Duloxetine in the long-term management of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain: An open-label, 52-week extension of a randomized controlled clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Duloxetine hydrochloride, a selective serotonin (5-HT) and norepinephrine (NE) reuptake inhibitor, is relatively balanced in its affinity for both 5-HT and NE reuptake inhibition and is the first US Food and Drug Administration-approved prescription drug for the management of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether management of DPNP with duloxetine interferes with the treatment of diabetes. It also examined the tolerability of long-term exposure to duloxetine with regard to the progression of diabetic complications, and assessed the impact of DPNP management with duloxetine versus routine care. METHODS: This was a 52-week, multicenter, re-randomized, open-label extension of a parallel, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, acute (12-week) study. Patients who completed the duloxetine or placebo acute treatment period were randomly reassigned in a 2:1 ratio to treatment with duloxetine 60 mg BID or routine care for an additional 52 weeks. The study included male and female outpatients aged ≥18 years with a diagnosis of DPNP caused by type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Over the course of the 52-week study, visits were scheduled on the following weeks (of the extension phase of the study): 1 (via phone only), 2, 4, 8, 12, 20, 28, 40, and 52. Tolerability was assessed by review and analyses of discontinuation rates, adverse events (AEs), laboratory data, vital signs, electrocardiographic results, concomitant medications, and diabetic complications. Treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) were defined as AEs that appeared during therapy (were not present at baseline) or were exacerbated during treatment. Data on AEs and concomitant medications were collected at every visit. Data on blood pressure, heart rate, and significant hypoglycemic events were collected at every visit starting from week 2. Fasting clinical chemistry and electrolyte group laboratory assessments were done at every visit, starting from week 4. Electrocardiographic data was collected at weeks 4 and 52, and glycosylated hemoglobin and lipid profile data were collected at weeks 20 and 52. Hematology and urinalysis laboratory assessments and diabetic complication assessments were done at week 52. All safety data was assessed in cases of early discontinuation. Treatment differences on quality of life (QOL) were compared using the Short Form-36 Health Status Survey (SF-36) and the EQ-5D instrument of the European Health-Related Quality of Life Measures. This was assessed at the last visit or at early discontinuation. RESULTS: The open-label extension-phase study included 337 patients (duloxetine, n = 222; routine care, n = 115). For the duloxetine group, mean age was 60.2 years, 61.3% were male, and 78.4% were white. For the routine-care group, mean age was 58.9 years, 60.0% were male, and 74.8% were white. Mean weight was 95.3 kg for both groups. None of the TEAEs occurred significantly more often in the duloxetine-treated group than in the routine-care-treated group. No TEAEs were reported by >10% of patients in the duloxetine group. The TEAEs reported by >10% of patients in the routine-care group included dizziness (11.3%), somnolence (13.0%), headache (10.4%), and vomiting (10.4%). No significant differences were found between treatment groups in the occurrence of serious AEs or in the number of patients discontinuing because of AEs. Duloxetine was significantly better than routine care on the bodily pain subscale of the SF-36 (mean change: 1.5 vs -4.1; P= 0.021) and on the EQ-5D (mean change: -0.00 vs -0.09; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Over 52 weeks of follow-up, treatment of these diabetic patients with duloxetine for peripheral neuropathic pain was associated with outcomes similar to, or significantly better than, that of routine care on most measures of tolerability, diabetic complications, and QOL.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".