Venlafaxine Extended Release in the Short-Term Treatment of Depressed and Anxious Primary Care Patients With Multisomatoform Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This pilot study explored the efficacy and tolerability of extended-release venlafaxine (venlafaxine ER) in anxious and/or depressed patients with multisomatoform disorder (MSD). METHOD: This 12-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study evaluated adult primary care outpatients with MSD and comorbid major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, or social anxiety disorder (DSM-IV criteria). The intent-to-treat population included 112 patients (venlafaxine ER, N = 55; placebo, N = 57). The primary efficacy variable was the change in the 15-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-15) somatic symptom severity score. Secondary outcomes included the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17) and for Anxiety (HAM-A), Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) and -Improvement (CGI-I) scales, McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire Physical Symptoms Scale (MQOL-PS), and Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36-Item questionnaire (MOS SF-36). Data were collected from April 2003 to December 2003. RESULTS: The decline by week 12 in PHQ-15 scores was significant (p < .0001) in both groups; however, the difference between the venlafaxine ER and placebo groups (-8.3 vs. -6.6, respectively) was not (p = .097). Improvement was greater with venlafaxine ER than placebo on the PHQ-15 pain subscale (p = .03), SF-36 bodily pain scale (26.1 vs. 14.5, p = .03), MQOL-PS (-11.7 vs. -6.0, p = .02), HAM-A psychic anxiety subscale (p = .02), SF-36 mental component summary (p = .03), time to response (54 vs. 71 days, p = .01), and CGI-I scale (p = .009). Venlafaxine ER was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that venlafaxine ER may be effective in relieving some types of somatic physical symptoms, particularly pain, in patients with depression and/or anxiety disorders.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".