MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of Adjunctive Simvastatin on Depressive Symptoms Among Adults With Treatment-Resistant Depression

2023· article· en· W4321370231 on OpenAlexafffund
Muhammad Ishrat Husain, Imran B. Chaudhry, Ameer B. Khoso, Tayyeba Kiran, Nawaz Khan, Farooq Ahmad, John Hodsoll, Muhammad Omair Husain, Haider Naqvi, Asad Tamizuddin Nizami, Nasim Chaudhry, Hazrat A. Khan, Jeffrey H. Meyer, Moin Ahmed Ansari, Benoit H. Mulsant, Nusrat Husain, Allan H. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTryptophan and brain disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersGrand Challenges CanadaUniversity of TorontoKing's College LondonDepartment of Psychiatry, University of TorontoFondation Brain CanadaCentre for Addiction and Mental Health FoundationWellcome TrustNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchMedical Research CouncilSanofi
KeywordsTolerabilityMedicineClinical Global ImpressionPlaceboAdjunctive treatmentInternal medicineMajor depressive disorderDepression (economics)Randomized controlled trialHamilton Anxiety Rating ScaleAnxietyAntidepressantClinical trialPsychiatryAdverse effect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Immune-metabolic disturbances have been implicated in the pathophysiology of major depressive disorder and may be more prominent in individuals with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Preliminary trials suggest that lipid-lowering agents, including statins, may be useful adjunctive treatments for major depressive disorder. However, no adequately powered clinical trials have assessed the antidepressant efficacy of these agents in TRD. Objective: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of adjunctive simvastatin compared with placebo for reduction of depressive symptoms in TRD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted in 5 centers in Pakistan. The study involved adults (aged 18-75 years) with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) major depressive episode that had failed to respond to at least 2 adequate trials of antidepressants. Participants were enrolled between March 1, 2019, and February 28, 2021; statistical analysis was performed from February 1 to June 15, 2022, using mixed models. Intervention: Participants were randomized to receive standard care plus 20 mg/d of simvastatin or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the difference between the 2 groups in change in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total scores at week 12. Secondary outcomes included changes in scores on the 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, the Clinical Global Impression scale, and the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale and change in body mass index from baseline to week 12. C-reactive protein and plasma lipids were measured at baseline and week 12. Results: A total of 150 participants were randomized to simvastatin (n = 77; median [IQR] age, 40 [30-45] years; 43 [56%] female) or placebo (n = 73; median [IQR] age, 35 [31-41] years; 40 [55%] female). A significant baseline to end point reduction in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score was observed in both groups and did not differ significantly between groups (estimated mean difference for simvastatin vs placebo, -0.61; 95% CI, -3.69 to 2.46; P = .70). Similarly, there were no significant group differences in any of the secondary outcomes or evidence for differences in adverse effects between groups. A planned secondary analysis indicated that changes in plasma C-reactive protein and lipids from baseline to end point did not mediate response to simvastatin. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, simvastatin provided no additional therapeutic benefit for depressive symptoms in TRD compared with standard care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03435744.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.493
Threshold uncertainty score0.736

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.268
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations21
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicTryptophan and brain disordersFrench-language works237,207