MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946850832 · doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.10.004

Effects of Alcohol Administered with Flibanserin in Healthy Premenopausal Women: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Single-Dose Crossover Study

2019· article· en· W2946850832 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
James A. Simon, Anita H. Clayton, Sharon J. Parish, Stuart C. Apfel, L. Millheiser

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJanssen PharmaceuticalsOffice of Public AffairsSage TherapeuticsBausch HealthNew England Research InstitutesAllerganTakeda Pharmaceutical CompanyAbbVie
KeywordsHypoactive sexual desire disorderOrthostatic vital signsPlaceboCrossover studyMedicineAdverse effectAnesthesiaRandomized controlled trialBlood pressureInternal medicineSexual desire

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Flibanserin is approved in the United States and Canada for the treatment of hypoactive sexual desire disorder in premenopausal women. AIM: The purpose of this trial was to evaluate the safety of concomitant administration of flibanserin with alcohol. METHODS: In this single-center, randomized, double-blind, single-dose, crossover study, participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 12 sequences to receive each of 7 treatments: flibanserin 100 mg or placebo with ethanol 0.2 g/kg, 0.4 g/kg, or 0.6 g/kg, or flibanserin 100 mg only. Treatments were administered using a worst-case approach that included morning dosing and consumption of alcohol within 10 minutes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary end point was the proportion of participants who experienced dizziness, syncope, or hypotension. Safety end points included orthostatic vital signs. RESULTS: The study included 96 premenopausal women (mean age 31 ± 8 years). The incidence of dizziness for ethanol + flibanserin was 39.8% for ethanol 0.6 g/kg, 34.1% for 0.4 g/kg, and 27.4% for 0.2 g/kg compared with 31.1% for flibanserin without ethanol. Based on the available vital signs data, there was no effect of ethanol concentration on orthostatic blood pressure, vertigo, or hypotension; no instances of syncope were observed. The overall incidence of adverse events (AEs) was similar when flibanserin was administered alone (96.7%) or with ethanol (90.5-97.6%). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Consumption of the tested amounts of alcohol (0.2-0.6 g/kg) does not have an additive effect on the AE profile of flibanserin 100 mg in healthy premenopausal women. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: Strengths include the study population (premenopausal women, as indicated for flibanserin) and range of ethanol doses. Limitations include the morning dosing of study medication, which is inconsistent with the bedtime dosing recommended for flibanserin, and the method of handling missing vital sign measurements. CONCLUSION: Co-administration of flibanserin 100 mg with varying doses of ethanol resulted in few AEs of special interest, with no notable alcohol dose response. However, a significantly greater percentage of participants administered flibanserin with 0.6 g/kg and 0.4 g/kg of alcohol were characterized as "Participants in Whom Standing Blood Pressure Was Not Obtained" compared with participants administered flibanserin alone. Simon JA, Clayton AH, Parish SJ, et al. Effects of Alcohol Administered With Flibanserin in Healthy Premenopausal Women: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Single-Dose Crossover Study. J Sex Med 2020;17:83-93.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207