Medication discontinuation with depot and oral antipsychotics in outpatients with schizophrenia: comparison of matched cohorts from a 12-month observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This study compared all-cause medication discontinuation (any switch, augmentation or medication discontinuation) in matched cohorts of patients with schizophrenia who were initiated on depot or oral antipsychotics. Other objectives included between-group comparisons of resource use, and clinical and functional outcomes. METHODS: This post hoc analysis of a one-year, multicentre, prospective, observational study included outpatients with schizophrenia who required a change in their antipsychotic medication because of a physician-perceived risk of medication non-adherence. Patients were matched 1 : 1 using an optimal algorithm with rank-based Mahalanobis distances. All-cause medication discontinuation was compared using the Klein and Moeschberger test for survival and hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model, stratifying on matched pairs. RESULTS: Forty patients who initiated a depot antipsychotic could be matched to patients who initiated an oral antipsychotic. Fewer depot-treated patients discontinued their antipsychotic medication at least once compared with oral-treated patients [20% (8/40) vs. 40% (16/40)]. Depot-treated patients discontinued their medication later (Klein and Moeschberger test p = 0.025) and were less likely to discontinue their initial antipsychotic medication [HR = 0.33 (95% CI, 0.12-0.92), p = 0.033] than oral-treated patients. There were few differences in resource use and no differences in clinical and functional outcomes between cohorts. CONCLUSION: In this matched-cohort analysis, patients with schizophrenia who were considered to be non-adherent with their prior oral antipsychotics were less likely to discontinue their medication for any cause if they were initiated on depot compared with oral antipsychotics.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".