MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389686039 · doi:10.1186/s12888-023-05439-8

Real-world clinical outcomes and treatment patterns in patients with MDD treated with vortioxetine: a retrospective study

2023· article· en· W4389686039 on OpenAlexaff
Brandon T. McDaniel, Victor P. Cornet, Jeanne Carroll, Lambros Chrones, Joseph Chudzik, J. B. Cochran, Shion Guha, Debra Lawrence, Maggie McCue, Sara Sarkey, B. Lorenz, Jay Fawver

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Psychiatry · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersH. Lundbeck A/STakeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A.
KeywordsVortioxetineMedicineMajor depressive disorderPatient Health QuestionnaireDepression (economics)PsychiatrySertralineRetrospective cohort studySexual dysfunctionMoodPhysical therapyInternal medicineAntidepressantAnxietyDepressive symptoms

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This study included evaluation of the effectiveness of vortioxetine, a treatment for adults with major depressive disorder (MDD), using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in a real-world setting. METHODS: This retrospective chart review analyzed the care experiences of adult patients with a diagnosis of MDD from Parkview Physicians Group - Mind-Body Medicine, Midwestern United States. Patients with a prescription for vortioxetine, an initial baseline visit, and ≥ 2 follow-up visits within 16 weeks from September 2014 to December 2018 were included. The primary outcome measure was effectiveness of vortioxetine on depression severity as assessed by change in Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores ~ 12 weeks after initiation of vortioxetine. Secondary outcomes included changes in depression-related symptoms (i.e., sexual dysfunction, sleep disturbance, cognitive function, work/social function), clinical characteristics, response, remission, and medication persistence. Clinical narrative notes were also analyzed to examine sleep disturbance, sexual dysfunction, appetite, absenteeism, and presenteeism. All outcomes were examined at index (start of vortioxetine) and at ~ 12 weeks, and mean differences were analyzed using pairwise t tests. RESULTS: A total of 1242 patients with MDD met inclusion criteria, and 63.9% of these patients had ≥ 3 psychiatric diagnoses and 65.9% were taking ≥ 3 medications. PHQ-9 mean scores decreased significantly from baseline to week 12 (14.15 ± 5.8 to 9.62 ± 6.03, respectively; p < 0.001). At week 12, the response and remission rates in all patients were 31.0% and 23.1%, respectively, and 67% continued vortioxetine treatment. Overall, results also showed significant improvements by week 12 in anxiety (p < 0.001), sexual dysfunction (p < 0.01), sleep disturbance (p < 0.01), cognitive function (p < 0.001), work/social functioning (p = 0.021), and appetite (p < 0.001). A significant decrease in presenteeism was observed at week 12 (p < 0.001); however, no significant change was observed in absenteeism (p = 0.466). CONCLUSIONS: Using PROMs, our study results suggest that adults with MDD prescribed vortioxetine showed improvement in depressive symptoms in the context of a real-world clinical practice setting. These patients had multiple comorbid psychiatric and physical diagnoses and multiple previous antidepressant treatments had failed.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.950

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC PsychiatrySame topicTreatment of Major DepressionFrench-language works237,207