Treating Generalized Anxiety Disorder With Second Generation Antipsychotics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most individuals with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) fail to achieve remission despite standard treatments. As a result, we examined the efficacy and tolerability of second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) as (a) augmentation or (b) monotherapy for GAD. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, controlled trials databases, and the abstracts of scientific meetings for all trials of GAD treatment with SGAs in adults. Randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trials examining SGA augmentation and monotherapy were meta-analyzed. Five augmentation studies containing 912 adults with refractory GAD indicated that SGA augmentation was not more likely to produce clinical response or remission than placebo and was associated with an increased risk of all-cause discontinuation (relative risk [RR] = 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.96). There was no difference in the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale on change from baseline or weight gain between groups. Four SGA monotherapy studies containing 1383 patients with GAD indicated that treatment with 150 mg of quetiapine was more likely to lead to a clinical response (RR = 1.31; 95% CI, 1.20-1.44), remission (RR = 1.44; 95% CI, 1.23-1.68), and a greater decrease in the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale score (-3.66; 95% CI, -5.13 to -2.19) than placebo. However, an increased risk of all-cause discontinuation (RR = 1.30; 95% CI, 1.09-1.54) and weight gain (2.2 lb; 95% CI, 1.16-3.24) was observed. Existing data suggest that SGAs are not superior to placebo as augmentation for refractory GAD. Quetiapine monotherapy is more efficacious than placebo for uncomplicated GAD, but issues with adverse effects and tolerability may limit its use.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".