Fine-tuning XXXX dosage for acutely exacerbated @entity161 : clinical determinants.

@entity1 @entity221 @entity161 @entity1090
RATIONALE: @entity1090 doses for acute @entity161 were rather high in most recent studies. OBJECTIVES: We tested a hypothesis that fine-tuning @entity1090 dosage to relieve side effects still yields efficacy. Clinical factors influencing the dosing were also determined. METHODS: One hundred and forty-six @entity161 inpatients with acute exacerbation entered a prospective, 6-week, repeated measures study. @entity1090 doses were titrated to 6 mg/day (if tolerable) within 7 days, but were lowered thereafter if adverse reactions appeared. Efficacy and safety were measured biweekly. RESULTS: Forty-eight @entity1 tolerated the 6-mg/day target dose well, while the other 98 received lower final doses (mean+/-SD=3.4+/-0.9 mg/day) to curtail adverse effects. At endpoint, 64.3% of the low-dose @entity1 and 43.8% of the high-dose subjects responded to treatment [>/=20% reduction in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score] ( P=0.018). In detail, the low-dose individuals were significantly superior in percentage changes in the PANSS total and general-subscale scores at endpoint. The low-dose group also tended to improve more (albeit statistically insignificantly) in the PANSS positive and negative subscales and other efficacy measures. Compared to the @entity1 with undifferentiated subtype, those with disorganized subtype received higher dosage by 0.90 mg/day, after controlling for other variables ( P=0.008). Paranoid subtype was similar to undifferentiated subtype in drug doses. @entity1 with @entity221 also showed a trend to use higher dosage ( P=0.078). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that dosage adjustment to diminish side effects does not compromise @entity1090 response and that disorganized @entity1 and perhaps @entity1 with @entity221 are prone to receive larger doses.
