Clozapine-induced myocarditis and patient outcomes after drug rechallenge following myocarditis: a systematic case review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clozapine is underutilized due, in part, to concerns about rare but severe adverse drug reactions, including cardiac inflammation and injury (myocarditis). Risk factors for clozapine-induced myocarditis are limited and predictors for the successful rechallenge of clozapine after an episode of myocarditis are even more poorly understood. We conducted a systematic review, in accordance with the PRISMA recommendation, of published case reports to describe demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with clozapine-induced myocarditis and identify potential markers of clozapine rechallenge success. A total of 180 cases from 88 articles were evaluated. Male cases of clozapine-associated myocarditis were more frequently reported than female cases by a ratio of 6:1. Less than half of patients reported the presence of chest pain (35%) or flu-like symptoms (43%) but increases in troponin or C-reactive protein were present in 87% of cases. Clozapine rechallenge was carried out in 34 (2 female) cases, with successful reintroduction in 22 (2 female) cases (64.7%). Only chest pain during the initial trial was found to be significantly associated with rechallenge success (odds ratio = 6.87, 95% CI = 1.17 – 40.3). Standardized reporting of clozapine-induced myocarditis cases is needed to facilitate the identification of factors associated with successful rechallenge.
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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".