Oxymorphone Extended-Release Tablets Relieve Moderate to Severe Pain and Improve Physical Function in Osteoarthritis: Results of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo- and Active-Controlled Phase III Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare oxymorphone extended release (ER) and placebo on indices of pain, function, and safety in patients with chronic osteoarthritis (OA) pain. DESIGN: In this multicenter, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled, parallel-group, dose-ranging study, patients were randomized to oxymorphone ER 20 mg (N = 121), oxymorphone ER 40 mg (N = 121), oxycodone controlled release 20 mg (N = 125), or placebo (N = 124) every 12 hours. The primary efficacy end point was change in arthritis pain intensity (visual analog scale, 0-100) from baseline to week 3 for the oxymorphone ER 40 mg group versus placebo. RESULTS: The primary end point was achieved: the week 3 oxymorphone ER least squares mean difference (LSMD) from placebo was -9.0 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -16.2 to -1.8; P = 0.015). Secondary efficacy analysis showed similar improvements at week 4 (LSMD from placebo, -10.3 [95% CI: -17.7 to -2.8]; P = 0.007) and with oxymorphone ER 20 mg at week 3 (LSMD from placebo, -7.7 [95% CI: -15.0 to -0.4]; P = 0.039) and week 4 (LSMD from placebo, -7.5 [95% CI: -15.0 to 0.0]; P = 0.050). Weeks 3 and 4 pain intensity decreased by approximately 30-40%. Oxymorphone ER 20 and 40 mg improved from baseline on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Composite Index and pain and physical function subscales at week 4. Adverse events in all opioid groups included mild to moderate nausea, constipation, and somnolence. CONCLUSIONS: In this short-term study, oxymorphone ER was superior to placebo for relieving pain and improving function in patients with moderate to severe chronic OA pain, and is an alternative to other sustained-release opioids.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".