Cited by 39Schizophrenia research and treatmentMental Health and PsychiatryNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

Antipsychotic Dose in Acute Schizophrenia: A Meta-analysis

Open access
Takeuchi, Hiroyoshi, MacKenzie, Nicole E, Samaroo, Dominic, Agid, Ofer, Remington, Gary, Leucht, Stefan·2020·Schizophrenia Bulletin

Abstract

Little is known regarding optimal antipsychotic doses in the acute phase of schizophrenia. The aim of the present study was to employ the concept of minimum effective dose (MED) in examining efficacy and tolerability within this population. MED was identified for each antipsychotic through a previous systematic review. We then identified double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trials that involved fixed-dose antipsychotic monotherapy in acute schizophrenia and compared the identified MED vs higher doses of the same oral antipsychotic. Studies were selected from a recent meta-analysis examining dose–response relationship of second-generation antipsychotics and haloperidol. We extracted the data on study discontinuation, psychopathology, extrapyramidal symptoms, and treatment-emergent adverse events. For each antipsychotic, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare outcomes between MED and 2-fold MED, and MED and 3-fold MED. A total of 26 studies involving 5618 patients were included in the meta-analysis. In terms of study discontinuation, significant differences were found in study discontinuation due to lack of efficacy between MED and higher doses, in favor of 2-fold and 3-fold MEDs. Regarding psychopathology, both 2-fold and 3-fold MEDs were superior to MED for total and positive symptom scores. As for side effects, 2-fold MED proved inferior to MED for parkinsonism scores and diarrhea, whereas 3-fold MED was inferior for akathisia, somnolence, and vomiting. Findings suggest that clinicians can dose an antipsychotic at 2-fold or 3-fold MED for patients with acute schizophrenia but should closely monitor side effects.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/schbul/sbaa063

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • LAIs have more restrictive dose limitations than oral treatments; however, high-dose LAI treatment has not been shown to be superior to LAI treatment at doses within the identified therapeutic range.

    “Also, LAIs have more restrictive dose limitations than oral treatments; however, high-dose LAI treatment has not been shown to be superior to LAI treatment at doses within the identified therapeutic range [106–108].”

    From Pharmacokinetic Characteristics of Long-Acting Injectable Antipsychotics for Schizophrenia: An Overview (2021) · cites this paper as [106]

    The Abstract and Minimum Effective Doses of Antipsychotics section specify that this meta-analysis compares higher doses with minimum effective doses of oral antipsychotics. Searches for LAIs, injectable formulations, and their dose limits found no passage addressing either claim about LAI treatment. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Andreasen NC, Olsen S. Negative v positive schizo- phrenia. Definition and validation. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1982;39(7):789-794.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Takeuchi, H., MacKenzie, N. E., Samaroo, D., Agid, O., Remington, G., & Leucht, S.
Affiliations
  • Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CA)
  • Dalhousie University (CA)
  • Technical University of Munich (DE)
Corresponding author
Takeuchi, Hiroyoshi
Venue
Schizophrenia Bulletin
Published
2020-05-16
Volume
46
Issue
6
Pages
1439-1458
ISSN
  • 0586-7614 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-1701
OpenAlex
W3025481414
Cited by
39
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 11
FWCI
1.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Schizophrenia Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • mediaTUM (Technical University of Munich) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
  • Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development
  • SENSHIN Medical Research Foundation
  • Novartis Pharma
  • Astellas Foundation for Research on Metabolic Disorders
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  • Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
  • Japanese Society of Clinical Neuropsychopharmacology
  • Kyowa
  • Janssen
  • Meiji Seika Pharma
  • Mochida
  • Otsuka
  • Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma
  • Yoshitomiyakuhin
  • Acadia
  • Boehringer Ingelheim
  • DiaMentis
  • Janssen-Ortho
  • Neurocrine Biosciences
  • Syneurx
  • HLS Therapeutics
  • Research Hospital Fund–Canada Foundation for Innovation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
acute schizophrenia, antipsychotic dosing
MeSH terms
Acute Disease, Humans, Schizophrenia, Antipsychotic Agents, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review