Clinical benefits of vortioxetine 20 mg/day in patients with major depressive disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Vortioxetine has demonstrated dose-dependent efficacy in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), with the greatest effect observed with vortioxetine 20 mg/day. This analysis further explored the clinical relevance of the more rapid and greater improvement in depressive symptoms observed with vortioxetine 20 mg/day vs 10 mg/day. Methods Analysis of pooled data from six short-term (8-week), randomized, placebo-controlled, fixed-dose studies of vortioxetine 20 mg/day in patients with MDD ( N = 2620). Symptomatic response (≥50% decrease in Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] total score), sustained symptomatic response, and remission (MADRS total score ≤10) were assessed by vortioxetine dosage (20 or 10 mg/day). Results After 8 weeks, 51.4% of patients receiving vortioxetine 20 mg/day had achieved symptomatic response vs 46.0% of those receiving vortioxetine 10 mg/day ( P < .05). Significantly more patients achieved symptomatic response vs placebo from week 2 onwards for vortioxetine 20 mg/day and from week 6 onwards for vortioxetine 10 mg/day (both P ≤ .05). Sustained response was achieved from week 4 for 26.0% of patients receiving vortioxetine 20 mg/day vs 19.1% of those receiving vortioxetine 10 mg/day ( P < .01), increasing to 36.0% and 29.8%, respectively, over the 8-week treatment period ( P < .05). At week 8, 32.0% of patients receiving vortioxetine 20 mg/day were in remission vs 28.2% of those receiving vortioxetine 10 mg/day ( P = .09). Rates of adverse events and treatment withdrawal were not increased during the week following vortioxetine dose up-titration to 20 mg/day. Conclusion Vortioxetine 20 mg/day provides more rapid and more sustained symptomatic response than vortioxetine 10 mg/day in patients with MDD, without compromising tolerability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".