Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of xanomeline for schizophrenia spectrum disorders: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction We systematically reviewed extant studies evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of xanomeline and xanomeline-trospium (KarXT) for treatment of adults with schizophrenia.Methods In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, articles were systematically searched for in databases and clinical trial registries.Results A total of 4 preclinical trials and 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this review. A 4-week RCT observed a difference of 24.0 points (SD 21.0) in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score between xanomeline and placebo groups (p = 0.039). A 5-week RCT observed PANSS total score changes from baseline to week 5, including −17.4 and −5.9 points in KarXT and placebo groups, respectively (LSMD −11.6 points; 95% CI −16.1 to −7.1; p < 0.001; d = 0.75). Another 5-week RCT observed PANSS total score changes from baseline to week 5, including −21.2 (SE 1.7) and −11.6 (SE 1.6) points in KarXT and placebo groups, respectively (LSMD −9.6; 95% CI −13.9 to −5.2; p < 0.0001; d = 0.61). Side effects include constipation, nausea, vomiting, dyspepsia, and dry mouth.Conclusion KarXT offers an innovative non-D2 blocking approach, representing a promising treatment avenue for 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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".