MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922229369 · doi:10.1017/s1092852919000324

39 Long-term Safety and Tolerability of Once-Daily Valbenazine in Patients with Tardive Dyskinesia

2019· article· en· W2922229369 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephen R. Marder, Martha Sajatovic, Dan Michel, Joshua Burke, Khody Farahmand, Scott Siegert

Bibliographic record

VenueCNS Spectrums · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNeurocrine Biosciences
KeywordsYoung Mania Rating ScaleTolerabilityMedicinePositive and Negative Syndrome ScaleAdverse effectPsychiatryRating scaleInternal medicineSchizoaffective disorderDiscontinuationBipolar disorderMajor depressive disorderManiaMoodPsychologyPsychosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective To evaluate the long-term safety and tolerability of once-dailyvalbenazine in adults with tardive dyskinesia(TD). Methods Data were pooled from KINECT 3 (NCT02274558: 6-week double-blind placebo-controlled period, followed by a 42-week double-blind extension and 4-week drug-free washout) and KINECT 4 (NCT02405091: 48-week open-label treatment period and 4-week drug-free washout). KINECT 3/4 study completers could enroll in a subsequent rollover study (NCT02736955: up to 72weeks of open-label treatment or until valbenazine became commercial available); data from this study were described separately for this analysis. Valbenazine dose groups (40 and 80mg) were pooled for analysis. Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS). Psychiatric status was assessed in KINECT 3 and KINECT 4 using the following measures: Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score and Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS) in participants with schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder; Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) in participants with a mood disorder. Results Analyses included 304 KINECT 3/4 participants and 160 rollover participants. In KINECT 3/4, the summary of TEAEs was as follows: any TEAE (71.7%), serious TEAE (16.8%), and discontinuation due to TEAE (15.5%). TEAEs reported in ≥5% of all KINECT 3/4 participants were headache (8.9%), urinary tract infection (8.9%), somnolence (7.9%), fatigue (6.3%), dizziness (5.9%), and suicidal ideation (5.6%). The summary of TEAEs from the rollover study was as follows: any TEAE (53.1%), serious TEAE (10.0%), and discontinuation due to TEAE (5.6%). The most common TEAEs in the rollover study were back pain and urinary tract infection (4.4%, each); no TEAE was reported in ≥5% of participants. Minimal changes in psychiatric status were observed in KINECT 3/4, as indicated by mean score changes from baseline to Week 48 in participants with schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder (PANSS total, –3.2; CDSS total, –0.5) or a mood disorder (MADRS total, 0.3; YMRS total, –1.0). Over one-third of study participants had a lifetime history of suicidal ideation or behavior (KINECT 3/4, 41%; rollover, 38%). Most participants had no C-SSRS suicidal ideation at study baseline; of these, >90% had no emergence of suicidal ideation at any time during the study (KINECT 3/4, 93% [276/296]; rollover, 98% [153/156]). Conclusions Valbenazine was well tolerated and no unexpected safety signals were found in adults who received >1 year of once-daily treatment. Psychiatric stability was maintained, and few participants experienced any emergence of suicidal ideation during the studies despite 35–40% having a lifetime history of suicidality. These results indicate that once-daily valbenazine may be an appropriate treatment for the long-term management of TD. Funding Acknowledgements: 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.735

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 head0.248
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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