↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Efficacy and safety of olanzapine for treatment of patients with bipolar depression: Chinese subpopulation analysis of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study

Overview of attention for article published in Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
video
2 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
Efficacy and safety of olanzapine for treatment of patients with bipolar depression: Chinese subpopulation analysis of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study
Published in
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, August 2016
DOI 10.2147/ndt.s98927
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gang Wang, Yan Cheng, Jia Ning Wang, Sheng Hu Wu, Hai Bo Xue

Abstract

Depression in bipolar I disorder responds to the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine. This subpopulation analysis assessed whether olanzapine is superior to placebo specifically in the treatment of Chinese patients with bipolar I depression. This was a subpopulation analysis of a 6-week, multicenter, double-blind, parallel, randomized, placebo-controlled trial among 12 Chinese study centers. Eligible inpatients and outpatients were randomized to olanzapine (5 to 20 mg/day) or placebo. Patients were primarily assessed by the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score. Secondary assessments used a range of other efficacy and safety measures. This subpopulation analysis was underpowered to show statistically significant differences between treatment groups. In total, 210 patients (mean age 32.9 years at baseline, 54.3% females) were random-ized. Similar proportions of patients treated with olanzapine (75.0%) and placebo (72.9%) completed the double-blind phase. Baseline-to-endpoint least-squares mean ± standard error decrease in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score in the olanzapine group (-13.55±0.80) was similar to that noted in the parent trial (-13.82±0.65). However, the difference between olanzapine and placebo groups was not statistically significant (P=0.44); this finding was also true for the secondary efficacy measures. A post hoc analysis showed a greater emergence of mania in the placebo group, which likely reduced the treatment difference between olanzapine and placebo in the primary efficacy measure. Safety data were consistent with the known safety profile of olanzapine, including a higher incidence of weight gain (≥7%) in the olanzapine group (24.1% vs 1.4%, P<0.001). Olanzapine provides similar improvement in depression among Chinese and non-Chinese bipolar I patients. The lack of a statistically significant difference between the olanzapine and placebo groups in this Chinese subpopulation analysis may relate to an a priori lack of study power, and underestimation of the effect of olanzapine because of a greater emergence of mania in placebo-treated patients and missing data associated with a high early discontinuation rate.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 16%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Researcher 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 10 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 24%
Psychology 3 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 10 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 April 2018.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#1,902
of 3,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,519
of 381,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#75
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,132 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 381,036 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.