MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921953453 · doi:10.1017/s1092852919000579

77 Long-term Valbenazine Treatment in Patients with Schizophrenia/Schizoaffective Disorder or Mood Disorder and Tardive Dyskinesia

2019· article· en· W2921953453 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jean-Pierre Lindenmayer, Stephen R. Marder, Carlos Singer, Cynthia L. Comella, Khody Farahmand, Joshua Burke, Roland Jimenez, Scott Siegert

Bibliographic record

VenueCNS Spectrums · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNeurocrine Biosciences
KeywordsYoung Mania Rating ScaleTardive dyskinesiaSchizoaffective disorderPsychiatryPositive and Negative Syndrome ScaleMedicineClinical Global ImpressionBipolar disorderSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Hamilton Rating Scale for DepressionRating scaleMajor depressive disorderBrief Psychiatric Rating ScaleManiaPsychologyMoodPsychosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Patients treated with antipsychotics, regardless of psychiatric diagnosis, are at risk for developing tardive dyskinesia (TD), a potentially debilitating drug-induced movement disorder. Valbenazine (INGREZZA; VBZ) is a novel vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2) inhibitor approved to treat TD in adults. Data from KINECT 4 (NCT02405091) were analyzed to evaluate the long-term effects of VBZ in adults with schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder (SZD) or mood disorder (MD) and moderate or severe TD. Methods KINECT 4 included open-label treatment (48weeks) followed by washout (4weeks). Entry requirements included: moderate or severe TD, qualitatively assessed at screening by a blinded, external reviewer; DSM diagnosis of SZD or MD; psychiatric stability (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale score <50). Stable concomitant psychiatric medications were allowed. Dosing was initiated at 40mg, with escalation to 80mg at Wk4 if participants had a Clinical Global Impression of Change-TD score of ≥3 (minimally improved to very much worse) and tolerated 40mg. A reduction to 40mg was allowed if 80mg was not tolerated (80/40mg); participants unable to tolerate 40mg were discontinued. Safety was the primary focus, but the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) total score (sum of items 1–7) was used to evaluate changes in TD. Mean changes from baseline (BL) in AIMS total score (rated by on-site investigators) were analyzed descriptively. Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and psychiatric scales (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale [PANSS], Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia [CDSS], Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS], Young Mania Rating Scale [YMRS], and Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale [C SSRS]). Results Of 163 participants in the analyses, 103 completed the study. Adverse events (n=26) was the most common reason for discontinuation. Analyses included 119 participants with SZD (40mg=37; 80mg=76; 80/40mg=6) and 44 with MD (40mg=8; 80mg=31; 80/40mg=5). At Wk48, mean improvements from BL in AIMS total score were: SZD (40mg, –10.1; 80mg,–10.7); MD (40mg, 10.2; 80mg: –11.6). AIMS total scores at Wk52 (end of washout) indicated a return toward BL levels. Compared to SZD, the MD subgroup had a higher incidence of any TEAE (84% vs 61% [all doses]) but fewer TEAEs leading to discontinuation (7% vs 18%). Urinary tract infection was the most common TEAE in the MD subgroup (18%); somnolence and headache were most common in the SZD subgroup (7% each). Psychiatric status remained stable from BL to Wk48: SZD (PANSS positive, –0.7, PANSS negative, –0.6; CDSS, –0.7); MD (MADRS, –0.3; YMRS, –0.3). Most participants (95%) had no change in C-SSRS score during the study. Conclusion Sustained and clinically meaningful TD improvements were observed with VBZ, regardless of primary psychiatric diagnosis. VBZ was generally well tolerated and no notable changes in psychiatric status were observed. Funding Acknowledgements: Supported 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.246 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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