Trial reportThe AAPS journal2012
Population analyses of efficacy and safety of ABT-594 in subjects with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain.
Trial report in The AAPS journal, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analogs of 6-Bromohypaphorine with Increased Agonist Potency for α7 Nicotinic Receptor as Anti-Inflammatory Analgesic Agents.Marine drugs · 2023Article
- Nicotine Evoked Currents in Human Primary Sensory Neurons.The journal of pain · 2019Article
- Nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in neuropathic and inflammatory pain.FEBS letters · 2018Review
- Review
- Nicotinic receptors in neurodegeneration.Current neuropharmacology · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ABT-594, a neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptor ligand, is 30- to 100-fold more potent than morphine in animal models of nociceptive and neuropathic pain. Efficacy and safety of ABT-594 in subjects with painful diabetic polyneuropathy was evaluated in a phase 2 study. The objective of this work was to use a nonlinear mixed effects model-based approach for characterizing the relationship between dose and response (efficacy and safety) of ABT-594. Subjects (N = 266) were randomized into four groups in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, 7-week study to receive twice daily regimens of placebo or 150, 225, and 300 μg of ABT-594. The primary efficacy variable, pain score (11-point Likert scale), was assessed on five occasions. The probability of change from baseline pain score of ≥1, ≥2, and ≥3 was modeled using cumulative logistic regression with dose and days of treatment as explanatory variables. The incidence of five most frequently occurring adverse events (AEs) was modeled using linear logistic regression. ABT-594 ED(50) values (improvement in 50% of subjects) for improvement in pain scores of ≥1, ≥2, and ≥3 were 50, 215, and 340 μg, respectively, for the average number of days (33) on treatment. The rank order of ED(50) values for AEs was nausea, vomiting, dizziness, headache, and abnormal dreams; nicotine users were less sensitive to AEs. Population pharmacodynamic models developed to characterize the improvement in pain score and incidence of adverse events indicate an approximately twofold separation between the ED(50) values for efficacy and AEs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.