Sponsorship, Antidepressant Dose, and Outcome in Major Depressive Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Differences in dosing may influence results of pharmaceutical industry-sponsored medication trials. This study aims to determine the relationship between sponsorship and antidepressant dosing and efficacy in randomized controlled trials for major depressive disorder. DATA SOURCES: Trials were identified through English-language searches of MEDLINE and PsycINFO (January 1996-June 2010) using specific drug names and classes and depressive disorder or major depression and double blind or double-blind method. Other limitations included human subjects and treatment study designs using the clinical queries option. Other sources were also searched following a strict set of inclusion and exclusion criteria. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials were included if they examined antidepressant treatment for major depressive disorder, reported mean final medication dosages, acknowledged an association with industry, and included study arms of medications produced by the associated manufacturer and a competitor ("sponsor" and "nonsponsor" arms) (58 trials involving 15,026 patients from 101 citations identified). DATA EXTRACTION: Data on dosing, efficacy, baseline severity, and adverse events were extracted by 2 of the authors. RESULTS: Meta-analyses were used to examine dosing and efficacy data. Using consensus guidelines for medication dosing, we determined that sponsor medication was dosed relatively higher than nonsponsor medication, in 37% (22/60) of comparisons as opposed to 5% (3/60) in which the nonsponsor medication was dosed higher (χ²₂ = 25.9, P < .001). Trials in which sponsor drugs were dosed higher than nonsponsor drugs demonstrated higher remission rates for the sponsor drug (OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.11-1.47, P < .001). These results were confirmed using regulatory dosing guidelines. There was no significant correlation between dosing or outcome with baseline severity or adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Sponsor drugs are dosed higher than nonsponsor drugs in antidepressant randomized controlled trials, and higher dosing is associated with better sponsor drug outcomes in some cases.
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 | 0.074 | 0.185 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".