Christine R. West

Tanezumab Reduces Osteoarthritic Knee Pain: Results of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Trial

UNLABELLED The objective of this study was to compare the analgesic efficacy of tanezumab versus placebo in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. This was a 32-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial (NCT00733902). The patient criteria included diagnosis of OA; Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index (WOMAC) Pain and Physical Function subscale scores of ≥5 and ≥4, respectively; Patients Global Assessment of Osteoarthritis (PGA) ≥3; and failure of nonopiate pain medications or candidacy for invasive interventions. Patients received 3 intravenous doses of tanezumab (2.5, 5, or 10 mg) or placebo. The co-primary efficacy end points were changes in WOMAC subscales and PGA at week 16. Adverse events were monitored throughout. Overall, 690 patients (61% female) were randomized and treated. Those treated with tanezumab showed significant improvement in the 3 co-primary end points (P ≤ .015 for all). The incidence of adverse events was 55 to 60% for tanezumab-treated patients versus 48% for placebo-treated patients. Joint replacement was reported in 4 patients, 1 in each treatment group; a total of 5 joints were replaced (1 index knee and 4 hips). The tanezumab OA clinical program is currently on clinical hold due to potential adverse reactions leading to joint replacement. PERSPECTIVE This is the first phase III randomized, controlled trial to demonstrate that nerve growth factor blockade by tanezumab has superior analgesic efficacy in OA of the knee compared with placebo. Tanezumab was well tolerated, and reports of worsening OA and/or joint replacement were evenly distributed across the treatment groups.

Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Celecoxib in Alzheimer’s Disease

Background/Aims: Cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) may play an important role in the neuropathology of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The efficacy and safety of celecoxib (200 mg bid), a COX-2 selective inhibitor, were assessed in patients ≧50 years with established mild-to-moderate AD to determine whether treatment was effective in retarding deterioration of cognitive function. Methods: This was a 52-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. The primary efficacy end points were the change from baseline to week 52 in the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Behavior (ADAS-cog) composite score and the week 52 Clinician’s Interview-Based Impression of Change Plus (CIBIC+). Results: At 52 weeks, change in ADAS-cog scores from baseline was similar for placebo and celecoxib 200 mg bid groups (5.00 and 4.39, respectively). CIBIC+ scores were also similar (4.83 and 4.92). Two extension studies were conducted but were terminated early based on these efficacy results. Safety data from all 3 studies indicated that celecoxib was generally well-tolerated. Conclusion: Celecoxib 200 mg bid did not slow the progression of AD in this study, and the occurrence of adverse events was as expected for an elderly population with a complex chronic medical condition.

A phase III placebo- and oxycodone-controlled study of tanezumab in adults with osteoarthritis pain of the hip or knee

Summary Tanezumab is efficacious in a phase III clinical trial of patients with moderate to severe osteoarthritis pain of the hip or knee. ABSTRACT Tanezumab is a humanized monoclonal antinerve growth factor antibody in development for treatment of chronic pain. In a phase III, placebo‐ and active‐controlled study, we investigated the efficacy and safety of tanezumab for osteoarthritis (OA) hip or knee pain. Patients (N = 610) received up to 2 doses of intravenous tanezumab (5 or 10 mg in 8‐week intervals), controlled‐release oral oxycodone (10 to 40 mg every 12 hours), or placebo. The primary endpoint was mean change from baseline to week 8 in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain score for tanezumab versus placebo and oxycodone. Secondary endpoints included change from baseline in WOMAC Physical Function and Stiffness scores, Patients Global Assessment (PGA) of OA, and patient response, defined as ≥30%, ≥50%, ≥70%, and ≥90% improvement from baseline in WOMAC Pain score. Tolerability and safety also were assessed. Both tanezumab groups demonstrated significant improvements in WOMAC Pain score versus placebo (P < .001) and oxycodone (P ≤ .018). Tanezumab also provided significant improvements versus placebo and oxycodone for WOMAC Physical Function and Stiffness scores and PGA of OA (P ≤ .002 for all) at week 8. For all analyses, oxycodone did not differ from placebo. Adverse event frequency was higher with oxycodone (63.3%) than tanezumab (40.7% to 44.7%) or placebo (35.5%); serious adverse event frequency was similar among treatments. The adverse event profile for tanezumab was similar to previous tanezumab studies. Results indicate that tanezumab is efficacious in the treatment of OA pain; no new safety signals were identified.

Efficacy and safety of tanezumab versus naproxen in the treatment of chronic low back pain

&NA; Tanezumab provides significantly greater improvement in pain, function, and global scores versus placebo and naproxen in patients with chronic low back pain. &NA; Tanezumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that specifically inhibits nerve growth factor as a treatment for chronic pain. This phase IIB study investigated the efficacy and safety of tanezumab for chronic low back pain vs placebo and naproxen. Patients (N = 1347) received intravenous tanezumab (5, 10, or 20 mg every 8 weeks), naproxen (500 mg twice daily), or placebo. The primary efficacy end point was mean change in daily average low back pain intensity (LBPI) from baseline to week 16. Secondary end points included mean change from baseline to week 16 in the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire and Patient’s Global Assessment (PGA) of low back pain. Tanezumab 10 and 20 mg had similar efficacy profiles and significantly improved LBPI, Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, and PGA scores vs both placebo and naproxen (P ≤ .05). Tanezumab 5 mg provided improvement of PGA scores vs placebo (P ≤ .05), and naproxen resulted in significant improvement of LBPI vs placebo (P ≤ .05). Adverse event incidence was comparable across tanezumab doses but higher than with placebo or naproxen. Arthralgia, pain in extremity, headache, and paresthesia were the most commonly reported adverse events by tanezumab‐treated patients. The most frequently reported adverse events resulting in discontinuation of tanezumab treatment were arthralgia and paresthesia; the highest frequency was observed with tanezumab 20 mg (both 1.4%). Serious adverse event incidence was similar across treatments. In conclusion, tanezumab provided significantly greater improvement in pain, function, and global scores vs placebo and naproxen in patients with chronic low back pain.

Efficacy and safety of tanezumab monotherapy or combined with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of knee or hip osteoarthritis pain

OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether subjects with knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA) pain on non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) received greater benefit when tanezumab monotherapy replaced or was coadministered with NSAIDs. METHODS Subjects (N=2700) received intravenous tanezumab (5 or 10 mg) or placebo every 8 weeks with or without oral naproxen 500 mg twice daily or celecoxib 100 mg twice daily. Efficacy was assessed as change from baseline to week 16 in three co-primary endpoints: Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain, WOMAC Physical Function and Patients Global Assessment (PGA) of OA. Safety assessments included adverse events, physical and neurological examinations, laboratory tests and vital signs. RESULTS Although all tanezumab treatments provided significant improvements in WOMAC Pain and Physical Function over either NSAID alone, only tanezumab+NSAIDs were significant versus NSAIDs with PGA and met the prespecified definition of superiority. Combination treatment did not substantially improve pain or function over tanezumab monotherapy. Adverse event frequency was higher with tanezumab than with NSAIDs and highest with combination therapy. Higher incidence of all-cause total joint replacements occurred with tanezumab+NSAID versus tanezumab monotherapy or NSAIDs. Rapidly progressive OA incidence was significantly greater versus NSAID in all tanezumab groups except tanezumab 5 mg monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS Subjects receiving partial symptomatic relief of OA pain with NSAIDs may receive greater benefit with tanezumab monotherapy. While only coadministration of tanezumab with NSAIDs met the definition of superiority, combination treatment did not provide important benefits over tanezumab monotherapy; small differences in efficacy were negated by treatment-limiting or irreversible safety outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT00809354.

Efficacy and safety of tanezumab added on to diclofenac sustained release in patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre phase III randomised clinical trial

Objectives Tanezumab, a monoclonal antibody, inhibits nerve growth factor and reduces chronic pain. This randomised, double-blind, controlled multicentre study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tanezumab added to oral diclofenac sustained release (DSR) in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA) pain. Methods Patients (N=604) with moderate to severe knee or hip OA tolerating stable DSR were randomised and treated with DSR 75 mg twice daily combined with intravenous tanezumab 10, 5 or 2.5 mg or placebo at weeks 0, 8 and 16. Co-primary efficacy endpoints (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index (WOMAC) Pain and Physical Function subscales and patients global assessment of OA) were assessed at week 16. Results All co-primary endpoints were significantly improved for all tanezumab+DSR groups versus placebo+DSR (p≤0.039). The incidence of adverse events of abnormal peripheral sensation was lower than in previous tanezumab trials. No new safety signals emerged. Overall incidence of adverse events was higher with tanezumab+DSR (45.2%–49.7%) than with placebo+DSR (34.9%); serious adverse event rates were similar across treatments (5.3%–7.6%). Osteonecrosis was reported in six of 452 patients with tanezumab+DSR (1.3%), but an external adjudication committee did not confirm osteonecrosis in any patient. Conclusions Addition of tanezumab to DSR resulted in significant improvements in pain, function and global assessments in patients with OA. Although no new safety signals were observed, the higher incidence of adverse events in the tanezumab+diclofenac group suggests that combination therapy is unfavourable. Further investigations of tanezumab monotherapy for OA pain treatment are required. Clinical trial registration number NCT00864097

A Prospective Study Comparing Celecoxib with Naproxen in Children with Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis

Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of celecoxib and naproxen in children with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis (JRA). Methods In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, noninferiority study, subjects with JRA were randomized to receive a target dose of celecoxib 3 mg/kg bid or 6 mg/kg bid, or a target dose of naproxen 7.5 mg/kg bid for 12 weeks (maximum allowed dose = 600 mg total daily dose). The primary efficacy measure was the percentage of responders at Week 12 attaining the American College of Rheumatology pediatric 30% improvement criterion (ACR Pediatric-30). Results Both celecoxib doses were at least as effective as naproxen at Week 12 [ACR Pediatric-30 treatment differences: celecoxib 3 mg/kg bid – naproxen = 1.36% (95% CI –13.08 to 15.80); celecoxib 6 mg/kg bid – naproxen = 13.02% (95% CI –0.22 to 26.25)]. Celecoxib 6 mg/kg bid had a numerically higher response rate than celecoxib 3 mg/kg bid at all postrandomization visits and a numerically higher response rate than naproxen 7.5 mg/kg bid at Weeks 4, 8, and 12. Improvement in each ACR Pediatric-30 core set measure was comparable to or numerically higher for celecoxib 6 mg/kg bid than naproxen or celecoxib 3 mg/kg bid. Adverse event rates were similar for all treatment groups, except that gastrointestinal adverse events were more common in the naproxen group, although the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion Celecoxib 3 mg/kg bid and 6 mg/kg bid were at least as effective as naproxen 7.5 mg/kg bid in treating the signs and symptoms of JRA over 12 weeks. All treatments were generally well tolerated.

Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous Tanezumab for the Symptomatic Treatment of Osteoarthritis: 2 Randomized Controlled Trials versus Naproxen

Objective. Two studies evaluated efficacy and safety of tanezumab versus naproxen for treatment of knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA). Methods. Randomized controlled studies [NCT00830063 (Study 1015, n = 828) and NCT00863304 (Study 1018, n = 840)] of subjects with hip or knee OA compared intravenous tanezumab (5 mg or 10 mg) to placebo and naproxen (500 mg twice daily). Coprimary outcomes were Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain, WOMAC Physical Function (0–10 numerical rating scale), and patient’s global assessment of OA at Week 16. Results. In both studies, tanezumab reduced pain versus placebo [least squares mean differences, 95% CI, tanezumab 5 mg: −1.21 (−1.72, −0.70); −1.13 (−1.65, −0.62); tanezumab 10 mg: −0.91 (−1.42, −0.40); −0.80 (−1.32, −0.29)], and improved function and global scores. Tanezumab 5 mg produced greater pain reduction [−0.76 (−1.28, −0.25); −0.69 (−1.21, −0.17)], and favorable functional and global outcomes versus naproxen. Pain reductions with tanezumab 10 mg versus naproxen did not reach significance, unlike functional (both studies) and global (1 study) outcomes; thus, tanezumab 10 mg was not superior to naproxen, and predefined statistical testing procedures were not met, allowing for conclusion of superiority of tanezumab 5 mg over naproxen despite replicated favorable coprimary outcomes. Tanezumab was associated with greater incidence of peripheral sensory adverse events (paresthesia, hyperesthesia, hypoesthesia, burning sensation), pain in extremity, peripheral edema, and arthralgia. Overall frequency and discontinuations as a result of adverse events were similar to placebo and naproxen. Conclusion. Tanezumab provides efficacious treatment of knee or hip OA and may have therapeutic utility in patients with OA who experience inadequate analgesia with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs.

When Is Osteonecrosis Not Osteonecrosis?: Adjudication of Reported Serious Adverse Joint Events in the Tanezumab Clinical Development Program

Tanezumab, a monoclonal antibody against nerve growth factor, has demonstrated efficacy in clinical trials of chronic pain in osteoarthritis (OA) and chronic low back pain. Unexpected adverse events (AEs) described as osteonecrosis (ON) occurred during tanezumab development, leading the US Food and Drug Administration to impose a partial clinical hold for all indications except cancer pain. A blinded Adjudication Committee (AC) including orthopedic surgeons, rheumatologists, and an orthopedic pathologist reviewed and adjudicated joint‐related AEs in the tanezumab clinical program.

Exploring the Role of Tanezumab as a Novel Treatment for the Relief of Neuropathic Pain

OBJECTIVE Evaluate efficacy and safety of tanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody against nerve growth factor, in neuropathic pain. DESIGN Two randomized controlled trials. SUBJECTS Patients with pain due to diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) or postherpetic neuralgia (PHN). METHODS In the DPN study, patients received subcutaneous tanezumab 20 mg or placebo on Day 1 and Week 8. Evaluations included change from baseline in average DPN pain (primary endpoint), Patients Global Assessment of DPN, and safety (including neuropathy assessments). Due to a partial clinical hold limiting enrollment and treatment duration, the prespecified landmark analysis was modified post hoc from Week 16 to Week 8. In the PHN study, patients received intravenous tanezumab 50 μg/kg, tanezumab 200 μg/kg, or placebo on Day 1. Evaluations included change from baseline in average daily pain (primary endpoint), Brief Pain Inventory-short form, Patients Global Assessment of pain from PHN, and safety. RESULTS Mean DPN pain reduction from baseline to Week 8 was greater with tanezumab vs placebo (P = 0.009); differences in Patients Global Assessment of DPN were not significant (P > 0.05). Neither tanezumab dose resulted in significant differences vs placebo in efficacy in PHN (P > 0.05), although tanezumab 200 μg/kg provided some benefit. Neuropathy assessments showed no meaningful changes. CONCLUSIONS Tanezumab provided effective pain reduction in DPN. In PHN, only the highest tanezumab dose reduced pain; treatment differences were not significant. No new safety concerns were observed despite preexisting neuropathy.