Search

We sought to identify and characterize distinct responder profiles among osteoarthritis (OA) subjects treated with tanezumab, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), or placebo.Subject-level data were derived from three randomized, double-blind, placebo- or NSAID-controlled trials of tanezumab in subjects with moderate-to-severe OA. Subjects received subcutaneous tanezumab (2.5 mg, n = 1527; 5 mg, n = 1279) every 8 weeks, oral NSAIDs (n = 994) daily, or placebo (n = 513). Group-based trajectory modeling (GBTM, an application of finite mixture statistical modeling that uses response trajectory to identify and summarize complex patterns in longitudinal data) was used to identify subgroups of subjects following similar patterns of response in each treatment arm, based on daily pain intensity scores from baseline through Week 16. We then examined whether subject-related variables were associated with any of the subgroups using multinomial logistic regression.A three-subgroup/four-inflection point trajectory model was selected based on clinical and statistical considerations. The subgroups were high responders (substantial pain improvement and a large majority of members achieved ≥ 30% improvement before Week 16), medium responders (gradual pain improvement and a majority of members achieved ≥ 30% improvement by Week 16), and non-responders (little to no pain improvement over 16 weeks). Across all treatments, fluctuation in pain intensity in the week prior to treatment was consistently associated with treatment response. Other variables were positively (age, body mass index, days of rescue medication use) or negatively (severity of disease based on Kellgren-Lawrence grading) associated with response but effects were small and/or varied across treatments.Across all treatments, GBTM identified three subgroups of subjects that were characterized by extent of treatment response (high, medium, and non-responders). Similar analyses (e.g., grouping of subjects based on response trajectory and identification of subgroup-related variables) in other studies of OA could inform clinical trial design and/or treatment approaches. (NCT02697773; NCT02709486; NCT02528188).

Patients often take opioids to relieve osteoarthritis (OA) pain despite limited benefits and potential harms. This study aimed to compare cross-sectional perspectives of patients that were taking prescription opioid (N = 471) or nonopioid medications (N = 185) for OA in terms of satisfaction, expectations of effectiveness, and concerns. Patients prescribed opioids (>7 days) reported more prior treatments (2.47 vs. 1.74), greater mean pain intensity (5.47 vs. 4.11), and worse quality of life (EQ-5D-5L index value mean 0.45 vs. 0.71) than patients prescribed nonopioid medications (all p < 0.0001). Based on linear regression models adjusting for demographics and pain intensity, patients prescribed opioids were less satisfied with overall regimen (3.40 vs. 3.67, p = 0.0322), had less belief that medications were meeting effectiveness expectations (2.72 vs. 3.13, p < 0.0001), and had more concerns about treatments being “not very good” (3.66 vs. 3.22, p = 0.0026) and addiction (3.30 vs. 2.65, p < 0.0001) than patients prescribed nonopioid regimens. When the models were replicated for subgroups with ≥30 days’ medication regimen duration, the findings were consistent with the main analyses. Patients have concerns about the risk of opioid addiction, but those with greater disease burden and more prior treatments continue taking opioid regimens.

In this study, researchers looked at the safety of tanezumab (a medication that blocks nerve growth factor) in Japanese people with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Researchers also looked at how well tanezumab improves the symptoms (pain and difficulty doing activities) of CLBP. People in the study were given oral (taken by mouth) celecoxib (a medication commonly used to treat CLBP) or injections of tanezumab (5 or 10 mg doses) under the skin of the belly or upper leg every 8 weeks for a total of 56 weeks. Side effects (something expected or unexpected that people experienced during the study that may or may not be due to the medication they received) occurred in 63.0% of people receiving tanezumab 5 mg, 54.8% of people receiving tanezumab 10 mg and 67.4% of patients receiving celecoxib. More people receiving tanezumab 5 mg (9.8% of people) had a side effect related to abnormal peripheral sensation (tingling, burning, numbness or sensitivity to heat or cold hands or feet) than people receiving tanezumab 10 mg (4.3% of people) or celecoxib (4.3% of people). More people receiving tanezumab (5 mg = 1.1% of people, 10 mg = 2.2% of people) had a problem with one of their joints (knees or hips) during the study than people receiving celecoxib (0% of people). All treatments improved pain and the ability to do activities. Overall, the researchers concluded that tanezumab was well tolerated in most people and may improve the symptoms of CLBP.

Opioids are often prescribed for osteoarthritis (OA) pain, despite recommendations to limit use due to minimal benefits and associated harms. This study aimed to assess physicians’ practice patterns and perceptions regarding opioids by specialty one year following the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published guidance on opioid prescribing. The 139/153 (90.8%) physicians who reported prescribing opioids in the previous year reported decreased prescribing for mild OA (51.3%, 26.5% and 33.3% of primary care physicians, rheumatologists, and orthopaedic surgeons, respectively), moderate OA (50.0%, 47.1% and 48.1%) and severe OA (43.6%, 41.2% and 44.4%). Prescribing changes were attributed to the CDC guidelines for 58.9% of primary care physicians, 59.1% of rheumatologists, and 73.3% of orthopaedic surgeons. Strong opioids were mostly reserved as third-line treatment. Although treatment effectiveness post-CDC guidelines was not assessed, perceptions of efficacy and quality of life with opioids significantly differed across specialties, whereas perceptions of safety, convenience/acceptability and costs did not. Physicians generally agreed on the barriers to opioid prescribing, with fear of addiction and drug abuse being the most important. Across specialties, physicians reported decreased opioid prescribing for OA, irrespective of OA severity, and in most cases attributed changes in prescribing to the CDC guideline.

OBJECTIVE This study assessed associations between severity of, and prescription medication use for, chronic low back pain (CLBP) and health-related quality of life, health status, work productivity, and healthcare resource utilization. METHODS This cross-sectional study utilized SF-12, EQ-5D-5L, and work productivity and activity impairment (WPAI) questionnaires, and visits to healthcare providers among adults with self-reported CLBP participating in the National Health and Wellness Survey in Germany, France, UK, Italy, and Spain. Respondents were stratified into four groups according to pain severity (mild or moderate/severe) and prescription medication use (Rx-treated or Rx-untreated). Differences between groups were estimated using generalized linear models controlling for sociodemographics and health characteristics. RESULTS Of 2086 respondents with CLBP, 683 had mild pain (276 Rx-untreated, 407 Rx-treated) and 1403 had moderate/severe pain (781 Rx-untreated, 622 Rx-treated). Respondents with moderate/severe pain had significantly worse health-related quality of life (SF-12v2 physical component summary), health status (EQ-5D-5L), and both absenteeism and presenteeism compared with those with mild pain, including Rx-untreated (moderate/severe pain Rx-untreated vs. mild pain Rx-untreated, p ≤ 0.05) and Rx-treated (moderate/severe pain Rx-treated vs. mild pain Rx-treated, p ≤ 0.05) groups. Significantly more visits to healthcare providers in the last 6 months were reported for moderate/severe pain compared with mild pain for Rx-treated (least squares mean 13.01 vs. 10.93, p = 0.012) but not Rx-untreated (8.72 vs. 7.61, p = 0.072) groups. Health-related quality of life (SF-12v2 physical component summary) and health status (EQ-5D-5L), as well as absenteeism and presenteeism, were significantly worse, and healthcare utilization was significantly higher, in the moderate/severe pain Rx-treated group compared with all other groups (all p ≤ 0.05). CONCLUSION Greater severity of CLBP was associated with worse health-related quality of life, health status, and absenteeism and presenteeism, irrespective of prescription medication use. Greater severity of CLBP was associated with increased healthcare utilization in prescription medication users.

Introduction: Combining measures of key core domains (especially pain and function) into a composite endpoint that requires each patient to meet a threshold of improvement for each domain provides information on multiple aspects of osteoarthritis within individual patients. This pooled analysis of two phase 3 studies (NCT02697773, NCT02709486) explored single and composite endpoints for assessing within-patient improvement in knee or hip osteoarthritis symptoms following subcutaneous administration of tanezumab or placebo. Methods: Endpoints at week 16 included proportions of responders (C 30% improvement) in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain, WOMAC Physical Function, WOMAC Pain/Function composite, and weekly average pain; and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) composite responders, minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) composite responders, IntroductionCombining measures of key core domains (especially pain and function) into a composite endpoint that requires each patient to meet a threshold of improvement for each domain provides information on multiple aspects of osteoarthritis within individual patients. This pooled analysis of two phase 3 studies (NCT02697773, NCT02709486) explored single and composite endpoints for assessing within-patient improvement in knee or hip osteoarthritis symptoms following subcutaneous administration of tanezumab or placebo.MethodsEndpoints at week 16 included proportions of responders (≥ 30% improvement) in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain, WOMAC Physical Function, WOMAC Pain/Function composite, and weekly average pain; and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) composite responders, minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) composite responders, Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) responders, and sustained weekly average pain responders.ResultsPooled population comprised 1545 patients. Of patients who had a ≥ 30% improvement in WOMAC Pain and/or WOMAC Physical Function, 88.5% were WOMAC Pain/Function composite responders, 7.0% were WOMAC Pain (but not Function) responders, and 4.4% were WOMAC Function (but not Pain) responders. Of weekly average pain responders, 43.1% were PASS composite responders. Odds ratios (tanezumab 2.5 mg and 5 mg groups, respectively, vs placebo) were 1.75 and 1.86 (WOMAC Pain/Function composite responders), 1.41 and 1.65 (weekly average pain responders), 1.60 and 1.73 (PASS composite responders), 1.52 and 1.68 (MCII composite responders), 1.75 and 1.88 (OMERACT-OARSI responders), and 1.85 and 1.48 (sustained weekly average pain responders). Subgroup analyses suggested a greater magnitude of effect for patients with a knee index joint compared with hip on some endpoints.ConclusionResponders on single pain endpoints were in many cases also responders on function or composite endpoints. Separation of tanezumab from placebo was similar and consistent across single and composite endpoints.

Prediction of treatment responses is essential to move forward translational science. Our question was to identify patient-based variables that predicted responses to treatments. We conducted secondary analyses on pooled data from 2 randomized Phase 3 clinical trials (NCT02697773 and NCT02709486) conducted in participants with moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis randomized to subcutaneous placebo (n=514) or tanezumab 2.5 mg (n=514). We used gradient boosted regression trees to identify variables that predicted Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale scores at week 16 and marginal plots to determine the directional relationship between each variable category and responses to placebo or tanezumab within the models. We also used Virtual Twins models to identify potential subgroups of response to the active treatment versus placebo. We found that responses to placebo were predicted by baseline WOMAC Physical Function, baseline WOMAC Pain, the radiographic classification of the index joint, and the standard deviation of diary pain scores at baseline. In contrast, baseline WOMAC Pain along with failure of prior medications, duration of disease and standard deviation of diary pain scores at baseline were predictive of tanezumab responses as expressed by the WOMAC Pain scores at week 16. Those who responded to tanezumab versus placebo were identified based on the radiographic classification of the index joint and either age or smoking status. These secondary-data analyses identified distinct and common patient-based variables to predict response to placebo or tanezumab. These findings will inform the design of future clinical trials helping to move forward clinical pharmacology and translational science.

To evaluate healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) by osteoarthritis (OA) pain severity.Cross-sectional surveys of US physicians and their patients were conducted between February and May 2017. Using the Numeric Rating Scale, patients were classified by self-reported pain intensity in the last week into mild (0-3), moderate (4-6), and severe (7-10) cohorts. Parameters assessed included clinical characteristics, HCRU, and current caregiver support. Descriptive statistics were obtained, and analysis of variance and chi-square tests were performed.Patients (n = 841) were mostly female (60.9%) and white (77.8%), with mean age of 64.6 years. Patients reported mild (45.4%), moderate (35.9%), and severe (18.7%) OA pain. Mean number of affected joints varied by pain severity (range mild: 2.7 to severe: 3.6;Greater current pain was associated with more prior HCRU including imaging for monitoring progression, HCP visits including more specialty care, hospitalizations, surgery/planned surgery, and loss of independence due to functional disability. Yet rates of hospitalizations and X-ray use were still sizable even among patients with mild pain. These cross-sectional findings warrant longitudinal assessment to further elucidate the impact of pain on HCRU.

Srinivas R Nalamachu,1 Rebecca L Robinson,2 Lars Viktrup,3 Joseph C Cappelleri,4 Andrew G Bushmakin,4 Leslie Tive,5 Jennifer Mellor,6 Niall Hatchell,6 James Jackson6 1Mid America PolyClinic, Overland Park, KS, USA; 2Patient Outcomes and Real-World Evidence, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA; 3Lilly Bio-Medicines Core Team, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA; 4Statistics, Pfizer Inc, Groton, CT, USA; 5Medical Affairs, Pfizer Inc, New York, NY, USA; 6Real World Research, Adelphi Real World, Bollington, Cheshire, UKCorrespondence: Rebecca L RobinsonEli Lilly and Company, Lilly Research Labs, Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, IN 46285, USATel +1 317-224-5833Fax +1 317-277-0490Email rlrobinson@lilly.comPurpose: The purpose of this study was to assess how patient-reported pain is related to osteoarthritis (OA) treatment patterns in routine clinical practice.Patients and Methods: Data were collected between February and May 2017 from 153 United States (US) primary care physicians, rheumatologists, and orthopedic surgeons. Each invited up to nine consecutive patients to rate their OA pain in the last week. Physicians provided demographic, clinical, and treatment information for patients, including nonpharmacologic therapies ever recommended, currently recommended over-the-counter (OTC) medications, and currently and ever prescribed medications for the management of OA. Findings for patients with mild (0─3), moderate (4─6), and severe current pain (7─10) were compared using appropriate statistics.Results: Among the 841 patients (61% female; mean 65 years; 57% knee OA), 45% reported mild, 36% moderate, and 19% severe current OA pain. Current treatment modalities differed by pain severity (P< 0.05). Most patients (70%) had been recommended nonpharmacologic therapy and 40% were currently recommended OTC medications. More patients with moderate (81%) or severe pain (78%) currently received prescription medications, with or without nonpharmacologic therapy, versus those with mild pain (67%). Overall, 47% of patients currently received just one prescription drug, while 49% had received one prescription drug ever. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were the most common current (58%) and ever received (88%) prescriptions. Current NSAID prescriptions were not associated with pain severity. Acetaminophen recommendations, opioid prescriptions (current and ever), and multiple prescription medications tried were numerically highest in the severe pain group (all P< 0.05 by pain severity). In all groups, > 80% of treatment switches were due to lack of efficacy.Conclusion: Real-life treatment patterns for OA in the US are significantly associated with current patient-reported pain. Combining nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatments is common but higher pain ratings are associated with multiple failed prescription treatments. Current use of acetaminophen and opioids, but not NSAIDs, increases alongside pain severity.Keywords: nonprescription drugs, prescription drugs, therapeutics, pain management, practice patterns, physicians

Background: Several pharmaceutical treatments for chronic pain caused by osteoarthritis (OA) and chronic low back pain (CLBP) are available or currently under development, each associated with different adverse events (AEs) and efficacy profiles. It is therefore important to understand what trade-offs patients are willing to make when choosing between treatments. Methods: A discrete-choice experiment (DCE) was conducted with 437 adults with chronic pain caused by OA and/or CLBP. Respondents were presented with a series of scenarios and asked to choose between pairs of hypothetical treatments, each defined by six attributes: level of symptom control; risks of heart attack, rapidly progressive osteoarthritis and dependency; frequency and mode of administration and cost. Attributes were based on known profiles of oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids and injected nerve growth factor inhibitors, the last of which were under clinical development at the time of the study. Data were analysed using a latent class (LC) model to explore preference heterogeneity. Results: Overall, respondents considered improving symptom control and reducing risk of physical dependency to be the most important attributes. The LC analysis identified four participant classes: an ‘efficacy-focused’ class (33.7%), a ‘cost-averse’ class (29.4%), a ‘physical-dependence–averse’ class (19.6%) and a ‘needle-averse’ class (17.3%). Subgroup membership was incompletely predicted by participant age and their responses to comprehension questions. Conclusions: Preference heterogeneity across respondents indicates a need for a personalized approach to offering treatment options. Symptom improvement, cost, physical dependence and route of administration might be important to different patients. Significance: Multiple treatment options that differ substantially in terms of efficacy and adverse events are available for the management of chronic pain. With a growing emphasis on a patient-centred care model that incorporates patients’ priorities and values into treatment decisions, there is a need to understand how individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain balance the benefits and risks of treatment and how treatment priorities vary among individuals. This study was designed to identify patient preferences for different characteristics of treatments for the management of chronic pain and to investigate how preferences differ among respondents.

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. Placebo and tramadol-controlled study assessing long-term safety and efficacy of tanezumab in patients with chronic low back pain and inadequate response to standard analgesics., This randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study (56-week treatment; 24-week follow-up) assessed tanezumab in patients with chronic low back pain and history of inadequate response to standard-of-care analgesics (NCT02528253). Patients received placebo, subcutaneous tanezumab (5 or 10 mg every 8 weeks), or oral tramadol prolonged-release (100-300 mg/day). Primary endpoint was change in low back pain intensity (LBPI) at week 16 for tanezumab vs placebo. Key secondary endpoints were proportion of patients with ≥50% decrease in LBPI at week 16, change in Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire at week 16, and change in LBPI at week 2 for tanezumab vs placebo. Adverse events and joint safety were assessed through weeks 56 and 80, respectively. Tanezumab 10 mg met the primary endpoint by significantly improving LBPI at week 16 vs placebo; least squares (LS) mean (95% CI) difference = −0.40 (−0.76 to −0.04; P = 0.0281). Tanezumab 10 mg significantly improved all key secondary endpoints. Tanezumab 5 mg did not meet the primary endpoint (LS mean [95% CI] treatment difference vs placebo = −0.30 [−0.66 to 0.07; P = 0.1117]), preventing formal testing of key secondary endpoints for this dose. The proportion of patients with ≥50% improvement in LBPI at week 16 was 37.4% in the placebo group, 43.3% in the tanezumab 5 mg group (Odds ratio [95% CI] vs placebo = 1.28 [0.97 to 1.70; P = 0.0846]), and 46.3% in the tanezumab 10 mg group (Odds ratio [95% CI] vs placebo = 1.45 [1.09 to 1.91; P = 0.0101]). Prespecified joint safety events were more frequent with tanezumab 10 mg (2.6%) than tanezumab 5 mg (1.0%), tramadol (0.2%), or placebo (0%). Seven patients, all in the tanezumab 10 mg group (1.4%), underwent total joint replacement. In conclusion, tanezumab 10 mg significantly improved pain and function vs placebo in patients with difficult-to-treat chronic low back pain. Tanezumab was associated with a low rate of joint safety events, some requiring joint replacement.

Nerve growth factor (NGF) is a neurotrophic protein essential for the growth, differentiation, and survival of sympathetic and sensory afferent neurons during development. A substantial body of evidence, based on both animal and human studies, demonstrates that NGF plays a pivotal role in modulation of nociception in adulthood. This has spurred development of a variety of novel analgesics that target the NGF signaling pathway. Here, we present a narrative review designed to summarize how NGF receptor activation and downstream signaling alters nociception through direct sensitization of nociceptors at the site of injury and changes in gene expression in the dorsal root ganglion that collectively increase nociceptive signaling from the periphery to the central nervous system. This review illustrates that NGF has a well-known and multifunctional role in nociceptive processing, although the precise signaling pathways downstream of NGF receptor activation that mediate nociception are complex and not completely understood. Additionally, much of the existing knowledge derives from studies performed in animal models and may not accurately represent the human condition. However, available data establish a role for NGF in the modulation of nociception through effects on the release of inflammatory mediators, nociceptive ion channel/receptor activity, nociceptive gene expression, and local neuronal sprouting. The role of NGF in nociception and the generation and/or maintenance of chronic pain has led to it becoming a novel and attractive target of pain therapeutics for the treatment of chronic pain conditions.

Objective.To define meaningful within-patient change (MWPC) in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC).Methods.Data were analyzed separately from 3 phase III clinical trials (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02697773, NCT02709486, NCT02528188) of tanezumab, a novel treatment intended for the relief of signs and symptoms of moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis (OA), administered subcutaneously every 8 weeks. Patients with moderate-to-severe OA of the hip or knee completed the WOMAC and patient global assessment of OA (PGA-OA) at regular timepoints. A repeated measures longitudinal model with change in WOMAC Pain, Physical Function, or Stiffness domain score as the outcome and change in PGA-OA as the anchor was used to establish MWPC for WOMAC domains.Results.In the 3 studies, there were 688, 844, and 2948 subjects available for analyses, respectively. Analysis showed that a linear relationship between changes in WOMAC domains and changes in PGA-OA was supported and justified. Moreover, the relationships between these changes were very similar for 2 trials and close for the third. The estimated MWPC for the 3 WOMAC domains were from 0.84–1.16 (0–10 numerical rating scale) and from 12.50–16.23%, depending on study and domain, that corresponded to a 1-category change on PGA-OA. For a 2-category change those values were from 1.68–2.31 and from 25.01–32.46%, respectively.Conclusion.These results establish MWPCs for WOMAC domains, at the individual patient level, for patients with moderate-to-severe OA of the hip or knee. [ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02697773, NCT02709486, and NCT02528188]

Satisfaction with medications prescribed for osteoarthritis (OA) varies; this study aimed to determine the factors associated with satisfaction in US patients and their physicians.This point-in-time study used the Adelphi OA Disease Specific Programme (physicians identified from public lists reported on nine consecutive patients diagnosed with OA [any joint]: physicians and patients completed questionnaires). Patient's demographic, clinical, and treatment characteristics associated with patient-reported and physician-rated overall satisfaction with, and expectations of effectiveness of, medication for OA were assessed using multivariate linear regression.Responses from 572 patients (mean age 64.9 years, 60.5% female) currently prescribed medication for OA and 153 physicians (81 primary care, 35 rheumatologists, 37 orthopedic surgeons) were analyzed. Pain intensity was moderate or severe for 59.4% of patients. Greater patient-reported overall satisfaction with medication was significantly associated with (standardized beta, 95% confidence interval) exercise (0.12, 0.03-0.20), comorbid other musculoskeletal or painful conditions (vs none) (0.15, 0.06-0.24), and physicians' report that the best control had been achieved (0.12, 0.03-0.20); lack of efficacy was among factors associated with worse satisfaction. Greater patient-reported expectation of effectiveness was significantly associated with exercise (0.12, 0.03-0.21) and the most troublesome joint not being a knee, hip, or their back (0.08, 0.01-0.14). Greater physician-rated overall satisfaction with medication was significantly associated with their report that the best control had been achieved (0.18, 0.11-0.26), the most troublesome joint being a knee (0.08, 0.01-0.14), comorbid other musculoskeletal or painful conditions (0.07, 0.01-0.12), obesity (0.06, 0.00-0.11), and female patients (0.06, 0.00-0.11); lack of efficacy and adverse events/tolerability issues were among factors associated with worse satisfaction. For physicians, their report that the best control had been achieved (0.19, 0.11-0.27), the most troublesome joint being a knee (0.08, 0.00-0.15), improving (vs stable) OA (0.15, 0.07-0.24), and uncertain duration of OA (0.11, 0.02-0.21) were associated with greater perception that the medication was meeting patients' efficacy expectations.Although efficacy was strongly associated with both patients' and physicians' satisfaction with medication, other factors were also important, including exercise (for patients), tolerability (for physicians), and knee OA (for physicians).

AIM To assess the impact of pre-specified patient characteristics on efficacy and safety of subcutaneous tanezumab in patients with osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS Data were pooled from two (efficacy; N = 1545) or three (safety; N = 1754) phase 3 placebo-controlled trials. Change from baseline to week 16 in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain, WOMAC Physical Function and patient global assessment of OA (PGA-OA) scores was compared between tanezumab (2.5 and 5 mg) and placebo groups via analysis of covariance. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were summarised descriptively. Analyses were done in patient subgroups (men or women; age

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a common difficult-to-treat condition where the goal, in the absence of disease-modifying treatments, is to alleviate symptoms such as pain and loss of function. Acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and opioids are common pharmacologic treatments for OA. Antibodies directed against nerve growth factor (NGF-Abs) are a new class of agents under clinical investigation for the treatment of OA. This narrative review describes (and uses schematics to visualize) nociceptive signaling, chronification of pain, and the mechanisms of action (MOAs) of these different analgesics in the context of OA-related pain pathophysiology. Further, the varying levels of efficacy and safety of these agents observed in patients with OA is examined, based on an overview of published clinical data and/or treatment guidelines (when available), in the context of differences in their MOAs.

This prospective cohort study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02674386) evaluated the postoperative outcomes of patients who had undergone total joint replacement (TJR) while participating in one of three tanezumab (a nerve growth factor inhibitor) randomized phase 3 osteoarthritis (OA) studies.Eligible patients were those who underwent TJR (knee, hip, or shoulder) at any time during any of three tanezumab randomized phase 3 OA studies. Consenting patients were followed for 24 weeks post-surgery. Patients undergoing sub-total arthroplasty procedures were not eligible; there were no further protocol-defined exclusion criteria. Outcomes assessed in relation to joint adjudication outcome and prior tanezumab treatment included: 1) surgeon's assessment of procedural difficulty (uneventful, minor complications, major complications) at the time of the TJR; 2) postsurgical complications (clinically significant events attributable to the TJR, derived from adverse events) up to week 24; and 3) additional/corrective procedures (procedures or investigations related to the TJR) up to week 24.The 150 patients had received placebo (n=20), tanezumab 2.5mg (n=52), tanezumab 2.5mg titrated to 5mg (tanezumab 2.5/5mg, n=8), tanezumab 5mg (n=53), or a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (n=17) in the parent studies. The 150 patients were adjudicated to have primary osteonecrosis (n=1), rapidly progressive OA (RPOA) type 2 (n=8), RPOA type 1 (n=3), other joint outcome (n=6), normal progression of OA (NPOA) (n=130), or insufficient information to determine RPOA versus NPOA (n=2). Surgeon's assessment of procedural difficulty was uneventful for 95.1% (116/122) of patients. Through the 24-week study, there were no postsurgical complications for 96.0% (144/150) of patients; the 6 patients who had complications were all adjudicated as NPOA (tanezumab 2.5mg, n=2; tanezumab 5mg, n=4). There were no additional/corrective procedures for 93.3% (140/150) of patients.Procedural difficulty of minor complications during surgery, postsurgical complications, and additional/corrective procedures were infrequent, although more common with tanezumab 5mg, typically occurring in patients adjudicated as NPOA. Adjudication outcome (RPOA/primary osteonecrosis vs. NPOA) was not associated with postoperative outcome.

Introduction: This prospective cohort study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02674386) evaluated the postoperative outcomes of patients who had undergone total joint replacement (TJR) while participating in one of three tanezumab (a nerve growth factor inhibitor) randomized phase 3 osteoarthritis (OA) studies. Materials and Methods: Eligible patients were those who underwent TJR (knee, hip, or shoulder) at any time during any of three tanezumab randomized phase 3 OA studies. Consenting patients were followed for 24 weeks post-surgery. Patients undergoing sub-total arthroplasty procedures were not eligible; there were no further protocol-defined exclusion criteria. Outcomes assessed in relation to joint adjudication outcome and prior tanezumab treatment included: 1) surgeon’s assessment of procedural difficulty (uneventful, minor complications, major complications) at the time of the TJR; 2) postsurgical complications (clinically significant events attributable to the TJR, derived from adverse events) up to week 24; and 3) additional/corrective procedures (procedures or investigations related to the TJR) up to week 24. Results: The 150 patients had received placebo (n=20), tanezumab 2.5mg (n=52), tanezumab 2.5mg titrated to 5mg (tanezumab 2.5/5mg, n=8), tanezumab 5mg (n=53), or a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (n=17) in the parent studies. The 150 patients were adjudicated to have primary osteonecrosis (n=1), rapidly progressive OA (RPOA) type 2 (n=8), RPOA type 1 (n=3), other joint outcome (n=6), normal progression of OA (NPOA) (n=130), or insufficient information to determine RPOA versus NPOA (n=2). Surgeon’s assessment of procedural difficulty was uneventful for 95.1% (116/122) of patients. Through the 24-week study, there were no postsurgical complications for 96.0% (144/150) of patients; the 6 patients who had complications were all adjudicated as NPOA (tanezumab 2.5mg, n=2; tanezumab 5mg, n=4). There were no additional/corrective procedures for 93.3% (140/150) of patients. Conclusion: Procedural difficulty of minor complications during surgery, postsurgical complications, and additional/corrective procedures were infrequent, although more common with tanezumab 5mg, typically occurring in patients adjudicated as NPOA. Adjudication outcome (RPOA/primary osteonecrosis vs. NPOA) was not associated with postoperative outcome.

To assess the long-term neurological safety of tanezumab, a monoclonal antibody against nerve growth factor.Patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee received stable doses of oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) before study entry and during a ≤ 37-day screening period. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to double-dummy tanezumab (2.5 mg or 5 mg, subcutaneous every 8 weeks) or oral NSAIDs (twice-daily) for 56 weeks, with a 24-week follow-up. Neurological safety evaluation focused on peripheral and sympathetic adverse events (AEs), neurologic examinations, and consultations with blinded, external diagnostic reviews.During the treatment period, 6.2%, 9.0%, and 4.6% of patients experienced AEs of abnormal peripheral sensation (APS) in the tanezumab 2.5 mg, 5 mg, and NSAID groups, respectively. Hypoesthesia, paresthesia, and carpal tunnel syndrome were the most common AEs of APS. Clinically significant worsening on examination occurred in1% in any treatment group at the last study assessment. Diagnoses following external neurological consultation included mononeuropathy (1.3%, 2.1%, and 1.0%), radiculopathy (0.9%, 0.4%, and 0.5%), and polyneuropathy (0.3%, 0.5%, and 0%) in tanezumab 2.5 mg, 5 mg, and NSAID groups, respectively. AEs potentially associated with sympathetic neuropathy were reported for 1.8%, 2.3%, and 2.9% of patients in the tanezumab 2.5 mg, 5 mg, and NSAID groups, respectively. No patient was diagnosed with sympathetic neuropathy.Tanezumab had an increased incidence of AEs of APS versus NSAID; these were typically mild/moderate in severity, resolved during the study, and rarely resulted in discontinuation. Tanezumab was not associated with peripheral neuropathy and did not adversely affect the sympathetic nervous system.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02528188 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02528188).

[Abstract] Background: To evaluate if early improvements in pain and function with subcuta-neous tanezumab are meaningful and sustained over 24 weeks. Methods: Patients with moderate- to- severe osteoarthritis (hip or knee) in Europe and Japan were randomized to placebo, tanezumab 2.5 mg or tanezumab 5 mg (baseline, Week 8 and Week 16). Outcomes included: average daily index joint pain score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) subscales, rescue medication use, WOMAC responders (within- patient ≥30% reduction in WOMAC Pain or Physical Function), Outcome Measures in Rheumatology- Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT- OARSI) responders (within- patient) and Patient- reported Treatment Impact Assessment- Modified questionnaire. Results: Patients received placebo (n = 282), tanezumab 2.5 mg (n = 283) or tanezumab 5 mg (n = 284). Changes from baseline in average daily index joint pain (within the first week) and WOMAC subscales (Week 2 through Week 24) were greater for each tanezumab group versus placebo (least squares [LS] mean, unadjusted p ≤ .05). Rescue medication use (days/week) was lower for each tan-ezumab group versus placebo from Week 2 through Week 12 (LS mean, unad-justed p ≤ .05) but not at Week 16 or 24. A higher proportion of each tanezumab group than placebo achieved ≥30% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain or Physical Function, or OMERACT- OARSI response (Week 2 through Week 24, unadjusted p ≤ .05), or were satisfied with treatment at Week 24 (unadjusted p ≤ .05). Conclusions: Subcutaneous tanezumab, compared with placebo, reduced pain within the first week, and pain and function were improved throughout 24 weeks. The propor-tions of responders and patients satisfied were higher with tanezumab than placebo. ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT02709486. Significance: This exploratory analysis of data from a placebo- controlled, Phase 3 study of patients with moderate- to- severe osteoarthritis of the hip or knee for whom standard analgesics were not effective or could not be taken, found that onset of efficacy of subcutaneous tanezumab was within the first week, and efficacy was maintained through the 24- week treatment period. Tanezumab was effective in those patients with the most radiologically severe osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE To assess the long-term safety and 16-week efficacy of subcutaneous tanezumab in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS This was a phase III randomized, double-blind, active treatment-controlled (using nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs [NSAIDs] as the active treatment control) safety trial of tanezumab (56-week treatment/24-week posttreatment follow-up) in adults who were receiving stable-dose NSAID therapy at the time of screening and who had Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain and physical function scores of ≥5; patient global assessment (PtGA) of OA of fair, poor, or very poor; history of inadequate pain relief with standard analgesics; and no history or radiographic evidence of prespecified bone/joint conditions beyond OA. Patients received oral naproxen, celecoxib, or diclofenac twice daily (NSAID group; n = 996) or tanezumab 2.5 mg (n = 1,002) or 5 mg (n = 998) subcutaneously every 8 weeks. Coprimary efficacy end points at week 16 were changes in WOMAC pain and physical function scores and changes in PtGA. The primary joint safety end point over 80 weeks comprised adjudicated rapidly progressive OA type 1 or 2, primary osteonecrosis, subchondral insufficiency fracture, or pathologic fracture. Mean values, least squares mean values, and least squares mean differences between groups (with 95% confidence intervals [95% CIs]) were calculated. RESULTS Of 3,021 randomized patients, 2,996 received ≥1 treatment dose. Adverse events (AEs) were similar between patients treated with tanezumab 2.5 mg and those treated with NSAIDs, and were more prevalent in those treated with tanezumab 5 mg. Composite joint safety events were significantly more prevalent with tanezumab 2.5 mg and tanezumab 5 mg than with NSAIDs (observation time-adjusted rate/1,000 patient-years 38.3 [95% CI 28.0, 52.5] and 71.5 [95% CI 56.7, 90.2], respectively, versus 14.8 [95% CI 8.9, 24.6]; P = 0.001 for tanezumab 2.5 mg versus NSAIDs; P < 0.001 for tanezumab 5 mg versus NSAIDs). Tanezumab 5 mg significantly improved pain and physical function but did not improve PtGA at week 16 when compared to NSAIDs; corresponding differences between the tanezumab 2.5 mg and NSAID groups were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION In patients previously receiving a stable dose of NSAIDs, tanezumab administered subcutaneously resulted in more joint safety events than continued NSAIDs, with differences being dose dependent. Pain and physical function improved with both doses of tanezumab compared to NSAIDs, reaching statistical significance with tanezumab 5 mg at 16 weeks.

Summary Objective To quantify preferences for attributes of potential analgesic treatments for moderate-to-severe pain associated with osteoarthritis (OA) and/or chronic low back pain (CLBP) as relevant to injectable nerve growth factor (NGF)–inhibitors, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and opioids. Methods We used a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) to elicit preferences for attributes of OA and CLBP pharmaceutical treatments, and a best-worst scaling (BWS) exercise to further characterize the relative importance of treatment-related side-effect risks. The survey was completed online by 602 US residents with self-reported chronic, moderate-to-severe OA pain and/or CLBP who had tried, had contraindications for, or were unwilling to take currently available pharmaceutical therapies. In the DCE, respondents repeatedly chose between two hypothetical treatments defined by six attributes (symptom control; treatment-related risks of (1) severe joint problems, (2) heart attack, and (3) physical dependence; mode/frequency of administration; and cost). In the BWS exercise, respondents evaluated ten side-effect risks. Random-parameters logit models were estimated; conditional relative attribute importance, maximum acceptable risks, and willingness to pay were calculated. Results The most important DCE attributes were improving symptom control (scaled conditional relative importance, 10.00) and reducing risk of physical dependence (6.99). The three most important BWS attributes were, in rank order, risks of stroke, physical dependence, and heart attack. Respondents were willing to accept a > 4% treatment-related risk of severe joint problems for even modest symptom improvement. Conclusion A pharmaceutical treatment with a risk of severe joint problems was viewed as an acceptable alternative to other treatments with comparable efficacy but risks associated with NSAIDs or opioids.

Although the osteoarthritis (OA) burden is well-recognised, the benefit of currently available OA pharmacological therapy is not clear. This study aimed to assess whether the impact of OA pain on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), work, and healthcare resource utilisation (HRU) differed by both pain severity and prescription medication status.This cross-sectional study used pooled data from the 2016/2017 European National Health and Wellness Survey. Respondents with self-reported physician-diagnosed OA and pain were included. Outcomes examined included HRQoL, health utility, health status, work productivity and activity impairment, and HRU. Groups derived from self-reported pain severity and prescription medication use were compared using chi-square tests, analysis of variance, and generalised linear models controlling for socio-demographics, health behaviours, and health status.Respondents with OA (n=2417) reported mild (40.4%, of which 44.9% prescription-treated) and moderate to severe pain (59.6%, of which 54.0% prescription-treated). HRQoL, health utility, health status, and work and activity impairment were substantially worse among the moderate/severe pain prescription-treated group compared to the rest (e.g. SF-12v2 physical component score [PCS] for moderate/severe pain prescription-treated=34.5 versus mild pain prescription-treated =39.3, moderate/severe pain prescription-untreated=40.6, and mild pain prescription-untreated=45.6; p0.01). HRU such as the mean number of emergency room visits for6 months was higher in the prescription-treated groups (0.51-0.52, 95% CI 0.437-0.71) than the prescription-untreated groups (0.30-0.34, 95% CI 0.21-0.46; p0.05).Persons with moderate to severe OA pain treated with available prescription medications have poor health status and HRQoL and increased HRU compared to those not receiving prescription medications.

ObjectiveTanezumab, a nerve growth factor inhibitor, was investigated for osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip or knee in a study with 24-week treatment and 24-week safety follow-up.MethodsThis double-blind, randomised, phase III study enrolled adults in Europe and Japan with moderate-to-severe OA who had not responded to or could not tolerate standard-of-care analgesics. Patients were randomised to tanezumab 2.5 mg or 5 mg subcutaneously or matching placebo every 8 weeks (three doses). Co-primary end points were change from baseline to week 24 in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain and Physical Function, and Patient’s Global Assessment of OA (PGA-OA). Joint safety and neurological assessments continued throughout the 48-week study.ResultsFrom March 2016 to December 2017, 849 patients were randomised and evaluated (placebo n=282, tanezumab 2.5 mg n=283, tanezumab 5 mg n=284). At week 24, there was a statistically significant improvement from baseline for tanezumab 5 mg compared with placebo for WOMAC Pain (least squares mean difference±SE –0.62±0.18, p=0.0006), WOMAC Physical Function (–0.71±0.17, pConclusionTanezumab 5 mg statistically significantly improved pain, physical function and PGA-OA, but tanezumab 2.5 mg only achieved two co-primary end points. RPOA occurred more frequently with tanezumab 5 mg than tanezumab 2.5 mg. TJRs were similarly distributed across all three groups.Trial registration numberNCT02709486.

Background:Tanezumab is a monoclonal antibody directed against nerve growth factor. It is in development for the treatment of moderate to severe chronic pain associated with osteoarthritis (OA) in adult patients for whom other treatments are ineffective or not appropriate. Phase 3 clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of subcutaneous tanezumab versus placebo for pain and function outcomes over various timepoints. Largely similar change from baseline was demonstrated in an oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-controlled study.1,2,3,4 The efficacy of some other OA therapies can be dampened in patients with depression, anxiety, or insomnia.5,6,7Objectives:A post-hoc analysis to explore the efficacy of subcutaneous tanezumab after 16 weeks treatment, as compared to oral NSAID, in patients with OA and a history of depression, anxiety, or insomnia at baseline.Methods:Subgroup analysis of data from a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled phase 3 study of subcutaneous tanezumab (2.5 mg or 5 mg every 8 weeks) vs twice daily oral NSAID in patients (≥18 years) with radiographically-confirmed moderate to severe hip or knee OA (Kellgren-Lawrence grade ≥2; NCT02528188).4 Co-primary efficacy endpoints were change from baseline to week 16 in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index (WOMAC*) Pain and Physical Function subscale scores (both ≥5/10 at randomisation; increasing score indicates increasing pain/disability), and Patient’s Global Assessment of OA (PGA-OA, ≥3/5 at randomisation; increasing score indicates poorer condition). Enrolled patients had a history of inadequate pain relief with acetaminophen; inadequate pain relief with/intolerance to/contraindication to tramadol or opioids; or an unwillingness to take opioids. Patients were on a stable dose of NSAID for ≥30 days before screening. Data are presented as least squares (LS) mean change from baseline to week 16 for the whole population and for subgroups of patients with/without a history of depression, anxiety, or insomnia at baseline. Exploratory statistical analysis was conducted by analysis of covariance. P values were not adjusted for multiplicity. This exploratory post-hoc analysis was not part of the pre-specified hypothesis testing plan or included in any sample size calculations; therefore, comparisons between treatment arms or patient subgroups should be interpreted with caution.Results:Overall, 2996 patients were randomized and received at least one dose of study treatment (subcutaneous tanezumab 2.5 mg: n=1002; subcutaneous tanezumab 5 mg: n=998; oral NSAID: n=996). In this population (comprising patients with or without a history of anxiety, depression or insomnia), all treatments were associated with notable and largely similar magnitude improvements in WOMAC Pain, WOMAC Physical Function, and PGA-OA at week 16 (Figure 1). Across treatment groups, differences in LS mean change from baseline in patients with and without a history of depression, anxiety or insomnia ranged between 0 - 0.34 for WOMAC Pain and Physical Function and 0 - 0.19 for PGA-OA.Conclusion:Patients with a history of depression, anxiety, or insomnia did not appear to experience dampened improvements in pain or function with tanezumab or NSAID, as compared to those without.References:[1]Schnitzer T, et al. JAMA. 2019;322(1):37-48;[2]Berenbaum F, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79(6):800-10;[3]Schnitzer T, et al. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2020;50(3):387-93;[4]Hochberg M, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. In Press;[5]Sharma A, et al. Open Access Rheumatol. 2016;31(8):103-13;[6]Mallen C, et al. PLoS Med. 2017;14(4):e1002273;[7]Campbell C, et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2015;67(10):1387-96.Acknowledgements:Study sponsored by Pfizer and Eli Lilly and Company. Editorial support was provided by Jennifer Bodkin of Engage Scientific Solutions and funded by Pfizer and Eli Lilly and Company.Disclosure of Interests:Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun, UCB, Theresa Mallick-Searle Speakers bureau: Allergan, Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Company, Salix, Consultant of: Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Company, Elizabeth Johnston Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Lars Viktrup Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Dominique Menuet Employee of: Pfizer, Ruoyong Yang Employee of: Pfizer, Robert J Fountaine Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Pfizer.

Objective To examine the onset and maintenance of efficacy of subcutaneous tanezumab for pain relief and functional improvement in difficult-to-treat patients with moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis (OA) in a 16-week dose-titration study (NCT02697773). Methods Patients were randomized to placebo (placebo group) or tanezumab 2.5 mg at baseline and week 8 (tanezumab 2.5 mg group), or tanezumab 2.5 mg at baseline and tanezumab 5 mg at week 8 (tanezumab 2.5/5 mg group). Analyses included change from baseline in average daily index joint pain and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain and Physical Function, and treatment responses (WOMAC Pain improvement criteria and Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthritis Research Society International [OMERACT-OARSI] criteria). Results The 696 patients received placebo (n = 232), tanezumab 2.5 mg (n = 231), or tanezumab 2.5/5 mg (n = 233). Average daily index joint pain was statistically significantly improved within the first week (day 3–5) with tanezumab 2.5 mg compared with placebo. On first post-randomization WOMAC measurement (week 2), both tanezumab groups had statistically significant improvements compared with placebo in WOMAC Pain and Physical Function, and more tanezumab-treated patients achieved treatment response criteria (≥30%, ≥50%, or ≥70% reduction in WOMAC Pain or OMERACT-OARSI response). Efficacy was generally maintained throughout the 16-week treatment period. Conclusion Subcutaneous tanezumab provided statistically significant improvements compared with placebo in average daily index joint pain within the first week and WOMAC Pain and Physical Function (week 2) that were generally maintained throughout the 16-week treatment period. Tanezumab 5 mg provided only modest additional efficacy over tanezumab 2.5 mg.

IMPORTANCE: Patients with osteoarthritis (OA) may remain symptomatic with traditional OA treatments. OBJECTIVE: To assess 2 subcutaneous tanezumab dosing regimens for OA. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial from January 2016 to May 14, 2018 (last patient visit). Patients enrolled were 18 years or older with hip or knee OA, inadequate response to OA analgesics, and no radiographic evidence of prespecified joint safety conditions. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received by subcutaneous administration either tanezumab, 2.5 mg, at day 1 and week 8 (n = 231); tanezumab, 2.5 mg at day 1 and 5 mg at week 8 (ie, tanezumab, 2.5/5 mg; n = 233); or placebo at day 1 and week 8 (n = 232). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Co–primary end points were change from baseline to week 16 in Western Ontario and McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain (0-10, no to extreme pain), WOMAC Physical Function (0-10, no to extreme difficulty), and patient global assessment of osteoarthritis (PGA-OA) (1-5, very good to very poor) scores. RESULTS: Among 698 patients randomized, 696 received 1 or more treatment doses (mean [SD] age, 60.8 [9.6] years; 65.1% women), and 582 (83.6%) completed the trial. From baseline to 16 weeks, mean WOMAC Pain scores decreased from 7.1 to 3.6 in the tanezumab, 2.5 mg, group; 7.3 to 3.6 in the tanezumab, 2.5/5 mg, group; and 7.3 to 4.4 in the placebo group (least squares mean differences [95% CI] vs placebo were −0.60 [−1.07 to −0.13; P = .01] for tanezumab, 2.5 mg, and −0.73 [−1.20 to −0.26; P = .002] for tanezumab, 2.5/5 mg). Mean WOMAC Physical Function scores decreased from 7.2 to 3.7 in the 2.5-mg group, 7.4 to 3.6 in the 2.5/5-mg group, and 7.4 to 4.5 with placebo (differences vs placebo, −0.66 [−1.14 to −0.19; P = .007] for tanezumab, 2.5 mg, and −0.89 [−1.37 to −0.42; P

Background Tanezumab, a monoclonal antibody against nerve growth factor, is in development for treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) pain. Objectives To assess efficacy and safety of tanezumab in patients with moderate to severe OA pain who have not responded to or cannot tolerate standard of care analgesics. Methods A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (24 week treatment; 24 week follow-up) was conducted in patients in Europe and Japan with moderate to severe OA pain of the knee or hip and history of insufficient pain relief or intolerance to acetaminophen, oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, and either tramadol or opioids (or unwilling to take opioids). Patients received subcutaneous tanezumab (2.5 or 5 mg) or placebo at baseline, week 8, and week 16. Co-primary endpoints were change from baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain, WOMAC Physical Function, and Patient Global Assessment of OA (PGA-OA) scores at week 24. Safety, including independent adjudication of joint safety events, was assessed. Results Tanezumab 5 mg met all co-primary endpoints (Fig. 1). Tanezumab 2.5 mg met WOMAC Pain and Physical Function endpoints but not the PGA-OA endpoint; thus, this dose did not meet pre-specified efficacy criteria. The occurrence of adverse events (AEs) and discontinuations due to AEs were similar across groups, though serious AEs occurred more frequently in both tanezumab groups relative to placebo. Two deaths in the 5 mg tanezumab group were deemed unrelated to treatment. The only AE occurring in =3% of patients in any group, and more frequently (>1% difference) in both tanezumab groups relative to placebo, was OA. Total joint replacements (TJR) occurred in 6.7%, 7.8%, and 7.0% of patients in the placebo, tanezumab 2.5 mg, and tanezumab 5 mg groups, respectively. Joint safety events, including TJRs, were mostly adjudicated as normal progression of OA (58/79; 73.4%). Pre-specified joint safety events occurred in 0% and 2.5% (n = 14) of patients in the placebo and tanezumab (2.5 mg = 1.8%; 5 mg = 3.2%) groups, respectively. These 14 events in the tanezumab groups included rapidly progressive OA (2.5 mg n = 4; 5 mg n = 8), subchondral insufficiency fracture (2.5 mg n = 1), and primary osteonecrosis (5 mg n = 1). Conclusion Tanezumab 5 mg significantly improved all co-primary endpoints of pain, physical function, and PGA-OA. Tanezumab 2.5 mg significantly improved pain and physical function, but did not reach significance on PGA-OA. AEs are consistent with previous studies of tanezumab in OA. A similar number of TJRs were reported across groups, though overall joint safety events were more frequent with tanezumab than placebo. Disclosure of Interests Francis Berenbaum Grant/research support from: TRB Chemedica (through institution), MSD (through institution), Pfizer (throughinstitution), Consultant for: Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, Lilly, UCB, Abbvie, Roche, Servier, Sanofi-Aventis, Flexion Therapeutics, Expanscience, GSK, Biogen, Nordic, Sandoz, Regeneron, Gilead, Bone Therapeutics, Regulaxis, Peptinov, Paid instructor for: Sandoz, Speakers bureau: Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, Lilly, UCB, Abbvie, Roche, Servier, Sanofi-Aventis, Flexion Therapeutics, Expanscience, GSK, Biogen, Nordic, Sandoz, Regeneron, Gilead, Sandoz, Francisco J. Blanco Grant/research support from: Galapagos NV, Abbvie, Sanofi, Bristol MS, UCB, Novartis, Genentech Inc., Regeneron, Lilly, Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., Tedec Meiji., Consultant for: Pfizer, Gebro, Bioiberica, Sanofi., Ali Guermazi Consultant for: AstraZeneca, Pfizer, TissueGene, Galapagos, Roche and MerckSerono., Eric Vignon Consultant for: Pfizer/Eli Lilly, Kenji Miki Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Janssen, Ayumi, Hisamitsu, Takaharu Yamabe Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Pfizer, Lars Viktrup Shareholder of: Eli Lilly & Company, Grant/research support from: Astella, Lundbeck, Coloplast, Employee of: Ciba Geigy, Eli Lilly and Company (currently), Rod Junor Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Pfizer, William Carey Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: J&J, Pfizer (currently), Mark Brown Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Ken Verburg Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Pfizer, Christine West Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Pfizer

Chronic pain continues to be a significant global burden despite the availability of a variety of nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatment options. Thus, there is a need for new analgesics with novel mechanisms of action. In this regard, antibodies directed against nerve growth factor (NGF-Abs) are a new class of agents in development for the treatment of chronic pain conditions such as osteoarthritis and chronic low-back pain. This comprehensive narrative review summarizes evidence supporting pronociceptive functions for NGF that include contributing to peripheral and central sensitization through tropomyosin receptor kinase A activation and stimulation of local neuronal sprouting. The potential role of NGF in osteoarthritis and chronic low-back pain signaling is also examined to provide a mechanistic basis for the observed efficacy of NGF-Abs in clinical trials of these particular pain states. Finally, the safety profile of NGF-Abs in terms of common adverse events, joint safety, and nerve structure/function is discussed.

Background:Symptomatic osteoarthritis (OA) leads to functional limitations and loss of independence. OA management focuses on pain relief and preserving physical function using non-pharmacologic and pharmacologic therapy. Additionally, patients commonly manage OA pain by avoiding activities that exacerbate their pain. Informal care, i.e. assistance from an unpaid caregiver, plays a major role in the total care provided to patients with chronic diseases like OA.Objectives:To evaluate how OA pain severity affects physical functioning and the subsequent need for assistance with mobility and daily activities in 5 EU countries: France, Germany, Italy, Spain and UK.Methods:Data were drawn from the Adelphi OA Disease Specific Programme (2017-18), a point-in-time study of physicians and their OA patients. Patients rated their average pain intensity over the last week on a 0-10 scale (0 = no pain; 10 = worst possible pain) and were then categorised into mild (0-3), moderate (4-6) and severe (7-10) pain groups. Patients also provided an assessment of their physical function (0-10 WOMAC scale where higher scores indicated greater functional impairment), impact on mobility, whether caregiver assistance was required, daily activities requiring caregiver assistance and home modifications made due to their OA. Physicians also rated patients’ functioning on a 0 to 10 scale (0 = fully functional; 10 = completely impaired). Comparisons among pain severity groups were made using chi-squared tests and analysis of variance.Results:The analysis included 1750 OA patients: 24% mild pain (n=413); 47% moderate pain (n=822); 29% severe pain (n=515). The patients were predominantly women (58%) and had a mean (SD) age of 65.6 (11.5).Increased pain severity was associated with greater functional impairment scores as reported by patients (WOMAC scores: mild pain=2.1; moderate pain=4.1; severe pain=5.9) and physician-rated functional impairment (mild pain=3.5; moderate pain=4.3; severe pain=5.6). Mobility was impacted for 78% of patients with severe pain (vs. 41% mild; 63% moderate) and the need for a walking aid such as a walking stick or walking frame increased with worsening severity; wheelchair assistance was needed for 7% of severe patients (compared with The need for assistance from a caregiver to help with daily activities was associated with an increase in patients’ pain (9% mild; 20% moderate; 42% severe [pConclusion:In this study of European patients, increased pain severity was associated with greater functional impairment and impact on mobility as expected; however, this study highlights the substantial need for assistance with daily activities as well as modifications to the home. The unseen costs to the patient with moderate to severe OA pain are significant.Disclosure of Interests:Philip G Conaghan Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Flexion Therapeutics, Galapagos, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Lucy Abraham Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Pfizer, Peita Graham-Clarke Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Co, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Co, Lars Viktrup Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Joseph C Cappelleri Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Craig Beck Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Pfizer, Andrew G Bushmakin Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Niall Hatchell: None declared, Emily Clayton: None declared, James Jackson: None declared