A Double-Blind Comparison of Sexual Functioning, Antidepressant Efficacy, and Tolerability Between Agomelatine and Venlafaxine XR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Impaired sexual function is associated with major depressive disorder in the untreated state and is often more prevalent during antidepressant therapy, which frequently results in poor treatment compliance. In this double-blind, multicenter study, the effects of agomelatine (an MT1 and MT2 agonist and 5HT-2C antagonist) and venlafaxine XR on sexual function were compared using the Sex Effects Scale in depressed patients. A total of 276 male and female patients received either agomelatine (50 mg) or venlafaxine XR (titrated to a target dose of 150 mg/d) for 12 weeks. Those who were sexually active at baseline (n = 193) and those who, in addition, achieved remission (n = 111) were defined a priori for analyses of change in sexual function. Treatment-emergent sexual dysfunction was significantly less prevalent among patients who received agomelatine, and venlafaxine XR was associated with significantly greater deterioration on the Sex Effects Scale domains of desire and orgasm. Both treatments resulted in equivalently high rates of remission (agomelatine, 73%; venlafaxine XR, 66.9%), although fewer patients in the agomelatine group discontinued treatment because of adverse events (agomelatine, 2.2%, vs venlafaxine XR, 8.6%). Agomelatine seems to be an efficacious antidepressant with a superior sexual side effect profile compared with venlafaxine XR, although superiority to placebo was not evaluated in this trial.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".