Towards safer risperidone prescribing in Alzheimer's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the treatment of psychosis, agitation and aggression in Alzheimer's disease, guidelines emphasise the need to 'use the lowest possible dose' of antipsychotic drugs, but provide no information on optimal dosing. AIMS: This analysis investigated the pharmacokinetic profiles of risperidone and 9-hydroxy (OH)-risperidone, and how these related to treatment-emergent extrapyramidal side-effects (EPS), using data from The Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness in Alzheimer's Disease study (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00015548). METHOD: A statistical model, which described the concentration-time course of risperidone and 9-OH-risperidone, was used to predict peak, trough and average concentrations of risperidone, 9-OH-risperidone and 'active moiety' (combined concentrations) (n = 108 participants). Logistic regression was used to investigate the associations of pharmacokinetic biomarkers with EPS. Model-based predictions were used to simulate the dose adjustments needed to avoid EPS. RESULTS: The model showed an age-related reduction in risperidone clearance (P < 0.0001), reduced renal elimination of 9-OH-risperidone (elimination half-life 27 h), and slower active moiety clearance in 22% of patients, (concentration-to-dose ratio: 20.2 (s.d. = 7.2) v. 7.6 (s.d. = 4.9) ng/mL per mg/day, Mann-Whitney U-test, P < 0.0001). Higher trough 9-OH-risperidone and active moiety concentrations (P < 0.0001) and lower Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores (P < 0.0001), were associated with EPS. Model-based predictions suggest the optimum dose ranged from 0.25 mg/day (85 years, MMSE of 5), to 1 mg/day (75 years, MMSE of 15), with alternate day dosing required for those with slower drug clearance. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings argue for age- and MMSE-related dose adjustments and suggest that a single measure of the concentration-to-dose ratio could be used to identify those with slower drug clearance.
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 | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".