine is a second-generation antipsychotic with mood-stabilizing properties and antagonistic activity at several dopamine receptors. The purpose of this study was to evaluate olanzapine in the treatment of pathological gambling.. In this 12-week, single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, flexible-dose (2.5-15 mg/day) trial, 42 outpatients with pathological gambling by DSM-IV-TR criteria received olanzapine (N = 21) or placebo (N = 21). The primary outcome measure was the Pathological Gambling Adaptation of the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (PG-YBOCS). The primary analysis of efficacy was a longitudinal analysis of the intent-to-treat sample, with treatment-by-time interaction as the effect measure. Subjects were enrolled from June 2, 2000, through November 28, 2005.. Compared with placebo, olanzapine was associated with a similar rate of reduction in total scores on the PG-YBOCS scale, as well as in gambling episodes/week, hours gambled/week, and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale scores. The mean (SD) olanzapine daily dose at endpoint evaluation was 8.9 (5.2) mg/day. Eleven subjects (52%) receiving olanzapine and 6 (29%) receiving placebo discontinued prematurely; 3 subjects receiving olanzapine and 2 receiving placebo discontinued because of adverse events. Events causing olanzapine discontinuation were pneumonia, sedation, and hypomania.. Olanzapine was not superior to placebo in the short-term treatment of pathological gambling. It was also associated with a high discontinuation rate.. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00438776 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Topics: Adult; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Demography; Disruptive, Impulse Control, and Conduct Disorders; Double-Blind Method; Female; Gambling; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Olanzapine; Surveys and Questionnaires

Emerging evidence suggests that dopaminergic and serotonergic functioning are altered in pathological gamblers; yet, there are no FDA-approved medications for pathological gambling and there have only been a limited number of clinical trials that have been conducted. Olanzapine was identified as a candidate medication for pathological gamblers because it modifies both dopaminergic and serotonergic function. Moreover, preliminary studies have shown that olanzapine effectively reduces impulsivity in other psychiatric disorders, a pharmacological target of interest for pathological gamblers. In this study, 21 pathological gamblers, whose primary gambling activity was video poker, were enrolled in a seven-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Outcome measures included self-reported urges for gambling, frequency of gambling behavior, and self-reported mood and anxiety levels. The results revealed that all study participants reported reduced levels of gambling urges, gambling behavior, and mood and anxiety symptoms. Olanzapine administration was not associated with an incremental effect versus placebo. While these findings suggest that olanzapine is not an efficacious treatment for video poker pathological gamblers, olanzapine may still be an effective treatment for a specific subset of pathological gamblers, including those with a co-occurring psychiatric disorder.

Topics: Adult; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Double-Blind Method; Female; Gambling; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Olanzapine

It clarifies a difference between early acute phase and late acute phase in medication.. The present report describes three patients with schizophrenia who presented with restlessness and excitement requiring hospitalization.. Treatment with risperidone solution orally or parenteral haloperidol until the day after admission, followed by olanzapine, successfully improved the clinical condition of the patients. In the early stage of hospitalization, selection of fast-acting drugs that can be administered to uncooperative patients is considered preferable, focusing on rapid control of symptoms and behavioral disorders, whereas after this early stage, olanzapine is preferable for improving patient compliance in addition to stabilizing symptoms.. Because the target symptoms differ between the early and late acute phases, the term 'acute phase' used in the broad sense should be divided into two units, each requiring a different therapeutic strategy, and independent clinical approaches should be considered in order to provide more suitable treatment.

Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Gambling; Haloperidol; Humans; Japan; Male; Mental Disorders; Middle Aged; Olanzapine; Patient Admission; Patient Compliance; Risperidone; Schizophrenia, Disorganized; Schizophrenia, Paranoid; Treatment Outcome