MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4365511373 · doi:10.1017/s109285292300130x

Treatment Success and Psychiatric Stability in Adults With Tardive Dyskinesia: Post Hoc Analyses of Two Long-Term Valbenazine Studies

2023· article· en· W4365511373 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrew J. Cutler, Rakesh Jain, Alon Bloom, Scott Siegert, Leslie Lundt

Bibliographic record

VenueCNS Spectrums · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTardive dyskinesiaClinical Global ImpressionSchizoaffective disorderYoung Mania Rating ScalePsychiatryMedicineSuicidal ideationSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Positive and Negative Syndrome ScaleBipolar disorderGlobal Assessment of FunctioningRating scalePsychologyClinical psychologyManiaMoodPsychosisPoison control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Tardive dyskinesia (TD) is a persistent and potentially disabling movement disorder associated with exposure to antipsychotics and other dopamine receptor blocking agents. Effective and comprehensive treatment of TD requires reducing patients’ abnormal involuntary movements without disrupting their psychiatric stability. This can be especially challenging when patients have complex psychiatric conditions (e.g., >1 psychiatric diagnosis) and are taking multiple medications. Valbenazine, a highly potent and selective vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2) inhibitor, is approved for the once-daily treatment of TD. This post hoc analysis of two long-term studies (KINECT 3, KINECT 4) was conducted to evaluate changes in psychiatric status and clinician- and patient-reported treatment success in study participants who received valbenazine (40 or 80 mg) for 48 weeks. Methods Data from KINECT 3 and KINECT 4 were pooled and analyzed in participants categorized by their primary psychiatric diagnosis: schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder (“SCHZ”) or mood disorder (“MD”). Concomitant medications needed for managing these and other psychiatric or medical conditions were allowed. Treatment success was defined as achieving a rating of “much improved” or “very much improved” at Week 48, as assessed using the Clinical Global Impression of Change-Tardive Dyskinesia (CGI-TD) and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). Psychiatric stability was monitored using the following scales: Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS) in the SCHZ subgroup; Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) in the MD subgroup. Suicidal ideation/behavior was monitored using the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale. Results More than 75% of study participants in the SCHZ subgroup achieved treatment success with valbenazine, based on clinician assessment (CGI-TD, 79.7%) and patient self-report (PGIC, 78.0%). Mean changes from baseline to Week 48 for PANSS scores (positive symptoms [-0.7], negative symptoms [‑0.6], general psychopathology [-1.9], total [-3.2]) and CDSS total score (-0.5) indicated maintenance of psychiatric stability in the SCHZ subgroup. Similar treatment success rates were found in the MD subgroup for both CGI-TD (77.6%) and PGIC (84.5%), with mean changes from baseline in YMRS total score (-1.0) and MADRS total score (+0.3) indicating psychiatric stability was maintained. No emergence of suicidal ideation/behavior was observed during the studies. Conclusions Pooled analyses from two 48-week studies indicate that long-term treatment of TD with once-daily valbenazine resulted in substantial clinician- and patient-reported global improvements in TD, while psychiatric stability was maintained regardless of primary psychiatric condition. Funding 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 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.006
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.330 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCNS SpectrumsSame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207