Retrospective Review of Fluvoxamine-Clomipramine Combination Therapy in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder in Children and Adolescents.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To inform dosing and describe the pharmacokinetic interaction, efficacy and safety of fluvoxamine-clomipramine combination therapy for treatment-resistant pediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). METHODS: A retrospective chart review of OCD-affected patients at a tertiary care children's hospital between January 2010 and August 2017 was conducted. Those included were 18 years of age or younger at initiation of fluvoxamine-clomipramine combination therapy and had at least one set of serum concentration values capturing clomipramine and desmethylclomipramine levels. RESULTS: Six adolescents met study inclusion criteria. Fluvoxamine adequately inhibited clomipramine metabolism to desmethylclomipramine in a dose-dependent manner. Fluvoxamine-clomipramine combination therapy was generally well tolerated with no serious or life-threatening adverse effects reported. CONCLUSION: Fluvoxamine-clomipramine combination therapy permits use of lower clomipramine doses than typically used as clomipramine monotherapy and appears to be a safe alternative for pediatric OCD patients failing sequential selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor monotherapy trials. Inter-patient variability and saturable kinetics support therapeutic drug monitoring of serum clomipramine and desmethylclomipramine concentrations to optimize therapy. A proposed algorithm that aligns with current OCD treatment guidelines is described. Further study is needed to evaluate efficacy of this approach.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".