MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971313899 · doi:10.1185/03007995.2010.522157

Long-term safety of duloxetine during open-label compassionate use treatment of patients who completed previous duloxetine clinical trials

2010· article· en· W1971313899 on OpenAlexaff
Beth A. Pangallo, Qi Zhang, D. Desaiah, David Pérahia, Michael J. Detke, Sidney H. Kennedy

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Medical Research and Opinion · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDuloxetineMedicineDiscontinuationAdverse effectDuloxetine HydrochlorideMajor depressive disorderFibromyalgiaInternal medicinePsychiatryMood

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To provide duloxetine for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), fibromyalgia (FM) and diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) to patients who had previously completed a duloxetine clinical study and for whom, in the opinion of the investigator, no effective alternative therapy was available. METHODS: Adult outpatients who had previously completed a duloxetine study for the treatment of MDD, GAD, DPNP, or FM received duloxetine 30 mg to 120 mg daily up until its local commercial availability. Safety analyses included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), AEs reported as reason for discontinuation, and vital signs. No efficacy measures were collected. RESULTS: Of 667 patients enrolled, 282 (42.3%) were still participating at the time the drug was made commercially available in their countries. Most patients had previously participated in a duloxetine MDD study (76.2%); were female (68.1%) and Caucasian (94.9%). The median duration of exposure was 328 days (range 3-1718 days). The most common reasons for discontinuation were patient decision (25.3%), adverse event (8.4%), and lack of efficacy (8.4%). Of the 86 SAEs experienced by 46 patients, most (including one death) were judged by the investigator to be unrelated to duloxetine treatment. The most common TEAEs were in the System Organ Class of gastrointestinal (28.3%), nervous system (28.0%), and psychiatric (25.8%) and were predominantly mild to moderate in severity. Increases of systolic blood pressure (1.9 mm Hg) and pulse rate (2.2 bpm) at endpoint were reported. CONCLUSION: The safety data from this long-term compassionate use study of duloxetine were consistent with previous experience and revealed no new safety signals. LIMITATIONS: The limitations include: lack of a control arm, no efficacy data were collected to assess the long-term efficacy, the results may not necessarily generalize to other ethnic groups as most patients were Caucasians, and lack of consistency in regard to duration of exposure at study entry as patients came from different trials with different study designs. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY ID: www.clinicaltrials.gov--NCT00071708.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.314
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.440
GPT teacher head0.571
Teacher spread0.131 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Medical Research and OpinionSame topicTreatment of Major DepressionFrench-language works237,207