This retrospective study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Beijing Hui Long Guan Hospital, Capital Medical University (approval No. SJK24YWYJ-01; approved on June 1, 2024). The requirement for written informed consent was waived by the Ethics Committee because of the retrospective nature of the study and the use of previously collected clinical data and biological specimens. All patient information was anonymized prior to analysis, and the study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.
Study subjects
A total of 210 eligible patients diagnosed with depression who attended the Department of Psychiatry between March 2024 and November 2025 were retrospectively identified, including 92 patients who received combined trazodone and fluvoxamine therapy and 118 patients who received fluvoxamine monotherapy. All patients met the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) diagnostic criteria for depression. Patients with severe systemic diseases, other psychiatric disorders, a history of substance abuse, or pregnancy were excluded. Treatment allocation was neither randomized nor determined by the study investigators. In routine clinical practice, treatment was selected by the attending psychiatrist according to the patient's clinical presentation, with consideration of the severity and persistence of sleep disturbance, depressive and anxiety symptoms, previous antidepressant response, and medication tolerability. Fluvoxamine monotherapy was generally used when conventional antidepressant treatment was considered sufficient, whereas trazodone was added when prominent or persistent sleep disturbance and/or anxiety symptoms required additional symptomatic management and no relevant contraindication or intolerance was present. Patients were retrospectively classified into treatment groups according to the regimen actually received. Propensity scores were estimated using a binary logistic regression model with treatment group as the dependent variable and sex, age, duration of depression, duration of insomnia, baseline awake time (AT), rapid eye movement sleep time (REM-ST), slow-wave sleep time (SWST), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA), 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT), and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) as covariates. Patients were matched at a 1:1 ratio using nearest-neighbor matching without replacement, with a caliper width of 0.2 standard deviations of the logit of the propensity score. After matching, 78 matched pairs (156 patients) were retained for the final analysis. Covariate balance was evaluated using absolute standardized mean differences (SMDs), with an SMD <0.10 considered indicative of adequate balance.
Treatment methods
Patients in the control group had received oral fluvoxamine maleate at an initial dose of 100 mg once daily, which was increased to 150 mg once daily when clinically indicated. Patients in the combination therapy group had received trazodone in addition to fluvoxamine. Trazodone was initiated at 50 mg once daily and increased to 100 mg once daily according to clinical response and tolerability. Treatment was continued for 8 consecutive weeks in both groups; fluvoxamine and trazodone, when prescribed, were administered at bedtime. During the study period, medications known to influence sleep quality or circulating 5-HT and BDNF levels were not administered to either group to minimize potential confounding effects. Outcome assessments followed the routine clinical schedule: baseline assessments were performed before treatment initiation; interim assessments of depressive and anxiety symptoms were conducted at week 4; and end-of-treatment assessments were performed at week 8 for sleep architecture, sleep quality, circulating 5-HT and BDNF levels, and overall clinical efficacy.
Sleep architecture
Sleep architecture was evaluated using overnight polysomnography at baseline and at week 8 after completion of treatment. The primary polysomnographic parameters included awake time (AT), rapid eye movement sleep time (REM-ST), and slow-wave sleep time (SWST).
Sleep quality
Sleep quality was assessed at baseline and at week 8 using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). The PSQI evaluates seven components of sleep quality across 18 items, with a total score ranging from 0 to 21. Higher scores indicate poorer sleep quality.
Depressive and anxiety symptoms
HAMD was assessed at baseline, week 4, and week 8, whereas HAMA was assessed at baseline and week 4. The week-4 HAMD and HAMA assessments were used to characterize interim changes in depressive and anxiety symptoms and reflected the routine interim psychiatric evaluation used in clinical practice to assess early symptomatic response and guide medication adjustment. The week-8 HAMD assessment was used to evaluate overall clinical efficacy categorically. The HAMD and HAMA assessments were performed by trained psychiatrists as part of routine clinical care. Because this was a retrospective study and treatment information was available in the clinical records at the time of assessment, the evaluators were not prospectively blinded to treatment allocation. The HAMD consists of 24 items covering seven domains, including anxiety/somatization, weight loss, cognitive impairment, diurnal variation, psychomotor retardation, sleep disturbances, and hopelessness. Each item was scored on a five-point scale (0–4), yielding a total score ranging from 0 to 96, with higher scores indicating greater severity of depressive symptoms. Scores >35 indicated severe depression, scores of 20–35 indicated moderate depression, scores of 8–19 indicated mild depression, and scores <8 indicated no depression.
The HAMA consists of 14 items assessing psychic and somatic anxiety. Each item was scored on a 5-point scale (0–4), yielding a total score ranging from 0 to 56, with higher scores indicating more severe anxiety. Scores >29 indicated severe anxiety, scores of 22–29 indicated moderate anxiety, scores of 15–21 indicated mild anxiety, scores of 8–14 indicated suspected anxiety, and scores ≤7 indicated no clinically significant anxiety. Throughout the treatment period, medications that could influence emotional assessments were not administered.
Circulating 5-HT and BDNF measurements
Peripheral venous blood (5 mL) was collected between 07:00 and 09:00 after an overnight fast at both baseline and week 8. Baseline samples were obtained before initiation of the first dose of the study medication. At week 8, blood samples were collected on the morning following the previous scheduled bedtime dose, approximately 10–12 h after medication administration and before breakfast or any subsequent medication administration. The same sampling schedule was applied to both treatment groups to minimize potential circadian and post-dose variability. Samples were centrifuged at 1,006 × g for 15 min at 4°C before biomarker analysis. Concentrations of 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) were determined using a Serotonin ELISA Kit, with a detection range of 0.78–50 ng/mL and an analytical sensitivity of <0.35 ng/mL. According to the manufacturer's validation data, the intra-assay and inter-assay coefficients of variation (CVs) were ≤4.7% and ≤7.7%, respectively, and no significant cross-reactivity or interference was observed. Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) was measured using an ELISA Kit with an assay range of 15.6–1000 pg/mL and a sensitivity of 1.35 pg/mL. The manufacturer-reported intra-assay CV ranged from 2.4% to 3.2%, and the inter-assay CV ranged from 4.3% to 7.2%. The assay detects natural and recombinant free, Trk-bound, pro-, and mature BDNF, with <0.5% cross-reactivity with available related molecules and no significant interference reported. Absorbance was measured using a microplate reader according to the manufacturer's instructions. Despite the standardized sampling schedule, circulating 5-HT and BDNF were evaluated as exploratory biological measures rather than validated clinical biomarkers of treatment response. Samples with concentrations exceeding the validated assay range were appropriately diluted according to the manufacturer's instructions, and final concentrations were calculated using the corresponding dilution factors.
Clinical efficacy
Overall clinical efficacy was evaluated at the end of the 8-week treatment period based on the percentage reduction in the HAMD score from baseline. Cure was defined as a HAMD score reduction of ≥90%; marked improvement as a reduction of 60% to <90%; improvement as a reduction of 30% to <60%; and no response as a reduction of <30%. The overall clinical response rate was calculated as the percentage of patients achieving cure, marked improvement, or improvement among the total study population. Thus, the week-4 HAMD and HAMA assessments were used to characterize interim changes in depressive and anxiety symptoms, whereas the week-8 HAMD assessment was used efficacy. Sleep quality, polysomnographic parameters, and circulating 5-HT and BDNF were assessed at week 8 because these variables were evaluated as end-of-treatment outcomes after completion of the planned 8-week medication course.
Statistical analysis
Data were analyzed using GraphPad Prism 8 and SPSS version 26.0. Propensity score matching was performed in SPSS version 26.0 using propensity scores estimated from binary logistic regression. Covariate balance before and after matching was assessed using absolute standardized mean differences (SMDs), with values <0.10 considered acceptable. SMDs, rather than significance tests alone, were used as the primary measure of covariate balance. Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and were compared between groups using independent-samples t-tests. Categorical variables were expressed as frequencies and percentages and were analyzed using the chi-square (χ2) test. A two-tailed P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. To account for multiple testing across the nine prespecified post-treatment between-group comparisons, a Bonferroni correction was additionally applied, yielding an adjusted significance threshold of P <0.0056 (0.05/9). Because this was a retrospective study, no a priori sample size calculation was performed; the available sample size was determined by the number of eligible patients identified during the predefined study period and the number of patients retained after propensity score matching. A post-hoc sensitivity analysis was performed using G*Power version 3.1.9.7. With 78 patients per group, a two-sided Bonferroni-adjusted α of 0.0056, and 80% statistical power, the matched sample was sufficient to detect a standardized between-group effect size of approximately Cohen's d = 0.59.