The efficacy of vortioxetine in the acute treatment of major depressive disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Among the available pharmacological treatments for acute major depressive disorder (MDD), vortioxetine, a serotonin transporter inhibitor (SERT), has been widely used for its multimodal action on serotonin neurotransmission, which produces essential changes also on glutamate, gamma amino butyric acid (GABA), norepinephrine, acetylcholine, and dopamine. AIM: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the acute efficacy of vortioxetine across multiple dosing and to evaluate whether there is a dose-response effect and as well there is a dose-response issue with respect to side effects in acute depression. METHODS: According to PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched three major electronic databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) for Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) studies published between January 2013 and April 2024. Twenty-four studies were included in the review and two meta-analyses were conducted to determine whether the mean Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scale values in the placebo groups differ significantly from the mean MADRS scale values in the group receiving vortioxetine 10 mg or vortioxetine 20 mg. RESULTS: Vortioxetine significantly improved acute depression severity, anxiety symptoms, and cognitive function, with high response and remission rates in acute MDD. It was also well tolerated with a relatively low occurrence of severe or serious treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Observing the results of the meta-analysis, the effect was significant for both vortioxetine 10 and 20 mg, with a greater effect size for vortioxetine 20 mg. CONCLUSION: Vortioxetine should be considered efficacious as a first- and second-line 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 | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".