Efficacy and safety of mexiletine in non-dystrophic myotonias: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The MYOMEX study was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study aimed to compare the effects of mexiletine vs. placebo in patients with myotonia congenita (MC) and paramyotonia congenita (PC). The primary endpoint was the self-reported score of stiffness severity on a 100 mm visual analogic scale (VAS). Mexiletine treatment started at 200 mg/day and was up-titrated by 200 mg increment each three days to reach a maximum dose of 600 mg/day for total treatment duration of 18 days for each cross-over period. The modified intent-to-treat population included 25 patients (13 with MC and 12 with PC; mean age, 43.0 years; male, 68.0%). The median VAS score for mexiletine was 71.0 at baseline and decreased to 16.0 at the end of the treatment while the score did not change for placebo (81.0 at baseline vs. 78.0 at end of treatment). A mixed effects linear model analysis on ranked absolute changes showed a significant effect of treatment (p < 0.001). The overall score of the Individualized Neuromuscular Quality of Life questionnaire (INQoL) was significantly improved (p < 0.001). No clinically significant adverse events were reported. In conclusion, mexiletine improved stiffness and quality of life in patients with nondystrophic myotonia and was well tolerated.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".