Tanezumab Reduces Osteoarthritic Hip Pain: Results of a Randomized, Double‐Blind, Placebo‐Controlled Phase III Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of tanezumab versus placebo for reducing pain and improving physical function in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip. METHODS: This was a 32-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial. Patients with baseline Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index (WOMAC) Pain and Physical Function subscale scores of ≥5 and ≥4, respectively, and patient's global assessment of OA as "fair," "poor," or "very poor" were treated at baseline and weeks 8 and 16. Coprimary efficacy end points were change from baseline to week 16 in WOMAC Pain and Physical Function subscales and patient's global assessment, analyzed using analysis of covariance. Adverse events (AEs) were monitored throughout. RESULTS: Patients (n = 621) were randomized 1:1:1:1 to treatment with intravenous tanezumab 2.5 mg, 5 mg, or 10 mg or placebo. Each tanezumab group showed significant improvement for the 3 coprimary end points versus placebo (P ≤ 0.001 for all). AE incidence ranged from 55% to 58% across tanezumab groups versus 44% for placebo. Safety findings were similar to those previously reported. The tanezumab OA clinical program was temporarily placed on hold because of AEs leading to joint replacement. Total joint replacements were reported in 8 patients: 1 in the 10 mg, 2 in the 5 mg, 2 in the 2.5 mg, and 3 in the placebo group. A total of 9 joints were replaced (8 hips [7 index joints] and 1 shoulder). CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that tanezumab provides superior pain relief and improvement in physical function and patient's global assessment versus placebo in patients with painful hip OA, and is generally well tolerated.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".