A Phase 3, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled 14-Week Study of Mirogabalin in Chinese Patients with Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is no approved effective drug for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) in China. Gabapentinoids including mirogabalin have shown promise, although data in Chinese patients are scarce. METHODS: This phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial investigated the efficacy and safety of mirogabalin for treating DPNP in China. Mirogabalin was administered at 5 mg twice daily for the first week and uptitrated to 15 mg twice daily for a total duration of 14 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline in weekly average daily pain score (ADPS) at week 14; secondary endpoints included the ADPS responder rate, Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire visual analogue scale score, patient global impression of change (PGIC), average daily sleep interference score (ADSIS), EuroQol 5-dimensions 5-levels (EQ-5D-5L), and incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS: Of 393 patients (mirogabalin, n = 196; placebo n = 197), the mean age was 58.2 years (mirogabalin, 58.7 years; placebo, 57.7 years) and 54.2% were male (mirogabalin, 56.1%; placebo, 52.3%). Mirogabalin elicited a greater change from baseline in the weekly ADPS vs. placebo at week 14: least-squares mean difference (95% confidence interval) vs. placebo - 0.39 (- 0.74, - 0.04), p = 0.0301. PGIC, ADSIS, and EQ-5D-5L data reflected significantly better improvements for patients receiving mirogabalin vs. placebo. The incidence of TEAEs was 75.0% and 75.1% in the mirogabalin and placebo groups, respectively. Most TEAEs were mild or moderate, and the incidence of TEAEs leading to treatment discontinuation was 2.6% in the mirogabalin group and 1.5% in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Although the effect size of mirogabalin was reduced due to the placebo effect, mirogabalin is a safe and effective treatment option for Chinese patients with DPNP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT04094662.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".