MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2938438954 · doi:10.1093/schbul/sbz021.212

O5.4. PROBLEM GAMBLING ASSOCIATED WITH ARIPIPRAZOLE: A NESTED CASE-CONTROL STUDY IN A FIRST-EPISODE PSYCHOSIS COHORT USING A SYSTEMATIC PHARMACOVIGILANCE APPROACH

2019· article· en· W2938438954 on OpenAlexaffabout
Olivier Corbeil, Stéphanie Corbeil, Ann-Sophie Breault, Guillaume Chalifour, Marc‐André Roy, Marie‐France Demers

Bibliographic record

VenueSchizophrenia Bulletin · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
Canadian institutionsCentres Intégré Universitaires de Santé et de Services SociauxCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-JeanCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAripiprazolePharmacovigilancePsychosisPsychiatryNested case-control studyPsychologyMedicineCohortSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Internal medicineDrug

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aripiprazole is an antipsychotic drug widely prescribed for patients with schizophrenia and first-episode psychosis (FEP). Recently, Health Canada and the FDA have issued vigilance notices regarding the occurrence of problem gambling associated with aripiprazole. However, despite the case reports of problem gambling linked with aripiprazole in schizophrenia patients found in the literature, our critical review demonstrates that we can’t conclude on the imputability of aripiprazole at this point. Considering that the consequences of problem gambling can be significant, it is essential to evaluate this association more thoroughly, with the conduction of well-designed studies. The main objective of this study is to evaluate the association between aripiprazole exposure and problem gambling in patients treated for a FEP at our clinic. The secondary objectives are to identify risk factors for the emergence of problem gambling in FEP patients and to determine the factors that distinguish patients developing problem gambling with aripiprazole from those who do not develop it (e.g. pharmaceutical formulation, dosage, duration of exposure). This is a nested case-control study combined with a systematic imputability assessment using the Naranjo scale examining the association between aripiprazole use and problem gambling among FEP patients. Records of 219 patients treated at our FEP clinic between November 1st, 2015, and February 1st, 2018, were reviewed. Within this cohort, 14 cases of problem gambling were identified, and 56 control subjects were matched for gender and index date (1:4 ratio). Univariate and multivariate conditional logistic regressions were used to examine the association between the use of aripiprazole (duration, dosage and formulation) and the risk of problem gambling, while adjusting for potentially confounding factors such as age, relationship status and Cluster B personality traits. Use of aripiprazole was associated with more than a 10-fold increased risk of problem gambling (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 10.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5 - 357.9; p = 0.01) as compared with other antipsychotics. Among aripiprazole users, the risk of problem gambling was greater in patients who were older, in a relationship, employed, had Cluster B personality traits and a history of gambling. When comparing aripiprazole use in both case and control groups, there was no relationship observed between the route of administration, dosage or treatment duration with the risk of problem gambling. This study extends previous evidence documenting the association between aripiprazole and problem gambling. It is the first to examine this relationship in a FEP cohort, in which aripiprazole use is widely spread. Based on the present results, we firmly believe that the implementation of a systematic evaluation for gambling history in all FEP patients is required at entrance in FEP programs. Indeed, patients with a history of gambling seem particularly vulnerable to the development of a full-blown problem gambling when prescribed aripiprazole. Future studies conducted with larger samples of patients are warranted to further assess the risk-benefit profile of aripiprazole and to identify at-risk patients to better guide on-field clinicians.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSchizophrenia BulletinSame topicPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug ReactionsFrench-language works237,207