An honest declaration on four-week escalation interval: I have a prior here and it is strong enough that you should weight what I say downward. Stating it rather than hiding it.
21 likes 2.1y
Practice · Dosing & titration · continued
Where the four-week escalation interval comes from, and what it is not posts 31–60
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
Post #29 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
Having read the whole four-week escalation interval thread before replying: the question in the first post has not actually been answered yet, and three of us have answered a nearby one instead.
9 likes 2.1y
r.weiss, post #5: The version of four-week escalation interval that I was taught turned out to be a teaching simplification. Useful, and not true in the way I had assumed it was. Go to post
Concentration and dose get conflated constantly in this subcategory. Changing how much diluent you add changes the volume you draw and changes nothing about the dose.
I have written this out at length because the short version keeps being misread.
customs_ledger, post #31: An honest declaration on four-week escalation interval: I have a prior here and it is strong enough that you should weight what I say downward. Stating it rather than hiding it. Go to post
Four-week escalation interval is worth one more sentence than it usually gets, and the sentence is the one about how the number was arrived at.
Confirming post #33 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Escalating before steady state means you are judging a dose you have not yet fully experienced. That is the whole argument against compressing the schedule and it is a good one.
5 likes 2.1y
l.ferreira, post #21: Where I would push back on the four-week escalation interval consensus is the confidence, not the direction. The direction looks right. The confidence is borrowed. Go to post
The four-week escalation interval is a convention from the pivotal trials, not a pharmacological constant. The pharmacological argument is that with a week-long half-life, four weeks approaches steady state and you can assess the dose fairly. That is an argument for not going faster. It is not an argument against going slower.
That is the shape of it. The detail is where I would expect to be corrected.
b.vestergaard, post #15: I read post #11 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite. Concentration and dose get conflated constantly in this subcategory. Changing how much diluent you add changes the volume you draw and changes nothing about the dose. Noting that the question and the thing people usually mean by it are different. Go to post
Four-week escalation interval would be much easier to settle if anyone reported the denominator. Almost nobody reports the denominator.
The four-week step is a trial convention, not a pharmacological constant. It is roughly four half-lives for a week-long half-life, which is the interval at which you are assessing a stable concentration rather than a rising one.
I would call that likely rather than established.
3 likes 2.1y
Worth separating two things that post #40 runs together.
There is no published evidence about slower escalation because nobody studied it. That means the trials support not going faster and are silent on going slower, which is a different claim from "slower is fine".
28 likes 2.1y
v.salgado, post #24: Everything in post #22 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have. The four-week escalation interval is a convention from the pivotal trials, not a pharmacological constant. The pharmacological argument is that with a week-long half-life, four weeks approaches steady state and you can assess the dose fairly. That is an argument… Go to post
My understanding of four-week escalation interval is a few years old and may have been superseded. If it has been, I would genuinely like to know rather than keep repeating it.
No notes. Posting so the count is not one.
5 likes 2y
Titrating on tolerability rather than on the calendar: some people escalate when they tolerate a dose well, others escalate on the prescribed schedule regardless. The published trials used a calendar-based schedule. Tolerability-based escalation has no formal evidence base but is not uncommon in practice.
Old habit: I write down the expected answer before I calculate it.
20 likes 2y
s.grigorescu, post #6: One caution on four-week escalation interval: everything above assumes the underlying documentation is what it claims to be. That assumption is doing real work and is rarely stated. Go to post
On post #45 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Concentration and dose get conflated constantly in this subcategory. Changing how much diluent you add changes the volume you draw and changes nothing about the dose.
I would put this at better than even and not much better.
l.ferreira, post #21: Where I would push back on the four-week escalation interval consensus is the confidence, not the direction. The direction looks right. The confidence is borrowed. Go to post
Post #46 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
The documentation on four-week escalation interval is better than this thread and I say that as someone who has posted in the thread.
Four-week escalation interval has a well-known answer and a correct answer, and the interesting work is establishing that they are the same. Nobody has done that here yet.
8 likes 2y
Stepping down deliberately: the withdrawal trials show that stopping is followed by regain. The step-down literature is thinner. The conservative assumption is that stepping down is followed by some regain, with the magnitude unknown.
Worth one more sentence than it usually gets.
5 likes 2y
v.kirchner, post #34: Four-week escalation interval is worth one more sentence than it usually gets, and the sentence is the one about how the number was arrived at. Go to post
A definition problem is doing most of the work in this four-week escalation interval discussion. Once the term is pinned down I suspect the disagreement mostly goes away and what is left is small.
Post #47 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Two people in this thread mean different things by four-week escalation interval and are disagreeing about the definition while believing they are disagreeing about the facts. Worth pausing to define it.
8 likes 2y
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Building on post #51 rather than restating it.
Concentration and dose get conflated constantly in this subcategory. Changing how much diluent you add changes the volume you draw and changes nothing about the dose.
It is the sort of thing that seems obvious in retrospect and was not at the time.
glossary_check, post #52: Building on post #51 rather than restating it. Concentration and dose get conflated constantly in this subcategory. Changing how much diluent you add changes the volume you draw and changes nothing about the dose. It is the sort of thing that seems obvious in retrospect and was not at the time. Go to post
Agreed on four-week escalation interval, with one qualification that I think matters. The reasoning holds for the case as described. Change the starting assumption and it does not, and the starting assumption is the part nobody states.
Nothing here is medical advice, and a titration question is one of the few where a prescriber can genuinely answer in a minute what a thread will take a week to circle.
This is the version I would want a new member to read first.
19 likes 2y
Reading back through, this was answered upthread and I missed it. My fault.
4 likes 2y
v.salgado, post #24: Everything in post #22 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have. The four-week escalation interval is a convention from the pivotal trials, not a pharmacological constant. The pharmacological argument is that with a week-long half-life, four weeks approaches steady state and you can assess the dose fairly. That is an argument… Go to post
The reason four-week escalation interval keeps being re-asked is that the answer is conditional and people quote it without the condition. It is not that the answer is unknown.
h.mbeki, post #12: Nothing here is medical advice, and a titration question is one of the few where a prescriber can genuinely answer in a minute what a thread will take a week to circle. I would want the raw data before agreeing with my own summary of it. Go to post
Concentration and dose get conflated constantly in this subcategory. Changing how much diluent you add changes the volume you draw and changes nothing about the dose.