Efficacy of vortioxetine in patients with major depressive disorder reporting childhood or recent trauma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This analysis investigates the efficacy of vortioxetine in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) who report childhood or recent trauma. METHODS: Patient-level data were analyzed from 4 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled short-term studies investigating the efficacy of vortioxetine (5-20 mg/day) versus placebo in patients (18-75 years old) with DSM-IV-TR-defined MDD. Changes from baseline to week 8 on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A), Clinical Global Impression - Improvement (CGI-I), and Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) were examined at the individual study level and as in meta-analysis. A long-term relapse prevention study of 5 and 10 mg of vortioxetine was also analyzed. Traumatic events history was recorded at baseline. RESULTS: Sixty-one percent of subjects (1113/1811) reported trauma history in the short-term studies. A significant effect vs. placebo was observed for vortioxetine on MADRS (10 mg, -2.2, P = .025; 20 mg, -4.4, P < .001), HAM-A (20 mg, -1.60, P = .012), CGI-I (5 mg, -0.3, P = .028; 10 mg, -0.3, P = .013; 20 mg, -0.50, P = .009), and SDS (20 mg, -2.3, P = .007) in patients with any trauma (childhood and/or recent). In the relapse prevention study, 51% (198/392) of subjects reported a history of trauma. Subjects with any trauma (childhood and/or recent) randomized to placebo were significantly more likely to relapse than subjects treated with vortioxetine (hazard ratio 2.8, P = .0019). LIMITATIONS: An exploratory analysis. DISCUSSION: Vortioxetine showed significant short- and long-term efficacy on depressive and anxiety symptoms and overall functioning in this large subpopulation of MDD patients with a history of trauma. A significantly lower risk of relapse was also observed with vortioxetine.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".