Comparative Effects of Morning vs Evening Dosing of Extended-Release Hydromorphone on Sleep Physiology in Patients with Low Back Pain: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate effects of extended-release (ER) hydromorphone dosing time (morning, QAM; evening, QPM) on sleep physiology in patients with chronic low back pain. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial. SETTING: Clinical research site. PATIENTS: Fifteen patients with moderate-to-severe chronic low back pain requiring long-term opioid analgesia. INTERVENTIONS: Following an open-label immediate-release (IR) hydromorphone titration phase, patients received once-daily ER hydromorphone QAM or QPM for at least 14 days and then crossed over to the alternate regimen. Overnight polysomnographic sleep studies were performed at baseline, following IR hydromorphone titration, and following each ER hydromorphone dosing period. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was prevalence of nocturnal apnea-hypopnea index (AHI). Other evaluations included central apnea index and obstructive apnea index; Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire; a modified Medical Outcomes Study sleep scale, patient responses in a daily diary, and adverse event safety profiles. RESULTS: Mean AHI scores were lower following QAM rather than QPM dosing, but not significantly (12.9 vs. 17.1, P > 0.05). Secondarily, QAM dosing resulted in numerically fewer apnea episodes and improvements in pulse oximetry measures; however, these differences were not significant (P > 0.05). Sleep quality/quantity and pain measures were improved with opioid therapy overall, particularly QPM dosing, without significantly compromising safety. CONCLUSIONS: ER hydromorphone QAM dosing may be preferred if sleep-disordered breathing associated with ongoing opioid therapy is of concern; however, QPM dosing may be advantageous in terms of pain relief and quality/quantity of sleep. Further research is recommended to provide more definitive clinical guidance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".