Duloxetine 60 mg/day for the prevention of depressive recurrences:<i>post hoc</i>analyses from a recurrence prevention study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of duloxetine 60 mg/day in the prevention of depressive recurrence in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: Patients having at least three episodes of MDD in the past 5 years received open-label (OL) duloxetine 60-120 mg/day for up to 34 weeks. Patients meeting response criteria were then randomised to either duloxetine or placebo for up to 52 weeks of double-blind maintenance treatment. Only patients taking duloxetine 60 mg/day during the OL phase, and randomised to either duloxetine (remained on 60 mg/day dose) or placebo, were included in this post hoc analysis. The primary outcome measure was time to recurrence of a major depressive episode. The 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD(17)) was used to evaluate depressive symptomatology. Global and physical functioning and pain were also assessed. Safety and tolerability were assessed via analysis of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), vital signs and weight. RESULTS: A total of 124 patients were randomised to duloxetine 60 mg/day (n = 64) or placebo (n = 60). Time to depressive recurrence was significantly longer in duloxetine-treated patients compared with placebo-treated patients (p = 0.001). During the double-blind maintenance phase, 31.7% of placebo-treated patients experienced a depressive recurrence compared with 12.5% of duloxetine-treated patients (p = 0.004). The HAMD(17) total score and most of its subscales as well as the Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S), significantly worsened in the placebo group compared with the duloxetine 60 mg/day group. There were no significant differences between treatment groups in TEAEs, discontinuations because of adverse events, vital signs or weight. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with duloxetine 60 mg/day was associated with a longer time to depressive recurrence and a significantly lower recurrence rate compared with placebo.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".