Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35671086›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of pain (London, England)2022

NRD.E1, an innovative non-opioid therapy for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy-A randomized proof of concept study.

Eva Tiecke, Maurizio Rainisio, Elon Eisenberg, Julio Wainstein, Eli Kaplan, Michal Silverberg, Liat Hochman, Sara Mangialaio

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of pain (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 43% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Innovative Diabetes Therapies and Impact on Peripheral and Autonomic Diabetic Neuropathies: A State-of-the-Art Review.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Diabetic neuropathy: cutting-edge research and future directions.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2025
    Review
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Eva TieckeNovaremed AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Maurizio RainisioNovaremed AG, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-4450-5751
Elon EisenbergFaculty of Medicine, Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel.ORCID 0000-0003-3748-1349
Julio WainsteinWolson Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel.ORCID 0000-0002-2035-9243
Eli KaplanNovaremed AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Michal SilverbergNovaremed Ltd, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Liat HochmanNovaremed Ltd, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Sara MangialaioNovaremed AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Technion – Israel Institute of Technology · ILWolfson Medical Center · IL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPainful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN) affects up to 26% of patients with diabetes mellitus, with major impacts on their general health and well-being. Most available drugs fail to deliver acceptable pain reduction in the majority of patients and are often poorly tolerated. NRD.E1 is a novel product that has shown anti-nociceptive preclinical effects and good tolerability in healthy volunteer studies.

methodsThis phase 2a, randomized, dose-finding, Proof of Concept study enrolled patients with PDPN of ≥3 months duration. After at least one treatment-free week (WO week), 88 patients entered a 1-week single-blind (SB)-placebo run-in period, followed by 3 weeks' double-blind (DB) treatment, during which they received NRD.E1 at 10, 40 or 150 mg/day or placebo.

resultsThe primary endpoint (change from SB-placebo run-in week to week 3 in weekly mean of daily average numerical rating scale [NRS] pain intensity) showed clinically relevant placebo-corrected treatment effect pain reductions at 40 mg and 150 mg/day of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.07, 1.58, p = 0.034) and 0.66 (95% CI: -0.03, 1.35; p = 0.061) NRS points, respectively, though did not meet the pre-specified value of p = 0.016 required due to multiplicity. An additional post hoc endpoint looking at the change from WO baseline to week 3 in weekly mean of daily average NRS showed the placebo-corrected treatment effect was 1.46 (95% CI: 0.26, 2.66), and 1.20 (95% CI: 0.10, 2.29) NRS points, respectively. Secondary and post hoc analyses of NRS pain data (including 30 & 50% responder rate and NNT), sleep interference, Short-form McGill pain questionnaire (especially pain intensity assessed on Visual Analogue Scale), Patient's and Clinician's Global Impression of Change showed effects consistent with the primary findings. NRD.E1 was well tolerated, with only headache reported in more than two patients and more frequently on NRD.E1 than placebo.

conclusionsThe data suggest that NRD.E1 potentially represents a novel non-opioid therapeutic option for patients with PDPN, with at least similar efficacy and better tolerability than available therapies, justifying its further evaluation in larger-scale confirmatory studies. SIGNIFICANCE: NRD.E1 is a novel non-opioid therapeutic which is being developed for the treatment of PDPN. In this randomized, controlled, dose-finding, Proof of Concept study, NRD.E1 induced a clinically relevant pain reduction and it was well tolerated. Available data suggest that NRD.E1 has at least similar efficacy and better tolerability than the currently available therapies, potentially offering a promising new therapeutic option to patients with PDPN and possibly other neuropathic pain indications.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusDiabetic NeuropathiesNeuralgiaDouble-Blind MethodHumansPain MeasurementProof of Concept StudySingle-Blind MethodTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID35671086
PMCPMC9540529
OpenAlexW4281646373

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.