Effects of Adjunctive Brexpiprazole on Individual Depressive Symptoms and Functioning in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder and Anxious Distress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/BACKGROUND: Anxiety symptoms in major depressive disorder (MDD) are frequent, and they decrease response to antidepressant treatment (ADT), and affect patient functioning. This post hoc analysis examined the efficacy of adjunctive brexpiprazole on individual depressive symptoms and functioning in patients with MDD with anxious distress. METHODS/PROCEDURES: Data were included from three 6-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of adjunctive brexpiprazole in patients with MDD and inadequate response to ADTs (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01360645, NCT01360632, NCT02196506). Patients were stratified using proxy criteria for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, anxious distress. Changes in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale item scores and Sheehan Disability Scale mean score from baseline to week 6 were determined for ADT + brexpiprazole (2 and 2-3 mg) versus ADT + placebo. FINDINGS/RESULTS: At baseline, 450 of 746 patients (60.3%, 2 mg analysis) and 670 of 1162 patients (57.7%, 2-3 mg analysis) had anxious distress. In patients with anxious distress, ADT + brexpiprazole 2 mg or 2 to 3 mg showed greater improvements than ADT + placebo (P < 0.05) on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale items of apparent sadness, reported sadness, inner tension, reduced sleep, reduced appetite, lassitude, inability to feel, and pessimistic thoughts (Cohen d effect sizes, 0.18-0.44), and on Sheehan Disability Scale mean score (effect sizes, 0.21-0.23). IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive brexpiprazole is efficacious in reducing core depressive symptoms, sleep, and appetite, as well as improving functioning, in patients with MDD and anxious distress who have inadequate response to ADTs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".