MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158245987 · doi:10.1001/jama.288.6.701

Sertraline Treatment of Major Depression in Patients With Acute MI or Unstable Angina

2002· article· en· W2158245987 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alexander H. Glassman

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDuke Clinical Research InstitutePfizer
KeywordsMedicineSertralineUnstable anginaMajor depressive disorderEjection fractionPlaceboInternal medicineMyocardial infarctionDepression (economics)AnginaRandomized controlled trialAdverse effectClinical Global ImpressionCardiologyHeart failureAntidepressant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Major depressive disorder (MDD) occurs in 15% to 23% of patients with acute coronary syndromes and constitutes an independent risk factor for morbidity and mortality. However, no published evidence exists that antidepressant drugs are safe or efficacious in patients with unstable ischemic heart disease. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of sertraline treatment of MDD in patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (MI) or unstable angina and free of other life-threatening medical conditions. DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 40 outpatient cardiology centers and psychiatry clinics in the United States, Europe, Canada, and Australia. Enrollment began in April 1997 and follow-up ended in April 2001. PATIENTS: A total of 369 patients with MDD (64% male; mean age, 57.1 years; mean 17-item Hamilton Depression [HAM-D] score, 19.6; MI, 74%; unstable angina, 26%). INTERVENTION: After a 2-week single-blind placebo run-in, patients were randomly assigned to receive sertraline in flexible dosages of 50 to 200 mg/d (n = 186) or placebo (n = 183) for 24 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary (safety) outcome measure was change from baseline in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF); secondary measures included surrogate cardiac measures and cardiovascular adverse events, as well as scores on the HAM-D scale and Clinical Global Impression Improvement scale (CGI-I) in the total randomized sample, in a group with any prior history of MDD, and in a more severe MDD subgroup defined a priori by a HAM-D score of at least 18 and history of 2 or more prior episodes of MDD. RESULTS: Sertraline had no significant effect on mean (SD) LVEF (sertraline: baseline, 54% [10%]; week 16, 54% [11%]; placebo: baseline, 52% [13%]; week 16, 53% [13%]), treatment-emergent increase in ventricular premature complex (VPC) runs (sertraline: 13.1%; placebo: 12.9%), QTc interval greater than 450 milliseconds at end point (sertraline: 12%; placebo: 13%), or other cardiac measures. All comparisons were statistically nonsignificant (P> or = .05). The incidence of severe cardiovascular adverse events was 14.5% with sertraline and 22.4% with placebo. In the total randomized sample, the CGI-I (P =.049), but not the HAM-D (P =.14), favored sertraline. The CGI-I responder rates for sertraline were significantly higher than for placebo in the total sample (67% vs 53%; P =.01), in the group with at least 1 prior episode of depression (72% vs 51%; P =.003), and in the more severe MDD group (78% vs 45%; P =.001). In the latter 2 groups, both CGI-I and HAM-D measures were significantly better in those assigned to sertraline. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that sertraline is a safe and effective treatment for recurrent depression in patients with recent MI or unstable angina and without other life-threatening medical conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1,409
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicCardiac Health and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207