Adequacy of venlafaxine dose prescribing in major depression and hospital resources implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Venlafaxine, a dual serotonin and noradrenaline re-uptake inhibitor, has been found to be effective at doses below 375 mg daily, but for patients with major depression higher doses can be required. In this retrospective naturalistic study, we investigated the effectiveness and resource implications of prescribing higher than standard doses of venlafaxine (tablet preparation). Ninety-six outpatients fulfilling DSM-IV criteria for major depressive disorder were assigned to two demographically matched cohorts: cohort A, receiving high doses (n = 38; doses > or =375 mg/day) and cohort B, receiving standard doses (n = 58; doses <375 mg/day). Data on hospital resources, drugs and medical profiles were extracted from patients' records. Information on cohort A was also obtained before their high-dose regime, while taking standard doses. A within-group analysis of cohort A showed that patients spent fewer days in hospital (P = 0.03) and had fewer outpatients visits (P < 0.01) when on high doses than when on standard doses. A between-group analysis found that cohort A, while on higher doses, had fewer outpatient visits compared with cohort B (P < 0.01). Patients in both groups had satisfactory drug tolerability and efficacy profiles. There were no differences between cohorts with regard to baseline characteristics, a part from the more intensive use of additional medications made by cohort A. Our preliminary investigation suggests that higher doses of venlafaxine may be cost-saving in relation to selected hospital resources. However, one cannot firmly conclude that the change in service use is due to the higher-dose regime, and we recommend further research to ascertain the cost-effectiveness of adequate dose prescribing in patients with poor symptom resolution at lower doses of venlafaxine.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".