ArticleCureus2024
A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Efficacy and Safety of Antidepressant Monotherapy.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chronic 5-HT7R activation drives depressive phenotypes and synaptic dysfunction.Acta pharmacologica Sinica · 2026Article
- Recent advances in the synthesis of antidepressant derivatives: pharmacologic insights for mood disorders.3 Biotech · 2024Review
- Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThe majority of mainstream antidepressants lack the promise of complete amelioration of symptoms. Other pitfalls include the latency period and side effects. These issues prompted investigations concerning the various roles of serotonin (5-HT) neurotransmissions in the etiology of depression. In this study, each study participant received vilazodone, vortioxetine, and escitalopram monotherapy for major depressive disorder (MDD) for 16 weeks. After that, the subject's scores on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS)-17 item version and the Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) were evaluated. In the study population, we kept track of the incidence of adverse events.
methodsNinety-six patients with MDD participated in this open-label, randomized, three-arm study. Participants were allotted into three groups according to a 1:1:1 ratio and given vilazodone (20-40 mg/day), vortioxetine (5-20 mg/day), or escitalopram (10-20 mg/day) for 16 weeks. Vortioxetine and vilazodone are test medications, with escitalopram serving as the control. After the baseline visit, follow-up appointments were scheduled every four weeks. Per-protocol (PP) and intent-to-treat (ITT) populations served as means for efficacy and safety evaluations, respectively. We prospectively registered this research in the Clinical Trial Registry, India (CTRI) (2022/07/043808).
resultsOut of the 134 patients we screened, 109 (81.34%) were eligible. Ninety-six (88.07%) of them completed the 16-week trial. In the PP population (n = 96), we analyzed efficacy. They had a mean age of 46.3 ± 6.2 years. At baseline, each group's median HDRS score was 30.0 (p = 0.964). Following 16 weeks of antidepressant therapy, these scores dropped to 15.0, 14.0, and 13.0 (p = 0.002). Baseline MADRS scores for all groups were 36.0 (p = 0.741). They had corresponding values of 20.0, 18.0, and 17.0 at 16 weeks (p < 0.001). Regarding both efficacy endpoints, the post-hoc analysis with the Bonferroni correction demonstrated statistically significant differences (p < 0.001). We performed the safety assessments within our ITT population (n = 109). Ninety-six adverse events were recorded. Nonetheless, none of them seemed serious. Still, five participants opted out because of their side effects. Vomiting and nausea were the most frequent side effects.
conclusionCompared to escitalopram and vilazodone, vortioxetine demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in HDRS and MADRS scores. It also had fewer and milder side effects
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.