Serum Monitoring of Antipsychotic Drug Levels during Concomitant Administration of Sertraline and Antipsychotic Medication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether pharmacokinetic drug interactions occur when sertraline is added to antipsychotic medications. METHOD: Forty-eight patients with remitted DSM-IV schizophrenia and comorbid major depression were randomized to placebo for 6 weeks or sertraline 50 mg for 4 weeks followed by sertraline 50 mg to 100 mg for 2 weeks for nonresponders. Treatment with the patients' usual antipsychotic continued. Weekly clinical outcome assessments occurred for 6 weeks, and serum samples for drug monitoring were collected at Weeks 1, 5, and 6. Serum concentrations of sertraline and antipsychotics were measured with standard assays. RESULTS: In both placebo- and sertraline-treated groups, most patients displayed minor fluctuations in antipsychotic serum levels over 6 weeks. There was no clinical evidence of drug interactions in the sertraline-treated group. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically significant adverse effects did not occur despite variable antipsychotic serum levels with or without sertraline. Concern about pharmacokinetic interactions should not deter the use of sertraline for depression in individuals with schizophrenia.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".