MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136897350 · doi:10.1185/03007995.2015.1092127

Two placebo-controlled, randomized withdrawal studies to evaluate the fentanyl 1 day patch in opioid-naïve patients with chronic pain

2015· article· en· W2136897350 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tsutomu Arai, Yuji Kashimoto, Yoshifumi Ukyo, Yushin Tominaga, Keiichiro Imanaka

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Medical Research and Opinion · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboFentanylDiscontinuationVisual analogue scaleAdverse effectAnesthesiaOpioidChronic painClinical endpointRandomized controlled trialMcGill Pain QuestionnairePhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of fentanyl 1 day patch in opioid-naïve patients with non-cancer chronic pain insufficiently relieved by non-opioid analgesics. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Two phase III placebo-controlled, double-blind, group-comparison, randomized withdrawal studies were conducted in patients with osteoarthritis and/or low back pain (N01 study) and post-herpetic neuralgia, complex regional pain syndrome, or chronic postoperative pain (N02) in Japan. Both studies consisted of period I (10-29 days of titration, fentanyl 12.5-50.0 µg/h) and period II (12 weeks double-blind). CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: N01, NCT01008618; N02, NCT01008553 MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was the number of days until study discontinuation due to insufficient pain relief in period II, and secondary endpoints included pain scored on visual analog scale (VAS), subject's overall assessment, the number of rescue dose, brief pain inventory short form score, score on short-form 36-item health survey version 2.0, physician's overall assessment, and assessment of adverse events. RESULTS: Of the 218 (N01) and 258 (N02) subjects who entered period I, 150 and 163 subjects entered period II, respectively. In the N01 study, the between-group difference was significant in the VAS score (95% CI: 7.3 [1.1, 13.5] mm, P = 0.0215) but not in the primary endpoint (P = 0.0846, log-rank test). In the N02 study, both primary efficacy (P = 0.0003) and VAS (8.7 [2.4, 15.0] mm, P = 0.0071) results showed that fentanyl was more effective than placebo. The major adverse events were nervous system and gastrointestinal disorders typically associated with opioid analgesic use. The incidence of adverse events in the fentanyl group was 68.5% to 85.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Although the primary efficacy results showed significant effects of fentanyl in the N02 but not the N01 study, overall results showed that fentanyl 1 day patch is effective and well tolerated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.501
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.364 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Medical Research and OpinionSame topicOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentFrench-language works237,207