Antipsychotic utilisation and persistence in Australia: A nationwide 5-year study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the utilisation and persistence of antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia in Australia. METHODS: A retrospective study using the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme database of a representative 10% sample. All adults with schizophrenia who were dispensed three or more supplies of oral (including clozapine) or long-acting injectable antipsychotics between 1 June 2015 and 31 May 2020 were included. Persistence time in treatment was evaluated using survival analysis and Cox hazard ratios. RESULTS: In all, 26,847 adults with schizophrenia were studied. Oral second-generation antipsychotics were more frequently dispensed than the other antipsychotic groups studied. Median treatment persistence times were 18.3 months for second-generation antipsychotic long-acting injectables, 10.7 months for oral second-generation antipsychotics and were significantly lower for both formulations of first-generation antipsychotics at 5.2 months (long-acting injectables) and 3.7 months (oral). The median persistence time for clozapine was significantly longer than all other antipsychotics groups. CONCLUSIONS: Oral second-generation antipsychotics and second-generation antipsychotic long-acting injectables accounted for over 75% and 13% of all antipsychotics in Australia, respectively. Concerns over medication adherence and subsequent relapse have not translated into increased long-acting injectable usage despite their significantly longer persistence. Clozapine, the single most 'persistent' antipsychotic, was only used in 9% of people, although up to a third of all cases are likely to be treatment-resistant. Our data suggest clinicians should give consideration to the earlier use of second-generation antipsychotic long-acting injectables and clozapine, to ameliorate prognosis in schizophrenia.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".