Efficacy of Vortioxetine Versus Escitalopram on the Cognitive Profile of Patients With Depressive Disorder: A Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a prevalent mental health condition with significant cognitive impairments, affecting millions worldwide. Cognitive dysfunction in MDD, encompassing attention, memory, executive function, and processing speed deficits, increases the disease burden and impacts treatment outcomes. Vortioxetine, a multimodal antidepressant, and escitalopram, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, have both been utilized for MDD treatment, yet their comparative effects on cognitive function remain under-explored. AIM: This study aimed to compare the effects of vortioxetine and escitalopram on cognitive function in patients with MDD. METHODOLOGY: This prospective, randomized follow-up study (October 2023-2024) assessed 150 MDD patients meeting the following criteria: Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MoCA) score ≤ 26 and Brief Cognitive Rating Scale (BCRS) score ≥ 1. Patients were randomly assigned to escitalopram (10 mg, n = 78) or vortioxetine (10 mg, n = 72), with 50 per group analyzed at the final evaluation. Cognitive function was assessed using MoCA and BCRS at baseline, week two, and week four. RESULTS: Both vortioxetine and escitalopram improved cognitive function over four weeks. While the reduction in BCRS scores showed no statistically significant difference between the groups, MoCA scores indicated a slight advantage for escitalopram by the fourth week (p = 0.05). These findings suggest that both drugs effectively improve cognitive function, with escitalopram demonstrating a slight cognitive advantage over the study period. CONCLUSION: Both vortioxetine and escitalopram improve cognitive symptoms in MDD, with escitalopram showing a modest cognitive advantage by the 4th week. These results support the efficacy of both medications for cognitive symptoms in MDD, with escitalopram potentially offering a slight edge in cognitive enhancement. Further long-term studies are warranted to confirm these findings and investigate the underlying neurobiological mechanisms.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".