MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769874827 · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2017.11.081

Vortioxetine improves symptomatic and functional outcomes in major depressive disorder: A novel dual outcome measure in depressive disorders

2017· article· en· W2769874827 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Cronquist Christensen, Henrik Loft, Roger S. McIntyre

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Affective Disorders · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersH. Lundbeck A/SNational Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and DepressionStanley Medical Research Institute
KeywordsVortioxetineMajor depressive disorderDepression (economics)PsychiatryClinical psychologyDepressive symptomsDual diagnosisPsychologyDual (grammatical number)MedicineMental healthMoodCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: With symptomatic remission and functional recovery as the overarching therapeutic objectives of antidepressant therapy, composite endpoint measures that conjointly consider both aspects of treatment are needed. This analysis evaluated the combined effect of vortioxetine on depressive symptoms and functional capacity in adults with MDD. METHODS: NCT01564862, a multinational, double-blind, placebo-controlled, duloxetine-referenced study, conducted between April 2012 and February 2014, in 602 adult outpatients (18-65 years) with moderate-to-severe MDD (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) ≥ 26), a major depressive episode of ≥ 3 months' duration, and self-reported cognitive symptoms were randomized to once-daily vortioxetine (10 or 20mg), duloxetine (60mg), or placebo for 8 weeks. Assessments included the University of California San Diego Performance-based Skills Assessment (UPSA) and the MADRS. Two versions of UPSA were utilized; UPSA ‒Validation of Intermediate Measures and UPSA Brief form. An aligned UPSA-B (communication and finance items) was examined for sensitivity analysis. Efficacy was analyzed versus placebo according to the dual response (change from baseline in UPSA ≥ 7 and ≥ 9 and reduction in MADRS total score from baseline ≥ 50%). RESULTS: Significantly more vortioxetine-treated patients were classified as dual responders for change in MADRS total score and UPSA score of ≥ 7 (clinically important difference [CID]) (27.4% vs 14.5%; P = 0.004), and change above CID (≥ 9) (23.4% vs 13.9%; P = 0.025). Duloxetine did not differ significantly from placebo for these dual response criteria. Sensitivity analysis using the aligned UPSA-B confirmed these results for vortioxetine. LIMITATIONS: An exploratory analysis of a new dual outcome measure in patients with MDD. CONCLUSIONS: Vortioxetine, but not duloxetine, demonstrated a robust combined effect on depressive symptoms and functional capacity in patients with MDD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01564862; European Clinical Trials Database [EudraCT] Number 2011-005298-22.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations46
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Affective DisordersSame topicTreatment of Major DepressionFrench-language works237,207