Cariprazine as a maintenance therapy in the prevention of mood episodes in adults with bipolar I disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cariprazine treats acute manic and depressive episodes in bipolar I disorder (BP-I), but its efficacy in preventing relapse of mood episode remains unknown. METHODS: In this phase 3b, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients with BP-I with acute manic or depressive episodes (each with/without mixed features), were treated with cariprazine 3.0 mg/day during a 16-week open-label treatment period; those who achieved stable remission within 8 weeks and remained stable for at least another 8 weeks were randomized to receive cariprazine 1.5 or 3.0 mg per day or placebo in the double-blind treatment period for up to 39 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was time to relapse of any mood episode. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed. RESULTS: Patients (440/896) enrolled in the open-label treatment period achieved stability criteria and were randomized to receive cariprazine 3.0 mg/day (n = 148), cariprazine 1.5 mg/day (n = 147), or placebo (n = 145) in the double-blind treatment period. Relapse rates were 17.9%, 16.8%, and 19.7% in the cariprazine 3.0 mg/day, cariprazine 1.5 mg/day, and placebo groups, respectively. Neither dose of cariprazine was more effective than placebo on the primary outcome (3.0 mg/day: HR = 0.89, [95% CI: 0.5, 1.5]; 1.5 mg/day: HR = 0.83, 95% CI [0.5, 1.4]). The most frequently reported AEs (≥5%) were akathisia, headache, insomnia, and nausea in the open-label treatment period and increased weight and insomnia in the double-blind treatment period. In the open-label and double-blind treatment periods, 7.5% and 1.6% of patients experienced an AE leading to discontinuation. CONCLUSION: Cariprazine was not superior to placebo in the prevention of relapses in this study. Relapse rates were unusually low in the placebo group. Cariprazine was well-tolerated.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".