Ziprasidone Vs Olanzapine in Recent-Onset Schizophrenia and Schizoaffective Disorder: Results of an 8-Week Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Head-to-head comparisons of antipsychotics have predominantly included patients with chronic conditions. The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of ziprasidone and olanzapine in patients with recent-onset schizophrenia. METHODS: The study was an 8-week, double-blind, parallel-group, randomized, controlled multicenter trial (NCT00145444). Seventy-six patients with schizophreniform disorder, schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder (diagnosis < 5 y), and a maximum lifetime antipsychotic treatment < 16 weeks participated in the study. Efficacy of ziprasidone (80-160 mg/d) and olanzapine 10-20 mg was measured using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) Scale, the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS), and the Heinrich Quality of Life Scale (HQLS); tolerability assessments included laboratory assessments, body weight, and electroencephalogram. RESULTS: Olanzapine (n = 34) and ziprasidone (n = 39) showed equal efficacy as measured by the PANSS, CDSS, CGI, and HQLS. However, mean weight gain was significantly higher in the olanzapine group (6.8 vs 0.1 kg, P < .001). Ziprasidone was associated with decreasing levels of triglycerides, cholesterol, and transaminases, while these parameters increased in the olanzapine group (all P values < .05). There were no significant differences in fasting glucose and prolactin levels or in cardiac or sexual side effects. Patients on ziprasidone used biperiden for extrapyramidal side effects more frequently (P < .05). DISCUSSION: The results of this study indicate that ziprasidone and olanzapine have comparable therapeutic efficacy but differ in their side effect profile. However, there is a risk of a type II error with this sample size. Clinically significant weight gain and laboratory abnormalities appear early after initiating treatment and are more prominent with olanzapine, while more patients on ziprasidone received anticholinergic drugs to treat extrapyramidal symptoms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".