Pharmacotherapy of generalized anxiety disorder: results of duloxetine treatment from a pooled analysis of three clinical trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Duloxetine is a serotonergic noradrenergic reuptake inhibitor with demonstrated efficacy in each of three independent studies for treatment of adults with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). A pooled dataset from all completed trials is provided here to show the most likely clinical outcomes associated with duloxetine treatment for GAD. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data were summed at the individual patient level from three double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of duloxetine treatment: two were 10-week flexible-dose 60-120 mg/day and one was 9-week fixed dose 60 or 120 mg/day. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were consistent across studies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Efficacy measures included the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA) and Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS). Adverse events were queried at every visit in each study. RESULTS: Patients were randomly assigned to duloxetine (n = 668) or placebo (n = 495) treatment. Mean age was 42.4 years; 65% were female. Duloxetine-treated patients improved significantly more from baseline to endpoint on HAMA total score (mean = -11.1 points) compared with placebo-treated patients (mean = -8.0 points, p < or = 0.001). On the SDS global functioning score, patients in the duloxetine group had a mean improvement from baseline of 46% compared with 25% in the placebo group (p < or = 0.001). Nausea was the most common of twelve treatment-emergent adverse events that occurred in the duloxetine group. LIMITATIONS: Pooled studies were not for long-term treatment and did not include patients with comorbid psychiatric conditions. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of more than 1100 patients, duloxetine was efficacious for reducing anxiety severity and for increasing patients' overall role functioning in GAD.
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 | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".