MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4290720425 · doi:10.2147/ndt.s375294

Effectiveness of Vortioxetine in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder in Real-World Clinical Practice in Italy: Results from the RELIEVE Study

2022· article· en· W4290720425 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sergio De Filippis, Anna Pugliese, Michael Cronquist Christensen, Gianluca Rosso, Marco Di Nicola, Kenneth Simonsen, Hongye Ren

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVortioxetineMedicinePatient Health QuestionnaireQuality of life (healthcare)Major depressive disorderDepression (economics)AnxietyCohortConfoundingTolerabilityRandomized controlled trialMoodPsychiatryPhysical therapyInternal medicineDepressive symptomsAdverse effect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Vortioxetine has demonstrated efficacy in randomized controlled trials and is approved for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD); however, data are limited concerning its effectiveness when used in routine clinical care. The Real-Life Effectiveness of Vortioxetine in Depression (RELIEVE) study aimed to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of vortioxetine for the treatment of MDD in routine clinical practice in Canada, France, Italy, and the USA. This paper presents findings for the patient cohort in Italy. Patients and Methods: RELIEVE was a 6-month, international, observational, prospective cohort study in outpatients initiating vortioxetine treatment for MDD in routine care settings at their physician’s discretion (NCT03555136). Patient functioning was assessed using the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS). Secondary outcomes included depression severity (9-item Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9]), cognitive symptoms (5-item Perceived Deficits Questionnaire-Depression [PDQ-D-5]), and quality of life (EuroQol 5-Dimensions 5-Levels questionnaire [EQ-5D-5L]). Changes from baseline to month 6 were assessed using mixed models for repeated measures, adjusted for relevant confounders. Results: Data are available for 231 patients enrolled in Italy (mean age, 55.5 years; 27% > 65 years). Overall, 69% of patients reported at least one comorbidity, 55% were overweight/obese, and 47% had current anxiety symptoms. Adjusted least-squares mean (standard error) change in SDS score from baseline to week 24 was − 6.6 (0.6) points ( P < 0.001). Respective changes in PHQ-9, PDQ-D-5, and EQ-5D-5L scores were − 5.9 (0.5), − 3.6 (0.4), and +0.13 (0.01) points (all P < 0.0001). Adverse events were reported by 29 patients (13%), most commonly nausea (n = 14, 6%). Eleven patients (5%) discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Conclusion: Clinically relevant and sustained improvements in overall functioning, symptoms of depression, cognitive symptoms, and health-related quality of life were observed in patients with MDD treated with vortioxetine over a period of 6 months in routine care in Italy, including a high proportion of elderly patients. Keywords: major depressive disorder, vortioxetine, effectiveness, functioning, real-world evidence

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuropsychiatric Disease and TreatmentSame topicTreatment of Major DepressionFrench-language works237,207