Efficacy of vortioxetine versus desvenlafaxine in the treatment of functional impairment in patients with major depressive disorder: Results from the multinational VIVRE study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background In VIVRE (NCT04448431), vortioxetine was associated with significantly higher rates of symptomatic and functional remission, better daily and social functioning, and greater treatment satisfaction than desvenlafaxine in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and partial response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) therapy. This analysis further explored the relative improvement in patient functioning with vortioxetine versus desvenlafaxine. Methods VIVRE was a randomized, double-blind study of vortioxetine (10 or 20 mg/day) versus desvenlafaxine (50 mg/day) in adults with MDD and partial response to initial SSRI monotherapy. Mean percentage changes from baseline to week 8 in Functioning Assessment Short Test (FAST) total and domain scores were analyzed by treatment group in the overall population and in working patients. Results In the overall population, the mean reduction in FAST total score from baseline after 8 weeks of treatment was 37.2% in vortioxetine-treated patients versus 31.8% in desvenlafaxine-treated patients (P = 0.04). Significantly greater improvements versus desvenlafaxine were seen in vortioxetine-treated patients for FAST autonomy, cognitive functioning, and interpersonal-relationships scores (all P < 0.05). In working patients, the mean reduction in FAST total score from baseline at week 8 was 38.7% versus 32.1% in the vortioxetine and desvenlafaxine groups, respectively (P = 0.04). Significant correlations were seen between absolute changes in patient functioning, and those in depression severity and health-related quality of life. Conclusion Vortioxetine was significantly better than desvenlafaxine in improving overall functioning as well as daily, social, and cognitive functioning in patients with MDD with inadequate response to prior SSRI therapy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".