Clinical Effectiveness of Lurasidone Monotherapy in Patients with Acute Episodes of Schizophrenia and Associated Symptoms of Depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: We endeavored to evaluate the efficacy of Lurasidone at doses of 40160 mg per day on symptoms of schizophrenia associated with symptoms of depression in real clinical practice in a Russian patient population. METHODS: One hundred sixty eight patients aged 1865 years old, who at the time of the start of the observation were being treated in a hospital or day hospital due to an exacerbation of paranoid schizophrenia accompanied by symptoms of depression, were prescribed lurasidone. Treatment with lurasidone and other concomitant drugs, their prescription, withdrawal, selection, and dose modifications were determined based on the indications for the use of those drugs and the recommended doses in the instructions, clinical need, and patient interests, rather than by the goals of the study. During the observation period, the severity of depressive symptoms according to the Calgary Depression Scale (CDSS) and that of psychotic symptoms according to the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) were assessed six times (before the start of treatment and then on the 4th, 7th, 14th, 28th, and 42nd days). RESULTS: A statistically significant reduction in the severity of the symptoms was observed with the use of lurasidone in doses ranging from 40 mg to 160 mg per day. The fastest and most significant (p 0.001) reductions in the total PANSS and CDSS scores were observed with lurasidone 120 mg. A somewhat lower efficacy of lurasidone was observed at a dose of 160 mg. The largest reductions in the total PANSS and CDSS scores with lurasidone 120 mg were associated with the highest survival rate and the longest median time from treatment initiation to discontinuation or follow-up. The most commonly reported side effects with lurasidone in this study (nausea, akathisia, tremor and drowsiness) were consistent with the known safety profile of the drug. Adverse events in most cases were assessed as mild, or occasionally moderate. CONCLUSION: A six-week prospective observational study of the real-world clinical effectiveness of lurasidone in doses ranging from 40 mg to 160 mg per day established statistically and clinically significant improvements in both psychotic and depressive symptoms in patients with acute exacerbation of schizophrenia and associated symptoms of depression.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".