Osmotic-Release Oral System Methylphenidate Augmentation of Antidepressant Monotherapy in Major Depressive Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of adjunctive osmotic-release oral system (OROS) methylphenidate in outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD) receiving a stable oral antidepressant regimen. METHOD: This multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, 5-week trial enrolled 145 subjects who met DSM-IV-TR criteria for MDD and who had failed 1 to 3 previous antidepressant monotherapies (including current antidepressant) of adequate dose and duration. Augmentation therapy was initiated with 18 mg of OROS methylphenidate and increased to a maximum dose of 54 mg of OROS methylphenidate until an optimal dose was achieved. Efficacy scales included the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), 7 atypical items from the 31-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) scale, the CGI-Improvement scale (CGI-I), the Sex Effects scale, the Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue (MAF) scale, and the Apathy Evaluation Scale (AES). Subjects were recruited at 17 community and academic centers across Canada. The study was conducted from June 8, 2005, to April 18, 2006. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the groups at endpoint on the MADRS. OROS methylphenidate was superior to placebo in improving apathy and fatigue as measured by the AES and the MAF. Statistically significant differences using mixed-model analysis were observed on the AES at all visits and at endpoint (p = .01) and on the MAF (p < .01). No differences were observed on other secondary measures, including the CGI-I and CGI-S. There were no clinically significant findings on electrocardiogram. CONCLUSIONS: OROS methylphenidate did not demonstrate statistical significance on the MADRS at endpoint. Apathy and fatigue were significantly improved with OROS methylphenidate treatment, which was well tolerated with minimal side effects. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00246233.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".