MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019729102 · doi:10.1002/art.27694

Efficacy, safety, and effects on blood pressure of naproxcinod 750 mg twice daily compared with placebo and naproxen 500 mg twice daily in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip: A randomized, double‐blind, parallel‐group, multicenter study

2010· article· en· W2019729102 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christoph Baerwald, Paolo Verdecchia, Brigitte Duquesroix, Hayet Frayssinet, Thierry Ferreira

Bibliographic record

VenueArthritis & Rheumatism · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboOsteoarthritisWOMACBlood pressureNaproxenAdverse effectInternal medicineAnesthesiaRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To test the superiority of naproxcinod compared with placebo in relieving the signs and symptoms of hip osteoarthritis and to assess the safety of naproxcinod and its effects on blood pressure. METHODS: In a 13-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter study, 810 patients were randomized to receive either naproxcinod 750 mg twice daily, placebo, or naproxen 500 mg twice daily (2:2:1). Primary efficacy analyses compared naproxcinod and placebo using an analysis of covariance for 3 co-primary end points (the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC] pain and function subscales and patient's overall rating of disease status). Safety assessments included adverse events and in-office blood pressure measurements. RESULTS: The least squares mean changes from baseline were significantly greater with naproxcinod than with placebo (P < 0.0001) and were similar to those with naproxen at week 13 for the WOMAC pain score (-25.81, -17.97, and -24.31 mm, respectively), the WOMAC function score (-22.24, -13.45, and -21.67 mm, respectively), and patient's rating of disease status (0.86, 0.51, and 0.82, respectively). Changes from baseline in systolic blood pressure were similar in the naproxcinod and placebo groups at weeks 2, 6, and 13 (differences between groups of 0.25, -0.45, and -0.11 mm Hg, respectively). Changes in the naproxen group were greater than those in the placebo group (differences of 3.11, 3.03, and 2.00 mm Hg, respectively). Systolic blood pressure increases ≥10 mm Hg from baseline to week 13 occurred in 13.3%, 15.0%, and 20.3% of patients receiving naproxcinod, placebo, and naproxen, respectively. Naproxcinod and naproxen had similar adverse event and general safety profiles. CONCLUSION: The efficacy of naproxcinod for treating the signs and symptoms of hip osteoarthritis was statistically superior to that of placebo and similar to that of naproxen. Naproxcinod was well tolerated, with effects on systolic blood pressure similar to those of placebo.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations33
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthritis & RheumatismSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207