MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969585356 · doi:10.64719/pb.4365

Long-Term Safety and Tolerability of Valbenazine (NBI-98854) in Subjects with Tardive Dyskinesia and a Diagnosis of Schizophrenia or Mood Disorder

2025· article· en· W2969585356 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard C. Josiassen, John M. Kane, Grace Liang, Joshua Burke, Christopher O’Brien

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychopharmacology Bulletin · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTardive dyskinesiaTolerabilityPositive and Negative Syndrome ScaleSchizoaffective disorderMedicineExtrapyramidal symptomsYoung Mania Rating ScalePopulationMoodPsychiatryMood disordersInternal medicineSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Major depressive disorderAdverse effectBipolar disorderPsychologyAntipsychoticManiaPsychosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The short-term safety profile of once-daily valbenazine (NBI-98854) has been evaluated in several double-blind, placebo-controlled (DBPC) trials in adults with tardive dyskinesia (TD) who had a diagnosis of schizophrenia/schizoaffective (SCHZ) disorder or mood disorder. Studies with longer treatment duration (up to 48 weeks) were conducted to evaluate the long-term safety of this novel drug in subjects with TD. Methods: The pooled long-term exposure (LTE) population included valbenazine-treated subjects from 3 studies: KINECT (NCT01688037: 6-week DBPC, 6-week open-label); KINECT 3 (NCT02274558: 6-week DBPC, 42-week blinded extension, 4-week drug-free follow-up); KINECT 4 (NCT02405091: 48-week open-label, 4-week drug-free follow-up). Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs), laboratory tests, vital signs, electrocardiograms (ECGs), and extrapyramidal symptom (EPS) scales. Psychiatric stability was monitored using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS) (SCHZ subgroup), as well as the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) (mood subgroup). All data were analyzed descriptively. Results: The LTE population included 430 subjects (KINECT, n = 46; KINECT 3, n = 220; KINECT 4, n = 164), 71.7% with SCHZ and 28.3% with a mood disorder; 85.5% were taking an antipsychotic (atypical only, 69.8%; typical only or typical + atypical, 15.7%). In the LTE population, treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) and discontinuations due to AEs were reported in 66.5% and 14.7% of subjects, respectively. The TEAE incidence was lower in the SCHZ subgroup (64.4%) than in the mood subgroup (71.9%). The 3 most common TEAEs in the SCHZ subgroup were urinary tract infection (UTI, 6.1%), headache (5.8%), and somnolence (5.2%). The 3 most common TEAEs in the mood subgroup were headache (12.4%), UTI (10.7%), and somnolence (9.1%). Mean score changes from baseline to end of treatment (Week 48) indicated that psychiatric stability was maintained in the SCHZ subgroup (PANSS Total, -3.4; PANSS Positive, -1.1; PANSS Negative, -0.1; PANSS General Psychopathology, -2.2; CDSS total, -0.4) and the mood subgroup (MADRS Total, 0.0; YMRS Total, -1.2). These scores remained generally stable during the 4-week drug-free follow-up periods. In the LTE population, mean changes in laboratory parameters, vital signs, ECG, and EPS scales were generally minimal and not clinically significant. Conclusion: Valbenazine appeared to be well tolerated in adults with TD who received up to 48 weeks of treatment. In addition to long-term efficacy results (presented separately), these results suggest that valbenazine may be appropriate for the long-term management of TD regardless of underlying psychiatric diagnosis (SCHZ disorder or mood disorder).

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations23
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychopharmacology BulletinSame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207