Improvement of psychic and somatic symptoms in adult patients with generalized anxiety disorder: examination from a duloxetine, venlafaxine extended-release and placebo-controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study examined the efficacy and tolerability of duloxetine and venlafaxine extended-release (XR) treatment for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), with a secondary focus on psychic and somatic symptoms within GAD. METHOD: The design was a 10-week, multi-center, double-blind placebo-controlled study of duloxetine (20 mg or 60-120 mg once daily) and venlafaxine XR (75-225 mg once daily) treatment. Efficacy was measured using the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA), which includes psychic and somatic factor scores. Tolerability was measured by occurrence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and discontinuation rates. RESULTS: Adult out-patients (mean age 42.8 years; 57.1% women) with DSM-IV-defined GAD were randomly assigned to placebo (n=170), duloxetine 20 mg (n=84), duloxetine 60-120 mg (n=158) or venlafaxine XR 75-225 mg (n=169) treatment. Each of the three active treatment groups had significantly greater improvements on HAMA total score from baseline to endpoint compared with placebo (p=0.01-0.001). For the HAMA psychic factor score, both duloxetine treatment arms and venlafaxine XR demonstrated significantly greater improvement compared with placebo (p=0.01-0.001). For the HAMA somatic factor score, the mean improvement in the duloxetine 60-120 mg and venlafaxine XR groups was significantly greater than placebo (p0.05 and p0.01 respectively), whose mean improvement did not differ from the duloxetine 20 mg group (p=0.07). Groups did not differ in study discontinuation rate due to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Duloxetine and venlafaxine treatment were each efficacious for improvement of core psychic anxiety symptoms and associated somatic symptoms for adults with 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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".