MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093598617 · doi:10.1177/0004867420965697

Minocycline as adjunctive treatment for major depressive disorder: Pooled data from two randomized controlled trials

2020· article· en· W3093598617 on OpenAlexaff
Robson Zazula, Muhammad Ishrat Husain, Mohammadreza Mohebbi, Adam J. Walker, Imran B. Chaudhry, Ameer B. Khoso, Melanie M. Ashton, Bruno Agustini, Nusrat Husain, J.F.W. Deakin, Allan H. Young, Michael Berk, Buranee Kanchanatawan, Chee H. Ng, Michaël Maes, Lesley Berk, Ajeet Singh, Gin S. Malhi, Olivia Dean

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilPakistan Institute of Living and LearningDeakin UniversityNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchStanley Medical Research InstituteBrain and Behavior Research Foundation
KeywordsMinocyclinePlaceboMajor depressive disorderConfidence intervalRating scaleRandomized controlled trialPsychiatryDepression (economics)AnxietyHamilton Anxiety Rating ScalePsychologyInternal medicineMedicineMood

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Randomized controlled clinical trials that have investigated minocycline as an adjunctive treatment for major depressive disorder have proved promising. Data from two studies were pooled to evaluate more definitively whether the addition of minocycline to standard treatment for major depressive disorder leads to an improvement of depressive symptoms when compared with placebo. Methods: Both studies were multi-site, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials of minocycline 200 mg/day added to treatment as usual during a 12-week period. The primary outcome measure was change in depressive symptoms (Montgomery–Asberg Depression Rating Scale in Dean et al. and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale in Husain et al.). Secondary outcomes were change in depression severity (Montgomery–Asberg Depression Rating Scale for Dean et al. and 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire in Husain et al.), anxiety severity (Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale in Dean et al. and Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale in Husain et al.) and functional status, which were also evaluated as potential mediators on the primary outcome. Results: A total of 112 participants were included in the pooled data (Dean et al., n = 71; Husain et al., n = 41). A significant change from baseline to week 12 was noted in depressive symptoms – differential change (Placebo vs Minocycline): 9.0, 95% confidence interval = [4.2, 13.9], Cohen’s D (95% confidence interval): 0.71 [0.29, 1.14], p < 0.001 – anxiety severity – differential change (Placebo vs Minocycline): 0.38, confidence interval = [0.00, 0.75], Cohen’s D (95% confidence interval): 0.41 [0.00, 0.82], p = 0.050) and functional status – differential change (Placebo vs Minocycline): 1.0, 95% confidence interval = [0.4, 1.5], Cohen’s D (95% confidence interval): 0.76 [0.34, 1.19], p = 0.001). Duration of illness, current use of benzodiazepine and pain medication were identified as moderators, whereas functional status as a mediator/predictor. Conclusion: The improvement of depressive symptoms, anxiety severity and functional status is promising and suggests that minocycline has potential as an adjunctive treatment for major depressive disorder. However, further studies are warranted to confirm therapeutic effects of minocycline in major depressive disorder. Trial registrations: NCT02263872, registered October 2014, and ACTRN12612000283875, registered March 2012.

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)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.031
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations30
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian & New Zealand Journal of PsychiatrySame topicTreatment of Major DepressionFrench-language works237,207