MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969989378 · doi:10.1001/jama.2019.10517

Effect of Continuing Olanzapine vs Placebo on Relapse Among Patients With Psychotic Depression in Remission

2019· article· en· W2969989378 on OpenAlexaff
Alastair J. Flint, Barnett S. Meyers, Anthony J. Rothschild, Ellen M. Whyte, George S. Alexopoulos, Matthew V. Rudorfer, Patricia Marino, Samprit Banerjee, Cristina Pollari, Yiyuan Wu, Aristotle N. Voineskos, Benoit H. Mulsant

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsMedicineOlanzapineSertralineInternal medicinePlaceboDepression (economics)AntipsychoticRandomized controlled trialInterquartile rangeTolerabilityQuetiapinePsychiatryAntidepressantSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Adverse effect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Psychotic depression is a severely disabling and potentially lethal disorder. Little is known about the efficacy and tolerability of continuing antipsychotic medication for patients with psychotic depression in remission. Objective: To determine the clinical effects of continuing antipsychotic medication once an episode of psychotic depression has responded to combination treatment with an antidepressant and antipsychotic agent. Design, Setting, and Participants: Thirty-six week randomized clinical trial conducted at 4 academic medical centers. Patients aged 18 years or older had an episode of psychotic depression acutely treated with sertraline plus olanzapine for up to 12 weeks and met criteria for remission of psychosis and remission or near-remission of depressive symptoms for 8 weeks before entering the clinical trial. The study was conducted from November 2011 to June 2017, and the final date of follow-up was June 13, 2017. Interventions: Participants were randomized either to continue olanzapine (n = 64) or switch from olanzapine to placebo (n = 62). All participants continued sertraline. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was risk of relapse. Main secondary outcomes were change in weight, waist circumference, lipids, serum glucose, and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). Results: Among 126 participants who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 55.3 years [14.9 years]; 78 women [61.9%]), 114 (90.5%) completed the trial. At the time of randomization, the median dosage of sertraline was 150 mg/d (interquartile range [IQR], 150-200 mg/d) and the median dosage of olanzapine was 15 mg/d (IQR, 10-20 mg/d). Thirteen participants (20.3%) randomized to olanzapine and 34 (54.8%) to placebo experienced a relapse (hazard ratio, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.48; P < .001). The effect of olanzapine on the daily rate of anthropometric and metabolic measures significantly differed from placebo for weight (0.13 lb; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.15), waist circumference (0.009 inches; 95% CI, 0.004 to 0.014), and total cholesterol (0.29 mg/dL; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.45) but was not significantly different for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (0.04 mg/dL; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.10), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-0.01 mg/dL; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.01), triglyceride (-0.153 mg/dL; 95% CI, -0.306 to 0.004), glucose (-0.02 mg/dL; 95% CI, -0.12 to 0.08), or HbA1c levels (-0.0002 mg/dL; 95% CI, -0.0021 to 0.0016). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with psychotic depression in remission, continuing sertraline plus olanzapine compared with sertraline plus placebo reduced the risk of relapse over 36 weeks. This benefit needs to be balanced against potential adverse effects of olanzapine, including weight gain. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01427608.

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)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations77
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicTreatment of Major DepressionFrench-language works237,207