Immediate versus wait-and-gradual discontinuation in antipsychotic switching: A meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: In two previous meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining antipsychotic switching strategies in patients with schizophrenia, we showed no significant differences in any clinical outcomes between immediate versus gradual and gradual versus wait-and-gradual discontinuation of the pre-switch antipsychotic. In this report, we compared immediate versus wait-and-gradual antipsychotic discontinuation. Methods: We identified five RCTs examining immediate versus wait-and-gradual discontinuation of the pre-switch antipsychotic in antipsychotic switching involving patients with schizophrenia. However, no data were available from one RCT. The following clinical outcome data were extracted and meta-analyzed: study discontinuation, psychopathology, extrapyramidal symptoms, and treatment-emergent adverse events that were reported in two or more of the studies. Results: The meta-analysis included four RCTs involving 351 patients ( n=175 for immediate and n=176 for wait-and-gradual antipsychotic discontinuation). A significant difference was found in study discontinuation due to all causes ( n=4, n=351, risk ratio=1.58, 95% confidence interval 1.15–2.17, p=0.005, I 2 =0%) between the immediate and wait-and-gradual antipsychotic discontinuation groups, while there was no significant difference in any other clinical outcomes. The group difference in study discontinuation due to all causes remained significant for the studies adopting immediate antipsychotic initiation but not for the studies switching to ziprasidone. Conclusion: Findings suggest that wait-and-gradual antipsychotic discontinuation may be preferable when a more cautious antipsychotic switch is needed. However, further long-term, double-blind RCTs are needed to confirm the present findings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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".