Adult psychiatrists’ views on clozapine prescribing for schizophrenia in Germany

Abstract

Background:

Clozapine remains the only effective antipsychotic drug for treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS), yet it continues to be markedly underused in most industrialized countries including Germany. Previous studies have identified prescriber-related factors such as concerns about adverse drug reactions, the burden of mandatory monitoring, and limited experience with clozapine use and TRS recognition as major contributors to this persistent underutilization. However, these issues have not been studied for the German healthcare system.

Objectives:

To investigate prescriber attitudes toward clozapine use for schizophrenia in Germany and identify related treatment barriers.

Design:

Cross-sectional, web-based survey study.

Methods:

We conducted a web-based cross-sectional survey using PsyToolkit. Our questionnaire assessed clinicians’ demographics, familiarity with relevant national guidelines, practical experience with clozapine and formalized training in its use, perceived treatment barriers, and presumptions about patients’ attitudes toward clozapine. Data were predominantly analyzed descriptively.

Results:

A total of 155 psychiatrists—most of them board-certified and nearly all regular clozapine prescribers for schizophrenia—completed the survey. Most participants were familiar with guideline recommendations for clozapine initiation. However, even among them, most preferred to attempt at least one trial of antipsychotic polypharmacy before starting clozapine. Formalized training had a positive impact on knowledge regarding clozapine’s effectiveness in reducing negative symptoms, aggressive behavior, and suicidality. While most participants acknowledged clozapine’s effectiveness in reducing all-cause mortality, only a small proportion of participants acknowledged its effectiveness in reducing cardiovascular mortality. Notably, three quarters of participants presumed that patients would prefer standard antipsychotics over clozapine. Monitoring requirements and concerns regarding weight gain and blood dyscrasia were ranked as the main barriers impeding clozapine use.

Conclusion:

We identified several modifiable prescriber-related factors limiting clozapine use for schizophrenia in Germany. Implementing mandatory targeted training programs during residency and regular use of shared decision-making to emphasize the patients’ perspective might facilitate a timelier and widespread use of clozapine.

Keywords

antipsychotics attitude clozapine treatment-resistant schizophrenia

Introduction

Clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia

Thirty percent of all individuals with schizophrenia develop a treatment-resistant course (treatment-resistant schizophrenia, TRS).^1–7 Notably, 80% of these cases emerge during the first psychotic episode.^6,8–10 TRS is associated with a disproportionately high load of stigma, illness burden, and healthcare costs for affected patients, underscoring the need for adequate evidence-based treatment. To date, clozapine remains the only effective antipsychotic for TRS.^11–15 This is the most up-to date meta-analysis demonstrating clozapine’s unique efficacy for TRS.¹⁶ Clozapine entails the lowest risk for extrapyramidal adverse drug reactions (ADRs).¹⁷ Moreover, meta-analytical and real-world data have repeatedly demonstrated clozapine’s clinical superiority compared to standard antipsychotics.^17–27 Specifically, clozapine is superior in improving global psychopathology, positive symptoms, and negative symptoms. Furthermore, clozapine has been shown to be superior in increasing treatment adherence, in reducing aggressive behavior as well as relapse risk in comorbid substance-use disorder.^{12,17,18,20–22,28} Importantly, in addition to its anti-depressant effects, clozapine minimizes suicidal behavior.^{12,17,25,29–32}

Moreover, despite its metabolic ADRs, clozapine does reduce cardiovascular mortality.^19,33–36 Most importantly, compared to standard antipsychotics, clozapine is superior in decreasing all-cause and suicide mortality.^19,27,37 Its effects on all-cause mortality have been partially attributed to its superiority in increasing treatment adherence for somatic comorbidities.²⁶ Notably, a recent population-based cohort study reported that compared to standard antipsychotics including long-acting injectables, clozapine significantly reduces relapse risk in first-episode patients, suggesting that it may already be appropriate and beneficial as a second-line treatment.³⁸ Overall, given these unique benefits, current consensus guidelines recommend clozapine as a second-line treatment for patients with persistent positive symptoms accompanied by suicidality, aggression, or ADRs such as extrapyramidal symptoms or tardive dyskinesia.³⁹

For TRS, response rates to clozapine range from 40% to 60%.^{25,38,40–44} Notably, mirroring findings for the delay of untreated psychosis, a delay in clozapine initiation decreases response rates and has a clear detrimental impact on long-term outcome.^40,42,45,46 Therefore, timely initiation of clozapine using therapeutic drug monitoring is essential for maximizing patients’ benefits.^40,42,45

Additional clozapine indications

Importantly, meta-analytic and register-based evidence also indicates broad beneficial effects in bipolar disorder,^37,47,48 major depressive disorder, and psychotic depression.⁴⁹ Additionally, clozapine’s anti-aggressive effects appear to extend to bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, borderline personality disorder, autism spectrum disorder, and learning disability.^50,51 Moreover, clozapine also shows clear efficacy in psychosis associated with Parkinson’s disease.^37,52–56 This underscores the broad relevance of clozapine underprescribing.

Clozapine underutilization

National and global clinical guidelines recommend initiating clozapine after two unsuccessful trials of standard antipsychotics at adequate doses and durations,^57,58 in line with the definition of TRS.^5,58 Despite these clear recommendations, clozapine remains underutilized across industrialized countries,⁵⁹ in favor of less effective strategies, including antipsychotic polypharmacy, antipsychotic dosing exceeding recommended levels, and augmentation with mood stabilizers.^5,40,60

In Germany, clozapine prescription rates are estimated at 95 per 100,000, whereas the prevalence of TRS is about 200 per 100,000 individuals, clearly indicating that current prescribing remains insufficient.⁵⁹ Low clozapine prescription rates have also been observed in most other industrialized countries, except for Finland, where intensive national efforts have resulted in a substantial increase of clozapine prescription rates over recent decades.^40,59

Factors limiting clozapine use

The causes underlying clozapine underutilization have been studied in both industrialized and developing countries.^61–85 There is converging evidence that patients’ attitudes and treatment decisions are not a major issue.^40,86–88 Furthermore, prescribers often anticipate patient reluctance toward clozapine, primarily due to monitoring requirements and concerns about ADRs. They also assume lower patient satisfaction with clozapine, which increases the likelihood that it is not even offered as a treatment option.^40,89 However, the majority of patients clearly prefer clozapine over their previous antipsychotics despite the associated monitoring requirements and potential ADRs.^81,86,87,90

Notably, clozapine underutilization appears to be primarily due to prescriber-related factors. Converging evidence indicates that prescribers perceive mandatory monitoring requirements as a significant burden.^61–85

Moreover, the majority of prescribers report concerns about clozapine-associated ADRs, particularly clozapine-induced neutropenia (CIN)⁹¹ and agranulocytosis (CIA), and tend to overestimate the risks of these ADRs.^92–95

Limited experience with clozapine use and ADR management have also emerged as a barrier.^{61–70,72–85} Interestingly, in a recent Danish survey, psychiatrists considered some patients to be either too ill or too well-treated to receive clozapine, even when symptom severity remained high.⁷⁰ Moreover, psychiatrists tend to apply more restrictive eligibility, for example by requiring the presence of subjective distress from persistent symptoms in addition to high symptom severity.

Country-specific barriers include mandatory patient registration,^75,85 healthcare professional certification, in-patient clozapine titration during the first eighteen weeks, established collaboration with cardiologists, hematologists, and diabetologists, as well as unnecessarily strict hematological thresholds.^66,72,75 Finally, in many developing countries, limited access to healthcare is a key factor limiting clozapine use.⁷⁸ For Germany, prescriber-related factors contributing to the underutilization of clozapine have not been systematically studied. Given differences in healthcare systems, factors identified in other industrialized countries may not be directly applicable to Germany.

Mental healthcare in Germany

Compared with other European countries, Germany allocates a considerable proportion of its Gross Domestic Product to healthcare, including mental healthcare.^96–98 Health insurance has been compulsory since 2009 and is organized as a dual system.^96,99,100 Approximately 89% of the population is covered by non-profit statutory health insurance.^96,99,101 About 11% of the population is insured through private schemes.^96,99,101 Despite compulsory coverage, 0.1% of the total population remains uninsured.^96,99,100 For these individuals, access to emergency but not long-term medical care is covered by the social welfare system.^96,102,103

Mental healthcare is primarily delivered through hospitals and private practices and is generally covered by health insurances.¹⁰⁴ Hospitals typically provide inpatient, outpatient, and emergency care, whereas private practices, run by board-certified psychiatrists, offer outpatient services only.¹⁰⁴ Among European countries, Germany has the highest proportion of psychiatric hospital beds, which are consistently occupied near full capacity.^105–107 In addition, psychiatric day hospitals are widely established across the country,¹⁰⁴ while multi-disciplinary home treatment services remain scarce.^96,108

The fragmented structure of the German mental healthcare system represents a substantial barrier to timely access to treatment.¹⁰⁸ Compared with the United Kingdom, Finland, Denmark, and Australia, Germany has a markedly lower availability of Youth Mental Health Services and early intervention services (EIS) for individuals experiencing first-episode psychosis (FEP),^96,109–114 resulting in a longer duration of untreated psychosis.^113,115,116

Typically, FEP patients first seek care from mental health professionals in private practices or hospitals and ideally remain in treatment within these settings over the course of their illness.^116–119 In contrast, general practitioners are less likely and less well trained to provide care for people with severe mental disorders.^96,119 Furthermore, dedicated “clozapine clinics,” that is, services specialized in clozapine initiation and management, are not well established in Germany.⁴⁰

Psychiatry residency training in Germany

Psychiatry residency training in Germany is regulated by state-level curricula issued by the 16 state-branches of the National Board of Medical Professionals.^120,121 Training has a minimum duration of 5 years and includes 24 months of mandatory inpatient psychiatry and 12 months of neurology. The remaining 24 months may be completed in general psychiatry in inpatient or outpatient settings or may include up to 12 months in forensic psychiatry, child and adolescent psychiatry, or psychosomatic medicine¹²⁰ Notably, up to six of these 12 months may be completed in neuropathology, neurosurgery, or internal medicine.¹²⁰

Typically, residents must fulfill a catalogue of minimum training requirements, including a specified number of supervised psychotherapy sessions, and pass an oral clinical examination to obtain board certification.^122–124 Importantly, none of the state-level curricula mandate specific psychopharmacological training, including training in clozapine use.^121,125

Psychiatric hospitals constitute the primary accredited training sites for psychiatry residency in Germany.^126–128 These include psychiatric departments within university hospitals, psychiatric units in general hospitals, and stand-alone psychiatric hospitals. In addition, residents may complete up to 24 months of their training in certified private practices run by board-certified psychiatrists.^129,130

Hypotheses

We aimed to assess prescriber-related factors contributing to clozapine underutilization in Germany using an online survey. Based on the current state of research, we hypothesized to find low clinician familiarity with and adherence to guidelines for clozapine initiation and prescribing. Moreover, we expected a preference for polypharmacy and substantial concerns regarding ADRs, particularly blood dyscrasia. We also posited that prescribers would regard monitoring requirements as a burden impeding clozapine use and that they falsely assume that patients would prefer standard antipsychotics over clozapine. Finally, we hypothesized that formalized training in addition to supervised use of clozapine during residency increases both knowledge regarding clozapine’s effectiveness and the rate of guideline-based prescription behavior.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study using a web-based survey in Germany from August 2024 to July 2025. The reporting of this study adheres to the “Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE)” guidelines (Supplemental File 1).¹³¹

Survey development and topics

The survey was developed utilizing the web-based platform PsyToolkit 3.4.6 and consisted of 38 items (Supplemental File 2).^132,133 The duration of the survey was approximately 15–20 min. The survey targeted residents and board-certified psychiatrists. The questionnaire was partly adapted from a previous study with permission from the authors.⁷⁷ The questionnaire was not formally validated but piloted in three late-stage psychiatric residents.

We collected information on the participants’ age, sex, professional demographics including level of post-graduate education (resident vs board-certified) and experience, current workplace, formalized training and knowledge related to clozapine prescription and ADR management, as well as clozapine prescription patterns (Table 1, Supplemental File 2).

Table 1.

Major topics covered with the survey.

General information/demographics

Participants age distribution

Level of post-graduate education

Current workplace

Training type in clozapine use: e.g., supervised use in clinical setting and/or formalized training

Case load: number of patients with schizophrenia and number of patients treated with clozapine under the participants’ care

Knowledge

Current national guideline recommendations on when to start clozapine

Clozapine effectiveness regarding negative symptoms, suicidal behavior, aggressive behavior, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality

Perceived barriers

Adverse drug reactions perceived as barriers

Management/monitoring requirements perceived as barriers

Perceived barriers limiting clozapine use from the patient perspective

Assumptions regarding patients’ medication preferences

For investigating the impact of formalized training, we distinguished between supervised use during residency under a consultant psychiatrist, formalized training independent of the previously mentioned supervised use, a combination of both, and no training at all. Our survey also included questions about the number of patients with schizophrenia-spectrum disorder under the participant’s care, as well as questions about the number of patients treated with clozapine under the participant’s care.

For specifying participants’ workplace, we primarily distinguished between three categories: psychiatric departments at university hospitals, other psychiatric hospitals, that is, psychiatric departments within general hospitals and stand-alone psychiatric hospitals, and private practices.

Furthermore, we collected information on the participants’ knowledge regarding clozapine-related recommendations provided by the national guidelines,^59,134 as well as the participants’ attitudes toward clozapine and polypharmacy with standard antipsychotics.

Participants were also asked to rate clozapine’s effectiveness in reducing negative symptoms, aggressive behavior, suicidality, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality using a four-point Likert-type scale (“Yes”, “Likely Yes”, “Likely No”, “No”). For descriptive purposes, responses were dichotomized into agreement (“Yes”, “Likely Yes”) and disagreement (“Likely No”, “No”). Using a similar four-point scale, participants further evaluated patients’ presumed treatment preferences by indicating whether they believed patients would prefer clozapine (“Yes”, “Likely Yes”) or standard antipsychotics (“Likely No”, “No”).

Furthermore, we collected information on perceived barriers limiting the widespread use of clozapine. In this context, we distinguished general barriers attributed to clozapine use—such as mandatory monitoring requirements and slow titration—from barriers related to clozapine associated ADRs. With respect to general barriers, participants had to rank six potential barriers in order of significance, with one indicating the most significant and six the least significant. With respect to ADRs perceived as barriers to long-term use, participants ranked each from one, indicating the most important obstacle, to nine, indicating no obstacle. Finally, we asked participants to rank patient-related barriers to clozapine use in the same way. Participants ranked each from one, indicating the most important obstacle, to five, indicating the least important obstacle.

Survey distribution

To maximize the reach of our survey, we contacted multiple national networks for clinical psychiatry with the aim of engaging an unbiased sample of psychiatrists working in both inpatient and outpatient settings throughout Germany. To this end, we contacted every professional network for German psychiatrists. For psychiatrists working in hospital settings, these networks included “Lehrstuhlinhaber für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie (LIPPs e.V.)”, “Bundesdirektorenkonferenz (BDK)”, and “Arbeitskreis der Chefärztlnnen der Kliniken für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie an Allgemeinkrankenhäusern in Deutschland (ACPA)”. For psychiatrists working in outpatient settings, that is, in private practices, this included “Berufsverband Deutscher Nervenärzte (BVDN e.V.)”. For organizations representing psychiatrists working in either setting, we contacted the “German Association for Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatic Medicine (DGPPN e.V.)”. The survey invitation, including the survey URL, was distributed by email.

Sample size calculation

The study was designed as an exploratory, cross-sectional survey of psychiatrists working in inpatient and outpatient settings across Germany. Due to the anonymous nature of the survey and the distribution via national professional networks without access to a complete sampling frame or response denominator, an a-priori sample size calculation or formal power analysis was not feasible. Consequently, no predefined target sample size was specified. Instead, recruitment was guided by feasibility and comparability with prior national-level surveys conducted in other countries investigating prescriber attitudes toward clozapine, which typically report sample sizes ranging from approximately 80 to 280 participants.^{66,68,76,79,135} Within this context, the final sample of 155 completed questionnaires was considered sufficient to allow robust descriptive analyses and exploratory group comparisons, particularly regarding the impact of training exposure on prescribing attitudes and clozapine-related knowledge.

Statistics

We used descriptive statistics to summarize the participants’ answers. To assess the impact of training type in clozapine management, that is, supervised clozapine use versus supervised clozapine use and additional formalized training, on polypharmacy preference, we applied Pearson Chi-squared tests.

To assess the impact of training type on participants’ assumptions whether patients preferred clozapine over standard antipsychotics, responses were first dichotomized into “agreement” (“Yes” and “Likely Yes”) and “disagreement” (“No” and “Likely No”) for descriptive purposes. Moreover, to account for the original nature of the four-point-Likert-type responses, we conducted a Mann–Whitney U test to assess the impact of training type on the participants’ assumptions regarding patients’ preferences. Likert-type items were treated as ordinal variables. Accordingly, results are reported using medians and interquartile ranges, and group comparisons were performed using non-parametric tests. No parametric statistics were applied to single-item Likert-scale data.

To assess the impact of training type on knowledge regarding clozapine effectiveness, we also conducted a Mann–Whitney U test. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 31.¹³⁶

Results

Demographics

Because the survey was conducted anonymously online and recruitment relied on the previously mentioned professional networks, it was not possible to determine how many board-certified psychiatrists and residents received the invitation. According to the analytics of our website, a total of 403 people accessed the survey page, of whom 21 started but did not complete the survey, and 155 individuals completed it. Importantly, we cannot determine whether incomplete survey entries and page visits were generated by individuals who later completed the survey or accessed it from another device. Therefore, all analyses are based on these 155 individuals.

Details regarding professional demographics are depicted in Table 2. The analysis of age distribution revealed a predominance of middle-aged and older prescribers, 41% of participants were females (Table 2). Most participants reported having more than 30 years of experience in medicine (Table 2). Ten percent of participants were residents, whereas 90% of participants were board-certified psychiatrists. Sixteen percent of participants were employed at psychiatric departments of university hospitals, 55% of participants were employed at other psychiatric hospitals, and 23% of participants were employed in private practices. The remaining 6% of participants were either retired or currently employed in rehabilitation centers, neurological departments, or private practices specializing in neurological disorders.

Table 2.

Demographic characteristics of participants.

Participant characteristics	Sample (n = 155)
Sex (%)
Females	41
Males	59
Age distribution [%]
20–40 years	23
41–60 years	52
>60 years	25
Level of post-graduate education (%)
Residents	10
Board-certified psychiatrists	90
Years of experience in medicine (%)
1–10 years	20
11–20 years	27
21–30 years	25
>30 years	28
Workplace (%)
Psychiatric departments at university hospitals	16
Other psychiatric hospitals	55
Private practices	23
Other	6
Training types in clozapine use (%)
Supervised use during residency only	49
Supervised use during residency and additional formalized training	41
Formalized training only	3
None	7

Training in clozapine use

A total of 49% of participants reported having learned clozapine management only through supervised use with their consultant psychiatrist during residency (Table 2). Three percent of participants reported having learned clozapine management only through formalized training outside the hospital they completed their residency training in. A total of 41% of participants reported having learned clozapine management through both means, that is, under the supervision of their consultant psychiatrist during residency as well as through additional formalized training. Seven percent of participants (n = 11) reported never having had any training in clozapine management.

Professional experience

All participants reported having acquired experience in treating patients with schizophrenia during their career. The distribution of the number of people diagnosed with schizophrenia during career is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Caseload of patients with schizophrenia during career.

Almost all participants (n = 153) reported having acquired experience in treating patients with clozapine during their career. The remaining two were residents in their first and fifth years of training, respectively. A total of 88% of participants reported that they were currently having patients treated with clozapine under their care. The highest proportion of patients currently treated with clozapine by the participants fell within the range of 1–25 patients for both outpatient settings (Figure 2) and inpatient settings (Figure 3).

Figure 2.

Current caseload of patients with clozapine in outpatient settings.

Figure 3.

Current caseload of patients on clozapine in inpatient settings.

Guideline familiarity and adherence

Objective guideline familiarity was assessed based on participant’s knowledge regarding national guideline recommendations for clozapine initiation. A total of 79% of all participants (81% of residents (n = 13) and 78% of board-certified psychiatrists (n = 109)) demonstrated familiarity with German guideline recommendations regarding TRS criteria and appropriate timing for initiating clozapine (Figure 4). These recommendations are identical to international consensus recommendations.^5,59,134

Figure 4.

Guideline familiarity.

Timing of clozapine initiation

Among participants indicating familiarity with guideline recommendations (n = 122), 53% (n = 64) reported initiating clozapine after two other unsuccessful antipsychotic trials, 40% (n = 49) reported initiating clozapine after three other unsuccessful antipsychotic trials, 5% (n = 6) reported initiating clozapine after four or more other unsuccessful antipsychotic trials, and 2% (n = 3) reported not prescribing clozapine at all (Figure 5).

Figure 5.

Preferred number of antipsychotic treatment trials before clozapine among prescribers familiar with national guidelines.

Among participants unfamiliar with guideline recommendations (n = 33), 3% (n = 1) reported initiating clozapine after one other unsuccessful trial, 21% (n = 7) reported initiating clozapine after two other unsuccessful antipsychotic trials, 33% (n = 11) reported initiating clozapine after three other unsuccessful antipsychotic trials, and 43% (n = 14) reported initiating clozapine after four or more other antipsychotic trials (Figure 6).

Figure 6.

Preferred number of antipsychotic treatment trials before clozapine among prescribers unfamiliar with national guidelines.

Among participants with supervised clozapine use only, 47.4% reported to initiate clozapine after two unsuccessful antipsychotic trials. In contrast, among participants with additional formalized training, 45.3% reported to initiate clozapine after two unsuccessful antipsychotic trials. The Pearson Chi-squared test did not reveal any significant effect of training type on the timing of clozapine initiation (χ²(1) = 0.059, p = 0.808, φ = 0.021).

Antipsychotic polypharmacy prior to clozapine

Notably, 72% of all participants reported conducting at least one trial of polypharmacy with standard antipsychotics prior to clozapine contrary to German guideline recommendations. Among the 122 participants familiar with German guideline recommendations, 69% reported conducting at least one trial of polypharmacy with standard antipsychotics prior to clozapine contrary to guideline recommendations. Among the 33 participants unfamiliar with German guideline recommendations, this rate was 82%.

Participants who had completed formalized training in clozapine management in addition to supervised use appeared to be less likely to favor the use of antipsychotic polypharmacy before initiating clozapine. Among participants with supervised clozapine use only, 76% reported a preference for polypharmacy prior to clozapine. In contrast, among participants with additional formalized training, 66% reported a preference for polypharmacy prior to clozapine. However, the Pearson Chi-squared test did not reveal any significant effect of additional formalized training on polypharmacy preference (χ²(1) = 1.946, p = 0.163, φ = 0.118).

Confidence in clozapine use

A total of 97% of all participants reported feeling confident in monitoring patients on clozapine and 94% of all participants reported feeling confident in managing clozapine-associated ADRs. Among participants who expressed confidence in monitoring patients on clozapine (n = 151), the majority (n = 141) had acquired experience in clozapine management either through supervised use (n = 74) or supervised use and additional formalized training (n = 63). Among participants who expressed confidence in managing clozapine-associated ADRs (n = 146), the majority (n = 136) had acquired experience in clozapine management either through supervised use (n = 70) or supervised use and additional formalized training (n = 62).

Knowledge regarding clozapine’s effectiveness

For descriptive purposes, we dichotomized the responses into “agreement” (“Yes” and “Likely Yes”) and “disagreement” (“No” and “Likely No”). Overall, among all participants, the majority acknowledged that clozapine is effective in reducing negative symptoms (81%), aggressive behavior (94%), and suicidality (92%) (Figure 7). Notably, 76% of participants acknowledged that clozapine reduces all-cause mortality. In contrast, only 24% of participants acknowledged that clozapine could reduce cardiovascular mortality despite its potential ADRs. Among participants who stated correctly that clozapine can reduce cardiovascular mortality (n = 37), 89% had acquired experience in clozapine management either through supervised use or supervised use and additional formalized training.

Figure 7.

Reports about knowledge regarding clozapine effectiveness on key clinical parameters.

Impact of additional formalized training on knowledge

To assess the impact of training-type using the original four-point-Likert-type responses, we conducted Mann–Whitney U tests (Table 3).

Table 3.

Impact of additional formal training on knowledge regarding clozapine’s effectiveness.

Outcome	Supervised use only			Supervised use and additional formalized training			Test statistics
	Median	Interquartile range (IQR)	Score reflecting	Median	Interquartile range (IQR)	Score reflecting	U	Z	p-Value
Negative symptoms	2	2	~“Likely Yes”	1	1	~“Yes”	1670.0	−3.47	<0.001
Aggressive behavior	2	1	~“Likely Yes”	1	1	~“Yes”	1887.5	2.58	0.010
Suicidality	2	1	~“Likely Yes”	1	1	~“Yes”	1780.0	−3.11	0.002
All-cause mortality	2	2	~“Likely Yes”	2	2	~“Likely Yes”	2208.5	−1.00	0.315
Cardiovascular mortality	3	1	~“Likely No”	3	0	~“Likely No”	1859.5	−2.57	0.01

Negative symptoms

For negative symptoms, the median rating was 2 (IQR = 2; ~“Likely Yes”) among participants with supervised use only, compared to 1 (IQR = 1; ~“Yes”) among participants with additional formalized training. The Mann–Whitney U test revealed a statistically significant effect of additional formalized training, U = 1670.0, Z = −3.47, p < 0.001.

Aggressive behavior

For aggressive behavior, the median rating was 2 (IQR = 1; ~“Likely Yes”) among participants with supervised use only, compared to 1 (IQR = 1; ~“Yes”) among participants with additional formalized training. The Mann–Whitney U test revealed a statistically significant effect of additional formalized training, U = 1887.5, Z = 2.58, p = 0.010.

Suicidality

For suicidality, the median rating was 2 (IQR = 1; ~“Likely Yes”) among participants with supervised use only, compared to 1 (IQR = 1; ~“Yes”) among participants with additional formalized training. The Mann–Whitney U test revealed a statistically significant effect of additional formalized training, U = 1780.0, Z = −3.11, p = 0.002.

All-cause mortality

For all-cause mortality, the median rating was 2 (IQR = 2; ~“Likely Yes”) in both the supervised-use-only group and the group with additional formalized training. The Mann–Whitney U test did not reveal a statistically significant effect of additional formalized training, U = 2208.5, Z = −1.00, p = 0.315.

Cardiovascular mortality

For cardiovascular mortality, the median rating was 3 (IQR = 1; between ~“Likely No”) in both the supervised-use-only group and the group with additional formalized training. However, the responses differed in their overall distribution, with the Mann–Whitney U test revealing a statistically significant effect of additional formalized training, U = 1859.5, Z = −2.57, p = 0.01.

Assumed patient preferences

For descriptive purposes, we first dichotomized the responses to the question whether patients would prefer clozapine over standard antipsychotics into “agreement” (“Yes” and “Likely Yes”) and “disagreement” (“No” and “Likely No”). A total of 73% of all participants assumed that patients would prefer standard antipsychotics over clozapine (Figure 8). Among participants without additional formalized training in clozapine use, this rate was 80%. Among participants with additional formalized training in clozapine use, this rate was 63%.

Figure 8.

Presumed patients’ preferences.

To assess the impact of training type using the original four-point-Likert-type responses, we conducted Mann–Whitney U tests. Overall, the median rating was 3 (IQR = 0; ~“Likely No”) among participants with supervised use only, compared to 3 (IQR = 1; ~“Likely No”) among participants with additional formalized training. However, the responses differed in their overall distribution, with the Mann-Whitney-U test revealing a statistically significant effect of additional formalized training, U = 1927.5, Z = −2.36, p = 0.018.

General barriers for clozapine use

All participants were asked to rank factors they perceived as barriers in order of relevance (Figure 9), with one reflecting the most important barrier. Here, mandatory prerequisites, including monitoring requirements and slow titration, were ranked highest overall. Specifically, 86 participants assigned mandatory prerequisites to the first rank. Concerns about ADRs (~ second rank) and lack of experience of psychiatric prescribers in general (~ third rank) in clozapine use were regarded as additional important factors limiting clozapine use. Insecurities regarding TRS diagnosis (~ fourth rank), lack of shared decision-making (~ fifth rank), and potential patient refusal (~ sixth rank) of clozapine were less frequently considered as relevant barriers.

Figure 9.

Ranking of general barriers limiting clozapine use.

ADR-related barriers for clozapine use

All participants were asked to rank clozapine-associated ADRs they perceived as a barrier for clozapine long-term use in order of relevance (Figure 10), with one reflecting the most important barrier. Here, blood dyscrasia was ranked highest (~ first rank). This was closely followed by clozapine-associated weight gain, sedation, myocarditis, and sialorrhea. Constipation (~ fifth rank) was less frequently considered as a barrier. This was closely followed by seizures and akathisia.

Figure 10.

Ranking of ADR-related barriers limiting clozapine use.

Patient-related barriers for clozapine use

Participants were asked to rank factors they assumed would limit clozapine use from the patients’ perspective in order of relevance (Figure 11), with one reflecting the most important factor. Here, mandatory laboratory monitoring was ranked highest (~ first rank). Concerns about ADRs were assigned to the second rank. The perceived burden of ADRs was predominantly assigned to the third rank. Lack of insight was ranked first by a considerable number of participants (n = 48), but overall, it was assigned to the fourth rank (n = 50). Interestingly, a lack of symptom-related distress was less frequently considered as a relevant barrier (~ sixth rank).

Figure 11.

Ranking of barriers limiting clozapine use from the patient perspective.

Discussion

Our goal was to examine prescriber-related factors for the considerable underutilization of clozapine in schizophrenia in Germany despite its status as the only antipsychotic with proven efficacy in patients with TRS.^5,11–15 To this end, we used an online survey to examine attitudes toward clozapine and factors limiting the adequate use of clozapine in a sample of 155 participants.

Comparability with other studies

While our study constitutes the first assessment of the situation in Germany, a growing number of studies across the globe have evaluated psychiatrists’ attitudes toward clozapine.^61–85 Our participants’ age range and professional profiles mirrored those reported in similar surveys.^{66–70,74,77,85}

Main findings

Our main findings were that monitoring requirements and concerns regarding ADRs are most frequently regarded as factors limiting more widespread clozapine use in Germany. Interestingly, while participants rated themselves as sufficiently experienced in the use of clozapine, they also regarded a lack of experience with clozapine among psychiatric prescribers in general as an almost equally important treatment barrier. Limited adherence to guideline recommendations regarding clozapine initiation and a lack of knowledge regarding the positive impact of clozapine on cardiovascular mortality despite its metabolic side-effects also emerged as potential barriers. Furthermore, participants clearly presumed that patients would prefer standard antipsychotics over clozapine.

ADR-related concerns

Concerns regarding blood dyscrasia, that is, CIN and CIA, were ranked most frequently as ADR-related barriers followed by weight gain, while constipation and clozapine-induced myocarditis (CIM) were named less frequently. These assessments contrast with current evidence indicating that the risk of CIM might be notably higher than the risk of CIA.^95,137–139

Monitoring requirements

Importantly, we conducted our study before the European Medicines Agency and the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices eased blood monitoring requirements in September 2025 following a concerted effort by the European Clozapine Task Force.^95,140,141 Future studies should investigate the impact of these changes, which were partly motivated by the positive experience of reduced blood monitoring during the COVID-19 pandemic,^142,143 on prescriber attitudes and prescription rates.

Titration speed

The slow titration speed required during clozapine initiation also appeared to be regarded as a barrier.¹⁴⁴ However, because this potential barrier was assessed together with laboratory monitoring, we cannot draw definitive conclusions about whether it was considered as a major barrier on its own. Considering the current state of evidence,^{61–68,70–76,78–85,145} we would assume that laboratory monitoring would have a higher impact on participants’ treatment decisions than slow titration. Given that the vast majority of studies has demonstrated an association of rapid initial titration rates—even in the order of 25 mg per day—with an increased risk for severe ADRs, particularly CIM, recent expert consensus recommendations clearly advise against such fast titration regimes.^{138,144,146–150} Moreover, the occurrence of other ADRs induced by rapid titration rates might compromise long-term treatment adherence.^25,138 Therefore, psychiatric training in the context of TRS treatment needs to emphasize pharmacological strategies suited for stabilizing acutely ill TRS patients until the clinical effects of clozapine can become evident, such as the use of olanzapine and benzodiazepines.

Clozapine initiation

Timing of clozapine initiation

Among the 79% of participants familiar with German guideline recommendations regarding the timing of clozapine initiation, 45% reported deviating from this recommendation by typically initiating clozapine after at least three other unsuccessful antipsychotic trials. Among the 21% of participants unfamiliar with these recommendations, 76% reported typically initiating clozapine after at least three other unsuccessful antipsychotic trials. Additional formalized training in clozapine use did not increase the likelihood of initiating clozapine after two unsuccessful antipsychotic trials.

Antipsychotic polypharmacy prior to clozapine

Notably, contrary to German guideline recommendations, 72% of all participants reported conducting at least one trial of polypharmacy with standard antipsychotics within the sequence of pre-clozapine antipsychotic trials. For this issue, we did not observe a significant effect of additional formalized training in clozapine use.

Among participants familiar with German guideline recommendations, this rate was 69%, while it was 82% among participants unfamiliar with German guideline recommendations. Thus, while guideline familiarity appears to have a discernable positive impact on clozapine initiation behavior, the overall rate of deviation from the recommendations remained considerable. These findings are well in line with prescribing patterns reported by other studies.^{67–69,74,82,151–154}

Importantly, our survey did not allow us to determine at which point during pre-clozapine antipsychotic trials antipsychotic polypharmacy was typically used. However, our findings indicate that even among prescribers who initiate clozapine after two other antipsychotic trials, the majority employ an antipsychotic polypharmacy strategy prior to clozapine. Importantly, we explicitly asked whether this involves the use of both antipsychotics in a dose deemed to have antipsychotic efficacy. We interpret this finding as indicating that antipsychotic polypharmacy is relatively common as a second-line treatment strategy. This finding would constitute one of the most concerning and puzzling deviations from evidence-based antipsychotic prescribing for schizophrenia. However, given that we assessed polypharmacy prior to clozapine initiation and the timing of clozapine initiation more generally in two independent questions, we cannot rule out some level of inconsistency in the way both questions were answered.

Clozapine’s effectiveness

The impact of clozapine on key outcome parameters beyond positive symptoms represents an important aspect of its overall effectiveness.²⁵ In our study, a clear majority of participants acknowledged clozapine’s effectiveness in reducing negative symptoms, aggressive behavior, suicidality, and all-cause mortality. In contrast, and contrary to the existing evidence,^19,33–36 only 24% of participants recognized its association with reduced cardiovascular mortality—a finding of particular relevance given widespread concerns about clozapine’s metabolic and cardiac ADRs. With the exception of all-cause mortality, additional formalized training in clozapine use was associated with significantly greater awareness of these outcome benefits.

Assumed patient preferences

Importantly, the majority of participants assumed that patients would prefer standard antipsychotics over clozapine, a finding consistent with previous surveys.^68,69,71,74 However, converging evidence shows that despite potential ADRs—particularly hypersalivation and weight gain—and the burden of mandatory monitoring, patients treated with clozapine report higher satisfaction than with their prior standard antipsychotic treatment.^{71,81,86,87,90}

Together, these findings suggest that clozapine underutilization is primarily driven by prescriber concerns regarding ADRs and monitoring requirements. Previous work indicates that such concerns may be exacerbated by limited familiarity with treatment algorithms and ADR management strategies,^64,65,72,155 potentially creating a self-reinforcing cycle in which low prescribing rates lead to less clinical expertise.^{64,65,72,89,155} These factors may further increase the likelihood that clozapine is not even offered as a treatment option, thereby excluding patients from shared decision-making regarding a uniquely effective treatment option with unrivaled benefits.⁸⁹

Possible solutions for clozapine underutilization

Shared decision-making

We did not specifically assess the frequency of use of shared decision-making (SDM) in our survey. However, there are clear recommendations for its consistent use in treating patients with schizophrenia,^156–159 because it increases the impact of the patients’ perspective and needs.¹⁵⁹ Moreover, emphasizing the patient’s perspective and their need for adequate treatment increases the likelihood of psychiatric residents considering and recommending clozapine.^89,156,160 Consequently, focusing on these issues could be a crucial catalyst of clozapine use. Importantly, implementing SDM should also involve people with lived experience (PWLE) who have benefited from clozapine.^145,161

Training in clozapine use

Reframing how clozapine is presented in the undergraduate and post-graduate medical literature appears to be important. Many publications and textbooks still refer to clozapine as a “last-resort medication,” implying that clozapine should be used after non-response to all other antipsychotics despite clear guideline recommendations to the contrary. Emphasizing the unique advantages of clozapine during medical training, rather than focusing primarily on its ADRs might help to promote its wider use.⁴⁰ Such a strategy should also include increased advocacy by networks involving both clinical experts and PWLE.

Given that a lack of experience in clozapine use was regarded as a relevant barrier by our participants, mandatory formalized training in clozapine use appears to be essential. In our cohort, it increased knowledge regarding the extent of clozapine’s effectiveness, while not noticeably improving guideline adherence. This suggests that existing training formats may insufficiently emphasize treatment algorithms, and particularly the prognostic relevance of minimizing delays in clozapine initiation. Strengthening this focus may enhance the impact of mandatory clozapine training as a requirement for board certification.⁶⁵

Such mandatory training is widely regarded as a key component of comprehensive strategies to address clozapine underutilization.^40,162,163 To ensure broad accessibility, e-learning and blended learning approaches might be most suitable.^163–166 Beyond treatment algorithms, such programs should prioritize early detection of TRS, increasing awareness regarding patients’ positive attitudes toward clozapine, teaching SDM and effective ADR management, and highlighting the full range of clozapine’s effectiveness on clinical syndromes and mortality. However, it is essential to integrate such training programs with practical clinical training.¹⁶³

TRS units

Establishing hospital-based TRS units across Germany comparable to the Maudsley TREAT team represents another strategy to enhance expertise in clozapine use and TRS detection.¹⁶⁷ Ideally, these units should combine structured case referral pathways¹⁶⁸ with case-specific consultation hotlines to support mental health professionals who lack direct access to specialized expertise, analogous to the “Medical Child Protection Hotline” coordinated by Ulm University Hospital.¹⁶⁹ Given that approximately 80% of TRS cases emerge during the first psychotic episode,^6,8–10 systematic integration of dedicated expertise in clozapine use and TRS detection into EIS appears essential.¹⁷⁰ Ideally, EIS should be closely linked with specialized TRS units. Current evidence indicates that such an integrative approach can substantially reduce delays in clozapine initiation.^170,171

Beyond clozapine

Finally, clozapine underutilization parallels the considerable underuse of lithium in bipolar disorder,^172–175 despite lithium representing an equally indispensable treatment option for this condition.^{173,174,176–178} This parallel points to a more fundamental challenge in psychiatric practice: the insufficient implementation of highly effective, evidence-based pharmacological treatments with demanding monitoring requirements and complex ADR management. Addressing this challenge may, therefore, require structural changes in postgraduate training and continuing medical education that extend beyond disorder-specific approaches.

Limitations

Some limitations of our survey need to be considered. First, we cannot determine whether the participants were aware of the concurrent efforts by European clozapine researchers advocating a relaxation of blood-monitoring⁸³ and whether that may have influenced their attitudes. More importantly, despite our efforts to reach most prescribers by contacting all major professional networks, only 155 psychiatrists completed the survey. We cannot make any inferences as to why many individuals contacted did not complete the survey. Thus, we cannot tell whether the degree of professional personal experience in using clozapine influenced the likelihood of participating in the study. Consequently, an important limitation of this study is the absence of an a-priori sample size calculation or formal power analysis. This survey was designed as an exploratory, cross-sectional study and was distributed anonymously via national professional psychiatric networks without access to a defined sampling frame. As a result, neither the total number of eligible psychiatrists approached nor a single primary outcome with an anticipated effect size could be specified in advance. This precluded a meaningful a-priori power-based sample size estimation and reliable calculation of response rates.

Moreover, only 23% of the participants worked in private practices. Consequently, there might be a selection bias regarding self-reported clozapine prescription patterns and confidence in clozapine management. However, given that to the best of our knowledge no study has previously investigated prescriber-related barriers to clozapine use in Germany, our findings should still be of use to improve strategies for increasing clozapine prescription rates.

Additionally, 90% of the participants were already board-certified and almost all participants reported being regular clozapine prescribers. This might have also contributed to the high rates of self-reported clozapine confidence and the relatively high familiarity with national guideline recommendations. While this could indicate a bias in our participants toward experienced and regular prescribers, this could also be regarded as a strength. This cohort should provide particularly informed insights into clozapine use. However, considering the evident need to improve and formalize clozapine training during psychiatric residency, additional studies specifically targeting early-career residents are warranted to complement and extend our current findings.

Conclusion

In line with previous surveys from other countries, our findings show that despite familiarity with national guideline recommendations, psychiatrists are reluctant to prescribe clozapine. Barriers leading to delayed clozapine use encompass concerns about tolerability, logistical issues related to mandatory blood monitoring, and misconceptions regarding patients’ preferences. However, additional formalized training including shared decision-making tools combined with supervised clozapine prescription during residency could increasing clozapine prescription rates.

Future research should investigate the benefits of such training programs, the effects of the recently eased blood monitoring requirements, as well as the impact of integrating PWLE advocating regular use of clozapine. Moreover, research on clozapine perspectives needs to identify and address remaining gaps in knowledge.⁷¹ These include attitudes of clozapine-eligible but naïve patients, clinicians’ reasons for withholding clozapine and factors facilitating its use, as well as prescriber attitudes toward clozapine continuation, discontinuation, and rechallenge.⁷¹ Such studies will be critical to overcoming one of the most enduring and clinically consequential gaps in the implementation of evidence-based psychiatric care.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-tpp-10.1177_20451253261434380 – Supplemental material for Adult psychiatrists’ views on clozapine prescribing for schizophrenia in Germany—an online survey

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-tpp-10.1177_20451253261434380 for Adult psychiatrists’ views on clozapine prescribing for schizophrenia in Germany—an online survey by Mishal Qubad, Ida Marie Ehret, Christian J. Bachmann and Robert A. Bittner in Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-tpp-10.1177_20451253261434380 – Supplemental material for Adult psychiatrists’ views on clozapine prescribing for schizophrenia in Germany—an online survey

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-tpp-10.1177_20451253261434380 for Adult psychiatrists’ views on clozapine prescribing for schizophrenia in Germany—an online survey by Mishal Qubad, Ida Marie Ehret, Christian J. Bachmann and Robert A. Bittner in Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank our psychiatric colleagues for participating in the survey. Moreover, the authors would like to thank Dr. Mareike Aichholzer, Rabia Sana Arshad, and Maximilian Bayas for help with piloting the online survey and G. Herzog for help with the figures. The authors would also like to thank the national networks including DGPPN e.V., ACPA, BVDN e.V., LIPPs e.V., BDK, and Dr. Martin Finger for helping to distribute the survey.

Declarations

ORCID iDs

Mishal Qubad

Ida Marie Ehret

Robert A. Bittner

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Carbon

Correll

CU.

Clinical predictors of therapeutic response to antipsychotics in schizophrenia. Dialogues Clin Neurosci 2014; 16(4): 505–524.

Detanac

Williams

Dragovic

, et al. Prevalence of treatment-resistant schizophrenia among people with early psychosis and its clinical and demographic correlates. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2024; 58(12): 1080–1089.

Diniz

Fonseca

Rocha

, et al. Treatment resistance in schizophrenia: a meta-analysis of prevalence and correlates. Braz J Psychiatry 2023; 45(5): 448–458.

Howes

McCutcheon

Agid

, et al. Treatment-resistant schizophrenia: treatment response and resistance in psychosis (TRRIP) Working Group Consensus Guidelines on diagnosis and terminology. Am J Psychiatry 2017; 174(3): 216–229.

Kane

Agid

Baldwin

, et al. Clinical guidance on the identification and management of treatment-resistant schizophrenia. J Clin Psychiatry 2019; 80(2): 18com12123.

Meltzer

HY.

Treatment-resistant schizophrenia–the role of clozapine. Curr Med Res Opin 1997;14(1): 1–20.

Potkin

Kane

Correll

, et al. The neurobiology of treatment-resistant schizophrenia: paths to antipsychotic resistance and a roadmap for future research. NPJ Schizophr 2020; 6(1): 1.

Demjaha

Lappin

Stahl

, et al. Antipsychotic treatment resistance in first-episode psychosis: prevalence, subtypes and predictors. Psychol Med 2017; 47(11): 1981–1989.

Lally

Ajnakina

Di Forti

, et al. Two distinct patterns of treatment resistance: clinical predictors of treatment resistance in first-episode schizophrenia spectrum psychoses. Psychol Med 2016; 46(15): 3231–3240.

10.

Siskind

Orr

Sinha

, et al. Rates of treatment-resistant schizophrenia from first-episode cohorts: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Psychiatry 2022; 220(3): 115–120.

11.

Correll

Howes

OD.

Treatment-resistant schizophrenia: definition, predictors, and therapy options. J Clin Psychiatry 2021; 82(5).

12.

Leucht

Corves

Arbter

, et al. Second-generation versus first-generation antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia: a meta-analysis. Lancet 2009; 373(9657): 31–41.

13.

Lewis

Barnes

Davies

, et al. Randomized controlled trial of effect of prescription of clozapine versus other second-generation antipsychotic drugs in resistant schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull 2006; 32(4): 715–723.

14.

McEvoy

Lieberman

Stroup

, et al. Effectiveness of clozapine versus olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone in patients with chronic schizophrenia who did not respond to prior atypical antipsychotic treatment. Am J Psychiatry 2006; 163(4): 600–610.

15.

Siskind

Northwood

McCutcheon

RA.

Clozapine and treatment-resistant schizophrenia: efficacy versus effectiveness. Lancet Psychiatry 2025; 12(4): 240–241.

16.

Samara

Lappas

Pinioti

, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological interventions for schizophrenia non-responsive to prior treatment: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. E Clinical Medicine 2025; 84: 103291.

17.

Huhn

Nikolakopoulou

Schneider-Thoma

, et al. Comparative efficacy and tolerability of 32 oral antipsychotics for the acute treatment of adults with multi-episode schizophrenia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet 2019; 394(10202): 939–951.

18.

Brodeur

Courteau

Vanasse

, et al. Association between previous and future antipsychotic adherence in patients initiating clozapine: real-world observational study. Br J Psychiatry 2022; 220(6): 347–354.

19.

Correll

Solmi

Croatto

, et al. Mortality in people with schizophrenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of relative risk and aggravating or attenuating factors. World Psychiatry 2022; 21(2): 248–271.

20.

Faay

MDM

Czobor

Sommer

IEC

. Efficacy of typical and atypical antipsychotic medication on hostility in patients with psychosis-spectrum disorders: a review and meta-analysis. Neuropsychopharmacology 2018; 43(12): 2340–2349.

21.

Lähteenvuo

Batalla

Luykx

, et al. Morbidity and mortality in schizophrenia with comorbid substance use disorders. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 2021; 144(1): 42–49.

22.

Lähteenvuo

Luykx

Taipale

, et al. Associations between antipsychotic use, substance use and relapse risk in patients with schizophrenia: real-world evidence from two national cohorts. Br J Psychiatry 2022; 221(6): 758–765.

23.

Masdrakis

Baldwin

DS.

Prevention of suicide by clozapine in mental disorders: systematic review. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 2023; 69: 4–23.

24.

Masuda

Misawa

Takase

, et al. Association with hospitalization and all-cause discontinuation among patients with schizophrenia on clozapine vs other oral second-generation antipsychotics: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. JAMA psychiatry 2019; 76(10): 1052–1062.

25.

Qubad

Bittner

RA.

Second to none: rationale, timing, and clinical management of clozapine use in schizophrenia. Ther Adv Psychopharmacol 2023; 13: 20451253231158152.

26.

Solmi

Tiihonen

Lähteenvuo

, et al. Antipsychotics use is associated with greater adherence to cardiometabolic medications in patients with schizophrenia: results from a nationwide, within-subject design study. Schizophrenia Bull 2022; 48(1): 166–175.

27.

Taipale

Tanskanen

Mehtälä

, et al. 20-year follow-up study of physical morbidity and mortality in relationship to antipsychotic treatment in a nationwide cohort of 62,250 patients with schizophrenia (FIN20). World Psychiatry 2020; 19(1): 61–68.

28.

Brunette

Drake

Xie

, et al. Clozapine use and relapses of substance use disorder among patients with co-occurring schizophrenia and substance use disorders. Schizophr Bull 2006; 32(4): 637–643.

29.

Hennen

Baldessarini

RJ.

Suicidal risk during treatment with clozapine: a meta-analysis. Schizophrenia Res 2005; 73(2): 139–145.

30.

Meltzer

HY.

Clozapine: balancing safety with superior antipsychotic efficacy. Clin Schizophr Relat Psychoses 2012; 6(3): 134–144.

31.

Meltzer

Alphs

Green

, et al. Clozapine treatment for suicidality in schizophrenia: International Suicide Prevention Trial (InterSePT). Arch Gen Psychiatry 2003; 60(1): 82–91.

32.

Siris

SG.

Suicide and schizophrenia. J Psychopharmacol 2001; 15(2): 127–135.

33.

Kelly

McMahon

Liu

, et al. Cardiovascular disease mortality in patients with chronic schizophrenia treated with clozapine: a retrospective cohort study. J Clin Psychiatry 2010; 71(3): 304–311.

34.

Quek

See

Yee

, et al. Metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular risk between clozapine and non-clozapine antipsychotic users with schizophrenia. Asian J Psychiatry 2022; 74: 103192.

35.

van der Zalm

Foldager

Termorshuizen

, et al. Clozapine and mortality: a comparison with other antipsychotics in a nationwide Danish cohort study. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 2021; 143(3): 216–226.

36.

Vermeulen

van Rooijen

van de Kerkhof

MPJ

, et al. Clozapine and long-term mortality risk in patients with schizophrenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies lasting 1.1–12.5 years. Schizophrenia Bull 2019; 45(2): 315–329.

37.

Wagner

Siafis

Fernando

, et al. Efficacy and safety of clozapine in psychotic disorders—a systematic quantitative meta-review. Translational Psychiatry 2021; 11(1): 487.

38.

Taipale

Tanskanen

Howes

, et al. Comparative effectiveness of antipsychotic treatment strategies for relapse prevention in first-episode schizophrenia in Finland: a population-based cohort study. Lancet Psychiatry 2025; 12(2): 122–130.

39.

Wagner

Kane

Correll

, et al. Clozapine combination and augmentation strategies in patients with schizophrenia -recommendations from an international expert survey among the treatment response and resistance in psychosis (TRRIP) working group. Schizophr Bull 2020; 46(6): 1459–1470.

40.

Bittner

Reif

Qubad

The ever-growing case for clozapine in the treatment of schizophrenia: an obligation for psychiatrists and psychiatry. Curr Opin Psychiatry 2023; 36(4): 327–336.

41.

Lind

Parker

Northwood

, et al. Clozapine efficacy and adverse drug reactions among a Nationwide Study of 1021 Australians prescribed clozapine: the ClozaGene Study. Schizophrenia Bulletin 2024; 51(2): 458–469.

42.

O’Donoghue

Piacenza

Plapp

, et al. Response rates to sequential trials of antipsychotic medications according to algorithms or treatment guidelines in psychotic disorders. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Schizophr Res 2024; 268: 193–204.

43.

Sanahan

Sreeraj

Suhas

, et al. Response to clozapine and its predictors in treatment-resistant schizophrenia spectrum disorders: a retrospective chart review. Schizophrenia Res 2025; 275: 179–188.

44.

Siskind

Kisely

Clozapine response rates among people with treatment-resistant schizophrenia: data from a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Psychiatry 2017; 62(11): 772–777.

45.

Yoshimura

Yada

, et al. The critical treatment window of clozapine in treatment-resistant schizophrenia: secondary analysis of an observational study. Psychiatry Res 2017; 250: 65–70.

46.

Jones

Upthegrove

Price

, et al. Duration of prior psychotic illness and clozapine response: a retrospective observational study using electronic health records. Therap Adv Psychopharmacol 2022; 12: 20451253221103353.

47.

Grover

Redhu

Clozapine for management of bipolar disorder: a case series. J SAARC Psychiatric Federation 2023; 1(1): 56–59.

48.

Nielsen

Kane

Correll

CU.

Real-world effectiveness of clozapine in patients with bipolar disorder: results from a 2-year mirror-image study. Bipolar Disorders 2012; 14(8): 863–869.

49.

Luykx

Colgan

Vieta

, et al. Transdiagnostic effectiveness and safety of clozapine in individuals with psychotic, affective, and personality disorders: nationwide and meta-analytic comparisons with other antipsychotics. Lancet Psychiatry 2025; 12(12): 921–931.

50.

Andreea

Petru

Miron

, et al. Clozapine for treatment-refractory aggressive behavior. Psychiatric Quarterly 2021; 92(2): 721–733.

51.

Frogley

Taylor

Dickens

, et al. A systematic review of the evidence of clozapine’s anti-aggressive effects. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 2012; 15(9): 1351–1371.

52.

Correll

Agid

Crespo-Facorro

, et al. A guideline and checklist for initiating and managing clozapine treatment in patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia. CNS Drugs 2022; 36(7): 659–679.

53.

Mayfield

Ker

Taylor

Underused treatments in psychiatry: electroconvulsive therapy, clozapine and lithium. BJPsych Adv 2025; 31(5): 280–289.

54.

Taylor

Marsh-Davies

Skelly

, et al. Setting up a clozapine service for Parkinson’s psychosis. BJPsych Adv 2022; 28(2): 90–98.

55.

Höglinger

. TCea. Parkinson-Krankheit, S2k-Leitlinie, 2023. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Neurologie (Hrsg.), Leitlinien für Diagnostik und Therapie in der Neurologie, https://www.dgn.org/leitlinie/parkinson-krankheit (accessed 7th December 2025).

56.

Kuzo

Piras

Lutz

, et al. Therapeutic reference range for clozapine plasma levels in Parkinson’s disease or dementia: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis. Pharmacopsychiatry 2025; 58(6): 263–271.

57.

Leitliniengruppe DeVHfrd. S3-Leitlinie Schizophrenie. Langfassung, https://www.awmf.org/leitlinien/detail/ll/038–009.html (accessed 30th November 2025).

58.

McCutcheon

Pillinger

Varvari

, et al. INTEGRATE: international guidelines for the algorithmic treatment of schizophrenia. Lancet Psychiatry 2025; 12(5): 384–394.

59.

Bachmann

Aagaard

Bernardo

, et al. International trends in clozapine use: a study in 17 countries. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2017; 136(1): 37–51.

60.

Howes

Vergunst

Gee

, et al. Adherence to treatment guidelines in clinical practice: study of antipsychotic treatment prior to clozapine initiation. Br J Psychiatry 2012; 201(6): 481–485.

61.

Agid

Crespo-Facorro

de Bartolomeis

, et al. Overcoming the barriers to identifying and managing treatment-resistant schizophrenia and to improving access to clozapine: a narrative review and recommendation for clinical practice. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 2024; 84: 35–47.

62.

Baig

Bazargan-Hejazi

Ebrahim

, et al. Clozapine prescribing barriers in the management of treatment-resistant schizophrenia: a systematic review. Medicine (Baltimore) 2021; 100(45): e27694.

63.

Cirulli

Clozapine prescribing in adolescent psychiatry: survey of prescribing practice in in-patient units. Psychiatric Bulletin 2005; 29(10): 377–380.

64.

Cohen

Prescribers fear as a major side-effect of clozapine. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2014; 130(2): 154–155.

65.

Cohen

Farooq

Mandatory certification for clozapine prescribing. Eur Psychiatry 2020; 64(1): e12.

66.

Cotes

Janjua

Broussard

, et al. A comparison of attitudes, comfort, and knowledge of clozapine among two diverse samples of US psychiatrists. Community Ment Health J 2022; 58(3): 517–525.

67.

Daod

Krivoy

Shoval

, et al. Psychiatrists’ attitude towards the use of clozapine in the treatment of refractory schizophrenia: a nationwide survey. Psychiatry Res 2019; 275: 155–161.

68.

Gee

Vergunst

Howes

, et al. Practitioner attitudes to clozapine initiation. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2014; 130(1): 16–24.

69.

Grover

Balachander

Chakarabarti

, et al. Prescription practices and attitude of psychiatrists towards clozapine: a survey of psychiatrists from India. Asian J Psychiatr 2015; 18: 57–65.

70.

Jakobsen

Austin

Storebø

, et al. Non-prescribing of clozapine for outpatients with schizophrenia in real-world settings: the clinicians’ perspectives. Schizophrenia 2023; 9(1): 91.

71.

Jakobsen

Schaug

Storebø

Austin

, et al. What is the current scope of research assessing patients’ and clinicians’ perspectives on clozapine treatment? a comprehensive scoping review. BMJ Open 2025; 15(1): e085956.

72.

Kelly

Freudenreich

Sayer

, et al. Addressing barriers to clozapine underutilization: a national effort. Psychiatr Serv 2018; 69(2): 224–227.

73.

Leung

Cusimano

Gannon

, et al. Addressing clozapine under-prescribing and barriers to initiation: a psychiatrist, advanced practice provider, and trainee survey. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 2019; 34(5): 247–256.

74.

Nielsen

Dahm

Lublin

, et al. Psychiatrists’ attitude towards and knowledge of clozapine treatment. J Psychopharmacol 2010; 24(7): 965–971.

75.

Niitsu

Yasui-Furukori

Inada

, et al. Current practice for clozapine-induced leukopenia in Japanese psychiatric hospitals: a nationwide survey. Schizophrenia Res 2024; 268: 82–87.

76.

Oloyede

Blackman

Mantell

, et al. What are the barriers and facilitators of clozapine use in early psychosis? a survey of UK early intervention clinicians. Schizophrenia (Heidelb) 2023; 9(1): 26.

77.

Oloyede

Mantell

Williams

, et al. Clozapine for treatment resistance in early psychosis: a survey of UK clinicians’ training, knowledge and confidence. Therap Adv Psychopharmacol 2022; 12: 20451253221141222.

78.

Ord

Marais

Clozapine use at a specialised psychiatric hospital in Johannesburg. S Afr J Psychiatr 2023; 29: 1999.

79.

Rezaie

Nazari

Safari-Faramani

, et al. Iranian psychiatrists’ attitude towards clozapine use for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia: a nationwide survey. BMC Psychiatry 2022; 22(1): 534.

80.

Russo

Ignjatovic-Ristic

Cohen

, et al. Clozapine prescription rates in Southeast Europe: a cross-sectional study. Front Psychiatry 2023; 14: 1123246.

81.

Takeuchi

Hanya

Uno

, et al. A Questionnaire-based study of the views of schizophrenia patients and psychiatric healthcare professionals in Japan about the side effects of clozapine. Clin Psychopharmacol Neurosci 2016; 14(3): 286–294.

82.

Tungaraza

Farooq

Clozapine prescribing in the UK: views and experience of consultant psychiatrists. Ther Adv Psychopharmacol; 5(2): 88–96.

83.

Verdoux

Quiles

Bachmann

, et al. Prescriber and institutional barriers and facilitators of clozapine use: a systematic review. Schizophr Res 2018; 201: 10–19.

84.

Wadoo

Latoo

Alabdulla

, et al. Clozapine prescribing practice and trends in Qatar: first national observational study. Brain Behav 2022; 12(7): e2617.

85.

Zheng

Lee

Chan

SKW

. Utility and barriers to clozapine use: a joint study of clinicians’ attitudes from Singapore and Hong Kong. J Clin Psychiatry 2022; 83(4): JCP.21m14231.

86.

Parkes

Mantell

Oloyede

, et al. Patients’ experiences of clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia: a systematic review. Schizophr Bull Open 2022; 3(1): sgac042.

87.

van der Horst

de Boer

Müderrisoğlu

, et al. Determinants of patient satisfaction in clozapine users: results from the Clozapine International Consortium (CLOZIN). Schizophrenia 2025; 11(1): 28.

88.

Gee

Shergill

Taylor

DM.

Patient attitudes to clozapine initiation. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 2017; 32(6): 337–342.

89.

Rubio

Kane

JM.

How to make an effective offer of clozapine. J Clin Psychiatry 2021; 83(1): 21ac14000.

90.

Sharma

Kopelovich

Janjua

, et al. Cluster analysis of clozapine consumer perspectives and comparison to consumers on other antipsychotics. Schizophr Bull Open 2021; 2(1): sgab043.

91.

Mannarini

Taccini

Sato

, et al. Understanding stigma toward schizophrenia. Psychiatry Res 2022; 318: 114970.

92.

Schulte

PFJ

Veerman

SRT

Bakker

, et al. Risk of clozapine-associated agranulocytosis and mandatory white blood cell monitoring: Can the regulations be relaxed? Schizophrenia Res 2024; 268: 74–81.

93.

Siskind

Northwood

Pillinger

, et al. Absolute neutrophil count and adverse drug reaction monitoring during clozapine treatment: consensus guidelines from a global Delphi panel. Lancet Psychiatry 2026; 13(1): 77–86.

94.

Taylor

Vallianatou

Gandhi

, et al. Severe neutropenia unrelated to clozapine in patients receiving clozapine. J Psychopharmacol 2024; 38(7): 624–635.

95.

Verdoux

Bittner

Hasan

, et al. The time has come for revising the rules of clozapine blood monitoring in Europe. A joint expert statement from the European Clozapine Task Force. Eur Psychiatry 2025; 68(1): e17.

96.

Wiegand

Hölzel

Tüscher

, et al. Mental health services in Germany – Structures, outcomes and future challenges. Int Rev Psychiatry 2025; 37(3–4): 253–270.

97.

I SB. Gesundheitsausgaben 2023: Finanzierungsbeitrag des Staates um fast ein Drittel gesunken, https://www.destatis.De/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2025/07/PD25_268_23611.html (2025, accessed 7 December 2025).

98.

SB.

Deutschland mit höchsten Gesundheitsausgaben der EU

https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2025/07/PD25_268_23611.html (2025, accessed 7 December 2025).

99.

III SB. Krankenversicherungsschutz, https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Arbeit/Arbeitsmarkt/Qualitaet-Arbeit/Dimension–2/krankenversicherungsschutz.html (accessed 7 December 2025).

100.

Kurz

Menschen ohne Krankenversicherung: Ein oft übersehenes Problem. Dtsch Arztebl International 2022; 119(41): 8262.

101.

von dem Knesebeck

Klein

. Attitudes towards the dual health insurance system and inequalities in health care in Germany – results of a population survey. BMC Health Services Res 2025; 25(1): 696.

102.

Salize

Rössler

Becker

Mental health care in Germany. Eur Archives Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 2007; 257(2): 92–103.

103.

ÄrzteZeitung. Sozialhilfe muss für Notfallbehandlung bei Ausländern ohne Krankenversicherung zahlen, https://www.aerztezeitung.de/Wirtschaft/Sozialhilfe-muss-fuer-Notfallbehandlung-bei-Auslaendern-ohne-Krankenversicherung-zahlen–441194.html (2023, accessed 7 December 2025).

104.

Federal Ministry of Health. Healthy in Germany everything you need to know about the healthcare system in Germany. Berlin: Federal Ministry of Health, 2025.

105.

eurostat. Healthcare resource statistics - beds, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Healthcare_resource_statistics_-_beds (2025, accessed 7 December 2025).

106.

OECD. State of Health in the EU Germany Country Health Profile 2023, 2023.

107.

ReportLinker. Psychiatric Care Beds in Hospitals in Germany, https://www.reportlinker.com/dataset/a070643524817edea591f6ec910549001c86c4b6 (accessed 7 December 2025).

108.

Baumgardt

Schwarz

Bechdolf

, et al. Implementation, efficacy, costs and processes of inpatient equivalent home-treatment in German mental health care (AKtiV): protocol of a mixed-method, participatory, quasi-experimental trial. BMC Psychiatry 2021; 21(1): 173.

109.

Bechdolf

Correll

Hellenschmidt

, et al. Integrated Youth Mental Health Services – niederschwellige, integrierte Angebote für junge Menschen in psychischen Krisen. Der Nervenarzt 2025; 96(6): 557–563.

110.

Leopold

Becker

Förstl

, et al. Frühintervention bei Schizophrenie – ein Update. Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr 2020; 88(06): 387–397.

111.

Platz

Umbricht

Cattapan-Ludewig

, et al. Help-seeking pathways in early psychosis. Social Psychiatry Psychiatric Epidemiol 2006; 41(12): 967–974.

112.

Posselt

Albert

Nordentoft

, et al. The Danish OPUS early intervention services for first-episode psychosis: a phase 4 prospective cohort study with comparison of randomized trial and real-world data. Am J Psychiatry 2021; 178(10): 941–951.

113.

von Reventlow

Krüger-Özgürdal

Ruhrmann

, et al. Pathways to care in subjects at high risk for psychotic disorders—a European perspective. Schizophrenia Res 2014; 152(2): 400–407.

114.

Bechdolf

Psychocheck, https://www.psycho-check.com (accessed 7 December 2025).

115.

Anderson

Fuhrer

Malla

AK.

The pathways to mental health care of first-episode psychosis patients: a systematic review. Psychological Med 2010; 40(10): 1585–1597.

116.

Schultze-Lutter

Rahman

Ruhrmann

, et al. Duration of unspecific prodromal and clinical high risk states, and early help-seeking in first-admission psychosis patients. Social Psychiatry Psychiatric Epidemiol 2015; 50(12): 1831–1841.

117.

Fridgen

Aston

Gschwandtner

, et al. Help-seeking and pathways to care in the early stages of psychosis. Social Psychiatry Psychiatric Epidemiology 2013; 48(7): 1033–1043.

118.

Fuchs

Steinert

Patients with a first episode ofschizophrenia spectrum psychosis and their pathways topsychiatric hospital care in South Germany. Social Psychiatry Psychiatric Epidemiol 2004; 39(5): 375–380.

119.

Salize

Voß

Werner

, et al. Behandlungspfade in der Versorgung von Patienten mit Schizophrenie und Depression. Der Nervenarzt 2015; 86(11): 1358–1370.

120.

Mayer

van der Gaag

Dom

, et al. European Psychiatric Association (EPA) guidance on post-graduate psychiatric training in Europe. Eur Psychiatry 2014; 29(2): 101–106.

121.

German Medical Association. Medical organisations and associations, https://www.bundesaerztekammer.de/en/work-and-training-in-germany/organisation-and-association (accessed 7th December 2025).

122.

Kleineberg

van der Meulen

Franke

, et al. Differences in neurology residency training programmes across Europe – a survey among the Residents and Research Fellow Section of the European Academy of Neurology national representatives. Eur J Neurol 2020; 27(8): 1356–1363.

123.

Zavlin

Jubbal

Noé

, et al. A comparison of medical education in Germany and the United States: from applying to medical school to the beginnings of residency. Ger Med Sci 2017; 15: Doc15.

124.

Zisook

Balon

Björkstén

, et al. Psychiatry residency training around the world. Acad Psychiatry 2007; 31(4): 309–325.

125.

Association GM. (Muster-)Weiterbildungsordnung 2018. In: Association GM (ed.) German Medical Association, 2025.

126.

Bramesfeld

[Services for persons with mental illness in Germany from the perspective of the health and social system: current needs for development]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 2023; 66(4): 363–370.

127.

Gaebel

Zielasek

Müller

Psychiatry in Germany. Int Psychiatry 2007; 4(3): 61–63.

128.

GesundBundDE. Hospitals – key information about their duties, differences and how to find a hospital, https://gesund.bund.de/en/hospitals.

129.

Hoebel

Rattay

Prütz

, et al. Socioeconomic status and use of outpatient medical care: the case of Germany. PLOS ONE 2016; 11(5): e0155982.

130.

Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG); . Health care in Germany: Learn More – The German healthcare system, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK298834/ (2006, accessed 30 November 2025).

131.

von Elm

Altman

Egger

, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med 2007; 147(8): 573–577.

132.

Stoet

PsyToolkit: a software package for programming psychological experiments using Linux. Behavior Res Methods 2010; 42(4): 1096–1104.

133.

Stoet

PsyToolkit: a novel web-based method for running online questionnaires and reaction-time experiments. Teaching Psychol 2017; 44(1): 24–31.

134.

Leitliniengruppe DeVHfd. S3-Leitlinie Schizophrenie Langfassung, https://www.dgppn.de/_Resources/Persistent/a3691a191295cc21e79ca3dea76cf04303fdb29a/038-009m_S3_Schizophrenie_2025-10.pdf (2025, accessed 20 October 2025).

135.

Walker

Lang

Smith

Survey on barriers to psychiatrists’ use of clozapine for young people in Scotland and suggestions for reducing these. PLoS One 2024; 19(6): e0304996.

136.

IBM Corp. (2020). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 31.0) [Computer software]. IBM Corp.

137.

Bellissima

Tingle

Cicović

, et al. A systematic review of clozapine-induced myocarditis. Int J Cardiol 2018; 259: 122–129.

138.

Qubad

Dupont

Hahn

, et al. When, why and how to re-challenge clozapine in schizophrenia following myocarditis. CNS Drugs 2024; 38(9): 671–696.

139.

Vickers

Ramineni

Malacova

, et al. Risk factors for clozapine-induced myocarditis and cardiomyopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 2022; 145(5): 442–455.

140.

Agency

EM.

Clozapine - direct healthcare professional communication (DHPC), https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/dhpc/clozapine (2025, accessed 20 October 2025).

141.

Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices. Direct Healthcare Professional Communication (DHPC) on Clozapine: revised recommendations for routine blood count monitoring with regard to the risk of agranulocytosis, https://www.bfarm.de/SharedDocs/Risikoinformationen/Pharmakovigilanz/EN/RHB/2025/rhb-clozapin.html (2025, accessed 20 October 2025).

142.

Gee

Gaughran

MacCabe

, et al. Management of clozapine treatment during the COVID–19 pandemic. Therap Adv Psychopharmacol 2020; 10: 2045125320928167.

143.

Leung

Wittenberger

Schak

KM.

Clozapine treated patients and COVID-19: ensuring continued care through collaboration. Schizophr Res 2020; 222: 507–508.

144.

Wagner

Korman

Solmi

, et al. Multidisciplinary consensus on prevention, screening and monitoring of clozapine-associated myocarditis and clozapine rechallenge after myocarditis. Br J Psychiatry 2025: 1–9.

145.

Grover

Naskar

Chakrabarti

Experience with and attitude toward clozapine use among patients receiving clozapine on long term and their caregivers. Indian J Psychiatry 2023; 65(11): 1165–1175.

146.

de Leon

Schoretsanitis

Smith

, et al. An international adult guideline for making clozapine titration safer by using six ancestry-based personalized dosing titrations, CRP, and clozapine levels. Pharmacopsychiatry 2022; 55(2): 73–86.

147.

Leung

Allen

Markota

A case series of clozapine titrations affected by inflammatory processes. Schizophrenia Res 2024; 268: 94–97.

148.

de Leon

Tang

Baptista

, et al. Titrating clozapine amidst recommendations proposing high myocarditis risk and rapid titrations. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2015; 132(4): 242–243.

149.

Kikuchi

Komatsu

Otsuka

, et al. Slower clozapine titration than the official Japanese protocol led to fewer inflammatory adverse effects: a retrospective chart review of seven hospitals. Schizophrenia Res 2024; 268: 98–106.

150.

Kikuchi

Kurosawa

Sakata

, et al. Effects of titration speed, gender, obesity and concomitant medications on the risk and onset time of clozapine-associated fever among Japanese patients with schizophrenia: retrospective review of charts from 21 hospitals. Br J Psychiatry 2024; 225(5): 492–498.

151.

Abolmagd

Aly El-Gabry

Elkholy

, et al. Tackling myths of common prescribing patterns in schizophrenia amongst Egyptian psychiatrists. Middle East Current Psychiatry 2020; 27(1): 52.

152.

Farooq

Choudry

Cohen

, et al. Barriers to using clozapine in treatment-resistant schizophrenia: systematic review. BJPsych Bulletin 2019; 43(1): 8–16.

153.

Paton

Barnes

Cavanagh

, et al. High-dose and combination antipsychotic prescribing in acute adult wards in the UK: the challenges posed by p.r.n. Prescribing. Br J Psychiatry 2008; 192(6): 435–439.

154.

Tang

Horvitz-Lennon

Gellad

, et al. Prescribing of clozapine and antipsychotic polypharmacy for schizophrenia in a large medicaid program. Psychiatr Serv 2017; 68(6): 579–586.

155.

Whiskey

Barnard

Oloyede

, et al. An evaluation of the variation and underuse of clozapine in the United Kingdom. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 2021; 143(4): 339–347.

156.

Falzer

Garman

DM.

Optimizing clozapine through clinical decision making. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2012; 126(1): 47–58.

157.

Falzer

Garman

DM.

Increasing clozapine use through residency training: knowledge and clinical proficiency are necessary but not sufficient. Academic Psychiatry 2014; 38(1): 109–110.

158.

Larkin

Hutton

Systematic review and meta-analysis of factors that help or hinder treatment decision-making capacity in psychosis. Br J Psychiatry 2017; 211(4): 205–215.

159.

Zisman-Ilani

Roth

Mistler

LA.

Time to support extensive implementation of shared decision making in psychiatry. JAMA Psychiatry 2021; 78(11): 1183–1184.

160.

Kane

JM.

A user’ guide to clozapine. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2011; 123(6): 407–408.

161.

Grover

Naskar

Patient and caregivers perspective about clozapine: a systematic review. Schizophrenia Res 2024; 268: 223–232.

162.

Freudenreich

Henderson

Sanders

, et al. Training in a clozapine clinic for psychiatry residents: a plea and suggestions for implementation. Academic Psychiatry 2013; 37(1): 27–30.

163.

Secchi

Whiskey

Nair

, et al. Competence and confidence of health care professionals in using clozapine: a qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis. Acta Neuropsychiatr 2025; 37: e73.

164.

Cook

Levinson

Garside

, et al. Internet-based learning in the health professions: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2008; 300(10): 1181–1196.

165.

Kelly

Hunt

Vyas

, et al. A randomized controlled trial of an extension for community healthcare outcomes (ECHO) Tele-mentoring program to increase clozapine utilization. Schizophr Bull 2025: sbaf067.

166.

Vallée

Blacher

Cariou

, et al. Blended learning compared to traditional learning in medical education: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res 2020; 22(8): e16504.

167.

Beck

McCutcheon

Bloomfield

MAP

, et al. The practical management of refractory schizophrenia – the Maudsley Treatment REview and Assessment Team service approach. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 2014; 130(6): 427–438.

168.

Cotes

RO.

Persistent Symptoms: Treatment, Assessment and Recovery (PSTAR), https://redcap.emory.edu/surveys/?s=4PYL8AJTAR (accessed 20 October 2025).

169.

Ulm

Medizinische Kinderschutzhotline, https://kinderschutzhotline.de/course/view.php?id=8 (accessed 20 October 2025).

170.

O’Donoghue

Mora

Bismark

, et al. Identifying and managing treatment resistance early with the integration of a clozapine clinic within an early intervention for psychosis service. Early Interv Psychiatry 2025; 19(1): e13578.

171.

Stokes

Griffiths

Jones

, et al. Prevalence of treatment resistance and clozapine use in early intervention services. BJPsych Open 2020; 6(5): e107.

172.

Bindel

Seifert

Evidence of lithium underuse in bipolar disorder: analysis of lithium and antipsychotic consumption, prediction of future trends, regional disparities and indicators of rational and inappropriate use in Europe. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol 2025; 398: 18049–18070.

173.

Greil

de Bardeci

Nievergelt

, et al. Twenty-four years of prescription patterns in bipolar disorder inpatients with vs without lithium: a pharmacoepidemiological analysis of 8,707 cases in German-speaking countries. Int J Bipolar Disorders 2025; 13(1): 3.

174.

Greil

de Bardeci

Nievergelt

, et al. Twenty-three years of declining lithium use: analysis of a pharmacoepidemiological dataset from german-speaking countries. Pharmacopsychiatry 2024; 57(6): 296–303.

175.

Sköld

Rolstad

Joas

, et al. Regional lithium prescription rates and recurrence in bipolar disorder. Int J Bipolar Disord 2021; 9(1): 18.

176.

Airainer

Seifert

Lithium, the gold standard drug for bipolar disorder: analysis of current clinical studies. Naunyn-Schmiedeberg’s Arch Pharmacol 2024; 397(12): 9723–9743.

177.

Ermis

Taipale

Tanskanen

, et al. Real-world effectiveness of pharmacological maintenance treatment of bipolar depression: a within-subject analysis in a Swedish nationwide cohort. Lancet Psychiatry 2025; 12(3): 198–207.

178.

Lintunen

Hamina

Lähteenvuo

, et al. Dosing levels of antipsychotics and mood stabilizers in bipolar disorder: a Nationwide cohort study on relapse risk and treatment safety. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 2025; 151(1): 81–91.