MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128620818 · doi:10.1007/s12325-020-01583-9

Efficacy of Agomelatine 25–50 mg for the Treatment of Anxious Symptoms and Functional Impairment in Generalized Anxiety Disorder: A Meta-Analysis of Three Placebo-Controlled Studies

2021· review· en· W3128620818 on OpenAlexaff
Dan J. Stein, Jon‐Paul Khoo, F. Picarel-Blanchot, Valérie Olivier, Michael Van Ameringen

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Therapy · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersServier
KeywordsAgomelatinePlaceboMedicineInternal medicineAnxietyRandomized controlled trialGeneralized anxiety disorderMeta-analysisPlacebo-controlled studyPsychiatryAntidepressantDouble blind

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of agomelatine on anxious symptoms and functional impairment in a pooled dataset from randomized placebo-controlled trials for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). METHODS: Data from three randomized, placebo-controlled trials that evaluated the efficacy of agomelatine 25-50 mg were pooled. The short-term (12 weeks) efficacy of agomelatine was assessed in regards to (1) anxious symptoms using the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A), and (2) functional impairment using the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS). Meta-analysis using a random effect model was used to assess differences between groups. Remission and response rates for the HAM-A and SDS were calculated, and analyses were repeated in participants with more severe anxiety symptoms. RESULTS: In total, 669 patients (340 on agomelatine; 329 on placebo) were included in the analyses. Compared to placebo, the agomelatine group had a significant reduction in HAM-A total score at week 12 (between group difference: 6.30 ± 2.51, p = 0.012). Significant effects were also found for symptom response on the HAM-A (67.1% of patients on agomelatine vs. 32.5% on placebo) and symptom remission (38.8% of patients on agomelatine vs. 17.3% on placebo). Compared to placebo, there was a significant difference in favour of the agomelatine group at week 12 on the SDS total score (5.11 ± 1.81, p = 0.005). Significant effects were also found for functional response on the SDS (79.1% of patients on agomelatine vs. 43.2% of placebo) and functional remission (55.2% of patients on agomelatine vs. 25.4% on placebo). All findings for anxious symptoms and functional impairment were confirmed in the subset of more severely anxious patients. Agomelatine was well tolerated by patients. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis confirms that agomelatine reduces anxiety symptoms and improves the global functioning of GAD patients.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.038
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.307 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations23
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in TherapySame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207