MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057639493 · doi:10.4088/jcp.v62n1210

Comparative Efficacy of Typical and Atypical Antipsychotics as Add-On Therapy to Mood Stabilizers in the Treatment of Acute Mania

2001· article· en· W2057639493 on OpenAlexaff
Debra S. Miller, Lakshmi N. Yatham, Raymond W. Lam

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Clinical Psychiatry · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsManiaMoodMood stabilizerPsychiatryPsychotherapistBipolar disorderPsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Typical antipsychotics are commonly used in combination with mood stabilizers for acute mania. Although typical antipsychotics are effective, they have undesirable side effects such as induction of depressive symptoms and tardive dyskinesia. Atypical antipsychotics have more favorable side effect profiles, and recent evidence shows their efficacy in treating mania. Apart from a previous small study that compared risperidone with typical neuroleptics as add-on therapy to mood stabilizers, no studies to date have directly compared atypical antipsychotics with typical antipsychotics as add-on therapy to mood stabilizers in a clinically relevant, naturalistic setting. METHOD: This study is a chart review of all patients with DSM-IV-defined bipolar disorder, current episode mania (N = 204), admitted to the University of British Columbia Hospital during a 30-month period. Patients were separated into 3 groups according to the medications used: (1) mood stabilizer and typical antipsychotic, (2) mood stabilizer and atypical antipsychotic, and (3) combination: mood stabilizer plus a typical antipsychotic, then switched to mood stabilizer plus risperidone or olanzapine within I week. The atypical group was further subdivided into risperidone and olanzapine subgroups. Outcome was measured using Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) and -Improvement (CGI-I) ratings generated by review of clinical information in the chart. RESULTS: Patients treated with typical antipsychotics were more severely ill at admission and at discharge than those treated with atypical antipsychotics. Patients in the atypical (p < .005) and combination (p < .05) groups showed significantly greater clinical improvement at discharge than patients treated with typical antipsychotics. This difference was also significant in the subset of patients with psychotic features (p < .03). Risperidone and olanzapine were associated with fewer extrapyramidal side effects than were typical antipsychotics (risperidone vs. typical antipsychotics, chi2 = 8.72, p < .01; olanzapine vs. typical antipsychotics, chi2 = 16.9, p < .001). CONCLUSION: Due to their superior effectiveness and side effect profile when compared with typical antipsychotics. atypical antipsychotics are an excellent choice as add-on therapy to mood stabilizers for the treatment of patients with mania.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.360 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations103
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Clinical PsychiatrySame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207