Pain Reduction in Linzagolix‐Treated Patients With Uterine Fibroids: A Secondary Mediation Analysis of the <scp>PRIMROSE</scp> 1 and 2 Phase 3 Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Among women with uterine fibroids (UFs), we assess the extent to which the linzagolix effect on pain alleviation is explained by its effect on reducing heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) and fibroid volume (FV). DESIGN: Post hoc analysis on the pooled data from two randomised double-blind placebo-controlled phase 3 trials. SETTING: 94 sites in the US (PRIMROSE 1 trial) and 95 sites in Europe/US (PRIMROSE 2 trial). POPULATION: Women aged ≥ 18 years with ultrasound-confirmed UFs and HMB (n = 1012). METHODS: Participants were randomised to linzagolix (100 mg and 200 mg, with and without hormonal add-back therapy) versus placebo. A post hoc mediation analysis was conducted on the pooled PRIMROSE 1 and PRIMROSE 2 data. The effect of linzagolix versus placebo on pain reduction was divided into three components (effect explained by HMB reduction associated with linzagolix, FV reduction associated with linzagolix, and remaining [not yet explained] treatment effect), with proportions of each component reported. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The mediation analysis outcome was clinically significant pain reduction, defined as a change of ≥ 2 pain categories from baseline to Week 24 using the Numeric Rating Scale (pain categories: no pain (0), and mild (1-3), moderate (4-6), severe pain (7-10)). RESULTS: In the mediation analysis, 28%-51% (depending on treatment arm) of linzagolix effect on pain reduction was explained by its effect on HMB reduction, while 2%-8% was explained by its effect on FV reduction. The residual proportion ranged between 44% and 67%, depending on treatment arm, and was statistically significant only in the linzagolix 200 mg without add-back therapy arm (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis showed that reductions in pain were significantly mediated by reductions in HMB (all doses) and FV (200 mg alone) in linzagolix-treated women with UFs. Further research is needed to identify additional mediating factors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03070899 and NCT03070951.
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 | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".