Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundCariprazine, a third-generation antipsychotic (TGAs), has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of schizophrenia with good tolerability profile. Actual real-world literature data are lacking, particularly when exploring its efficacy in the long term. The present study examined the effects of cariprazine treatment on specific psychopathological domains with a particular focus on outcomes and side effects in real-life experience, after a long-term treatment.MethodsThe present 12-month longitudinal naturalistic study included a sample of subjects with a DSM-5-TR diagnosis of schizophrenia, recruited in the outpatients' psychiatric services of university and community hospitals in Italy, naturally treated with cariprazine. The assessments included: a sociodemographic data sheet, the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-5 (SCID-5), the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS) and the St. Hans Rating Scale (SHRS). The PANSS was also administered after 6 (T1) and 12 (T2) months of treatment with cariprazine while the SHRS at T1.ResultsThe total sample consisted of 31 patients, 15 males and 16 females. A significant decrease of the PANSS' subscales, Marder factors and total mean scores emerged at both T1 and T2 with respect to T0. Extrapyramidal symptoms occurred in a minority of patients and in mild or mild/moderate forms: no patient showed moderate forms of psychic/motor akathisia or dystonia, three subjects showed moderate parkinsonism.ConclusionsThis study confirms a good efficacy profile of cariprazine in both positive and negative symptoms in patients with Schizophrenia, combined with a good tolerability profile in extrapyramidal symptoms.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.