Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of fulranumab, an anti-nerve growth factor antibody, in the treatment of patients with moderate to severe osteoarthritis pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nerve growth factor (NGF) is increased in chronic pain conditions. This study examined analgesic efficacy and safety of fulranumab, a fully human monoclonal anti-NGF antibody, in adults with chronic osteoarthritis pain. Patients (n=466, intent-to-treat) were randomized to receive, in addition to their current pain therapy, subcutaneous injections in 1 of 6 parallel treatment groups: placebo (n=78), fulranumab 1 mg (n=77) or 3 mg (n=79) every 4 weeks (Q4wk), 3 mg (n=76), 6 mg (n=78), or 10 mg (n=78) every 8 weeks (Q8wk). Primary efficacy results showed that fulranumab significantly reduced the average pain intensity score (P < or = 0.030) from baseline to week 12 compared with placebo in the 3mgQ4wk, 6mgQ8wk, and 10mgQ8wk groups. Secondary efficacy outcomes indicated that significant improvement occurred compared with placebo at week 12 on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index subscales of pain, stiffness, and physical function (P < 0.040) across all fulranumab groups except 1mgQ4wk, on the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form subscales of pain intensity (P < or = 0.016) and pain interference (P < or = 0.030) in the 3mgQ4wk and 10mgQ8wk groups, and on the Patient Global Assessment score (P < or = 0.040) in the 3mgQ4wk, 6mgQ8wk, and 10mgQ8wk groups. The most common (> or = 5% of patients) treatment-emergent adverse events in overall fulranumab groups during the first 12weeks included paresthesia (7%), headache (5%), and nasopharyngitis (5%). Most neurologic-related treatment-emergent adverse events were mild or moderate and resolved at the end of week 12. Serious adverse events occurred in 3 patients, but they were not neurologically related and resolved before study completion. Fulranumab treatment resulted in statistically significant efficacy in pain measures and physical function versus placebo and was 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".