MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032433826 · doi:10.4088/jcp.v68n1110

Efficacy and Safety of Duloxetine 60 mg Once Daily in the Treatment of Pain in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder and At Least Moderate Pain of Unknown Etiology

2007· article· en· W2032433826 on OpenAlexaff
Stephan Brecht, Christine Courtecuisse

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Clinical Psychiatry · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsEli Lilly (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDuloxetineEtiologyPsychiatryMedicineChronic painMajor depressive disorderDepression (economics)Depressive symptomsPsychologyAnesthesiaAlternative medicineMoodAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Experience of pain in major depressive disorder (MDD) can complicate diagnosis and impair treatment outcomes. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of duloxetine in the treatment of patients with moderate pain associated with depression. METHOD: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, 8-week study, conducted from May 2005 to May 2006, outpatients 18 years of age or older, presenting with major depressive disorder (DSM-IV criteria; Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] score >or= 20), moderate pain (Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form [BPI-SF] average pain score >or= 3), and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale (CGI-S) score >or= 4 were randomly assigned to either placebo (N = 165) or duloxetine 60 mg (N = 162) once daily. Primary outcome was change in item 5 score (average pain in the last 24 hours) of the BPI-SF from baseline. Secondary measures were MADRS total score, other BPI-SF items, CGI-S, CGI-Improvement scale, Patient Global Impressions-Improvement scale, Symptom Checklist-90-Revised, response and remission rates, safety, and tolerability. RESULTS: Duloxetine, compared with placebo, significantly reduced pain and improved depression with significant mean changes at endpoint in both BPI-SF average pain scores (-2.57 vs. -1.64, p < .001) and in MADRS total scores (-16.69 vs. -11.31, p < .001). Remission of MDD and response rates in pain and MDD were significantly (p <or= .001) higher in duloxetine-treated patients. Duloxetine separated from placebo on most secondary outcome measures including the BPI-SF interference with daily life due to pain. Treatment-emergent adverse events (>or= 10%) in duloxetine-treated patients were nausea, hyperhidrosis, and dry mouth. CONCLUSION: These results support duloxetine's efficacy and tolerability in the treatment of pain and depression in patients with at least moderate pain associated with depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00191919 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.313 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations89
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Clinical PsychiatrySame topicTreatment of Major DepressionFrench-language works237,207