Treatment of patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain in China: a double‐blind randomised trial of duloxetine vs. placebo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Duloxetine has been approved in the United States, European Union and some Asian countries for the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). We assessed the efficacy and safety of duloxetine (60 mg once daily) compared with placebo in Chinese patients suffering from DPNP. METHODS: This was a phase 3, multicenter, randomised, double-blind, parallel, placebo-controlled, 12-week trial of the treatment of DPNP with duloxetine. Subjects were male and female outpatients ≥ 18 years of age with DPNP, as assessed by the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument, and had a rating of ≥ 4 on the Brief Pain Inventory-Modified Short Form-Severity weekly average pain item. The primary efficacy measure was the reduction in pain severity from baseline to 12 weeks, as measured by the weekly mean of 24-h average pain ratings recorded in the patient's diary. Mean changes from baseline in efficacy measures were analysed by a restricted maximum likelihood-based, mixed-effects model repeated measures approach and by analysis of covariance. RESULTS: Of the 405 patients randomised, 203 patients were assigned to duloxetine 60 mg once daily and 202 patients were assigned to placebo. Duloxetine-treated patients showed significantly greater pain relief on 24-h average pain ratings compared with placebo-treated patients each week of the 12-week study period [week 12: least squares (LS) mean change duloxetine: -2.40, placebo: -1.97; LS mean change difference (95% confidence interval) = -0.43 (-0.82, -0.04), p = 0.030]. Compared with placebo, patients treated with duloxetine experienced higher rates of nausea (p = 0.010), somnolence (p < 0.001) and asthenia (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Duloxetine-treated patients showed significantly greater pain relief compared with placebo-treated patients over the 12-week study period. Duloxetine was shown in Chinese patients to have a safety profile similar to that found in previous duloxetine trials.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".