Civamide Cream 0.075% in Patients with Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A 12-Week Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial with a Longterm Extension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of civamide cream 0.075% for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. METHODS: We conducted a 12-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study with a 52-week open-label extension. Patients with OA of the knee received either civamide cream 0.075% or a lower dose of civamide cream, 0.01%, as the control. The 3 co-primary endpoints in the double-blind study were the time-weighted average (TWA) of change from baseline to Day 84 in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale, the WOMAC physical function subscale, and the Subject Global Evaluation (SGE). In the 52-week open-label extension study, the Osteoarthritis Pain Score and SGE were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 695 patients were randomized to receive civamide cream 0.075% (n = 351) or civamide cream 0.01% (control; n = 344) in the double-blind study. Significance in favor of civamide cream 0.075% was achieved for the TWA for all 3 co-primary efficacy variables: WOMAC pain (p = 0.009), WOMAC physical function (p < 0.001), and SGE (p = 0.008); and at Day 84 for these 3 variables (p = 0.013, p < 0.001, and p = 0.049, respectively). These analyses accounted for significant baseline-by-treatment interactions. In the 52-week open-label extension, efficacy was maintained. Civamide cream 0.075% was well tolerated throughout the studies. CONCLUSION: These studies demonstrate the efficacy of civamide cream for up to 1 year of continuous use. Civamide cream, with its lack of systemic absorption, does not have the potential for serious systemic toxicity, in contrast to several other OA treatments.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".