Adjunctive tianeptine treatment for bipolar disorder: A 24-week randomized, placebo-controlled, maintenance trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of tianeptine as an adjunctive maintenance treatment for bipolar depression. METHODS: This is a multicenter double-blind randomized placebo-controlled maintenance trial of adjunctive tianeptine 37.5 mg/day. Participants ( n=161) had a Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale ⩾12 at entry. After eight weeks of open-label tianeptine treatment, those who responded to tianeptine ( n=69) were randomized to adjunctive tianeptine ( n=36) or placebo ( n=33) in addition to usual treatment. Kaplan-Meier estimates and the Mantel-Cox log-rank test were used to evaluate differences in time to intervention for a mood episode between the tianeptine and placebo groups. We also assessed overall functioning, biological rhythms, quality of life, rates of manic switch and serum brain-derived neurotrophic factor levels. RESULTS: There were no differences between adjunctive tianeptine or placebo regarding time to intervention or depression scores in the 24-week double-blind controlled phase. Patients in the tianeptine group showed better performance in the letter-number sequencing subtest from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale at the endpoint ( p=0.014). Tianeptine was well tolerated and not associated with higher risk for manic switch compared to placebo. CONCLUSION: Tianeptine was not more effective than placebo in the maintenance treatment of bipolar depression. There is preliminary evidence suggesting a pro-cognitive effect of tianeptine in working memory compared to placebo.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".