Full-spectrum efficacy of cariprazine across manic and depressive symptoms of bipolar I disorder in patients experiencing mood episodes: Post hoc analysis of pooled randomized controlled trial data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patients with bipolar I disorder may experience mood destabilization or treatment-emergent affective switch (TEAS) from one symptom pole to the other spontaneously or following treatment. Optimal treatment should address symptoms from both poles without precipitating destabilization. METHODS: These were pooled post hoc analyses of data from randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of cariprazine 3-12 mg/d for bipolar I mania (NCT00488618, NCT01058096, NCT01058668) and cariprazine 1.5 mg/d or 3 mg/d for bipolar I depression (NCT01396447, NCT02670538, NCT02670551). Changes from baseline in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score at week 6 and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score at week 3 were analyzed in each indication using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures. Percentages of patients with increasing levels of endpoint response and TEAS (bipolar mania = MADRS total score ≥ 19; bipolar depression = YMRS score ≥ 16) were determined. RESULTS: Cariprazine significantly reduced manic and depressive symptoms in patients with bipolar I disorder mood episodes. In patients with a manic episode and up to mild baseline depressive symptoms, cariprazine also significantly reduced depressive symptoms. In patients with a depressive episode and manic symptoms in remission at baseline, numerical reduction (without statistical significance) in YMRS indicated no worsening of mania. In both indications, cariprazine-treated patients had numerically greater response rates (presenting symptom pole) than placebo-treated patients; lower percentages of cariprazine- than placebo-treated patients had TEAS at visits where data were collected. LIMITATIONS: Post hoc analysis. CONCLUSION: Results suggested that cariprazine had full-spectrum efficacy across symptoms from both poles in patients with bipolar I disorder mood episodes; TEAS risk was low. Patient-level response suggested that improvement was clinically relevant.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
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 | 0.025 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".