A Randomized, Double Blind, Placebo Controlled, Parallel-Group Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Curene® versus Placebo in Reducing Symptoms of Knee OA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: extract comprising naturally derived curcuminoids formulated with proprietary Aquasome® technology. Curcuminoids were found to have anti-inflammatory properties by inhibiting Cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) and 5-lipoxygenase (5-LOX) enzyme and hence have potential application in the treatment of Osteoarthritis (OA). To evaluate the safety and efficacy of Curene® a randomized, double blind, placebo controlled, parallel-group study was conducted in subjects with knee OA. Significant improvements in clinical endpoints were observed during the trial along with excellent safety profile. METHODS: Fifty (50) subjects aged between 40 and 75 years who were suffering from unilateral or bilateral OA of the knee for greater than 3 months according to American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria were enrolled. They were randomized into two treatment groups; one group received Curene® 500 mg once daily and the other group received placebo. Efficacy was evaluated using change from baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score. Biochemical and hematological parameters including urine analysis were performed to evaluate the safety of Curene® in OA patients. RESULT: Forty-six (46) subjects completed the study. The reduction from baseline in total WOMAC score (also subscale scores) and VAS score resulted in statistically significant difference when compared to placebo. It was also found to be safe and well tolerated as there was no incidence of treatment related AEs. CONCLUSION: Curene® results in statistically significant and clinically meaningful reduction in pain, stiffness, and improvement in physical functioning in subjects suffering from knee OA. Curene® also demonstrates excellent safety profile during the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered with Clinical Trial Registry, India, CTRI/2017/07/009044, registered on 14th July 2017, http://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/showallp.php?mid1=19264&EncHid=&userName=ocius%20life%20sciences.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".