@Lirik The article says that polypharmacy for maintenance is preferable to monotherapy. Says that monotherapy may be better in the acute phase.
Our results revealed that, in general, antipsychotic polypharmacy was associated with an approximately 10% lower relative risk of psychiatric rehospitalization (corresponding to an approximately 6% lower absolute risk with an approximately 60% rehospitalization rate in the cohort) compared with antipsychotic monotherapy
Current treatment guidelines state that antipsychotic monotherapy should be preferred and polypharmacy should be avoided if possible. These recommendations reflect the recent evidence in high-quality studies on the acute-phase treatment. However, results from our study suggest that antipsychotic polypharmacy may be superior to monotherapy for maintenance treatment, which has not been examined with RCTs. Therefore, it should be acknowledged that statements about a preferential use of antipsychotic monotherapy for maintenance treatment of schizophrenia lack evidence, and that currently available evidence—although gathered with few nonrandomized cohort studies that have their own limitations—indicates the opposite. Therefore, the current treatment guidelines should modify their categorical recommendations discouraging all antipsychotic polypharmacy in the maintenance treatment of schizophrenia.
My only quibble is that adding drugs in the same class also means adding potential side effects, which I didn’t see mentioned in the article.
The authors state that the drugs should have “different receptor profiles”:
These results indicate that rational antipsychotic polypharmacy seems to be feasible by using 2 particular antipsychotics with different types of receptor profiles.
Latuda and Ziprasidone probably work on different systems in the brain.