↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Treatment of tardive dyskinesia with VMAT-2 inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in Drug Design, Development and Therapy, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
Title
Treatment of tardive dyskinesia with VMAT-2 inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Published in
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, May 2018
DOI 10.2147/dddt.s133205
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marco Solmi, Giorgio Pigato, John M Kane, Christoph U Correll

Abstract

The aim of this study was to summarize the characteristics, efficacy, and safety of vesicular monoamine transporter-2 (VMAT-2) inhibitors for treating tardive dyskinesia (TD). We conducted a literature search in PubMed, Cochrane Database, and ClinicalTrials.gov, screening for systematic reviews, meta-analyses or double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials (DBRPCTs) reporting efficacy or safety data of VMAT-2 inhibitors (tetrabenazine, deutetrabenazine, and valbenazine) in patients with TD. A random effects meta-analysis of efficacy and safety data from DBRPCTs was performed. Two acute, 12-week DBRPCTs with deutetrabenazine 12-48 mg/day (n=413) and 4 acute, 4-6-week double-blind trials with valbenazine 12.5-100 mg/day (n=488) were meta-analyzable, without meta-analyzable, high-quality data for tetrabenazine. Regarding reduction in total Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) scores (primary outcome), both deutetrabenazine (k=2, n=413, standardized mean difference [SMD] =-0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] =-0.19, -0.62, p<0.001; weighted mean difference (WMD) =-1.44, 95% CI =-0.67, -2.19, p<0.001) and valbenazine (k=4, n=421, SMD =-0.58, 95% CI =-0.26, -0.91, p<0.001; WMD =-2.07, 95% CI =-1.08, -3.05, p<0.001) significantly outperformed placebo. Results were confirmed regarding responder rates (≥50% AIMS total score reduction; deutetrabenazine: risk ratio [RR] =2.13, 95% CI =1.10, 4.12, p=0.024, number-needed-to-treat [NNT] =7, 95% CI =3, 333, p=0.046; valbenazine: RR =3.05, 95% CI =1.81, 5.11, p<0.001, NNT =4, 95% CI =3, 6, p<0.001). Less consistent results emerged from patient-rated global impression-based response (p=0.15) and clinical global impression for deutetrabenazine (p=0.088), and for clinical global impression change for valbenazine (p=0.67). In an open-label extension (OLE) study of deutetrabenazine (≤54 weeks) and a dose-blinded valbenazine study (≤48 weeks), responder rates increased over time. With valbenazine, discontinuation effects were studied, showing TD symptom recurrence towards baseline severity levels within 4 weeks after valbenazine withdrawal. No increased cumulative or specific adverse (AEs) events versus placebo (acute trials) in extension versus acute trial data were observed. The 2 VMAT-2 inhibitors, valbenazine and deutetrabenazine, are effective in treating TD, both acutely and long-term, without concerns about increased risk of depression or suicide in the TD population. No head-to-head comparison among VMAT-2 inhibitors and no high-quality, meta-analyzable data are available for tetrabenazine in patients with TD.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 113 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 12%
Other 8 7%
Student > Master 8 7%
Professor 8 7%
Other 24 21%
Unknown 37 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 22%
Neuroscience 10 9%
Psychology 7 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 43 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 April 2024.
All research outputs
#3,703,605
of 25,795,662 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#228
of 2,282 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,124
of 340,389 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#7
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,795,662 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,282 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 340,389 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.