MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982328010 · doi:10.36076/ppj.2018.2.179

A Randomized, Double-Blind Study of the Effects ofa Sustained Release Formulation of Sodium Nitrite(SR-nitrite) on Patients with Diabetic Neuropathy

2018· article· en· W2982328010 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amol Soin

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Physician · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSodium nitriteNitriteDouble blindRandomized controlled trialAnesthesiaAmyl nitriteDiabetic neuropathyDiabetes mellitusPharmacologyInternal medicineEndocrinologyFood sciencePathologyNitrateAlternative medicinePlaceboOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Sodium nitrite has been reported to be effective in reducing chronic peripheral pain. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of 40 and 80 mg, BID, of an oral sustained release formulation of sodium nitrite (SR-nitrite) in patients suffering from diabetic neuropathy, and to determine whether SR-nitrite would reduce the frequency of headaches reported previously by subjects receiving the same doses of an immediate release formulation. STUDY DESIGN: Phase II, single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled clinical trial. SETTING: The Ohio Pain Clinic and Kettering Medical Center. METHODS: Twenty-four patients were randomized to 40 mg or 80 mg SR-nitrite or placebo twice daily for 12 weeks. The primary objective was to determine whether headaches would be reduced using SR-nitrite. The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean difference in the change of the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) pain score from baseline to that reported after 12 weeks of treatment. Secondary endpoints included changes from baseline for the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Scale, the RAND 36 questionnaire, Short Form McGill Questionnaire, daily patient reported score for neuropathic pain, changes in HbA1c, PulseOx and quantitative sensory testing. RESULTS: The number of subjects reporting adverse events and the number of adverse events did not change with dose. There were no reports of treatment-related headaches. Although no significant differences were identified in patient responses to the questionnaires, a trend was observed. In the NPSI assessment, patients in the 40 mg and 80 mg dose group reported a 12.7% and 22.0% reduction in pain, respectively, compared to an 8.4% reduction by patients in the placebo group. A trend was also observed with the BPI total severity score. However, the 40 mg dosing group reported the greatest reduction in pain using the McGill Pain index and via patient logs of daily pain scores, where the mean of pain scores reported by subjects in the 40 mg group dropped by day 41 and generally stayed lower than the mean of scores reported by subjects in either of the other two groups. Patients in the 80 mg SR-nitrite group had an improvement in both Nerve Sensory Conductance and Nerve Sensory Velocity. No changes were observed in HbA1c levels or PulseOx. LIMITATIONS: Small sample size. CONCLUSION: Sustained release sodium nitrite prevents the prevalent reports of headaches by patients treated with an immediate release formulation of sodium nitrite. In a previous study of patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD), 40 mg BID treatment led to a statistically significant reduction in reported pain, similar trends were observed at the end of the trial period for most of the pain questionnaires used in the study. The 80 mg BID treatment had the more pronounced affect on bioactivity (quantitative sensory testing), which was similar to the PAD study, where this dose group had the greatest improvement in FMD {AU: spell out FMD}. The ability to alleviate pain with BID treatment of SR-nitrite offers promise for a new non-addictive, non-sedating treatment of chronic pain and warrants further study. KEY WORDS: Diabetes, diabetic neuropathy, neuropathic pain, peripheral neuropathy, sodium nitrite.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePain PhysicianSame topicPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207