A pooled post hoc analysis evaluating the safety and tolerability of cariprazine in bipolar depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: receptor partial agonist, was evaluated in 4 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in patients with bipolar depression. METHODS: Safety and tolerability were evaluated in 2 post hoc analyses. Modal dose analysis: pooled data from all 4 flexible/fixed-dose trials (dose groups: <1.5, 1.5, 3 mg/d). Fixed-dose analysis: pooled data from 2 identically designed fixed-dose trials (1.5 and 3 mg/d dose groups). RESULTS: The modal dose and fixed-dose analyses evaluated data from 1775 and 970 patients, respectively. Cariprazine was generally safe and well tolerated; study completion rates were 78% and 82% in the modal dose and fixed-dose analyses, respectively. In modal dose analysis, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 60% of overall cariprazine- and 55% of placebo-treated patients; nausea (8% vs 3%) and akathisia (7% vs 2%) occurred in ≥5% of cariprazine patients and twice the rate of placebo. Metabolic changes were small and generally similar for cariprazine and placebo; mean increase in glucose was 3.1 mg/dL for cariprazine and 2.6 mg/dL for placebo. Fixed-dose and modal dose findings were generally consistent; values for most metabolic parameters were slightly higher for fixed-dose 3 mg/d versus 1.5 mg/d. LIMITATIONS: Post hoc analyses, modal dose groups, short treatment duration. CONCLUSIONS: In modal dose (0.25-3 mg/d) and fixed-dose (1.5 and 3 mg/d) analyses, cariprazine was generally safe and well tolerated in the treatment of bipolar depression. Slightly improved tolerability was observed with fixed-dose cariprazine 1.5 mg/d versus 3 mg/d. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT00852202, NCT01396447, NCT02670538, NCT02670551.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".