Efficacy and safety of pregabalin for treating neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy: a 14 week, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of pregabalin in treating neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy in Japanese patients. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre 14 week clinical trial was conducted. Japanese patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy (n = 317) were randomized to receive placebo or pregabalin at 300 or 600 mg/day. The primary efficacy measure was a change of mean pain score from baseline to end-point from patients' daily pain diaries. RESULTS: Significant reductions in pain were observed in patients treated with pregabalin at 300 and 600 mg/day vs. placebo (P < 0.05). Improvements in weekly pain scores were observed as early as week 1 and were sustained throughout the study period (300 and 600 mg/day difference from placebo at study end-point, -0.63 and -0.74, respectively). Pregabalin produced significant improvements in weekly sleep interference scores, the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire, the Medical Outcomes Study-Sleep Scale, the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey scale, and the Patient and Clinical Global Impression of Change. Patient impressions of numbness, pain and paraesthesia were also significantly improved. Regarding treatment responders, 29.1 and 35.6% of patients treated with 300 and 600 mg/day, respectively, reported ≥ 50% improvement in mean pain scores (vs. 21.5% for placebo). Pregabalin was well tolerated; somnolence (26%), dizziness (24%), peripheral oedema (13%) and weight gain (11%) were the most common adverse events and generally were reported as mild to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Pregabalin was effective in reducing pain and improving sleep disturbances due to pain, and was well tolerated in Japanese patients with painful DPN.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".