A clinical study to compare the efficacy and safety of pregabalin sustained release formulation with pregabalin immediate release formulation in patients of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of sustained release (SR) formulation of pregabalin with immediate release (IR) formulation in patient with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this open label, randomized, comparative, multicentric study, the primary efficacy measure was reduction in visual analogue scale (VAS) of short form McGill pain questionnaire (SF-MPQ) score from baseline to last visit. The secondary evaluation measures included reduction in SF-MPQ descriptive score and present pain intensity score and change in clinical global impression - improvement of illness (CGI-I) and clinical global impression - severity of illness (CGI-S) from baseline to last visit. Total duration of the study was 12 weeks. Safety evaluation was done by recording treatment emergent adverse events and laboratory investigations at baseline and end of treatment. RESULTS: Of 265 randomized patients, 133 received pregabalin SR tablets and 132 pregabalin IR. Patients randomized to both treatments responded to respective treatments. The least square means of VAS score in both the groups were reduced significantly (P <0.01). Reduction in both groups was similar (P = ns). At the end of the trial in both the groups, there was a significant reduction in the SF-MPQ descriptive score (P <0.01), severity of illness as well as clinically significant improvement in the symptoms. Difference between the groups for CGI-I (P = 0.37) and CGI-S (P = 0.41) score was not statistically significant. Treatment in both the groups was found safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSION: The study shows that the pregabalin SR is safe and effective in patients of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain. The results of the study demonstrated that pregabalin SR has comparable efficacy and safety as pregabalin IR.
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".