A 12-month longitudinal naturalistic follow-up of cariprazine in schizophrenia.

Background

Cariprazine, 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.

Methods

The 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.

Results

The 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.

Conclusions

This 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.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 Carmassi, Dell’Oste, Fantasia, Bordacchini, Bertelloni, Scarpellini and Pedrinelli.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.