Antipsychotic Medications for Schizophrenia

Abstract

considered as continuous and categorical variables. The association of tobacco use with oral HPV-16 was explored using logistic regression. All multivariable models included variables considered significant (2-sided P < .05) in bivariable analysis and important factors based on the literature. 2 Analyses were performed using SUDAAN software version 11.0.1 (RTI International).Results | Among 6887 participants, 2012 (28.6%; 95% CI, 26.5%-30.9%) were current tobacco users and 63 (1.0%; 95% CI, 0.8%-1.3%) had oral HPV-16 detected. Current tobacco users were more likely than nonusers to be male, younger, less educated, and to have a higher number of lifetime oral sexual partners ( Table 1). In bivariable analysis, selfreported and biological measures of tobacco exposure as well as oral sexual behavior were significantly associated with prevalent oral HPV-16 infection ( Table 2). Oral HPV-16 prevalence was greater in current tobacco users (2.0%; 95% CI, 1.3%-3.1%) compared with never or former tobacco users (0.6%; 95% CI, 0.4%-0.9%) (P = .004). Mean cotinine (157.7 ng/mL vs 57.2 ng/mL, P = .002) and NNAL levels (0.36 ng/mL vs 0.12 ng/mL, P = .02) were higher in individuals with vs without oral HPV-16 infection.All biomarkers of tobacco exposure remained associated with oral HPV-16 infection after adjustment for other factors (Table 2). Significant dose-response relationships were observed between cotinine (P = .02 for trend) or NNAL (P = .01 for trend) levels and odds of oral HPV-16 infection (Table 2). Each log increase in cotinine, approximating 3 cigarettes per day, was independently associated with oral HPV-16 prevalence (adjusted odds ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.07-1.60). Each log increase in NNAL, approximating 4 cigarettes per day, was independently associated with oral HPV-16 prevalence (adjusted odds ratio, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.23-2.28).

Treatment continuation of four long-acting antipsychotic medications in the Netherlands and Belgium: A retrospective database study

“…A recent comparison of haloperidol decanoate and PP1M [53] found no difference in efficacy. However, this study has been criticized on the account of its high attrition rate, unusual and potentially subjective measure of “lack of efficacy”, non-equivalent dosing, unclear reporting as well as lack of statistical power [54–56]. …”