ArticleNeuropsychiatric disease and treatment2016
Analysis of treatment patterns and persistence on branded and generic medications in major depressive disorder using retrospective claims data.
Article in Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Breaking barriers: how generic drugs democratize mental health.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Adherence to Desvenlafaxine Versus Usual Care and Its Impact on Health Outcomes: A Comparative Real-world Clinical Study.Clinical drug investigation · 2021Observational
- Economic burden of relapse/recurrence in patients with major depressive disorder.Journal of drug assessment · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn major depressive disorder (MDD), treatment persistence is critical to optimize symptom remission, functional recovery, and health care costs. Desvenlafaxine tends to have fewer drug interactions and better tolerability than other MDD drugs; however, its use has not been assessed in the real world.
objectiveThe aim of the present study is to compare medication persistence and concomitant MDD drug use with branded desvenlafaxine (Pristiq PATIENTS AND
methodsMDD patients (ICD-9-CM codes 296.2, 296.3), with ≥2 prescription fills for study drugs and 12-month preindex continuous enrollment from the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database (2009-2013), were included. Time-to-treatment discontinuation (prescription gap ≥45 days) was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier curve and Cox model. Concomitant MDD drug use was compared.
resultsOf the 273,514 patients included, 14,379 patients were initiated with branded desvenlafaxine, 50,937 patients with other branded SSRIs/SNRIs, and 208,198 patients with generic SSRIs/SNRIs. The number of weeks for treatment discontinuation for branded desvenlafaxine were longer (40.7 [95% CI: 39.3, 42.0]) compared with other branded SSRIs/SNRIs (28.9 [95% CI: 28.4, 29.1]) and generic SSRIs/SNRIs (33.4 [95% CI: 33.1, 33.7]). Adjusting for baseline characteristics, patients who were prescribed with other branded SSRIs/SNRIs were 31% and generic SSRIs/SNRIs were 11% more likely to discontinue treatment compared with branded desvenlafaxine. In sensitivity analysis, the risk of discontinuation was within 10% of branded desvenlafaxine for branded duloxetine, generic escitalopram, and generic venlafaxine. Concomitant MDD drug use was higher among branded desvenlafaxine patients (43.8%) compared with other branded SSRIs/SNRIs (39.8%) and generic SSRIs/SNRIs (36.4%).
conclusionMDD patients on branded desvenlafaxine were more persistent with treatment compared with those on other branded or generic SSRI/SNRI therapies. Future research should include assessments of underlying factors on the treatment persistence in MDD patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.