MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809331301 · doi:10.1017/s1092852918000287

132 Effects of Valbenazine on Depression and Suicidality in Adults With Tardive Dyskinesia: Pooled Results of 3 Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trials

2018· article· en· W2809331301 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Gary Remington, Dao Thai-Cuarto, Joshua Burke, Scott Siegert, Grace Liang

Bibliographic record

VenueCNS Spectrums · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersNeurocrine BiosciencesCampbell Family Mental Health Research InstituteCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
KeywordsSchizoaffective disorderTardive dyskinesiaSuicidal ideationPsychiatryPopulationSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Brief Psychiatric Rating ScaleBipolar disorderMedicineMood disordersDepression (economics)PlaceboMoodHamilton Rating Scale for DepressionMajor depressive disorderInternal medicinePsychologyPsychosisPoison controlAnxietyInjury prevention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Study Objectives Valbenazine (INGREZZA; VBZ) is a novel and highly selective vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2) inhibitor that is approved for the treatment of tardive dyskinesia (TD) in adults. The randomized, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled trials of VBZ evaluated the treatment of TD in patients with a primary psychiatric diagnosis (schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder or mood disorder) while on concomitant psychiatric medications to manage these disorders. Since treatment-emergent depression and suicidal ideation/behavior are important clinical concerns in psychiatric patient populations, data from these trials were analyzed to assess the effectsof once-daily VBZ on depression and suicidality. Methods Data were pooled from three 6-week trials: KINECT (NCT01688037), KINECT 2 (NCT01733121), KINECT 3 (NCT02274558). Outcome data were analyzed in the safety population by pooled VBZ doses (40 mg, 80 mg) and PBO. Outcomes of interest included: treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) related to depression or suicidality; mean score change from baseline to Week 6 in the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS, for participants with schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder) or the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS, for participants with mood disorder); and, worsening from baseline in Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) suicidal ideation scores. All outcomes were analyzed descriptively. Results There were 400 total participants in the pooled safety population; 286 participants had schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder (40 mg, n=82; 80 mg, n=70; PBO, n=134) and 114 had a mood disorder (40 mg, n=28; 80 mg, n=42; PBO, n=44). Over one-third of participants had a lifetime history of suicidal ideation or behavior (40 mg, 45%; 80 mg, 39%; PBO, 37%). Few participants had a depression- or suicide-related TEAE, with no apparent differences between VBZ and PBO: suicidal ideation (40 mg, 3.6%; 80 mg, 0.9%; PBO, 2.2%); depression (40 mg, 0%; 80 mg, 1.8%; PBO, 1.1%); depressive symptom (40 mg, 0.9%; 80 mg, 0%; PBO, 0.6%); suicide attempt (40 mg, 0%; 80 mg, 0.9%; PBO, 0%). Mean changes from baseline to Week 6 in depression scale scores were generally small and similar across treatment groups: CDSS total score (40 mg, -0.5; 80 mg, -0.6; PBO, -0.3); MADRS total score (40 mg, -0.2; 80 mg, -1.7; PBO, 0.6). Few participants had a shift from no suicidal ideation at baseline (C-SSRS score=0) to any suicidal ideation during treatment (C-SSRS score=1-5): 40 mg, 3.9% (4/103); 80 mg, 0.9% (1/111); PBO, 2.9% (5/174). Conclusion Data from 3 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials indicate that once-daily VBZ treatment was not associated with a worsening in depression-related symptoms or an increased risk of suicidal ideation or behavior. Funding Acknowledgements This study was funded by Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.285
Threshold uncertainty score0.770

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCNS SpectrumsSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207