ArticleBMC psychiatry2026
Clinical characteristics and risk factors of antipsychotic-associated metabolic syndrome in bipolar disorder: a retrospective analysis.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveOlanzapine and sodium valproate combination (OLZ/VPA) and OLZ and samidorphan combination (OLZ/SAM) are commonly used for treating bipolar disorder type I (BD-I). However, direct comparative evidence regarding their efficacy and metabolic impacts is lacking. This study evaluates the efficacy and metabolic safety of OLZ/VPA versus OLZ/SAM in BD-I patients and explores risk factors associated with metabolic syndrome (MetS).
methodsIn this single-center retrospective study, 180 BD-I patients were divided into OLZ/VPA and OLZ/SAM groups (n = 90/group). Bech-Rafaelsen Mania Scale (BRMS) and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) scores and metabolic parameters were compared before and after treatment. Logistic regression was utilized for identifying MetS risk factors, with predictive performance assessed by ROC curve analysis.
resultsBoth groups showed comparable efficacy with similar < mark> improvements in BRMS (ΔBRMS, P = 0.705) and HAMD scores (ΔHAMD, P = 0.329). However, the OLZ/VPA group had significantly higher MetS incidence (P = 0.002) and greater worsening of fasting plasma glucose (FPG; ΔFPG, P < 0.001), triglycerides (ΔTG, P = 0.033), and blood pressure (ΔSBP, P = 0.065; ΔDBP, P = 0.052), with the changes in blood pressure showing a strong trend towards significance. Elevated baseline FPG (OR = 5.693, 95% CI: 2.026–15.997, P < 0.01) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (OR = 1.133, 95% CI: 1.015–1.265, P = 0.026) were independent MetS risk factors. Their combined prediction model showed optimal performance (AUC = 0.7938, 95% CI: 0.7287–0.8588).
conclusionOLZ/SAM may demonstrate metabolic safety advantages over OLZ/VPA while maintaining comparable efficacy in BD-I treatment. Higher baseline FPG and DBP are independent MetS risk factors, and their combined assessment may facilitate early identification of high-risk patients. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.