Clozapine reinitiation following a "red result" secondary to chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We describe a case of a patient whose clozapine was discontinued after a "red result" following R-CHOP (rituximab with cyclophosphamide, hydroxydaunorubicin, Oncovin, and prednisolone) chemotherapy for large B-cell lymphoma. In some cases, manufacturers grant permission, on compassionate grounds, for clozapine to be continued or reinitiated following assessment by their consultant hematologist. Other than a recent case report, there is not much literature surrounding this medical issue. However, since the two leading causes of mortality in schizophrenia are cancer and cardiac disease, this is not an uncommon occurrence. Clinicians are reluctant to prescribe clozapine in view of its side-effect profile, despite its proven efficacy for managing treatment-resistant schizophrenia. The alternative is to prescribe two antipsychotics to manage symptoms. This approach may be associated with increased side effects, and evidence for actual benefits is scant. The consequences were disastrous in this case, as the individual not only relapsed following clozapine discontinuation, but the therapy for this treatable form of lymphoma had to be delayed. He was eventually admitted to an inpatient unit after having been stable for 15 years. We managed to stabilize him with olanzapine and aripiprazole which enabled the heme-oncology group to resume R-CHOP therapy with filgrastim (granulocyte colony-stimulating factor). Even so, he continued to exhibit severe psychotic symptoms, with religious delusions and auditory hallucinations. We therefore applied for permission to rechallenge him on clozapine. Permission was granted when protocol conditions were met, and reinitiation went without any adverse events. The patient's symptoms showed improvement within a few weeks, and the other antipsychotics were discontinued once clozapine was titrated up to 300 mg. The decision to reinitiate clozapine following a red result is not to be taken lightly, but needs to be considered in terms of the risks versus benefits. More literature surrounding this issue would be of great benefit to clinicians, patients, and their families.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".