Efficacy and safety of tanezumab, NSAIDs, and placebo in patients with moderate to severe hip or knee osteoarthritis and a history of depression, anxiety, or insomnia: post-hoc analysis of phase 3 trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Treatment outcomes for chronic pain can be poor in patients with depression, anxiety, or insomnia. This analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous tanezumab, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and placebo in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) and a history of these conditions using data from three phase 3 studies.Methods: A post-hoc analysis of data from two pooled placebo-controlled studies and one NSAID-controlled study of subcutaneous tanezumab. All patients had moderate to severe knee or hip OA that was inadequately controlled with standard-of-care analgesics. Efficacy outcomes were least-squares mean change from baseline to Week 16 in Western Ontario McMaster Universities OA Index (WOMAC) Pain, WOMAC Physical Function, Patient’s global assessment of OA, and EQ-5D-5L scores. Results were summarized for patients with and without a history of depression, anxiety, or insomnia at baseline.Results: 1545 patients were treated in the pooled placebo-controlled studies (history of depression, 12%; anxiety, 8%; insomnia, 10%; any, 23%) and 2996 in the NSAID-controlled study (16%, 11%, 13%, 28%, respectively). In groups with positive histories, 38–80% took antidepressant or anxiolytic medications at baseline. Within treatments, largely similar improvements in efficacy outcomes were observed in patients with and without a history of depression, anxiety, or insomnia; the types of treatment-emergent adverse events were similar.Conclusions: Patients with OA and a history of depression, anxiety, or insomnia did not appear to experience reduced efficacy outcomes or an altered safety profile in response to tanezumab or NSAID treatment as compared with those without. NCT02697773; NCT02709486; NCT02528188
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 | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".