Comparative effectiveness and safety of antipsychotic drugs in patients with schizophrenia initiating or reinitiating treatment: A Real‐World Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of various second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs), newer oral and long-acting injectable (LAI) SGAs, and first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) treatments in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder (SCZ). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included medical administrative information for patients with a diagnosis of SCZ living in Quebec (Canada), initiating or reinitiating at least one antipsychotic (AP) drug (with a clearance baseline period of 12 months without any APs). Effectiveness was defined by a reduced risk of hospitalization for mental disorder and discontinuation, and safety by a reduced risk of all-cause death and hospitalization for non-mental disorder, 2 years after AP initiation or reinitiation. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the events associated with different antipsychotics compared with oral olanzapine. RESULTS: The study cohort included 19,615 patients initiating or reinitiating an antipsychotic drug between January 2006 and December 2015. Results showed better effectiveness of clozapine (adjusted HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.30-0.42, p < 0.0001) and LAI SGAs (adjusted HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.51-0.61, p < 0.0001) compared with oral olanzapine when adding discontinuation to hospitalizations for mental disorder as a composite measure of effectiveness, as opposed to oral FGAs (adjusted HR 1.36, 95% CI 1.27-1.46, p < 0.0001) and LAI FGAs (adjusted HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12-1.32, p < 0.0001). Most APs were as safe as oral olanzapine. CONCLUSION: The effectiveness of LAI SGAs and clozapine appears to justify their use and are as safe as a recognized treatment (oral olanzapine) in Quebec (Canada).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".