Evidence based review of escitalopram in treating major depressive disorder in primary care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aimed to summarize clinical data for escitalopram in the treatment of major depressive disorder in primary care. Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials of escitalopram (10-20 mg/day for 8 weeks) versus other antidepressants in therapeutic doses or placebo. Patients were required to have had moderate/severe depression, with Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores recorded at baseline and 8 weeks. Outcomes examined were remission rates (MADRS</=12) and response rates (>/=50% decrease from baseline in MADRS at week 8). Data were combined using a random effects meta-analytic model. Of the 15 studies identified, 11 were rejected (five not primary care, four duplicate reports, one lacked 8-week MADRS scores, one not depression) and four were accepted (n=1472 patients). The four studies had nine arms, four for escitalopram (n=654), two for citalopram (n=333), one for venlafaxine-XR (n=142) and two for placebo (n=343). Remission rates for escitalopram were superior to placebo (48.7% versus 37.6%, P=0.003) and citalopram (52.8% versus 43.5%, P=0.003) but similar to venlafaxine-XR (P=0.97). Response rates were superior to placebo (48.7% versus 43.1%, P<0.001) and citalopram (62.5% versus 49.5%, P=0.001) but not venlafaxine-XR (P=0.52). Adverse events were comparable among active drugs (P<0.05). Remission rates for escitalopram were superior to placebo (48.7% versus 37.6%, P=0.003) and citalopram (52.8% versus 43.5%, P=0.003) but similar to venlafaxine-XR (P=0.97). Response rates were superior to placebo (48.7% versus 43.1%, P<0.001) and citalopram (62.5% versus 49.5%, P=0.001) but not venlafaxine-XR (P=0.52). Adverse events were comparable among active drugs (P>0.05). Remission and response rates of escitalopram in primary care are clinically superior to placebo and citalopram, but similar to venlafaxine-XR. Further head-to-head trials are warranted to verify these findings. A pharmacoeconomic analysis is also required to determine whether these clinical advantages for the patients translate into economic advantages for the health care system.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".