Reintroduction of Clozapine After Perforation of the Large Intestine—A Case Report and Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report on a patient who was successfully rechallenged with clozapine after perforation of the large intestine and pulmonary embolism post operatively, and provide a literature review on clozapine rechallenge. CASE SUMMARY: A 46-year-old Japanese man with treatment-resistant schizophrenia developed constipation and slight abdominal discomfort while taking clozapine 275 mg/day. He developed appendicitis, leading to perforation of the large intestine. During the postsurgery period, a partial embolism of the pulmonary artery was revealed. The patient's constipation was relieved when clozapine was discontinued, but other antipsychotics failed to control his delusions well. After thorough discussion, it was decided to rechallenge with clozapine. The low dose of clozapine 200 mg/day was tolerable for his delusion, and his constipation was managed with laxatives and exercises until 8 months after the accident. DISCUSSION: Clozapine is a gold standard medication in treatment-resistant schizophrenia but is associated with various adverse effects, some of which are life-threatening. Reintroduction of clozapine after severe adverse drug effects when other medications are not effective almost always poses a clinical dilemma for mental health professionals. A PubMed search (to January 25, 2013) using the key words clozapine and rechallenge found 50 articles. There were only sporadic positive case reports regarding the rechallenge after clozapine-related serious gastrointestinal problems. CONCLUSIONS: From the currently available evidence, most psychiatrists appear to avoid reintroduction of clozapine. However, the evidence is too weak to draw a definitive conclusion about reintroduction of this drug. Reintroduction of clozapine after initial adverse effects in patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia may warrant case-by-case judgment, but needs to be further investigated.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".