Flexible Dosed Duloxetine in the Treatment of Fibromyalgia: A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of flexible dose duloxetine 60-120 mg/day on changes in fibromyalgia (FM) symptoms assessed by the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scale. METHODS: Outpatients ≥ 18 years of age who met American College of Rheumatology criteria for FM, and had ≥ 4 score on the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) average pain item, were randomized to duloxetine (n = 263) or placebo (n = 267) for 24 week double-blind treatment (primary endpoint at Week 12). Key secondary measures included BPI average pain severity, patient-rated scales assessing mood, anxiety, pain, sleep, and stiffness, Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S), Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory, Cognitive and Physical Functioning Questionnaire, Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Beck Anxiety Inventory, and Medical Outcome Study Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). RESULTS: At Week 12, duloxetine-treated patients reported significantly greater global improvement with mean PGI-I scores of 2.8 compared to 3.4 in the placebo group (p < 0.001). Significantly more duloxetine- versus placebo-treated patients (57% vs 32%; p < 0.001) reported feeling "much" or "very much better" (PGI-I score ≤ 2). There was significantly greater improvement with duloxetine versus placebo treatment in BPI average pain severity, mood (including BDI total), anxiety (patient-rated only), stiffness, CGI-S, fatigue, all SF-36 domains (except role-physical and physical component summary), and being less bothered by pain or sleep difficulties. Treatment-emergent adverse events occurring significantly more frequently with duloxetine included: nausea, headache, constipation, dry mouth, dizziness, diarrhea, and hyperhidrosis. CONCLUSION: Treatment with duloxetine 60, 90, and 120 mg/day was associated with feeling much better, pain reduction, being less bothered by sleep difficulties, and improvement in mood, stiffness, fatigue and functioning. (Clinical trial registry NCT00673452).
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".