Effect of vortioxetine in subjects with major depressive and alcohol use disorders: a 6-month retrospective analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD) are highly comorbid, with greater clinical complexity and psychosocial impairment. Several antidepressants have been used in this population, with mixed results. This preliminary study aims to investigate the effects of the multimodal antidepressant vortioxetine in MDD + AUD subjects. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 57 MDD + AUD and 56 MDD outpatients, matched for baseline characteristics. Patients were assessed after 1, 3, and 6 months treatment with vortioxetine (10-20 mg/d, flexibly dosed) in combination with continuous psychosocial support. The primary outcome was improvement in depressive symptoms measured by the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale. We also investigated changes in anxiety, anhedonia, cognition, functioning, quality of life, and clinical global severity using the following instruments: Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale, Digit Symbol Substitution Test, Perceived Deficits Questionnaire-Depression, Functioning Assessment Short Test, Quality of Life Index, and Clinical Global Impression-Severity Scale. RESULTS: Vortioxetine significantly improved mood in MDD + AUD patients (P < .001), with no differences when compared to MDD (P = .36). A substantial rate (45.6%) of comorbid subjects obtained clinical remission at endpoint (P = .36 vs MDD). We additionally observed baseline to endpoint improvements on all secondary outcomes (P < .001), with no significant difference between groups. Overall, vortioxetine was safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Given its effectiveness on mood, cognition, and functioning, its good safety and tolerability profile, and low potential for abuse, vortioxetine could represent a valid pharmacological intervention in MDD + AUD patients as part of an integrated therapeutic-rehabilitation program.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".