Long‐term safety and efficacy of mirogabalin in Asian patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS/INTRODUCTION: δ-2 subunits, showed efficacy and safety in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 14-week study in Asian patients with DPNP. This open-label extension study evaluated the long-term safety and efficacy of mirogabalin in Asian patients with DPNP. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This 52-week open-label extension study was carried out in Japan, Korea and Taiwan in patients with DPNP. Patients received mirogabalin, initiated at 5 mg twice daily and increased to a flexible maintenance dosage of 10 or 15 mg twice daily. Adverse events were monitored throughout the study. Patients provided a self-assessment of pain using the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire. RESULTS: Of the 214 patients who entered the study, 172 (80.4%) completed the extension study. Of 172 patients who completed the study, 149 received the highest dosage of mirogabalin (15 mg twice daily). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nasopharyngitis, diabetic retinopathy, peripheral edema, somnolence, diarrhea, increased weight and dizziness. Most treatment-emergent adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation was 13.1%. The visual analog scale and all other Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire subscales (sensory score, affective score, total score and present pain intensity) generally decreased over time from baseline until week 52. CONCLUSIONS: This extension study showed the safety and efficacy of a long-term flexible dosing regimen of mirogabalin 10 or 15 mg twice daily in patients with DPNP.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".