Vortioxetine 20 mg/day in patients with major depressive disorder: updated analysis of efficacy, safety, and optimal timing of dose adjustment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Analysis of efficacy and tolerability of vortioxetine 20 mg/day, and optimal timing of dose adjustment, in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). Methods Pooled analysis of six randomized, fixed-dose studies of vortioxetine 5 to 20 mg/day. Mean change from baseline in Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score was analyzed by vortioxetine dose using a mixed model for repeated measures. Tolerability was assessed over the 8-week treatment period and from day 8 (ie, following dose increase to 20 mg/day). Data from three randomized, flexible-dose studies were examined for frequency and timing of dose adjustment. Results A clear dose–response relationship for vortioxetine was confirmed in terms of improvement in MADRS total score. Significant differences vs placebo were seen for vortioxetine 20 mg/day from week 2 onwards; vortioxetine 10 mg did not separate from placebo until week 4. At week 8, mean change in MADRS total score from baseline was significantly greater for vortioxetine 20 mg/day vs 10 mg/day (difference, −1.03 points; P < .05). Incidence of adverse events was not increased in patients who received vortioxetine 20 mg/day vs 10 mg/day. In flexible-dose studies, dosage was increased to 20 mg/day after 1 week in 48.0% of patients; final dosage was 20 mg/day in 64.3% of patients. Conclusions Vortioxetine 20 mg is significantly more effective than vortioxetine 10 mg in patients with MDD, with a similar tolerability profile. In flexible-dose studies, almost half of all patients received 20 mg/day after 1 week and two-thirds received 20 mg/day as their final dosage.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".