Efficacy and safety of aripiprazole lauroxil once-monthly versus aripiprazole once-monthly long-acting injectable formulations in patients with acute symptoms of schizophrenia: an indirect comparison of two double-blind placebo-controlled studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aripiprazole lauroxil (AL) is a long-acting injectable atypical antipsychotic recently approved for the treatment of schizophrenia. OBJECTIVE: To indirectly compare the safety and efficacy of AL and aripiprazole once-monthly (AOM). METHODS: A systematic search was performed to identify randomized, controlled trials of AOM and AL that met criteria for indirect comparison according to Bayesian network meta-analysis. The analysis indirectly compared AL and AOM treatment groups for efficacy by mean change in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score and ≥30% reduction in PANSS total score, as well as tolerability including adverse events, akathisia, and weight gain. RESULTS: Two studies were selected, resulting in three active-treatment groups: AL 441 mg, AL 882 mg, and AOM 400 mg. All active treatments were efficacious compared with placebo. There were no differences in indirect comparisons of akathisia. All three groups showed some weight gain, but only the AOM 400 mg group was significantly greater than placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this indirect comparison found that both doses of AL and the single AOM dose were therapeutic and efficacious for the treatment of schizophrenia with a similar safety profile.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".