Evaluation of study discontinuations with tapentadol immediate release and oxycodone immediate release in patients with low back or osteoarthritis pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine discontinuations due to nausea and/or vomiting or constipation with tapentadol immediate release (IR) or oxycodone IR treatment. DESIGN: Post hoc analyses of a 90-day, phase 3, randomized, double-blind, flexible-dose study. SETTING: United States, Canada, United Kingdom. PATIENTS: Adults with moderate to severe low back or osteoarthritis (OA) pain for > or =3 months. INTERVENTIONS: Tapentadol IR 50 or 100 mg or oxycodone HCI IR 10 or 15 mg every 4-6 hours as needed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adverse events and discontinuations were recorded. RESULTS: Post hoc analyses included data from 679 patients receiving tapentadol IR and 170 receiving oxycodone IR (4:1 randomization). Tapentadol IR 50 or 100 mg and oxycodone HCI IR 10 or 15 mg provided similar levels of pain relief Overall, 21.2 percent of patients receiving tapentadol IR discontinued treatment for adverse events versus 31.2 percent of patients receiving oxycodone IR. The percentage of patients who discontinued for nausea and/or vomiting was significantly lower with tapentadol IR (5.9 percent) than oxycodone IR (14.7 percent; p = 0.0003); patients treated with oxycodone IR discontinued because of nausea and/or vomiting significantly earlier than with tapentadol IR (p < 0.0001). The percentage of patients who discontinued because of constipation was significantly lower with tapentadol IR (1.5 percent) than with oxycodone IR (5.9 percent; p = 0.0023); patients treated with oxycodone IR discontinued because of constipation significantly earlier versus tapentadol IR (p = 0.0003). CONCLUSIONS: A lower percentage of patients discontinued because of nausea and/or vomiting or constipation with tapentadol IR versus oxycodone IR while receiving comparable pain relief suggesting tapentadol may improve the management of low back and OA pain.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".