Efficacy and Safety of Olanzapine/Fluoxetine Combination vs Fluoxetine Monotherapy Following Successful Combination Therapy of Treatment-Resistant Major Depressive Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assessed prevention of relapse in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) taking olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC). Patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) who failed to satisfactorily respond to ≥ 2 different antidepressants for ≥ 6 weeks within the current MDD episode were acutely treated for 6-8 weeks, followed by stabilization (12 weeks) on OFC. Those who remained stable were randomized to OFC or fluoxetine for up to 27 weeks. Time-to-relapse was the primary efficacy outcome defined as 50% increase in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score with Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Depression score of ≥ 4; hospitalization for depression or suicidality; or discontinuation for lack of efficacy or worsening of depression or suicidality. A total of 444 patients were randomized 1:1 to OFC (N=221) or fluoxetine (N=223). Time-to-relapse was significantly longer in OFC-treated patients compared with fluoxetine-treated patients (p<0.001). Treatment-emergent weight gain and some mean and categorical fasting metabolic changes were significantly greater in OFC-treated patients. Clinically significant weight gain (≥ 7%) was observed in 55.7% of patients who remained on OFC throughout the study, including the relapse-prevention phase (up to 47 weeks). There were no significant differences between patients treated with OFC and fluoxetine in extrapyramidal symptoms or serious adverse events. We believe this is the first controlled relapse-prevention study in subjects with TRD that supports continued use of a second-generation antipsychotic beyond stabilization. A thorough assessment of benefits and risks (in particular metabolic changes) associated with continuing treatment with OFC or fluoxetine must be done based on individual patient needs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".