Time to response for duloxetine 60 mg once daily versus placebo in elderly patients with major depressive disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Rapid response to antidepressant therapy is desirable and may be particularly critical in elderly patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).Methods: Findings are based on post-hoc analyses from a double-blind trial of elderly patients with MDD ≥ 65 years, randomly assigned 2:1 to duloxetine 60 mg QD (N = 207) or placebo (N = 104) for 8 weeks. Depression and pain measures included the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), 17-item Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD17), CGI-Severity, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for overall pain. The time to response and remission for duloxetine compared with placebo was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards (PH) modeling, Kaplan-Meier estimation, and categorical repeated measures analysis.Results: Significant improvements of estimated HAMD17 response and remission rates for duloxetine started at week 2 (P = 0.022 and P = 0.033, respectively). Time to HAMD17 response and remission were significantly shorter for duloxetine versus placebo (P < 0.001 and P = 0.004, respectively). Placebo-referenced duloxetine hazard ratios (HR) for HAMD17 response and remission were 2.03 (P = 0.002) and 2.01 (P = 0.006), respectively. Results for GDS-based response (HR = 1.54, P = 0.023) and remission (HR = 1.54, P = 0.104) rates were consistent with the HAMD17 findings. Patients ≥75 years (n = 93) responded with similar rapidity to duloxetine compared with those <75 years (n = 199, P > 0.10 for all PH treatment-by-age interactions). The placebo-referenced duloxetine HR for time to 50% reduction in overall pain was 1.75 (P = 0.024) for patients with moderate to severe pain.Conclusion: Duloxetine demonstrated a faster time to antidepressant response and improvement in self-reported pain as compared with placebo.Clinical trial registry number for this study: NCT00062673, at www.clinicaltrials.gov.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".