The effects of valbenazine on tardive dyskinesia in patients with a primary mood disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few studies have assessed the treatment of tardive dyskinesia (TD) in patients with primary mood disorders who are managed with antipsychotics. The effects of once-daily valbenazine on TD were evaluated in adults with a bipolar or depressive disorder. METHODS: Data were pooled from two 6-week double-blind placebo-controlled trials (KINECT 2 and KINECT 3; 114 mood participants) and a long-term blinded extension study (KINECT 3 extension; 77 mood participants) of valbenazine in adults with TD. Efficacy assessments included Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) total score (sum of items 1-7), Clinical Global Impression of Change-Tardive Dyskinesia (CGI-TD), and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), Young Mania Rating Scale, and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale. RESULTS: At Week 6, mean improvements in AIMS total score were significantly greater with valbenazine versus placebo (40 mg/day, -3.1 [P < 0.01]; 80 mg/day, -3.5 [P < 0.001]; placebo, -0.9). Significant differences between valbenazine (80 mg/day) and placebo were also found for Week 6 AIMS response (≥50% total score improvement) and CGI-TD response ("much improved" or "very much improved"), but not PGIC response. Sustained improvements in AIMS, CGI-TD, and PGIC were found through 48 weeks. Valbenazine was generally well tolerated, with no unexpected TEAEs, worsening in psychiatric symptoms, or emergence of suicidality. LIMITATIONS: Pooled analyses were conducted post hoc, and neither study was designed to focus solely on mood disorder patients. CONCLUSIONS: In participants with primary mood disorders, once-daily treatment with valbenazine was generally well tolerated and resulted in 6-week and sustained TD improvements.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".