Pregabalin in Patients With Inadequately Treated Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study used a randomized withdrawal design to evaluate the efficacy of pregabalin versus placebo for pain relief in patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy inadequately treated by other therapies. METHODS: A total of 665 patients received pregabalin in a 6-week single-blind phase. Two hundred ninety-four patients who achieved a ≥ 30% pain response were randomized to receive pregabalin or placebo in a double-blind phase for a further 13 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in mean pain score from single-blind baseline to double-blind endpoint for pregabalin versus placebo (last observation carried forward [LOCF]). Secondary endpoints included a baseline observation carried forward (BOCF) analysis of mean pain score; time to loss of pain response; and other assessments of pain, sleep, function, and quality of life (QOL). RESULTS: Pregabalin numerically improved all measures assessed during the single-blind phase. At the end of the double-blind withdrawal phase, there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of mean pain score (LOCF) between pregabalin and placebo (least squares mean difference, -0.32), although there was a significant difference in the BOCF analysis (least squares mean difference, -0.51). Pregabalin was associated with a significantly longer time to loss of pain response versus placebo during double-blind treatment, and some aspects of sleep and QOL also showed significant improvements with pregabalin. DISCUSSION: This is the first reported placebo-controlled trial of pregabalin in patients with inadequately treated painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Although the primary endpoint was not met, pregabalin was associated with clinically relevant improvements versus placebo in this difficult-to-treat population.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".