Duloxetine versus Routine Care in the Long-Term Management of Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Duloxetine hydrochloride is a dual reuptake inhibitor of both serotonin and norepinephrine. In the present open-label study, the safety of duloxetine at a fixed-dose of 60 mg twice daily (BID) for up to 52 weeks was evaluated and compared to routine care in the therapy of patients diagnosed with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). METHODS: Patients who completed a 13-week, double-blind, duloxetine and placebo acute therapy period were rerandomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to therapy with duloxetine 60 mg BID (N=161) or routine care (N=76) for an additional 52 weeks. Routine care consisted primarily of gabapentin, amitriptyline, and venlafaxine. The study included male or female outpatients 18 years of age or older with a diagnosis of DPNP caused by type 1 or type 2 diabetes. RESULTS: A higher percentage of routine care-treated patients experienced 1 or more serious adverse events. No statistically significant therapy-group difference was observed in the overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). The TEAEs reported by 10% or more of duloxetine 60 mg BID-treated patients were nausea, and by the routine care-treated patients were peripheral edema, pain in the extremity, somnolence, and dizziness. Duloxetine did not appear to adversely affect glycemic control, lipid profiles, nerve function, or the course of DPNP. There were no statistically significant therapy-group differences observed in the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey subscales or in the EuroQol 5-Dimension Questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, duloxetine was safe and well tolerated compared to routine care in the long-term management of patients with 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".