MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005935080 · doi:10.4088/jcp.11m07493

Agomelatine Prevents Relapse in Generalized Anxiety Disorder

2012· article· en· W2005935080 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dan J. Stein, Antti Ahokas, Cristina Albarran, Valérie Olivier, Christer Allgulander

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Clinical Psychiatry · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgomelatineGeneralized anxiety disorderAnxietyPsychologyPsychotherapistClinical psychologyPsychiatryMedicineAntidepressant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of agomelatine in the prevention of relapse in patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). METHOD: Patients with GAD (Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale [HARS] ≥ 22, with items 1 and 2 ≥ 2, item 1 + 2 ≥ 5; Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] ≤ 16; and < 20% decrease in HARS total score between screening and baseline) who responded to a 16-week course of agomelatine 25-50 mg/d treatment were randomly assigned to receive continuation treatment with agomelatine (n = 113) or placebo (n = 114) for 26 weeks. The main outcome measure was time to relapse during this maintenance period. The estimated risk of relapse was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and groups were compared using a log-rank test stratified for country. The study was undertaken in 31 clinical centers in Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, and Sweden from November 2007 to September 2009. RESULTS: During the 6-month maintenance period, the proportion of patients that relapsed during the double-blind period in the agomelatine group (22 patients, 19.5%) was lower than in the placebo group (35 patients, 30.7%). The risk of relapse over time was significantly lower for patients who continued treatment than for those switched to placebo (P = .046, log-rank test stratified for country). Agomelatine was also superior to placebo in preventing relapse in the subset of more severe patients with baseline HARS total score ≥ 25 and CGI-S score ≥ 5. The tolerability of agomelatine was good throughout the study, and there were no differences in discontinuation symptoms after withdrawal of agomelatine in comparison to maintenance on agomelatine. CONCLUSIONS: The present study extends the positive findings of an earlier short-term study of agomelatine in GAD, demonstrating that agomelatine is effective and well-tolerated in the longer-term treatment of this chronic disorder. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.isrctn.org identifier: ISRCTN38094599.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.370 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations92
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Clinical PsychiatrySame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207