MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133034855 · doi:10.1097/jcp.0000000000001342

High-Dose Fluvoxamine Augmentation to Clozapine in Treatment-Resistant Psychosis

2021· article· en· W3133034855 on OpenAlexaff
Julie Leising, Alasdair M. Barr, Ric M. Procyshyn, Nicholas J. Ainsworth, Randall F. White, William G. Honer, Fidel Vila‐Rodriguez

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Psychopharmacology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Mental Health & Substance Use ServicesUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFluvoxamineClozapineAdverse effectDiscontinuationAntipsychoticPsychosisSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)DoseMedicineAtypical antipsychoticAnxietyPsychologyAnesthesiaInternal medicinePsychiatryFluoxetineReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although clozapine is the gold standard for treatment-resistant schizophrenia, more than 30% of patients remain unresponsive to clozapine monotherapy and may benefit from augmentation strategies. Fluvoxamine augmentation of clozapine may be beneficial in treatment resistance because of pharmacokinetic interactions, allowing for lower clozapine dosages with higher clozapine serum levels and an increased clozapine-to-norclozapine ratio, which can modify adverse effects. An augmentation strategy using higher fluvoxamine doses may also improve persistent negative, anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive symptoms through fluvoxamine's serotonergic activity. METHODS: Through chart review, we identified 4 cases of patients with treatment-resistant psychosis who underwent high-dose fluvoxamine augmentation of clozapine to target residual negative symptoms, refractory psychosis, anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive symptoms. FINDINGS: This augmentation strategy continued in 2 patients after discharge who showed clinical improvement without significant adverse effects. Two patients experienced adverse effects that led to the fluvoxamine discontinuation. Despite the fact that fluvoxamine augmentation led to symptom improvement in only 2 patients, all patients achieved high serum clozapine levels. Hematologic parameters were monitored in all patients, and no abnormalities were observed. No severe adverse effects of clozapine were experienced. CONCLUSIONS: Although high variability of responses and adverse effects were observed during fluvoxamine augmentation to clozapine, this strategy was successful in increasing clozapine serum levels. Through fluvoxamine's serotonergic effects, this strategy may confer benefit to residual negative, obsessive, and anxiety symptoms. Limitations of this case series include the retrospective nature, absence of controls, diversity of diagnoses, multiple interventions in each patient, and lack of masked raters.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.414 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical PsychopharmacologySame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207