ArticleCureus2024
A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Effects of Vilazodone, Escitalopram, and Vortioxetine Monotherapy on the Metabolic Parameters in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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 coexistence of major depressive disorder (MDD) and metabolic illness could culminate in an aberrant metabolic profile. Individuals with MDD and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are more likely to have impaired metabolic indicators. Effective antidepressant therapy can alleviate depressive symptoms and metabolic abnormalities. We focused on the effects of vilazodone, escitalopram, and vortioxetine on metabolic indices. Our research aimed to examine changes after 16 weeks of intervention in the glycemic indices, serum creatinine, lipid profile, hepatic parameters, and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) 17-item version.
methodsA three-arm, randomized, open-label trial with 96 MDD patients was executed. Participants were divided into three distinct groups in a 1:1:1 ratio for 16 weeks and issued tablets of vilazodone (20-40 mg/day), escitalopram (10-20 mg/day), or vortioxetine (5-20 mg/day). Vilazodone and vortioxetine were the two test medications, while escitalopram served as the control. We stratified the participants as non-diabetics and diabetics. Follow-up appointments were slated four weeks after the initial visit. HDRS scores and other metabolic indicators were assessed at each visit in the per-protocol (PP) population. After 12 weeks, glycated hemoglobin (HbA
resultsOf the 134 people we screened, 119 (81.34%) were deemed eligible. The PP population included 96 (88.07%) of those who completed the 16-week study. The population's average age was 46.3 ± 6.2 years. Across all study groups, the median baseline HDRS score was 30.0 (p = 0.964). At 16 weeks, the equivalent scores dropped to 15.0, 14.0, and 13.0 (p = 0.002). The median FBS levels at baseline and 16 weeks were 100.5, 104.0, and 98.0 (p = 0.491) and 91.5, 98.5, and 91.5 (p = 0.561), respectively. The post hoc analysis manifested no statistically significant changes between any parameters. Except for the reductions in glycemic indices in diabetic patients, no other data differed significantly. There was a positive relationship between FBS and HDRS scores.
conclusionIrrespective of the diabetic situation, all three drugs substantially lowered HDRS scores. People with diabetes experienced noticeable declines in glycemic indices. Despite this, the patients' other metabolic indicators showed no significant alterations. We urge additional research with a larger sample size to investigate these medications' long-term impact on various metabolic indicators.
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.