MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409125822 · doi:10.1097/jcp.0000000000002005

Does Aripiprazole Increase Compulsive Urges to Use Substances? Case Reports and Literature Review

2025· review· en· W4409125822 on OpenAlexaff
Kamini Vasudev, Megha Kodancha

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Psychopharmacology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAripiprazoleDiscontinuationPsychiatryPsychologySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND: Aripiprazole is commonly used to treat schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder and is preferred because of its relatively favorable side-effect profile. In 2016, the Food and Drug Administration released a warning regarding the risk of new impulse control problems with aripiprazole, including urges to gamble, binge eat, shop, and engage in sexual intercourse. These problems are rare but may cause significant harm if not recognized in time. METHODS: This report presents 2 clinical cases to hypothesize that aripiprazole may increase urges and compulsive use of substances in some patients with a history of substance use disorders. RESULTS: Both individuals had a previous history of substance use disorder before starting aripiprazole; they felt unable to stop using, as if compelled to use the substances while on aripiprazole, despite having good motivation to change. They reported a decreased urge to use substances after discontinuation of aripiprazole and were able to abstain from substances for sustained periods. IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS: These case reports suggest that aripiprazole may increase urges and compulsive substance use in patients with a history of substance use disorders. The findings emphasize the importance of a thorough preprescription assessment, education, informed consent, and regular monitoring of patients prescribed aripiprazole for increased urges or compulsions to use substances, in addition to other impulsive-compulsive behaviors. Further research is needed to confirm the association.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.446 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical PsychopharmacologySame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207