Patients With Short Bowel on Narcotics During 2 Randomized Trials Have Abdominal Complaints Independent of Teduglutide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Narcotic agents are frequently administered to manage increased intestinal motility in patients with short bowel syndrome, but long-term use is associated with gastrointestinal (GI) complaints. This analysis evaluated the incidence of narcotic use and abdominal adverse events among patients with short bowel syndrome receiving teduglutide. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pooled data from patients who received ≥1 dose of teduglutide 0.05 mg/kg/d (n = 77) or placebo (n = 59) in either of 2 randomized, double-blind, phase III studies were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 136 patients, 52 (38%) received narcotics. GI adverse events occurred more often among patients who received narcotics than among those who did not (abdominal pain, 51% vs 21%; nausea, 42% vs 11%; abdominal distension, 17% vs 8%; vomiting, 19% vs 6%). Logistic regression analysis indicated that the probability of GI adverse events was significantly increased in patients with narcotic use ( P = .0009). In contrast, teduglutide treatment, as well as the interaction between teduglutide and narcotic use, did not affect the probability of GI adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that patients with short bowel syndrome receiving narcotics have chronic GI complaints independent of teduglutide treatment. Data included in this analysis were derived from ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00081458 and NCT00798967 (EudraCT 2004-000438-35 and 2008-006193-15).
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 | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".