A randomized, 14-day, double-blind study evaluating conversion from hydrocodone/acetaminophen (Vicodin) to buprenorphine transdermal system 10 μg/h or 20 μg/h in patients with osteoarthritis pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate continued pain control and tolerability of converting patients from Vicodin (hydrocodone/acetaminophen; HCD/APAP) to the buprenorphine transdermal system (BTDS). METHODS: Adult patients with pain from osteoarthritis receiving a stable dosage of HCD/APAP (i.e., 15 - 30 mg hydrocodone/day) were switched to an equivalent or near-equivalent dosage of open-label Vicodin for 7 days. Patients maintaining acceptable analgesia were stratified based on their Vicodin dosage and randomized to receive either titratable BTDS 10 μg/h or fixed-dose BTDS 20 μg/h. The primary efficacy variable was completion of the 14-day double-blind phase. Tolerability was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 84.3% of patients met the primary end point, completion of the 14-day double-blind phase (167/198 patients, 95% CI 79.3 - 89.4). Adverse events were consistent with those associated with the use of opioid analgesics and transdermal patches. CONCLUSION: There was a similar analgesic and tolerability profile when patients treated with Vicodin for osteoarthritis pain were switched to 7-day BTDS treatment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".