F112. PRESCRIBING PATHWAYS TO CLOZAPINE CO-THERAPY WITH ANTIPSYCHOTICS: A SURVEY OF TERTIARY CARE PSYCHIATRISTS TREATING SCHIZOPHRENIA WITH CLOZAPINE AND ADDITIONAL ANTIPSYCHOTICS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Clozapine remains the medication of choice for schizophrenia not responsive to monotherapy. For the approximately 30% of clozapine refractory patients there is little evidence to guide the clinician. Ineffective clozapine trials appear to lead to combination therapy, although evidence is largely limited to aripiprazole and amisulpride, leaving clinicians with minimal options for this most challenging population. Antipsychotic polypharmacy rates are high, including with clozapine, and few studies address clinician attitudes and rationales for the practice. We used a custom-generated questionnaire with multiple-choice questions and open-ended follow-up questions to survey clinicians at The Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre Schizophrenia Program, a tertiary treatment program following approximately 1500 patients suffering treatment refractory and otherwise difficult to treat schizophrenia. Physicians prescribing clozapine with at least one additional antipsychotic were interviewed with the aim of capturing specific rationales for antipsychotic co-prescription with clozapine. Primary outcome was the reason provided for co-prescription of additional antipsychotics with clozapine. Secondary outcomes included clinical impression of illness severity, number of cases for which clinicians intended eventual monotherapy and preferred strategies for combining antipsychotics with clozapine. Nine physicians were interviewed, and surveys were completed for 104 of 285 clients on clozapine, of whom, 136 (47.7%) were on 1–3 additional antipsychotics. The most common reason for clozapine antipsychotic polypharmacy was ‘reduction of positive symptoms,’ cited in 90 of 104 cases, with specific reason of selecting for ‘additional dopaminergic activity’ in 76 cases; followed by ‘reduction of negative symptoms;’ ‘reduction of affective symptoms;’ and ‘management of concurrent symptoms,’ each noted in 26 cases. Reasons for co-prescription were highly varied with 17 different motives provided. There were 19 cases of polypharmacy while switching medications, and 16 cases of inherited polypharmacy, all with intent to discontinue. Preferred combination strategies were highly idiosyncratic. Aripiprazole, oral or injectable, was most often cited by 6 out of 9 physicians. Physicians described their assessment of clozapine polypharmacy as ‘improved’ in 76 cases, ‘worsened,’ in 9, ‘better but with side effects’ in 6, and ‘no change’ in 7. Ratings on the CGI-I showed 17 ‘very much improved,’ 40 ‘much improved,’ 49 ‘minimally improved,’ 22 ‘no change,’ 4 ‘minimally worse,’ and 1 ‘much worse.’ In keeping with other studies, antipsychotic co-prescription was most commonly initiated by physicians in a tertiary care schizophrenia program for poorly controlled positive symptoms. Aripiprazole was a frequent choice however, strategies were highly individual, and no clear guidance on a second antipsychotic is possible from this data. Interestingly, physicians rated the patient as ‘improved’ in 76 of 98 answers however, CGI-I scores were more modest with ratings of ‘minimally improved,’ or ‘no change’ for 71 out of 133 answers. This makes a strong case for objective, prospective measuring of clinical response as a safety and quality improvement measure, especially as polypharmacy is associated with increased morbidity. Our results emphasize that even in the hands of skilled practitioners, treatment refractory schizophrenia is a highly morbid illness in dire need of innovative and evidence-based guidance to reduce suffering and improve outcomes. When using combination treatment, reliable measurements of response would help maximize outcomes and safety of patients resistant to treatment.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».