MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3129197033 · doi:10.1186/s13063-021-05088-w

The effect of a topical combination of clonidine and pentoxifylline on post-traumatic neuropathic pain patients: study protocol for a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial

2021· article· en· W3129197033 on OpenAlexaffabout
Oli Abate Fulas, André Laferrière, Derry Ware, Yoram Shir, Terence J. Coderre

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
FundersU.S. National Library of MedicineNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineClonidineNeuropathic painPentoxifyllineAnesthesiaPlaceboRandomized controlled trialVisual analogue scaleClinical trialAllodyniaPregabalinRandomizationNociceptionPharmacologyInternal medicineHyperalgesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: First-line pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain entails the use of systemic antidepressants and anticonvulsants. These drugs are not optimally effective and poorly tolerated, especially for older patients with comorbid conditions. Given the high number of such patients, there is a need for a greater repertoire of safer and more effective analgesics. Clonidine and pentoxifylline are vasodilator agents that work synergistically to enhance tissue perfusion and oxygenation. The topical administration of these drugs, individually and in combination, has shown anti-nociceptive properties in rodent models of neuropathic pain. A topically-administered combination of clonidine and pentoxifylline also effectively reduced the intensity of both spontaneous and evoked pain in healthy volunteers with experimentally-induced neuropathic pain. The next step in advancing this formulation to clinical use is the undertaking of a phase II clinical study to assess its efficacy and safety in neuropathic pain patients. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a study protocol for a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II clinical trial with a cross-over design. It is a single-centered, 5-week study that will enroll a total of 32 patients with post-traumatic peripheral neuropathic pain. Patients will be treated topically with either a combination of clonidine and pentoxifylline or placebo for a period of 2 weeks each, in randomly assigned order across patients, with an intervening washout period of 1 week. The primary outcome measures of the study are the intensity of spontaneous pain recorded daily in a pain diary with a visual analog scale, and the degree of mechanical allodynia evoked by a brush stimulus. The secondary outcome measures of the study include scores of pain relief and change in the area of punctate hyperalgesia. This trial has been prospectively registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on November 1, 2017. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03342950 . DISCUSSION: The analgesic use of topical treatment with clonidine and pentoxifylline in combination has not been investigated in post-traumatic neuropathic pain. This study could generate the first evidence for the efficacy and safety of the formulation in alleviating pain in patients with neuropathic pain. Furthermore, this trial will provide objective grounds for the investigation of other agents that enhance tissue oxygenation in the topical treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial has been registered with ClinicalTrials.gov owned by NIH's US National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03342950 . Registered on November 1, 2017 (trial was prospectively registered). PROTOCOL VERSION AND IDENTIFIERS: This is protocol version 5, dated June 2018. McGill University Health Center (MUHC) Reaseach Ethics Board (REB) identification number: TTNP 2018-3906.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.334 · 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.

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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207