MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945824361 · doi:10.1186/s12888-019-2103-x

Real-life assessment of aripiprazole monthly (Abilify Maintena) in schizophrenia: a Canadian naturalistic non-interventional prospective cohort study

2019· article· en· W2945824361 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sally Mustafa, Joanna Bougie, Maı̈a Miguelez, Guerline Clerzius, Emmanouil Rampakakis, Jean Proulx, Ashok Malla

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Psychiatry · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsGDI Integrated Facility Services (Canada)McGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
FundersLundbeck CanadaOtsuka Canada PharmaceuticalH. Lundbeck A/S
KeywordsGlobal Assessment of FunctioningAkathisiaClinical Global ImpressionSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)AripiprazoleMedicineRating scalePsychiatryPositive and Negative Syndrome ScaleBrief Psychiatric Rating ScalePhysical therapyPediatricsPsychologyPsychosisAntipsychotic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: With previously established efficacy of aripiprazole once-monthly injectable formulation (AOM) in pre-registration randomized controlled trials, the current study was designed to evaluate its effectiveness in patients treated for schizophrenia in regular clinical settings in Canada. METHODS: Following their clinicians' decision to prescribe AOM, 193 patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, were recruited from 17 Canadian community or hospital-based settings. The primary outcome of global functioning was assessed with the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (GAF) at 3-month intervals for 1 year. Secondary outcomes (social and occupational functioning and illness severity) and adverse drug reactions (ADR) were also assessed. RESULTS: A majority of the 169 evaluable patients were within the first 5 years of diagnosis (early phase). A linear mixed model analysis showed a significant main effect of time (Type III test p < 0.001) after adjusting for baseline GAF score, with a change in mean GAF scores from 49 at baseline to 61 at 12 months. No differences between early vs late phase were observed. Results on secondary outcome measures of function (Social and Occupational Functioning Scale) and illness severity (Clinical Global Impression-Severity Scale and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale) were similar. Serious ADRs were observed in 29 (14.6%) patients and akathisia in 18 (9.1%) patients. At month-12, significant (≥7%) weight gain was observed in 25.7% (n = 27/105) of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with AOM is effective in improving symptoms and functioning in schizophrenia patients treated in regular clinical settings. Akathisia was infrequent while one quarter of patients gained clinically significant weight. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Unique identifier: NCT02131415 . First posted: 06 May 2014.

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)0.000
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 score0.562
Threshold uncertainty score0.915

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations35
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC PsychiatrySame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207