Efficacy and tolerability of duloxetine in elderly patients with generalized anxiety disorder: a pooled analysis of four randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of duloxetine in elderly patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). METHODS: Acute-phase data from a subset of patients (>or=65 years) with GAD were pooled from four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of duloxetine (3 flexible, 1 fixed dosing). Patients were treated with duloxetine 60-120 mg once daily or placebo for 9-10 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the mean baseline-to-endpoint change in Hamilton anxiety scale (HAMA) total score. Secondary measures included the HAMA psychic and somatic anxiety subscales and the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS). RESULTS: Of 1491 patients randomly assigned to treatment, 4.9% (duloxetine, n = 45; placebo, n = 28) were >or= 65 years old. Compared with placebo-treated patients, duloxetine-treated patients experienced significantly greater improvements on the HAMA-total (p = 0.029), the HAMA-psychic anxiety factor (p = 0.034), HADS-anxiety (p = 0.049) and -depression scales (p = 0.026), but not the HAMA somatic anxiety factor (p = 0.074). Nausea was reported significantly more often in duloxetine-treated patients (30.0% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.023); duloxetine-treated patients experienced greater weight loss (p = 0.018). More duloxetine-treated patients discontinued treatment due to an adverse event (22.2% vs. 0%; p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Duloxetine was effective in an elderly patient subset with GAD, although there was a high rate of discontinuations due to adverse events.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".