A Comparison of Ziprasidone and Risperidone in the Long-Term Treatment of Schizophrenia: A 44-Week, Double-Blind, Continuation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This randomized, double-blind, multicentre extension study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of ziprasidone and risperidone for schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. METHODS: Patients who had responded to treatment for an acute exacerbation of illness in an 8-week study received ziprasidone, 80 to 160 mg/day (n = 62), or risperidone, 6 to 10 mg/day (n = 77), for up to 44 additional weeks. Primary efficacy variables included changes in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score and Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) score. Tolerability and safety assessments included movement disorders, adverse events, study discontinuation rates, and weight and metabolic parameters. RESULTS: Both the ziprasidone and risperidone groups showed statistical improvement from baseline in PANSS and CGI-S scores at study end point with no significant differences between treatment groups. More risperidone-treated patients completed the study (41.6%) than ziprasidone-treated patients (33.9%), but the difference was not statistically significant. Ziprasidone-treated patients who completed the study showed greater improvement in depressive symptoms assessed by Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale than risperidone-treated patients (P < 0.05). Ziprasidone was associated with a more favourable effect on extrapyramidal symptom (EPS) measures and prolactin as well as less weight gain than risperidone. Median dosages were ziprasidone 120 mg/day and risperidone 8 mg/day. CONCLUSIONS: Ziprasidone and risperidone demonstrated similar efficacy during long-term treatment of patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. While more subjects on risperidone completed the extension study, ziprasidone was associated with fewer adverse effects on weight, EPS measures, and prolactin than risperidone.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".