Clozapine rechallenge after clozapine-induced myocarditis: A case report to validate a previously published protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Clozapine is an effective antipsychotic indicated for treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS). Its use is limited by its extensive adverse effect profile featuring rare but serious consequences like clozapine-induced myocarditis (CIM). In the event of CIM, clozapine is discontinued; however, there is often no effective alternative for TRS. In this case, a rechallenge of clozapine may be considered. However, there is no standardized protocol to guide clinicians in this process. Case Report: This report describes the case of a 28-year-old male with a history of CIM who successfully underwent a clozapine rechallenge using a cautious titration protocol described in the literature and reached a daily dose of 150 mg without recurrence of CIM. Discussion: This case differed from the previously published research protocol in some respects, including the concurrent use of zuclopenthixol for antiaggression and no significant eosinophil-related concerns during monitoring. Despite confounding factors, including concurrent cellulitis affecting inflammatory markers, the patient was successfully rechallenged with clozapine. Limitations of the case include unknown postdischarge outcomes and lack of measurement-based care, such as the use of rating scales, to assess treatment response objectively. Conclusion: This case report validates the previously published protocol and contributes to the literature on CIM rechallenge, helping clinicians weigh the risks and benefits of rechallenging clozapine in select patients.
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 | 0.021 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
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".