Trial reportNeuropsychopharmacology reports2023
A diagnostic test to examine early improvement as a predictor of later response to lurasidone in bipolar depression.
Trial report in Neuropsychopharmacology reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- A diagnostic test to examine early improvement as a predictor of later response to lurasidone in bipolar depression.Neuropsychopharmacology reports · 2023Trial
- Accelerated intermittent theta burst stimulation for pharmacological treatment-resistant bipolar depression: Protocol for double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial.PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionKato et al. reported results of a 6-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of lurasidone in adults with bipolar depression (BDep).
aimWe performed a post hoc analysis using data from the lurasidone trial to predict later responses from early improvements.
methodsAn early improvement was defined as a ≥20% reduction in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score at Week 2; response was defined as a ≥50% reduction in MADRS total score at Week 6; symptomatic remission were defined as a score of ≤8 on MADRS total score at Week 6.
resultsBoth sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) were higher for the remission outcome than for the response outcome. The interpretation of sensitivity and NPV in the lurasidone group when remission is an outcome is as follows. It means (1) that, from all remitters at Week 6, 80.6% was identified as such at Week 2 on the basis of their early improvement and (2) that a patient showing non-improvement at 2 weeks had 93.5% probability of being a non-remitters at Week 6. However, the values of specificity for both response and remission in the lurasidone group were not high.
conclusionPatients who did not show an early response at Week 2 cannot be predicted with a high probability to also show poor improvement at Week 6. In fact, some patients who did not show early response at 2 weeks might have marked improvement at 6 weeks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.