olanzapine and Headache

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

Disruptive behavior disorders, including conduct disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and disruptive behavior disorder not otherwise specified, are serious conditions in children and adolescents that include a behavior pattern of violating the basic rights of others and age-appropriate rules or standards and may include aggressive behavior. Although no pharmacotherapy is currently approved for use in this population, evidence suggests that atypical antipsychotic treatment may be useful in patients with these conditions who present with problematic aggression. Currently, research on risperidone shows it to be effective in treating aggressive behavior in this patient population. Limited research is also available on olanzapine, quetiapine, and aripiprazole, but more research is needed on these and other agents. As with any pharmacotherapy, adverse events (including weight gain, headache, and somnolence) should be carefully considered with these medications, especially in children and adolescents, and it is important to properly dose and monitor patients during medication therapy.

Topics: Adolescent; Antipsychotic Agents; Aripiprazole; Attention Deficit and Disruptive Behavior Disorders; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Benzodiazepines; Child; Dibenzothiazepines; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; Headache; Humans; Methylphenidate; Obesity; Olanzapine; Piperazines; Quetiapine Fumarate; Quinolones; Risperidone

To assess adverse events (AEs) and safety of aripiprazole (ARI) and olanzapine (OLA) treatment.. Twenty-four healthy volunteers receiving five daily oral doses of 10 mg ARI and 5 mg OLA in a crossover clinical trial were genotyped for 46 polymorphisms in 14 genes by qPCR. Drug plasma concentrations were measured by high-performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. Blood pressure (BP) and 12-lead electrocardiogram were measured in supine position. AEs were also recorded.. ARI decreased diastolic BP on the first day and decreased QTc on the third and fifth day. OLA had a systolic and diastolic BP, heart rate and QTc lowering effect on the first day. Polymorphisms in ADRA2A, COMT, DRD3 and HTR2A genes were significantly associated to these changes. The most frequent adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to ARI were somnolence, headache, insomnia, dizziness, restlessness, palpitations, akathisia and nausea while were somnolence, dizziness, asthenia, constipation, dry mouth, headache and nausea to OLA. Additionally, HTR2A, HTR2C, DRD2, DRD3, OPRM1, UGT1A1 and CYP1A2 polymorphisms had a role in the development of ADRs.. OLA induced more cardiovascular changes; however, more ADRs were registered to ARI. In addition, some polymorphisms may explain the difference in the incidence of these effects among subjects.

Topics: Adult; Antipsychotic Agents; Aripiprazole; Blood Pressure; Dizziness; Electrocardiography; Female; Headache; Heart Rate; Humans; Male; Nausea; Olanzapine; Sleepiness

The objective was to determine if there is a difference in pain relief or frequency and severity of side effects in emergency department (ED) patients with primary headache treated with either intramuscular (IM) olanzapine or IM droperidol.. This was a prospective, randomized nonblinded clinical trial of adult ED patients undergoing treatment for suspected primary headache. Consenting patients were randomized to receive either droperidol 5 mg IM or olanzapine 10 mg IM. Prior to receiving treatment, patients were asked to complete a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) describing their pain and a 4-point verbal rating scale (VRS) describing their pain as none, mild, moderate, or severe. Patients also completed a 100-mm VAS describing their level of nausea. Pain and nausea measurements were repeated 30 and 60 minutes after medication administration. Patients also completed the Barnes Akathisia Scale (BAS) 30 and 60 minutes after medication administration. Descriptive statistics were used as appropriate. Pain relief was compared both in terms of the decrease in VAS scores and in the proportion of patients who reported moderate or severe pain whose report later changed to mild or no pain.. One-hundred patients were enrolled; 13 were withdrawn before administration of the study medication, 8 in the droperidol group and 5 in the olanzapine group, leaving 87 patients for analysis. Forty-two patients received droperidol and 45 received olanzapine. In the droperidol group, 35/40 (87.5%) patients who had reported moderate or severe pain at baseline reported mild or no pain at 60 minutes. In the olanzapine group, 38/44 (86.4%) reported this change (p = 0.89). The mean percent change from baseline VAS pain score at 60 minutes was -37% (95% CI = -84% to 11%) for droperidol and -37% (95% CI = -64% to 10%) for olanzapine (p = 0.30). The mean percent change from baseline for the VAS nausea score was -59% (95% CI = -70% to -47%) for droperidol and -64% (95% CI = -77% to -51%) for olanzapine (p = 0.83). There was no difference in any report of akathisia by the BAS between the groups (p = 0.63).. Both olanzapine and droperidol are effective treatments for primary headaches in the ED. No significant differences were found between the medications in terms of pain relief, antiemetic effect, or akathisia. Olanzapine may be used to treat primary headache and it is an effective alternative to droperidol.

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Benzodiazepines; Chi-Square Distribution; Dopamine Antagonists; Droperidol; Emergency Service, Hospital; Female; Headache; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Olanzapine; Pain Measurement; Prospective Studies; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Single-Blind Method; Statistics, Nonparametric; Treatment Outcome

To compare olanzapine and risperidone in the treatment of nonpsychotic acute manic or mixed episodes.. This 3-week, randomized, controlled, double-blind, parallel multicenter study compared olanzapine (5-20 mg/day; N = 165) and risperidone (1-6 mg/day; N = 164) among hospital inpatients who met DSM-IV criteria for bipolar I disorder, manic or mixed episode, without psychotic features. The study was conducted at 30 sites in the United States between July 2001 and June 2002. The primary outcome measure was the mean change in the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score. Secondary measures included the 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-21), the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), the Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar Version (CGI-BP) severity of illness scale, and the Cognitive Test for Delirium (CTD). Quality of life (Short Form Health Survey [SF-12]), psychological well-being (Psychological General Well-Being [PGWB] inventory), and sexual functioning were also compared.. Mean modal doses for olanzapine and risperidone were 14.7 mg/day and 3.9 mg/day, respectively. Between treatments, there was no difference in mean change in the YMRS, MADRS, CTD, PGWB, or SF-12 measures or in remission or response rates. Significantly more olanzapine-treated patients completed the study compared with risperidone patients (78.7% vs. 67.0%; p = .019). Olanzapine-treated patients had greater HAM-D-21 (p = .040) and CGI-BP (p = .026) score improvement across the study. Olanzapine-treated patients experienced greater elevations in liver function enzymes (p < .05) and increase in weight (2.5 kg vs. 1.6 kg; p = .004), while risperidone-treated patients were more likely to experience prolactin elevation (51.73 ng/mL vs. 8.23 ng/mL; p < .001) and sexual dysfunction (total score increase of 1.75 vs. 0.64; p = .049).. Both olanzapine and risperidone treatment yielded similar improvements in mania. The olanzapine group had significantly greater improvements in secondary measures of severity and depressive symptoms and better study completion rates but experienced more weight gain.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Akathisia, Drug-Induced; Antipsychotic Agents; Appetite; Benzodiazepines; Bipolar Disorder; Dizziness; Double-Blind Method; Female; Headache; Humans; Least-Squares Analysis; Male; Middle Aged; Olanzapine; Risperidone; Sleep Stages; Treatment Outcome

The primary intent of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of olanzapine and placebo in the treatment of acute mania.. The design involved a random-assignment, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel group study of 3 weeks' duration. After a 2- to 4-day screening period, qualified patients were assigned to either olanzapine (N = 70) or placebo (N = 69). Patients began double-blind therapy with either olanzapine, 10 mg, or placebo given once per day. After the first day of treatment, the daily dose could be adjusted upward or downward, as clinically indicated, by one capsule (olanzapine, 5 mg/day) within the allowed range of one to four capsules. The primary efficacy measure in the protocol was defined as a change from baseline to endpoint in total score on the Young Mania Rating Scale. Clinical response was defined a priori as a decrease of 50% or more from baseline in Young Mania Rating Scale total score.. The olanzapine group experienced significantly greater mean improvement in Young Mania Rating Scale total score than the placebo group. On the basis of the clinical response criteria, significantly more olanzapine-treated patients (48.6%) responded than those assigned to placebo (24.2%). Somnolence, dizziness, dry mouth, and weight gain occurred significantly more often with olanzapine. There were no statistically significant differences between the olanzapine-treated and placebo-treated patients with respect to measures of parkinsonism, akathisia, and dyskinesias. No discontinuations of treatment due to adverse events occurred in the olanzapine treatment group.. The results from this study suggest that compared with placebo, olanzapine has superior efficacy for the symptoms of acute mania.

Topics: Acute Disease; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Akathisia, Drug-Induced; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Bipolar Disorder; Double-Blind Method; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Headache; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Olanzapine; Patient Dropouts; Pirenzepine; Placebos; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; Sleep; Treatment Outcome

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of olanzapine with that of chlorpromazine plus benztropine in patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia.. One hundred three previously treatment-resistant patients with schizophrenia diagnosed according to the DSM-III-R criteria were given a prospective 6-week trial of 10-40 mg/day of haloperidol. Eighty-four of them failed to respond to that trial and agreed to be randomly assigned to an 8-week fixed-dose trial of either 25 mg/day of olanzapine alone or 1200 mg/day of chlorpromazine plus 4 mg/day of benztropine mesylate.. Fifty-nine (70%) of the 84 subjects completed the trial. The primary outcome measures were Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale total score and positive symptom score, Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms global score, and Clinical Global Impression score. An analysis of variance for the subjects who completed the study showed no difference in efficacy between the two drugs. Seven percent of the olanzapine-treated patients responded according to a priori criteria; no chlorpromazine-treated patients responded. The olanzapine-treated patients had fewer motor and cardiovascular side effects than the chlorpromazine-treated patients. Extrapyramidal symptoms and akathisia were similar in the two groups, although no antiparkinsonian drugs were used in the olanzapine group.. Olanzapine and chlorpromazine showed similar efficacy, and the total amount of improvement with either drug was modest. Olanzapine-treated patients had fewer side effects than chlorpromazine-treated patients.

Topics: Adult; Akathisia, Drug-Induced; Analysis of Variance; Antipsychotic Agents; Basal Ganglia Diseases; Benzodiazepines; Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale; Chlorpromazine; Double-Blind Method; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Haloperidol; Headache; Humans; Male; Olanzapine; Pirenzepine; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; Schizophrenia; Schizophrenic Psychology; Sleep Stages; Treatment Outcome; Xerostomia

To compare the efficacy and frequency of akathisia and dystonia between the dopamine antagonist headache medications olanzapine, metoclopramide and prochlorperazine.. This was a retrospective observational cohort study of patients presenting to a large urban level one trauma center between 2010 and 2018. Inclusion criteria was age ≥ 18 who presented to the emergency department with a chief complaint of headache who received either olanzapine, metoclopramide or prochlorperazine. The primary outcome was need for rescue medication. Secondary outcomes were receiving medication for either akathisia or dystonia. Logistic regression was used to identify differences between the three cohorts up to 72 h from initial presentation.. There were 5643 patients who met inclusion criteria. Olanzapine was the most commonly used drug (n = 2994, 53%) followed by prochlorperazine (n = 2100, 37%) and metoclopramide (n = 549, 10%). After adjusting for age and gender, there were no differences in risk for receiving rescue therapy or developing akathisia or dystonia.. During initial ED visit and up to 72 h after receiving olanzapine, metoclopramide or prochlorperazine, we found no difference in risk for requiring rescue medication or developing akathisia or dystonia.

Topics: Cohort Studies; Double-Blind Method; Dystonia; Emergency Service, Hospital; Headache; Humans; Metoclopramide; Migraine Disorders; Olanzapine; Prochlorperazine; Psychomotor Agitation

A 41-year-old man with no significant medical history presented with acute behavioural disruption on the background of a 1-day history of severe headache and a 10-day history of dry cough and fever. He was sexually disinhibited with pressured speech and grandiose ideas. His behaviour worsened, necessitating heavy sedation and transfer to intensive care for mechanical ventilation despite no respiratory indication. Investigations confirmed that he was positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Neuroimaging and a lumbar puncture were normal. Initial screening for SARS-CoV-2 in the cerebrospinal fluid was negative although no validated assay was available. The patient's mental state remained abnormal following stepdown from intensive care. Psychiatric assessment found features consistent with acute mania, and he was detained under the Mental Health Act. This case indicates the need to consider COVID-19 in a wider series of clinical presentations and to develop a validated assay for SARS-CoV-2 in the cerebrospinal fluid.

Topics: Adult; Affective Symptoms; Betacoronavirus; Cerebrospinal Fluid; Clonazepam; Coronavirus Infections; COVID-19; Diagnosis, Differential; Emergency Medical Services; Headache; Humans; Male; Neuroimaging; Olanzapine; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; Psychomotor Agitation; Psychotic Disorders; Psychotropic Drugs; SARS-CoV-2; Treatment Outcome

Olanzapine is a second-generation antipsychotic increasingly used in emergency medicine for many indications. Literature on its use in children is sparse. Our objectives were to describe the use, safety, and efficacy of olanzapine in pediatric emergency patients.. A structured chart review was performed of patients 18 years old or younger receiving olanzapine from 2007 to 2016 in the emergency department of a pediatric level I trauma center.. A total of 285 children received olanzapine. Mean age was 16.4 years (range, 9-18 years); 121 were male (42.8%). Primary indications for olanzapine included agitation (n = 166, 58.3%), headache (n = 58, 20.4%), nausea/vomiting/abdominal pain (n = 37, 12.5%), unspecified pain (n = 20, 7%), and other (n = 4, 1.4%). Route of olanzapine administration was intramuscular (n = 160, 56%; median dose, 10 mg; range, 2.5-20), intravenous (n = 101, 36%; median dose, 5 mg; range, 1.25-5), and oral (n = 24, 8%; median dose, 10 mg; range, 5-10). For agitated patients, 28 (17%) received another sedative within 1 hour. For headache patients, 5 (8.6%) received another analgesic. For gastrointestinal complaints, 5 patients (13.5%) received another analgesic/antiemetic. Adverse respiratory events were hypoxia (pulse oximetry reading, in percentage, <92%; n = 7, 2.4%), supplemental oxygen placement (n = 9, 3.2%), and intubation (n = 2, 0.7%). No patient died or had a dysrhythmia. One patient experienced dystonia.. Olanzapine seems safe when used for a variety of conditions in pediatric emergency patients. It may be effective for acute agitation, primary headache, and gastrointestinal complaints.

Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Administration, Oral; Adolescent; Age Distribution; Antiemetics; Antipsychotic Agents; Child; Emergency Service, Hospital; Female; Headache; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Injections, Intramuscular; Male; Olanzapine; Pain; Pediatric Emergency Medicine; Psychomotor Agitation; Retrospective Studies; Trauma Centers; Vomiting

Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Central Nervous System Sensitization; Chronic Pain; Fibromyalgia; Headache; Humans; Migraine Disorders; Olanzapine

This study aims to explore and analyze the condition of concurrent diseases and medicine use of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and western medicine among the patients with insomnia. One thousand and sxity seven cases of data from 20 national hospitals' hospital information system (HIS) databases were collected. The frequent concurrent diseases included hypertension (26.9%), brain blood supply insufficiency (24.93%), cerebral infarction (19.49%), blood lipoprotein disturbance (15.28%), coronary heart disease (14.15%), headache (10.68%), chronic gastritis (8.81%), type 2 diabetes mellitus (7.87%), depressive disorder (7.4%) and anxiety disorder (6.65%). The 10 most frequently-used western drugs included alprazolam (35.99%), aspirin (25.4%), olanzapine (24.18%), cinepazide (23.06%), flupentixol & melitracen (18.74%), zolpidem (18.37%), oxiracetam (15.65%), estazolam (15%), aniracetam (13.4%) and piracetam (13.31%). The 10 most frequently-used TCM included Shuxuening injection (16.4%), Shuxuetong injection (15.18%), extract of ginkgo biloba leaf (14.71%), gastrodin (12.46%), Dengzanxixin injection (11.34%), Xueshuantong (8.53%), Danhong injection (6.37%), compound liquorice tablet (5.81%), Sanqi Tongshu capsule (5.72%) and sowthistle-leaf ixeridium injection (5.34%). Among all combined uses, the most frequent western drug use was alprazolam and olanzapine, while combined use of hypnotic drug and Huoxuehuayu formula is the most frequent. This study concludes that the concurrent diseases mainly include cardio-cerebrovascular diseases, metabolic disorders and anxiety-depression disorders, with increasing tendency of diseases types by ages, especially for cardio-cerebrovascular diseases. The most frequently-used hypnotic is alprazolam in the insomnia patients, and it is worth being concerned about the off-label use of olanzapine as an antipsychotic for the treatment of insomnia However, due to the fact that all cases data are from the inpatients, these findings have some limitations.

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Alprazolam; Anti-Anxiety Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Cerebral Infarction; Coronary Disease; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Female; Headache; Humans; Hypertension; Male; Medicine, Chinese Traditional; Middle Aged; Olanzapine; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Young Adult

Topics: Adolescent; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Chronic Disease; Cystic Fibrosis; Female; Headache; Humans; Olanzapine; Referral and Consultation; Treatment Outcome