Effect of Cariprazine on Outcomes in Older-aged and Younger-aged Patients with Bipolar I Disorder: A Post-hoc Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate cariprazine in adults with older- and younger-age bipolar I disorder (OABD-I and YABD-I) and compare treatment effects between them. DESIGN AND SETTING: Pooled post-hoc analysis of studies in depressive or acute manic/mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder. PARTICIPANTS: 475/1383 patients (34.3%) in 3 depression trials and 238/1037 patients (23.0%) in 3 manic/mixed trials were OABD-I. INTERVENTIONS: Depression: placebo, cariprazine 1.5 mg/day, 3.0 mg/day, pooled 1.5-3.0 mg/day. Manic/mixed: placebo, cariprazine 3.0-6.0 mg/day, and 9.0-12.0 mg/day. MEASUREMENTS: Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S), and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS). RESULTS: In bipolar I depression, mean change from baseline in MADRS was significantly greater for the pooled cariprazine group vs. placebo in OABD-I (-13.72 vs. -11.98; p < 0.05) and for each cariprazine group vs. placebo among YABD-I. There was no significant difference in treatment effect between OABD-I and YABD-I for either individual cariprazine group vs. placebo. For mania/mixed states, mean change in YMRS was significantly greater for cariprazine 3.0-6.0 mg/day vs. placebo in OABD-I (-19.04 vs. -12.45; p < 0.001) and for both cariprazine groups in YABD-I (-12.49, -19.66 and -18.05 for placebo, cariprazine 3.0-6.0 mg/day and 9.0-12.0 mg/day, respectively [both p < 0.0001 vs. placebo]). There was no significant difference in treatment effect between OABD-I and YABD-I for cariprazine 3.0-6.0 mg/day vs. placebo; there was a significantly higher treatment effect for cariprazine 9.0-12.0 mg/day vs. placebo in the YABD-I subpopulation vs. OABD-I (4.20; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Cariprazine appears to be effective for both depressive and manic/mixed episodes of bipolar I disorder, regardless of age.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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, 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".