Composite measure to assess efficacy/gastrointestinal tolerability of tapentadol ER versus oxycodone CR for chronic pain: Pooled analysis of randomized studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a composite measure for chronic pain that balances pain relief with tolerability. DESIGN: Post hoc meta-analysis of three randomized, multicenter, double-blind studies. PARTICIPANTS: Subjects with moderate-to-severe chronic osteoarthritis knee pain or low back pain who had been randomized to receive active treatment with tapentadol extended release (ER; n = 978) or oxycodone controlled release (CR; n = 999). Twenty-two subjects were excluded, mainly because they did not receive treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We defined the composite measure as ≥30 percent pain relief without nausea/vomiting/constipation and without discontinuations (≥30 percent PRT [pain relief/tolerability]). We also considered ≥50 percent PRT as well as ≥30 percent and ≥50 percent pain relief without any adverse events of any type. To further evaluate ≥30 percent PRT, we studied its relationship with four patient-reported outcomes: EQ-5D, Physical and Mental Component Summaries of SF-36, Patient Global Impression of Change, and Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms. RESULTS: At week 12, tapentadol ER recipients were more likely to have ≥30 percent PRT than oxycodone CR recipients (OR, 3.15; 95% CI, 2.47, 4.00; p < 0.001). Significant differences were also observed with the other three composite measures (p < 0.001). At week 12, subjects with ≥30 percent PRT had more favorable changes in all patient-reported outcomes than those without and were more likely to have threshold changes in EQ-5D and SF-36 (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Tapentadol ER was associated with significantly better composite outcomes than oxycodone CR. Because both pain relief and gastrointestinal tolerability appeared to be related to outcomes, the composite measure may represent a useful tool for comparing opioids that merits further evaluation.
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 | 0.062 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.053 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".