nominally significantp = 0.032
38.9%), with a nominally significant difference in the remission rate (p = 0.032) but not in the response rate (p = 0.28).
38.9%), with a nominally significant difference in the remission rate (p = 0.032) but not in the response rate (p = 0.28).
However, the difference observed in week 8 only showed a trend toward a greater improvement with regard to perospirone treatment (LSMD = 2.17, 95% CI: −0.51 to 4.85, p = 0.11).
However, the test for the treatment–subgroup interaction did not reach statistical significance (response: p = 0.883; remission: p = 0.122), as determined by the logistic regression analysis ( Supplementary Methods and Supplementary Table S16 ).
Additionally, in the 4-week group, adjunctive perospirone demonstrated a favorable trend compared to placebo across multiple measures, including improvements in MADRS, HAMA, QIDS-SR16, and Q-LES-Q-SF scores, though the magnitude of changes was smaller than that in the 4-to-8-week group ( Supplementary Tables S17–S19 ).