MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115498839 · doi:10.1185/03007995.2013.874988

Asenapine treatment and health-related quality of life in patients experiencing bipolar I disorder with mixed episodes: post-hoc analyses of pivotal trials

2013· article· en· W2115498839 on OpenAlexaff
Erin E. Michalak, Alice Guiraud-Diawara, Christophe Sapin

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Medical Research and Opinion · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsenapineMedicineOlanzapinePlaceboBipolar I disorderPost-hoc analysisQuality of life (healthcare)PopulationInternal medicineAtypical antipsychoticClinical trialRandomized controlled trialBipolar disorderAntipsychoticPsychiatrySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)ManiaLithium (medication)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the baseline impact of episode type (manic vs. mixed), defined using DSM-IV-TR criteria, in bipolar I disorder (BD-I) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and to investigate the differential effect of asenapine vs. placebo and olanzapine on HRQoL in BD-I patients with mixed episodes. METHODS: In two identically designed 3 week, randomized, double-blind, flexible-dose, placebo- and olanzapine-controlled trials of asenapine, HRQoL was assessed using the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36v2) administered at baseline and endpoint. In addition to evaluating the impact of clinical presentation (manic vs. mixed episodes) on baseline HRQoL, the impact of treatment intervention on HRQoL was assessed via analysis of covariance models at study endpoint, with center and treatment-by-diagnosis interaction as fixed effect and baseline score as covariates. RESULTS: A total of 960 BD-I patients (asenapine: 372; olanzapine: 391; placebo: 197) were included in the two studies. The observed burden of disease on HRQoL was substantial compared to general US population norms, particularly in patients experiencing mixed episodes. The greatest impairments were observed in the mental domains of HRQoL (Mental Component Summary scores: mixed = 31.9; manic = 42.8). For patients with mixed episodes, when compared to olanzapine, asenapine treatment was associated with improvements noted in every domain, which did not reach statistical significance except for Vitality (asenapine = 55.0, olanzapine = 51.3; p = 0.014) and Role-Emotional (asenapine = 44.8, olanzapine = 40.3; p = 0.020). Compared to placebo patients with mixed episodes, asenapine treatment provided significant improvements (p < 0.05) in Bodily Pain (asenapine = 50.9, placebo = 45.9), Social Functioning (asenapine = 44.1, placebo = 39.6) and Mental Health (asenapine = 46.6, placebo = 42.7) by Week 3; by comparison, olanzapine treatment did not lead to significant improvements in any domain of HRQoL compared to placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Post-hoc analyses of two trials showed that BD-I patients with mixed episodes reported considerable impairments in HRQoL compared to patients with manic episodes. At 3 weeks, in patients with mixed episodes, asenapine was shown to lead to significant improvements in HRQoL compared to olanzapine and placebo. Results from these post-hoc analyses should be confirmed in prospective studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00159744, NCT00159796.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.290
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
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 head0.273
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations12
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Medical Research and OpinionSame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207