Efficacy of pregabalin and venlafaxine-XR in generalized anxiety disorder: results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled 8-week trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the anxiolytic efficacy, and speed of onset of efficacy, of pregabalin (PGB) and venlafaxine-XR (VXR) in patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). In this double-blind trial, outpatients, ages 18-65 years, who met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition, criteria for GAD were randomized to 8 weeks of flexible-dose treatment with PGB (300-600 mg/day), VXR (75-225 mg/day), or placebo (PBO). The intent-to-treat sample consisted of 121 patients on PGB [least square (LS) mean ± SE baseline Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A), 27.6 ± 0.4], 125 patients on VXR (baseline HAM-A, 27.4 ± 0.4), and 128 patients on PBO (baseline HAM-A, 26.8 ± 0.4). Treatment with PGB was associated with a significantly greater LS mean change in the HAM-A total score at last observation carried forward endpoint versus PBO (-14.5 ± 0.9 vs. -11.7 ± 0.9; P = 0.028). Treatment with VXR was not significant versus PBO at endpoint (-12.0 ± 0.9; -11.7 ± 0.9; P =0.968). Treatment with PGB showed an early onset of improvement, with significantly greater LS mean change in the HAM-A by day 4 versus both PBO (-5.3 ± 0.5 vs. -3.4± 0.5; P = 0.008) and VXR (-2.9 ± 0.5; P = 0.0012). The proportion of patients reporting a severe adverse event was similar for PGB (9.1%) and PBO (7.8%), but higher for VXR (20.0%; P < 0.05). In conclusion, PGB was a safe and effective treatment of GAD, with a significantly earlier onset of anxiolytic activity than VXR.
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) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".