Efficacy of vortioxetine in working patients with generalized anxiety disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vortioxetine is an approved antidepressant that has also demonstrated positive effects on anxiety symptoms in subjects with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). This post-hoc analysis evaluates the efficacy of vortioxetine in GAD subjects who are working and/or pursuing an education. METHODS: In study NCT00744627, 301 GAD subjects were randomized to vortioxetine 5 mg or placebo for 8 weeks. Efficacy measures included the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) total score, response/remission, global functioning (Sheehan Disability Scale [SDS]), and quality of life (Short Form-36 Health Survey). In study NCT00788034, 687 GAD subjects were treated open-label with vortioxetine 5 or 10 mg for 20 weeks, after which subjects in remission were randomized to fixed-dose of vortioxetine (5 or 10 mg) or placebo for at least 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was time to relapse. Analyses were completed in subjects working and/or pursuing an education at study entry and the full analysis set. RESULTS: In study NCT00744627, the effect of vortioxetine versus placebo on HAM-A total score was -4.3 (p=0.0005) in working subjects (60% of total), while the effect in the total population was -3.8 (p=0.0001). The effect was greatest in subjects in professional (-4.5, p=0.0130) and associate professional positions (-7.6, p=0.0086). Greater effects in terms of response, remission, and the SDS and SF-36 were also observed. In NCT00788034, working subjects (69% of total) randomized to placebo were significantly more likely to relapse than subjects treated with vortioxetine (hazard ratio=2.9; p<0.001), while the hazard ratio in the total population was 2.7 (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The beneficial effects of vortioxetine on anxiety symptoms, functioning, and quality of life are greater in adults with GAD who are working and/or pursuing an education versus the full GAD study population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".