A critical appraisal of paliperidone long-acting injection in the treatment of schizoaffective disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Schizoaffective disorder (SCA) is a chronic and disabling mental illness that presents with mixed symptoms of schizophrenia and affective disorders. SCA is recognized as a discrete disorder, but with greater heterogeneity and symptom overlap, leading to difficulty and delay in diagnosis. Although the overall prognosis is intermediate between schizophrenia and mood disorders, SCA is associated with higher rates of suicide and hospitalization than schizophrenia. No treatment guidelines exist for SCA, and treatment is frequently complex, involving off-label use and polypharmacy (typically combinations of antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, and antidepressants). Oral paliperidone extended-release was the first agent to be approved for the treatment of SCA. As in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, adherence to oral medications is poor, further contributing to suboptimal outcomes. The use of an antipsychotic in a long-acting injection (LAI) addresses adherence issues, thus potentially reducing relapse. Paliperidone palmitate represents the LAI formulation of paliperidone. In a long-term, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial of adult patients (n=334; intent-to-treat [ITT]) with SCA, paliperidone long-acting injection (PLAI) significantly delayed risk of relapse compared to placebo (hazard ratio 2.49, 95% confidence interval, 1.55-3.99; P<0.001). This study demonstrated the efficacy and safety of PLAI when used as either monotherapy or adjunctive therapy for the maintenance treatment of SCA. The results are consistent with a similarly designed study conducted in patients with schizophrenia, which suggests a benefit in the long-term control of not only psychotic but also affective symptoms. No new safety signals were observed. When used in monotherapy, PLAI simplifies treatment by reducing complex pharmacotherapy and obviating the necessity for daily oral medications. PLAI is the second agent, and the first LAI, to be approved for the treatment of SCA; as an LAI formulation, there is the advantage of improved adherence and simplified treatment in the long-term management of SCA.
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 | 0.022 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".