MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406254585 · doi:10.1017/s1092852924001597

Effect of Adjunctive Cariprazine on Symptoms of Anhedonia in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder

2024· article· en· W4406254585 on OpenAlexaff
Roger S. McIntyre, Vladimir Maletic, Prakash S. Masand, Jun Yu, Kenneth L. Kramer, Julie L. Adams, Majid Kerolous

Bibliographic record

VenueCNS Spectrums · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnhedoniaDepressive symptomsMajor depressive disorderAdjunctive treatmentPsychologyMedicineClinical psychologyPsychiatryInternal medicineSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Mood

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Anhedonia, a multidimensional domain including the reduced ability to experience pleasure, is a core diagnostic symptom of major depressive disorder (MDD) and a common residual symptom. In patients with MDD, anhedonia has been associated with poor treatment outcomes, suicide and reduced functioning and quality of life. This post-hoc analysis of data from a phase 3 trial (NCT03738215) evaluated the efficacy of adjunctive cariprazine (CAR) treatment on anhedonia symptoms in patients with MDD. Methods Patients with MDD and inadequate response to ongoing antidepressant therapy (ADT) were randomized to CAR 1.5 mg/d + ADT, CAR 3 mg/d + ADT, or placebo + ADT for 6 weeks of double-blind treatment. Post hoc analyses evaluated the change from baseline to Week 6 in Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score, MADRS anhedonia subscale score (items: 1 [apparent sadness], 2 [reported sadness], 6 [concentration difficulties], 7 [lassitude], and 8 [inability to feel]), and MADRS anhedonia item 8 in the overall modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population and in subgroups of patients with baseline MADRS anhedonia item 8 score of ≥4 or baseline anhedonia subscale score of ≥18. Least square (LS) mean change from baseline to Week 6 was analyzed using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures. Results There were 751 patients in the mITT population (CAR + ADT: 1.5 mg/d=250, 3 mg/d=252; placebo + ADT=249). At baseline, 508 (67.6%) patients had MADRS anhedonia item 8 scores ≥4, and 584 (77.8%) had MADRS anhedonia subscale scores ≥18. In the overall mITT population, LS mean change from baseline to Week 6 in anhedonia subscale score was significantly greater for CAR 1.5 mg/d + ADT (-8.4) and CAR 3 mg/d + ADT (-7.9) than for placebo + ADT (-6.8; both P <.05). The LS mean change from baseline in MADRS individual item 8 was also significantly greater for CAR 1.5 mg/d + ADT (-1.7) vs placebo + ADT (-1.3; P =.0085). In both subgroups of patients with baseline anhedonia, CAR 1.5 mg/d + ADT was associated with significantly greater reduction in MADRS total score, MADRS anhedonia subscale score, and MADRS item 8 score compared with placebo + ADT (all P <.05). In the CAR 3 mg/d + ADT group, significantly greater reductions vs placebo + ADT were observed for MADRS total score and MADRS anhedonia subscale score in the subgroup of patients with baseline anhedonia subscale scores ≥18 (both P <.05). Importance Adjunctive treatment with CAR was associated with a reduction in symptoms of anhedonia relative to adjunctive placebo in patients with MDD and inadequate response to ADT alone. In subgroups of patients with moderate-to-severe anhedonia at baseline, CAR + ADT demonstrated greater improvements than placebo + ADT in overall depressive symptoms and symptoms of anhedonia. These results suggest that adjunctive CAR treatment may be effective for improving symptoms of anhedonia in patients with MDD who have symptoms of anhedonia. Funding AbbVie

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.566

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCNS SpectrumsSame topicTreatment of Major DepressionFrench-language works237,207