SynthesisNeuropsychopharmacology reports2024
Optimal dose for the efficacy of asenapine in patients with schizophrenia: Real-world data.
Synthesis in Neuropsychopharmacology reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimal dose for the efficacy of asenapine in patients with schizophrenia: Real-world data.Neuropsychopharmacology reports · 2024Pooled it
- Safety assessment of asenapine in the FAERS database: real adverse event analysis and discussion on neurological and psychiatric side effects.BMC pharmacology & toxicology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsA meta-analysis of short-term studies revealed no significant differences between the doses of asenapine, 10 and 20 mg/day, in the acute treatment of schizophrenia. However, it should be noted that many patients from clinical practice were excluded, and the dose-response to asenapine in a real-world setting is still unclear. Additionally, the dose-response in the maintenance phase is not clear. This study aimed to evaluate the differences in the efficacy of different asenapine doses in patients with maintenance phase of schizophrenia in a real-world setting.
methodsThis study conducted post-marketing surveillance of asenapine in clinical settings in Japan. It followed patients diagnosed with schizophrenia who received asenapine for the first time for a maximum of 52 weeks. These patients were divided into two categories based on their average daily asenapine dosage: ≤10 mg/day and >10 mg/day. Asenapine efficacy was assessed by adjusting for patient demographics using multivariate logistic regression analysis, employing the Clinical Global Impression-Global Improvement (CGI-I) scale, which has seven categories.
resultsA total of 2774 patients were included in the analysis. Of these, 1689 and 1085 patients were treated with asenapine ≤10 mg/day and >10 mg/day, respectively. The CGI-I improvement rate was significantly higher in the asenapine >10 group (p = 0.012) after adjusting for patient background factors.
conclusionThese results suggest that asenapine doses >10 mg/day may be more effective than 10 mg/day in the treatment of schizophrenia; however, further studies are needed to confirm these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.