Efficacy of cariprazine in patients with bipolar depression and higher or lower levels of baseline anxiety: a pooled post hoc analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Post hoc analyses evaluated cariprazine, a dopamine D 3 -preferring D 3 /D 2 receptor partial agonist, in patients with bipolar I depression and high baseline anxiety. Data were pooled from two phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in adults with bipolar I disorder and a major depressive episode (NCT02670538, NCT02670551). Cariprazine 1.5 and 3 mg/d were evaluated in patient subgroups with higher and lower baseline anxiety. In patients with higher baseline anxiety, significant differences for cariprazine 1.5 mg/d versus placebo were observed on change in Montgomery-Åsberg Rating Scale (MADRS) total score, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) total score and subscale scores, and rates of MADRS remission ( P < 0.05 all); nonsignificant numerical improvements were observed for cariprazine 3 mg/d versus placebo. In patients with lower anxiety, differences versus placebo were significant for HAM-A (cariprazine 3 mg/d) and MADRS (cariprazine 1.5 and 3 mg/d) total score changes ( P < 0.05 all). Rates of treatment-emergent mania were low and similar for cariprazine and placebo. Cariprazine 1.5 mg/d had consistent effects on anxiety and depression symptoms in patients with bipolar I depression and higher baseline anxiety; tolerability was favorable. Given few proven treatments for this common comorbidity, these preliminary results are promising.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".