Effectiveness of Lurasidone 80 mg in Patients with Schizophrenia: Results of an Open-Label, 12-Week Extension Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of lurasidone 80 mg/day (versus the 40 mg/day dose) during a 12-week, open-label extension study in patients with an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia who had completed a 6-week double-blind study of lurasidone. Patients and Methods: A total of 289 adult patients with schizophrenia completed the double-blind study and enrolled in the 12-week extension study. Lurasidone was flexibly dosed at 40 or 80 mg/day. Effectiveness measures included the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) subscale scores, Clinical Global Impression-Severity Scale (CGI-S), and Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS), analyzed based on last observation carried forward (LOCF-endpoint). Safety/tolerability assessments included adverse events, body weight, laboratory tests, and discontinuation due to adverse events. Results: Mean endpoint change was greater for lurasidone in modal doses of 80 mg/d (N=136) vs 40 mg/d (N=153) on the PANSS positive subscale (-3.0 vs -2.3), PANSS negative subscale (-1.9 vs -1.7), PANSS General Psychopathology subscale (-5.1 vs -3.8), the CGI-S score (-0.5 vs -0.4), and the CDSS score (-0.7 vs -0.1). Discontinuation rates due to adverse events on lurasidone modal 80 mg/d vs 40 mg/d were 4.4% vs 7.2%; and the most common adverse events in the modal 80 mg/d group were nasopharyngitis, 7.4% (vs 4.6% on modal 40 mg/d), constipation, 5.9% (vs 2.0%), and headache, 5.9% (vs 2.0%). Conclusion: In patients with acute schizophrenia treated with lurasidone 40 mg/d, increasing the dose to 80 mg/d was well tolerated, and was associated with greater improvement in PANSS subscale scores compared to continued treatment with a dose of 40 mg/d.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".