Evaluation and Comparison of the Effectiveness of Atropine Eye Drops, Ipratropium Bromide Nasal Spray, and Amitriptyline Tablet in the Management of Clozapine-Associated Sialorrhea in Patients With Refractory Schizophrenia: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Clozapine, a second-generation antipsychotic medication, is mainly indicated for managing treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Among all the nonthreatening adverse effects of clozapine, sialorrhea is a stigmatizing complication occurring in approximately 31.0% to 97.4% of patients. In this study, 2 topical agents (atropine eye drop and ipratropium nasal spray) and a systemic medication (amitriptyline) were compared simultaneously for the management of clozapine-associated sialorrhea. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, single-blinded, non-placebo-controlled clinical trial from June 2022 to January 2023. Eligible patients were randomly allocated into 3 mentioned groups. Patients were monitored for sialorrhea weekly based on scales, including the Toronto Nocturnal Hypersalivation Scale, Clinical Global Impression-Improvement, and Clinical Global Impression-Severity for 1 month. Possible adverse drug reactions and adherence were also recorded. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients, including 6, 10, and 8 individuals in ipratropium bromide nasal spray, atropine eye drop, and amitriptyline groups, completed the study, respectively. The cohort's demographic, baseline clinical, and sociocultural characteristics were comparable among the 3 groups. Within-group comparisons, between times baseline and week 4, demonstrated that significant differences were in groups atropine and amitriptyline based on Toronto Nocturnal Hypersalivation Scale, in 3 groups based on Clinical Global Impression-Improvement, and also in only-atropine group based on Clinical Global Impression-Severity. Likewise, between-group comparisons showed that atropine was significantly more effective in clozapine-associated sialorrhea management than amitriptyline and ipratropium, in the first 2 weeks and second 2 weeks of study, respectively. Regarding safety, the interventions were tolerated relatively well. CONCLUSIONS: Conclusively, atropine is more efficacious than amitriptyline, within the first 2 weeks of study and also relative to ipratropium, overall. As time effect was significant between atropine and amitriptyline, according to analysis of covariance test, further investigation with longer follow-up duration would be prudent. In addition, expanding patient population with larger sample size should be conducted for more precision.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".