Paroxetine versus Venlafaxine and Escitalopram in Korean Patients with Major Depressive Disorder: A Randomized, Rater-blinded, Six-week Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of escitalopram, paroxetine and venlafaxine in Korean patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: A total of 449 Korean MDD patients were recruited in a six-week, randomized, rater-blinded, active-controlled trial and were evenly randomized to paroxetine, venlafaxine, or escitalopram treatment. RESULTS: When comparing the mean difference for the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) total scores during six weeks, paroxetine (-6.4±0.4, and -5.4±0.4, respectively) was found to be significantly superior to escitalopram (-3.7±0.5 and -3.1±0.4, respectively). Venlafaxine had a significantly lower MADRS total score (-5.4±0.4) than escitalopram. When adjusting baseline variables, the response, according to the MADRS and HDRS scores, in the paroxetine group was greater than that for the escitalopram group (odds ratio [OR]=2.43, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.42-4.16 for MADRS; and OR=2.32, 95% CI=1.35-3.97 for HDRS) and the venlafaxine group (OR=1.94, 95% CI=1.17-3.21 for MADRS; and OR=1.71, 95% CI=1.03-2.83 for HDRS). Despite that the overall tolerability was high and similar among the three groups, a total of 268 subjects (59.7%) prematurely discontinued treatment, representing the main limitation of the present study. CONCLUSION: Although a low study completion rate limits generalizability, our findings suggest that paroxetine might be superior to escitalopram in Korean MDD patients. Further studies should be conducted to draw a definite conclusion.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".