Efficacy, General Safety, and Joint Safety of Tanezumab in Japanese Patients with Osteoarthritis: Subgroup Analyses from Two Randomized, Phase 3 Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Tanezumab is a monoclonal antibody against nerve growth factor that is under investigation for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) pain. We conducted subgroup analyses of two randomized phase 3 studies to summarize efficacy, general safety, and adjudicated joint safety of tanezumab in Japanese patients with moderate-to-severe OA. METHODS: In Study 1 (NCT02528188), patients received subcutaneous tanezumab 2.5 mg or 5 mg every 8 weeks or daily oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) for 56 weeks. The co-primary efficacy endpoints were change from baseline in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain subscale score and WOMAC Physical Function subscale score at Week 16 (overall study and Japan-specific endpoints) as well as Patient Global Assessment (PGA)-OA score at Week 16 (overall study endpoint only). In Study 2 (NCT02709486), patients received subcutaneous tanezumab 2.5 mg, 5 mg, or placebo every 8 weeks for 24 weeks. Safety monitoring included adjudicated composite joint safety endpoint (CJSE) including rapidly progressive osteoarthritis type 1 (RPOA1), RPOA2, primary osteonecrosis, pathological fracture, or subchondral insufficiency fracture. RESULTS: For Study 1, Japanese patients (n = 200) treated with tanezumab 2.5 mg and 5 mg showed numerically greater improvements in WOMAC Pain, WOMAC Physical Function, and PGA-OA scores versus NSAID at Week 16. Incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events were generally similar between tanezumab 2.5 mg, 5 mg, and NSAID groups. In the integrated safety analysis (Studies 1 + 2; n = 306), ten patients were adjudicated to have a component of CJSE: RPOA1 [tanezumab 2.5 mg (n = 2), tanezumab 5 mg (n = 5)], RPOA2 [tanezumab 2.5 mg (n = 1), tanezumab 5 mg (n = 1)], or primary osteonecrosis [tanezumab 2.5 mg (n = 1)]. Time-adjusted adjudicated rates of RPOA1 and RPOA2 were higher with tanezumab than NSAID or placebo and increased with dose of tanezumab. CONCLUSION: Observations from the Japanese subgroup were generally consistent with the overall study populations.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".