Topiramate augmentation in treatment-resistant obsessive–compulsive disorder: a retrospective, open-label case series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs) are considered first-line treatments for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Many patients achieve some response but remain symptomatic despite an adequate SRI trial. Recent neuroimaging data found abnormally high glutamatergic concentrations in children with OCD. Following selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) treatment, a decrease in OCD symptom severity was associated with a decrease in caudate glutamatergic concentrations. We initiated an investigation of adjunctive topiramate (an anticonvulsant agent with glutamatergic properties) in the treatment of patients with OCD who were partially or nonresponsive to SRI treatment. Sixteen consecutive outpatients with OCD (mean age = 41.1 years; range = 21-58 years), who were partial or nonresponders to SRI monotherapy or SRI combination therapy (antipsychotic, other antidepressant, or benzodiazepines), and had topiramate added over a minimum of 14 weeks, were reviewed. Baseline and endpoint Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) and CGI-Improvement (CGI-I) were evaluated retrospectively. Eleven of 16 patients were responders (68.8%) with a CGI-I score of much improved or very much improved. The mean dose of topiramate was 253.1 +/- 93.9 mg/day. The mean time to response was 9.2 +/- 4.5 weeks. CGI-S scores decreased significantly from initiation of topiramate until 26 weeks, from 6.1 +/- 0.9 to 4.5 +/- 1.3 (P < .001). This case series suggests some preliminary evidence that the addition of topiramate may be useful in treatment-resistant OCD.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".