Tramadol Hydrochloride at Steady State Lacks Clinically Relevant QTc Interval Increases in Healthy Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated the effects of therapeutic and supratherapeutic doses of tramadol hydrochloride on the corrected QT (QTc) interval in healthy adults (aged 18-55 years) in a randomized, phase I, double-blind, placebo- and positive-controlled, multiple-dose, 4-way crossover study. Participants were randomized to receive 1 of 4 treatments (A-D), 1 each in 4 treatment periods (1-4), separated by a washout period (7-15 days). Treatment A comprised tramadol 400 mg (therapeutic dose) on days 1 through 3, tramadol 100 mg and moxifloxacin-matched placebo on day 4, and placebo on all 4 days. Treatment B comprised tramadol 600 mg (supratherapeutic dose) on days 1 through 3, and tramadol 150 mg and moxifloxacin-matched placebo on day 4. Treatment C comprised placebo on days 1 through 4 and moxifloxacin-matched placebo on day 4. Treatment D comprised placebo on days 1 through 4 and moxifloxacin 400 mg on day 4. Of 68 participants enrolled, 57 (83.8%) completed the study. Both therapeutic and supratherapeutic doses of tramadol were shown to be noninferior to placebo regarding their effect on QTc prolongation. Sixty-one of 68 (89.7%) participants reported at least 1 treatment-emergent adverse event (mild); nausea was the most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse event. Summarizing, tramadol at doses up to 600 mg/day did not cause clinically relevant QTc interval prolongation in healthy adults.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".