Efficacy of @entity1089 and XXXX against @entity308 in outpatients with @entity716 .

@entity1 @entity162 @entity308 @entity4750 @entity303 @entity1294 @entity914 @entity1316 @entity716 @entity195 @entity21 @entity1089 @entity1090
BACKGROUND: The treatment of @entity716 in @entity1 with @entity1316 is a complex challenge. Antipsychotic medications in these individuals may be associated with @entity21 ( @entity21 ), worsening of @entity308 , and functional impairment. Atypical antipsychotics such as @entity1089 and @entity1090 are associated with a decreased incidence of adverse events such as @entity21 . The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of @entity1089 and @entity1090 for the treatment of @entity308 in outpatients with @entity716 . METHOD: In this 4-month, multicenter, open-label trial, @entity1 were randomly assigned in a 3:1 ratio of @entity1089 to @entity1090 , and both drugs were flexibly dosed. Eligible @entity1 had @entity914 and demonstrated 1 of several DSM-IV diagnoses, including @entity914 , @entity162 , major @entity308 , @entity4750 , @entity195 , @entity914 , @entity1294 , and substance abuse @entity303 . @entity1 were classified as mood disordered if they had @entity162 , major @entity308 , or @entity914 . Efficacy was assessed using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and the Clinical Global Impressions scale. The Hamilton Rating Scale for @entity308 (HAM-D) was used to assess the level of @entity308 . The primary tolerability assessment was presence or absence of substantial @entity21 , defined as @entity21 severe enough to require an alteration in treatment. RESULTS: A total of 554 @entity1 were randomly assigned to @entity1089 and 175 to @entity1090 . Mean doses at 16 weeks were 318 mg for @entity1089 and 4.4 mg for @entity1090 . Although both agents produced improvements in mean HAM-D scores, @entity1089 produced a greater improvement than @entity1090 in all @entity1 (p =.0015). Within the mood-diagnosed population, incidences of both substantial @entity21 (p =.001) and at least moderate @entity21 (p =.0373) occurred significantly less frequently among @entity1 taking @entity1089 . For @entity1 with non-mood diagnoses, incidences of substantial @entity21 were fewer for @entity1 taking @entity1089 than for those taking @entity1090 (p =.062); however, this was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that @entity1089 may be a useful agent in the management of @entity308 in @entity1 with @entity716 .
