Intramuscular olanzapine vs. intramuscular short-acting antipsychotics: safety, tolerability and the switch to oral antipsychotic medication in patients with schizophrenia or acute mania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study compared the safety, tolerability and switch to oral medication in patients with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia who received intramuscular (IM) olanzapine or other IM antipsychotics for the treatment of acute agitation. METHODS: Patients (N = 2011) from 15 countries participated in this prospective, observational, non-interventional study. Inpatients requiring treatment with at least one IM injection of a short-acting antipsychotic were assessed at baseline and within 7 days after the first IM injection. Treatment groups comprised: (i) patients prescribed IM olanzapine at baseline; and (ii) patients prescribed any other IM antipsychotic medication at baseline. Outcome measures included: treatment-emergent adverse events, concomitant psychotropic medication and the time taken to switch to oral medication. RESULTS: Fewer patients in the IM olanzapine group experienced an adverse event than patients in the other IM antipsychotic group (34.4% vs. 46.2%, p < 0.001). The most frequently reported adverse events in both groups were: sedation, Parkinsonism, disturbance in attention, akathisia, dystonia and orthostatic hypotension. Fewer patients in the IM olanzapine group used anticholinergics (13.9% vs. 42.5%, p < 0.001) or anxiolytics/hypnotics (47.6% vs. 51.6%, p = 0.023). Patients in the IM olanzapine group switched to oral medication earlier than patients in the other IM antipsychotic group (median time = 46.5 vs. 48.0 h, p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that IM olanzapine may have a favourable impact on individual patients. However, the high rate of oral concomitant medication used throughout the study limits these findings from being associated with IM olanzapine alone.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".