MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069496710 · doi:10.1097/gme.0b013e3181d88962

Desvenlafaxine and escitalopram for the treatment of postmenopausal women with major depressive disorder

2010· article· en· W2069496710 on OpenAlexaff
Cláudio N. Soares, Michael E. Thase, Anita H. Clayton, Christine J. Guico‐Pabia, Kristen Focht, Qin Jiang, Susan G. Kornstein, Philip T. Ninan, Cecelia P. Kane, Lee S. Cohen

Bibliographic record

VenueMenopause The Journal of The North American Menopause Society · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEscitalopramPostmenopausal womenMajor depressive disorderDepressive symptomsPsychiatryGynecologyInternal medicineAntidepressantAnxietyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Objective: This study assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor desvenlafaxine and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor escitalopram for major depressive disorder (MDD) in postmenopausal women. Methods: In this randomized, double-blind study, postmenopausal outpatients (aged 40-70 y) with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition MDD received flexible-dose desvenlafaxine (100-200 mg/d) or escitalopram (10-20 mg/d) for 8 weeks. Acute-phase responders, that is, women with a 50% or greater reduction from baseline in the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D17) total score, were eligible to continue the same double-blind treatment in the 6-month continuation phase. The primary efficacy outcomes were mean change from baseline in HAM-D17 total score (acute phase), analyzed using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures, and the proportion of women who maintained response (continuation phase), analyzed using logistic regression. Results: Reductions in HAM-D17 total score at acute-phase endpoint were similar for desvenlafaxine- and escitalopram-treated women (−13.6 vs −14.3, respectively; P = 0.24). No significant difference was observed between groups at continuation-phase endpoint in the proportion of women who maintained response (desvenlafaxine, 82%; escitalopram, 80%; P = 0.70). In both phases, desvenlafaxine and escitalopram were generally safe and well tolerated. Conclusions: Among postmenopausal outpatients with MDD, there were no significant differences in the efficacy of desvenlafaxine and escitalopram based on primary efficacy analyses. The results do not support the overall hypothesis that the serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor desvenlafaxine has an efficacy advantage for the treatment of MDD in postmenopausal women because, in this particular subgroup, desvenlafaxine failed to prove superiority over escitalopram. Safety and tolerability were comparable. Previous studies suggest that menopause status may exert an influence on the efficacy of certain classes of antidepressants. In this randomized, double-blind study for the treatment of postmenopausal women with depression, there were no significant differences between desvenlafaxine (serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor) and escitalopram (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) with respect to efficacy, safety, or tolerability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.373
Threshold uncertainty score0.732

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations59
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMenopause The Journal of The North American Menopause SocietySame topicTreatment of Major DepressionFrench-language works237,207