A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of Quetiapine and Lithium Monotherapy in Adults in the Acute Phase of Bipolar Depression (EMBOLDEN I)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine and lithium monotherapy with that of placebo for a major depressive episode in bipolar disorder. METHOD: 802 patients with DSM-IV-defined bipolar disorder (499 bipolar I, 303 bipolar II) were randomly allocated to quetiapine 300 mg/d (n = 265), quetiapine 600 mg/d (n = 268), lithium 600 to 1800 mg/d (n = 136), or placebo (n = 133) for 8 weeks. Primary endpoint was the change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. The study was conducted from August 2005 to May 2007. RESULTS: Mean MADRS total score change from baseline at week 8 was -15.4 for quetiapine 300 mg/d, -16.1 for quetiapine 600 mg/d, -13.6 for lithium, and -11.8 for placebo (P < .001 for both quetiapine doses, P = .123 for lithium, vs placebo). Quetiapine 600 mg/d was significantly more effective than lithium in improving MADRS total score at week 8 (P = .013). Quetiapine-treated (both doses), but not lithium-treated, patients showed significant improvements (P < .05) in MADRS response and remission rates, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar-Severity of Illness and -Change, and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS) scores at week 8 versus placebo. Both quetiapine doses were more effective than lithium at week 8 on the HDRS and HARS. The most common adverse events were somnolence, dry mouth, and dizziness with quetiapine (both doses) and nausea with lithium. CONCLUSIONS: Quetiapine (300 or 600 mg/d) was more effective than placebo for the treatment of episodes of acute depression in bipolar disorder. Lithium did not significantly differ from placebo on the main measures of efficacy. Both treatments were generally well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00206141.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".