Quetiapine Combined With Amisulpride in Schizophrenic Patients With Insufficient Responses to Quetiapine Monotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Treatment resistance often leads to combinations of second-generation antipsychotics. Well-designed trials evaluated add-on strategies involving clozapine, but also olanzapine and quetiapine (QTP) have pharmacodynamic properties that render supplementation with high-affinity antidopaminergic second-generation antipsychotics, for example, amisulpride (AMS), reasonable. METHODS: We report on 6 cases with partial response of psychotic positive symptoms to QTP despite sufficient dosage (mean, 783 mg/d) and serum levels (mean, 405 μg/L). Concomitant drug abuse and interfering pharmacological changes were excluded. RESULTS: The add-on of AMS in a mean dose of 466.7 mg/d (serum level, 132.1 μg/L) over a period of 8.3 weeks facilitated significant improvements of treatment-resistant psychotic symptoms. The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale scores decreased from 94 to 54, whereas the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms and the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia significantly improved. Despite an increase in the mean body weight from 77.2 to 82.9 kg and an increase in prolactin levels from 43 to 163 μg/L, the observed general tolerance was good. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of AMS with QTP might be a successful strategy in individuals only partially responsive to quetiapine, but risks and benefits should be further evaluated in controlled clinical trials.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".