Efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose combination of nimesulide/pantoprazole compared to naproxen/esomeprazole for pain relief in patients with osteoarticular diseases and dyspeptic symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study investigated the safety and efficacy of fixed-dose combination tablets of naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium and nimesulide/pantoprazole to determine if both regimens are equally suited to relieve pain in patients with osteoarticular diseases and dyspeptic symptoms. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either nimesulide/pantoprazole (100 mg/20 mg) twice daily or naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium (500 mg/20 mg) twice daily for 14 days. The primary endpoint was defined as the mean change in modified Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain subscale. Secondary endpoints were mean visual analog scale score of dyspeptic symptoms (nausea, abdominal discomfort/pain, epigastric burning, postprandial fullness), mean visual analog scale score of individual dyspeptic symptoms, and individual score of dyspeptic symptoms according to patient diary. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01670552. RESULTS: A total of 490 patients were enrolled and randomized, and 399 completed treatment (naproxen/esomeprazole, n=201; nimesulide/pantoprazole, n=198). The difference in mean change in the modified Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain score after 7 days of treatment between the two treatment groups was 2.33 mm (95% CI, -1.22 to 5.89 mm). After 14 days of therapy, the difference was 0.45 mm (95% CI, -3.29 to 4.19 mm). The most common adverse events in the pooled group were abdominal discomfort, abdominal distention, dyspepsia, and nausea, but none of these was deemed to be clinically meaningful. CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrated noninferiority of a 14-day regimen with a fixed-dose combination of nimesulide/pantoprazole compared to naproxen/esomeprazole for the treatment of osteoarticular pain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".