Risk of Extrapyramidal Adverse Events With Aripiprazole
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aripiprazole is a unique atypical antipsychotic with partial agonist activity on the dopamine-2 (D2) receptor. This unique pharmacological profile of aripiprazole was thought to lead to a lower incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPSs). However, recent case reports have alluded to an increase in the risk of EPS in aripiprazole users compared with nonusers of the drug. No epidemiologic studies to date have quantified this risk. We conducted a pharmacoepidemiologic study composed of a nested case-control study using a large health claims database (IMS Health) in the United States. In the nested case-control analysis, there were 5242 cases of EPS with 50,532 corresponding controls in the entire cohort. The odds ratio (OR) for EPS among those with any prescription of aripiprazole was 5.38 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.03-9.57). The OR was lower among those taking 2 to 3 prescriptions (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.07-7.85) but increased in those receiving greater than 4 prescriptions (OR, 8.64; 95% CI, 2.63-28.38). All risk periods were compared with those of subjects who had not used aripiprazole or other antipsychotics. For the secondary outcome of dyskinesia, the risk for aripiprazole was 8.50 (95% CI, 8.53-2.27-31.97) compared with that of nonusers. In conclusion, we found an increase in the risk of EPS and dyskinesias among users of aripiprazole.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".