Intravenous neridronate in the treatment of acute painful knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was to assess the efficacy of i.v. neridronate in controlling pain in patients with acute painful knee OA. METHODS: Sixty-four patients with acute knee pain (<3 months duration) suffering from knee OA with an MRI showing bone marrow lesions (BMLs) were randomized to receive either neridronate 100 mg given four times over 10 days or placebo. After 50 days the patients underwent clinical assessment and a further MRI was performed. Primary outcome was pain changes measured by a visual analogue scale (VAS; range 0-100). Secondary endpoints were WOMAC pain score, McGill pain questionnaire and 36-Item Short Form Health Survey. BMLs were evaluated by whole-organ MRI score. RESULTS: At the day of the last infusion the VAS decreased significantly more in the neridronate group [from 59.0 (s.d. 14.7) to 30.4 (s.d. 15.6); -48.4%; P < 0.001]. Fifty days later the VAS remained unchanged in the placebo group, while a further significant decrease was observed in the neridronate group [from 30.4 (s.d. 15.6) to 9.4 (s.d. 10.8); -69.1%; P < 0.001]. Significant improvements compared with the placebo group were found for most of the other indices of pain and quality of life. The BMLs score in the neridronate group showed significant decreases compared with basal values and those of the placebo-treated patients. Four months after the treatment, 72% of the placebo-treated patients resumed analgesic or anti-inflammatory drugs, but only 12.9% resumed treatment in the neridronate group. CONCLUSION: In patients with acute painful knee OA, four infusions of neridronate are associated with a clinically relevant pain benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov), NCT01803360.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".