A Randomized, Open-Label Comparison of 2 Switching Strategies to Aripiprazole Treatment in Patients With Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although recent treatment guidelines for schizophrenia recommend that the prior antipsychotic agent should remain stable for at least 2 weeks when aripiprazole is introduced, there is no trial-based evidence to support this strategy. This study was designed to compare this strategy with another conventional one in patients with schizophrenia. We conducted a randomized, 14-week, open-label trial to compare the following 2 switching strategies: (1) add-on of aripiprazole on a current regimen, wait for 4 weeks, and the tapering of prior antipsychotics and (2) add-on of aripiprazole and the simultaneous tapering of prior antipsychotics in patients with schizophrenia. Aripiprazole was initiated at 12 mg/d and then titrated between 12 and 30 mg. The previous antipsychotic medication was reduced biweekly by 25%. Assessments included the Clinical Global Impression Scale Schizophrenia version, the Drug-Induced Extrapyramidal Symptoms Scale, and the Subjective Well-being Under Neuroleptics, Short Version, Japanese Edition. Impressions toward their assigned strategy were also subjectively evaluated at baseline and end point. Fifty-three patients were enrolled, and 48 patients completed this trial. No significant differences were found in changes from the baseline in the total Clinical Global Impression Scale Schizophrenia version severity, Drug-Induced Extrapyramidal Symptoms Scale, and Subjective Well-being Under Neuroleptics, Short Version, Japanese Edition scores throughout the study period between the 2 strategies. Both strategies were judged by subjects to be tolerable and favorable without between-group differences. In conclusion, both strategies were found to be objectively safe and well tolerated. Taken together with similar results from subjective assessments, it would be reasonable to choose either of these 2 strategies in clinical practice based on a patients' preference.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".