Objective: Schizophrenia is a serious disease characterized by impairment in the perception or expression of reality, leading to occupational and social dysfunction. The use of antipsychotic medication is now universal in the first-line treatment of schizophrenia. This study was undertaken to compare the efficacy of asenapine with a standard atypical antipsychotic, olanzapine in treating this disease. Methods: It was designed as a single blind, randomized, controlled, parallel group, single centre Phase IV trial of a newer atypical antipsychotic, asenapine versus existing standard atypical antipsychotic, olanzapine. Total 80 subjects were enrolled as per eligibility criteria.Each recruited subject received daily treatment with the trial medication (Olanzapine 10 mg or Asenapine 10 mg daily) for duration of 12 weeks. BPRS, CGI-S, CGI-I, Laboratory parameters and compliance was assessed and analyzed. Continuous variables were compared by t test and non-parametric data was analyzed by Mann−Whitney U test and Wilcoxon signed rank test. Likely categorical variables were analyzed by chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate. Results: The duration of schizophrenia at presentation was comparable in both the treatment groups. There was significant reduction of BPRS score between any two visits of each treatment groups. The decline in CGI-S and CGI-I scores was statistically significant (p ＜ 0.001) when compared between visits of any of the both treatment arms.Adherence to treatment was excellent for all patients. Conclusion Newer atypical antipsychotic asenapine is more effective than standard olanzapine in reducing the symptoms of schizophrenia in this study and further larger studies are to be done.

BACKGROUND: Philadelphia chromosome, a hallmark of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), plays a key role in disease pathogenesis. It reflects a balanced reciprocal translocation between long arms of chromosomes 9 and 22 involving BCR and ABL1 genes, respectively. An accurate and reliable detection of BCR-ABL fusion gene is necessary for the diagnosis and monitoring of CML. Previously, many technologies, most of which are laborious and time consuming, have been developed to detect BCR-ABL chimeric gene or chromosome. METHODS: A new flow cytometric immunobead assay was used for detection of BCR-ABL fusion proteins and applicability, sensitivity, reliability, efficacy and rapidity of this method was evaluated. RESULTS: From February 2009 to January 2014, a total 648 CML patients were investigated for the status of BCR-ABL1 protein. Among them, 83 patients were enrolled for comparative study of BCR-ABL1 positivity by three routinely used procedures like karyotyping, and quantitative real time PCR (RT-PCR) as well as immunobead flow cytometry assay. BCR-ABL protein analysis was found consistent, more sensitive (17% greater sensitivity) and reliable than the conventional cytogenetics, as flow cytometry showed 95% concordance rate to RT-PCR. CONCLUSION: BCR-ABL fusion protein assay using a new flow cytometric immunobead might be useful in the diagnosis and monitoring CML patients.
Arm ; Cytogenetics ; Diagnosis ; Flow Cytometry* ; Fusion Proteins, bcr-abl ; Humans ; Karyotyping ; Leukemia, Myelogenous, Chronic, BCR-ABL Positive* ; Methods* ; Philadelphia Chromosome ; Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction