The Efficacy of Lumateperone in Patients With Bipolar Depression With Mixed Features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: A post hoc analysis of a phase 3, randomized, doubleblind, placebo-controlled outpatient study investigated efficacy of lumateperone 42 mg in patients with bipolar I or bipolar II disorder and experiencing a major depressive episode (MDE) stratified by the presence of mixed features.Methods: Adults (18-75 years) with bipolar I or bipolar II disorder experiencing an MDE, defined by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, criteria, were randomized 1:1 to 6-week oral lumateperone 42 mg/d or placebo (conducted November 2017-March 2019).Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score, Clinical Global Impression Scale-Bipolar Version-Severity (CGI-BP-S) total score, and Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire-Short Form (Q-LES-Q-SF) were analyzed in patients (N = 376) categorized as having mixed features (Young Mania Rating Scale [YMRS] score ≥ 4 and ≤ 12, 41.5%) or not having mixed features (YMRS < 4, 58.5%) at baseline.Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) including mania/hypomania were assessed.Results: At day 43, lumateperone significantly improved MADRS and CGI-BP-S total scores change from baseline compared with placebo for patients with mixed features (MADRS least squares mean difference [LSMD] = -4.4,P < .01;CGI-BP-S LSMD = -0.7,P < .05)and without mixed features (MADRS LSMD = -4.2,P < .001,CGI-BP-S LSMD = -1.0,P < .001).Q-LES-Q-SF percent score significantly improved at day 43 with lumateperone vs placebo in patients with mixed features (LSMD = 5.9, P < .05),with numerical improvements in patients without mixed features (LSMD = 2.6, P = .27).TEAEs of mania/hypomania were rare.Conclusions: Lumateperone 42 mg significantly improved symptoms of depression and disease severity in patients with an MDE associated with bipolar I or bipolar II disorder, with or without mixed features.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".