Combination Therapy with Transdermal Buprenorphine and Pregabalin for Chronic Low Back Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: SUMMARY AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combined transdermal buprenorphine and pregabalin in chronic low back pain. PATIENTS & METHODS: A total of 45 patients with chronic low back pain were recruited into the study. For an initial 3-week period, all patients received transdermal buprenorphine 35 µg/h. After 3 weeks of only transdermal buprenorphine 35 µg/h, patients were randomized (single-blind) to receive transdermal buprenorphine 35 µg/h plus pregabalin 300 mg/day (group A) or transdermal buprenorphine 35 µg/h plus placebo (group B), and were observed for a further 3-week period. Efficacy parameters were weekly mean Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores, the Pain Rating Index (PRI) of the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), the Present Pain Index (PPI) of the SF-MPQ and sleep interference. We also evaluated the use of rescue medication (paracetamol [acetaminophen]) and the presence of adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 44 patients were evaluated for efficacy and safety parameters. Pain relief, as assessed by VAS, PPI and PRI, improved significantly (p < 0.05) in all patients after the first week of treatment with only transdermal buprenorphine. Following randomization, only patients in group A showed further reductions in the mean VAS, PPI and PRI scores. Moreover, patients in group A had a lower consumption of rescue medication than those in group B. There was a low incidence of mild adverse events in both group A and group B, with no serious adverse events in either group. CONCLUSION: Pregabalin 300 mg/day as an add-on to transdermal buprenorphine 35 µg/h led to significant pain reduction and a significant reduction of interference with sleep quality in patients with chronic low back pain.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".