Review of Efficacy and Safety of Duloxetine 40 to 60 mg Once Daily in Patients with Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We summarize efficacy and safety findings from 4 double-blind, placebo-controlled, 12-week studies and 1 open-label, uncontrolled, 34-week maintenance-of-effect (MOE) study that examine duloxetine 40 and 60 mg once daily (QD) in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). In all placebo-controlled studies, duloxetine showed significantly (P ≤ .01) greater reduction in pain severity (weekly mean of 24-hour average pain severity ratings, primary outcome measure) compared with placebo. In all placebo-controlled studies, duloxetine showed significantly (P ≤ .05) greater improvement on brief pain inventory-Interference ratings. Patient global impression of improvement ratings were superior to placebo (P ≤ .01) for duloxetine patients in all placebo-controlled studies. Response rates (based on 30% pain reduction) ranged from 57% to 68% for duloxetine and from 35% to 47% for placebo and were statistically significantly different (P ≤ .01) between treatment groups in 3 out of 4 studies. The open-label study showed maintenance of analgesic effect of duloxetine in DPNP. In the duloxetine groups, 4.3% to 14.9% of patients discontinued because of adverse events (placebo groups: 2.6% to 7.4%). Most commonly reported treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea, somnolence, and headache. Duloxetine 40 and 60 mg QD was efficacious and well tolerated in the management of DPNP.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".