Long-term efficacy and safety of neridronate treatment in patients with complex regional pain syndrome type 1: a pre-specified, open-label, extension study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: No data on the permanent and curative effect of bisphosphonate treatment in patients with complex regional pain syndrome type-1 (CRPS-1) are currently available. The aim of this pre-specified, open-label, observational study was to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of neridronate treatment. Design: A pre-specified, open-label, extension study. Methods: Patients treated with intramuscular (IM) placebo in the double-blind phase of the study were assigned to 100 mg intravenous (IV) neridronate treatment administered 4 times over 10 days. These patients, together with those previously treated with 400 mg IM neridronate, were followed for 1 year. Efficacy was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score. Changes in clinical signs and symptoms, quality of life (QoL) using the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), and the McGill Pain Questionnaire were also assessed. Results: Benefits on pain, clinical and functional measures were maintained and further improved over 12 months in most patients treated with neridronate administered either IM or IV. In IM-treated patients, the percentage of those defined as responders (VAS score reduction ≥ 50%) progressively increased up to day 360 to 32 of 35 patients (91.4%). Among the 27 patients referred to as responders at the end of the double-blind phase, 26 reported the same result at day 360 (96.3%). In IV-treated patients, a responder rate of 88% (22 out 25) was found at day 360 (p = 0.66 between groups). Consistent improvements were also observed for all clinical signs and functional questionnaire. No drug-related adverse events were reported during the study. Conclusion: In patients with acute CRPS-1, the benefit in pain, clinical, and functional measures observed a few weeks after neridronate treatment administered either IM or IV is maintained and further improved over 12 months. Parenteral neridronate induces permanent disease remission preventing chronic pain and motor dysfunction. Trial registration: EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT Number): 2014-001156-28.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".