A phase III study to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of fasinumab in patients with pain due to osteoarthritis of the knee or hip
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Pain associated with osteoarthritis (OA) is frequently disabling; treatments are often ineffective or intolerable. Fasinumab selectively inhibits nerve-growth factor and has shown efficacy for the management of OA pain. Methods In this randomized, double-blind, phase III safety study, patients with moderate-to-severe OA pain and history of inadequate pain relief received placebo or fasinumab (at 1, 3, 6, and 9 mg every 4 weeks [Q4W] and 1 and 6 mg every 8 weeks [Q8W] for 52 weeks). Primary safety endpoints included adverse events, adjudicated arthropathies (AAs), and joint replacements (JRs). Co-primary endpoints of an efficacy sub-study were change in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain and physical function scores. During the study, higher fasinumab doses were discontinued for safety; 1 mg doses continued. Results Of 13,945 patients screened, 5331 were randomized; 1074 were included in the efficacy sub-study. AAs and JRs occurred in all groups. Increased severity of disease at baseline was associated with higher rates of AAs and JRs. A dose-dependent risk of AA or JR was observed for fasinumab; in the 1 mg groups, only a small percentage of patients with JR had prior AA. Fasinumab significantly improved WOMAC pain and physical function scores compared with placebo; least squares mean differences versus placebo were −1.22 and −1.20 for 1 mg Q4W and −0.73 and −0.74 for 1 mg Q8W, respectively ( P< 0.001). Conclusion AAs and JRs showed a dose relationship to fasinumab and were associated with baseline OA status. Fasinumab achieved statistically significant improvements in WOMAC pain and physical function scores compared with placebo.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".