MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7061809369

Response to duloxetine in patients with knee pain due to osteoarthritis: an exploratory post hoc analysis of a Japanese Phase III randomized study

2018· article· en· W7061809369 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle accelerators and beam dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDuloxetineOsteoarthritisPlaceboPost-hoc analysisRandomized controlled trialAdverse effectQuality of life (healthcare)Knee pain
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Naohiro Itoh,1 Toshinaga Tsuji,1 Mitsuhiro Ishida,2 Toshimitsu Ochiai,3 Shinichi Konno,4 Yuji Uchio5 1Medical Affairs Department, Shionogi & Co. Ltd, Osaka, Japan; 2Clinical Development Department, Shionogi & Co. Ltd, Osaka, Japan; 3Biostatistics Center, Shionogi & Co. Ltd, Osaka, Japan; 4Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Fukushima Medical University, Fukushima, Japan; 5Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Shimane University School of Medicine, Shimane, Japan Purpose: To assess whether patients with knee osteoarthritis pain who have early pain reduction or treatment-related adverse events of special interest (TR-AESIs; constipation, decreased appetite, malaise, nausea, somnolence, thirst) with duloxetine treatment are more likely to have later improvements in pain and quality of life (QOL) relative to placebo than patients without these early indicators.Patients and methods: This was a post hoc analysis of 14-week randomized trial of Japanese patients with knee osteoarthritis pain (Brief Pain Inventory [BPI]-Severity average pain score ≥4) receiving duloxetine 60 mg/day (n=177 analyzed) or placebo (n=176). Primary trial outcome was change from baseline in BPI-Severity average pain at Week 14. Subgroups included early pain reduction (≥30%, 10%–30%, or <10% decrease in BPI-Severity average pain at Week 4) and early TR-AESIs (with/without TR-AESIs by Week 2). Measures included changes from baseline in BPI-Severity average pain, QOL (BPI-Interference, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index), Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), and response rate (proportion achieving ≥30% or ≥50% pain reduction at Week 14).Results: The ≥30% early pain reduction subgroup (n=93) had significantly greater improvements in pain, QOL, and PGI-I and higher ≥30% and ≥50% response rates than placebo; the 10%–30% (n=45) and the <10% (n=33) pain reduction subgroups did not show the same (except 10%–30% group: PGI-I at Week 10 and some QOL at Weeks 10 and/or 14). Both TR-AESI subgroups (with, n=52; without, n=125) had significantly greater improvements in pain, PGI-I, and most QOL measures and higher response rates than placebo.Conclusion: Early efficacy responses to duloxetine treatment, but not early TR-AESIs, may predict later pain reduction and QOL improvements in Japanese patients with knee osteoarthritis pain.ClinicalTrials. gov: NCT02248480. Keywords: Brief Pain Inventory, responder analysis, WOMAC

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.378 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicParticle accelerators and beam dynamicsFrench-language works237,207