Head-To-Head Comparison of Vortioxetine Versus Desvenlafaxine in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder With Partial Response to SSRI Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To compare the efficacy of vortioxetine and the serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) desvenlafaxine in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) experiencing partial response to initial treatment with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). diagnosis of MDD who experienced partial response to SSRI monotherapy. The primary endpoint was mean change from baseline to week 8 in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. Differences between groups were analyzed using mixed models for repeated measures. = .044). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 46.1% and 39.6% of patients in the vortioxetine and desvenlafaxine groups, respectively; these were mostly mild or moderate in intensity (> 98% of all TEAEs in each group). Compared with the SNRI desvenlafaxine, vortioxetine was associated with significantly higher rates of CGI-S remission, better daily and social functioning, and greater treatment satisfaction in patients with MDD and partial response to SSRIs. These findings support the use of vortioxetine before SNRIs in the treatment algorithm in patients with MDD. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04448431.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".