Trial Outcomes & Findings for Tanezumab in Osteoarthritis of the Knee (NCT NCT00733902)
NCT ID: NCT00733902
Last Updated: 2021-03-22
Results Overview
WOMAC: Self-administered, disease-specific questionnaire which assesses clinically important, participant-relevant symptoms for pain, stiffness and physical function in participants with osteoarthritis (OA). WOMAC pain subscale is a 5-item questionnaire used to assess the amount of pain experienced due to osteoarthritis in index knee during past 48 hours. It is calculated as mean of the scores from 5 individual questions, each scored on a numerical rating scale (NRS) of 0 (no pain) to 10 (extreme pain), where higher scores indicate higher pain. Total score range for WOMAC pain subscale score is 0 (no pain) to 10 (extreme pain), where higher scores indicate higher pain.
COMPLETED
PHASE3
697 participants
Baseline (Day 1), Week 16
2021-03-22
Participant Flow
Participants who discontinued due to lack of efficacy or completed the treatment in this study were eligible to enroll in safety extension study A4091016 (NCT00809783).
Participant milestones
| Measure |
Placebo
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 2.5 mg
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 milligram (mg) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 5 mg
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 10 mg
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Overall Study
STARTED
|
174
|
174
|
174
|
175
|
|
Overall Study
Treated
|
172
|
172
|
172
|
174
|
|
Overall Study
COMPLETED
|
10
|
12
|
13
|
11
|
|
Overall Study
NOT COMPLETED
|
164
|
162
|
161
|
164
|
Reasons for withdrawal
| Measure |
Placebo
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 2.5 mg
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 milligram (mg) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 5 mg
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 10 mg
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Overall Study
Death
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
|
Overall Study
Adverse Event
|
3
|
4
|
7
|
11
|
|
Overall Study
Lack of Efficacy
|
56
|
21
|
34
|
23
|
|
Overall Study
Protocol Violation
|
4
|
6
|
3
|
3
|
|
Overall Study
Withdrawal by Subject
|
10
|
5
|
4
|
16
|
|
Overall Study
Entered extension study
|
89
|
124
|
111
|
109
|
|
Overall Study
Randomized but not treated
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
Baseline Characteristics
Tanezumab in Osteoarthritis of the Knee
Baseline characteristics by cohort
| Measure |
Placebo
n=172 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 2.5 mg
n=172 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 milligram (mg) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 5 mg
n=172 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 10 mg
n=174 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Total
n=690 Participants
Total of all reporting groups
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Age, Continuous
|
62.2 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.9 • n=99 Participants
|
60.8 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.8 • n=107 Participants
|
62.1 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.5 • n=206 Participants
|
61.4 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.5 • n=7 Participants
|
61.6 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.2 • n=31 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Female
|
119 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
94 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
101 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
106 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
420 Participants
n=31 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Male
|
53 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
78 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
71 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
68 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
270 Participants
n=31 Participants
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline (Day 1), Week 16Population: Modified intent-to-treat (mITT) analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo), except for those who were potentially unblinded and from site 1006. BOCF method was used to impute missing values.
WOMAC: Self-administered, disease-specific questionnaire which assesses clinically important, participant-relevant symptoms for pain, stiffness and physical function in participants with osteoarthritis (OA). WOMAC pain subscale is a 5-item questionnaire used to assess the amount of pain experienced due to osteoarthritis in index knee during past 48 hours. It is calculated as mean of the scores from 5 individual questions, each scored on a numerical rating scale (NRS) of 0 (no pain) to 10 (extreme pain), where higher scores indicate higher pain. Total score range for WOMAC pain subscale score is 0 (no pain) to 10 (extreme pain), where higher scores indicate higher pain.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=154 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 2.5 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 milligram (mg) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 5 mg
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 10 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale at Week 16: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Baseline
|
7.05 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.45
|
7.16 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.44
|
7.19 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.41
|
6.99 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.43
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale at Week 16: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 16
|
-2.51 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.63
|
-3.27 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.78
|
-3.39 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.65
|
-3.67 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.83
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 16Population: mITT analysis set. BOCF method was used to impute missing values. Here, "Overall number of participants analyzed" signifies those participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.
WOMAC: Self-administered, disease-specific questionnaire which assesses clinically important, participant-relevant symptoms for pain, stiffness and physical function in participants with OA. WOMAC physical function is a 17-item questionnaire used to assess the degree of difficulty experienced due to osteoarthritis in index knee during past 48 hours. It is calculated as mean of the scores from 17 individual questions, each scored on a NRS of 0 (no difficulty) to 10 (extreme difficulty), where higher scores indicate worse function. Total score range for WOMAC physical function subscale score is 0 (no difficulty) to 10 (extreme difficulty), where higher scores indicate worse function. Physical function refers to participant's ability to move around and perform usual activities of daily living.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=154 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 2.5 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 milligram (mg) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 5 mg
n=155 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 10 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Physical Function Subscale at Week 16: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Baseline
|
6.64 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.59
|
6.86 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.58
|
6.91 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.49
|
6.69 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.62
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Physical Function Subscale at Week 16: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 16
|
-2.06 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.45
|
-2.93 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.67
|
-3.14 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.59
|
-3.34 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.70
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 16Population: mITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo), except for those who were potentially unblinded and from site 1006. BOCF method was used to impute missing values.
Participants answered: "Considering all the ways your osteoarthritis in your knee affects you, how are you doing today?". Participants responded on a scale ranging from 1-5, where 1= very good (no symptom and no limitation of normal activities), 2= good (mild symptoms and no limitation of normal activities), 3= fair (moderate symptoms and limitation of some normal activities), 4= poor (severe symptoms and inability to carry out most normal activities), and 5= very poor (very severe symptoms and inability to carry out all normal activities). Higher scores indicated worsening of condition.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=154 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 2.5 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 milligram (mg) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 5 mg
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 10 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis at Week 16: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Baseline
|
3.40 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.58
|
3.47 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.63
|
3.45 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.63
|
3.45 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.59
|
|
Change From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis at Week 16: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 16
|
-0.51 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.83
|
-0.87 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.93
|
-0.91 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.95
|
-1.05 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.06
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 24Population: mITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo), except for those who were potentially unblinded and from site 1006. BOCF method was used to impute missing values.
WOMAC: Self-administered, disease-specific questionnaire which assesses clinically important, participant-relevant symptoms for pain, stiffness and physical function in participants with OA. WOMAC pain subscale is a 5-item questionnaire used to assess the amount of pain experienced due to osteoarthritis in index knee during past 48 hours. It is calculated as mean of the scores from 5 individual questions, each scored on a numerical rating scale (NRS) of 0 (no pain) to 10 (extreme pain), where higher scores indicate higher pain. Total score range for WOMAC pain subscale score is 0 (no pain) to 10 (extreme pain), where higher scores indicate higher pain.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=154 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 2.5 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 milligram (mg) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 5 mg
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 10 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 4
|
-2.72 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.39
|
-3.70 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.63
|
-3.44 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.40
|
-3.72 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.58
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 2
|
-2.75 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.46
|
-3.08 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.55
|
-2.52 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.39
|
-2.68 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.56
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 8
|
-2.53 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.46
|
-3.40 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.54
|
-3.32 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.38
|
-3.84 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.56
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 12
|
-2.55 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.59
|
-3.70 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.70
|
-3.51 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.70
|
-3.80 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.69
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 24
|
-2.39 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.63
|
-3.10 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.84
|
-2.99 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.64
|
-3.55 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.91
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24Population: mITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo), except for those who were potentially unblinded and from site 1006. LOCF method was used to impute missing values.
WOMAC: Self-administered, disease-specific questionnaire which assesses clinically important, participant-relevant symptoms for pain, stiffness and physical function in participants with OA. WOMAC pain subscale is a 5-item questionnaire used to assess the amount of pain experienced due to osteoarthritis in index knee during past 48 hours. It is calculated as mean of the scores from 5 individual questions, each scored on a numerical rating scale (NRS) of 0 (no pain) to 10 (extreme pain), where higher scores indicate higher pain. Total score range for WOMAC pain subscale score is 0 (no pain) to 10 (extreme pain), where higher scores indicate higher pain.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=154 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 2.5 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 milligram (mg) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 5 mg
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 10 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Change at Week 24
|
-2.93 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.59
|
-3.38 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.72
|
-3.40 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.57
|
-4.11 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.67
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Baseline
|
7.05 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.45
|
7.16 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.44
|
7.19 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.41
|
6.99 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.43
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Change at Week 2
|
-2.75 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.46
|
-3.08 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.55
|
-2.52 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.39
|
-2.68 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.56
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Change at Week 4
|
-2.89 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.44
|
-3.81 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.57
|
-3.45 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.40
|
-3.82 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.54
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Change at Week 8
|
-2.65 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.44
|
-3.44 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.53
|
-3.44 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.32
|
-4.01 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.47
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Change at Week 12
|
-2.95 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.51
|
-3.96 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.53
|
-3.77 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.56
|
-4.13 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.49
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Change at Week 16
|
-2.89 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.57
|
-3.46 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.69
|
-3.60 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.54
|
-4.17 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.55
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 24Population: mITT analysis set. BOCF method was used to impute missing values. Here, "Overall number of participants analyzed" signifies those participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.
WOMAC: Self-administered, disease-specific questionnaire which assesses clinically important, participant-relevant symptoms for pain, stiffness and physical function in participants with OA. WOMAC physical function is a 17-item questionnaire used to assess the degree of difficulty experienced due to osteoarthritis in index joint during past 48 hours. It is calculated as mean of the scores from 17 individual questions, each scored on a NRS of 0 (no difficulty) to 10 (extreme difficulty), where higher scores indicate worse function. Total score range for WOMAC physical function subscale score is 0 (no difficulty) to 10 (extreme difficulty), where higher scores indicate worse function. Physical function refers to participant's ability to move around and perform usual activities of daily living
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=154 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 2.5 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 milligram (mg) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 5 mg
n=155 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 10 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Physical Function Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 2
|
-2.17 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.40
|
-2.85 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.62
|
-2.34 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.27
|
-2.61 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.57
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Physical Function Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 4
|
-2.13 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.36
|
-3.23 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.66
|
-3.09 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.35
|
-3.41 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.56
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Physical Function Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 8
|
-2.00 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.31
|
-2.97 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.58
|
-2.98 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.36
|
-3.47 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.58
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Physical Function Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 12
|
-2.13 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.50
|
-3.38 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.64
|
-3.25 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.62
|
-3.51 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.66
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Physical Function Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 24
|
-2.01 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.44
|
-2.77 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.71
|
-2.74 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.61
|
-3.23 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.83
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24Population: mITT analysis set. LOCF method was used to impute missing values. Here, "Overall number of participants analyzed" signifies those participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.
WOMAC: Self-administered, disease-specific questionnaire which assesses clinically important, participant-relevant symptoms for pain, stiffness and physical function in participants with OA. WOMAC physical function is a 17-item questionnaire used to assess the degree of difficulty experienced due to osteoarthritis in index joint during past 48 hours. It is calculated as mean of the scores from 17 individual questions, each scored on a NRS of 0 (no difficulty) to 10 (extreme difficulty), where higher scores indicate worse function. Total score range for WOMAC physical function subscale score is 0 (no difficulty) to 10 (extreme difficulty), where higher scores indicate worse function. Physical function refers to participant's ability to move around and perform usual activities of daily living
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=154 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 2.5 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 milligram (mg) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 5 mg
n=155 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 10 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Physical Function Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Change at Week 4
|
-2.27 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.46
|
-3.36 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.59
|
-3.16 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.32
|
-3.51 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.54
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Physical Function Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Change at Week 8
|
-2.06 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.36
|
-3.01 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.55
|
-3.12 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.31
|
-3.64 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.51
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Physical Function Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Change at Week 12
|
-2.39 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.52
|
-3.55 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.53
|
-3.49 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.52
|
-3.80 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.49
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Physical Function Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Baseline
|
6.64 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.59
|
6.86 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.58
|
6.91 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.49
|
6.69 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.62
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Physical Function Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Change at Week 2
|
-2.17 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.40
|
-2.85 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.62
|
-2.34 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.27
|
-2.61 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.57
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Physical Function Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Change at Week 16
|
-2.33 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.47
|
-3.04 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.60
|
-3.31 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.53
|
-3.81 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.47
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Physical Function Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Change at Week 24
|
-2.35 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.55
|
-2.96 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.63
|
-3.11 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.62
|
-3.78 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.62
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24Population: mITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo), except for those who were potentially unblinded and from site 1006. BOCF method was used to impute missing values.
WOMAC: Self-administered, disease-specific questionnaire which assesses clinically important, participant-relevant symptoms for pain, stiffness and physical function in participants with OA. WOMAC stiffness subscale is a 2-item questionnaire used to assess the amount of stiffness experienced due to osteoarthritis in index knee during past 48 hours. It is calculated as mean of the scores from 2 individual questions scored on NRS of (no stiffness) to 10 (extreme stiffness), with higher scores indicate higher stiffness. Total score range for WOMAC stiffness subscale score is (no stiffness) to 10 (extreme stiffness), where higher scores indicate higher stiffness. Stiffness is defined as a sensation of decreased ease in movement of knee.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=154 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 2.5 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 milligram (mg) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 5 mg
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 10 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Stiffness Subscales at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Baseline
|
6.94 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.80
|
6.98 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.90
|
7.05 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.69
|
6.89 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.04
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Stiffness Subscales at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 2
|
-2.09 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.53
|
-2.91 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.79
|
-2.50 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.60
|
-2.70 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.82
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Stiffness Subscales at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 4
|
-2.12 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.46
|
-3.33 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.79
|
-3.28 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.62
|
-3.54 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.75
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Stiffness Subscales at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 8
|
-1.98 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.48
|
-2.91 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.83
|
-3.06 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.55
|
-3.70 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.75
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Stiffness Subscales at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 12
|
-2.10 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.60
|
-3.44 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.94
|
-3.38 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.82
|
-3.75 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.92
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Stiffness Subscales at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 16
|
-2.06 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.47
|
-2.95 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.92
|
-3.20 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.72
|
-3.50 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.92
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Stiffness Subscales at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 24
|
-2.02 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.49
|
-2.86 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.87
|
-2.68 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.70
|
-3.44 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.03
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24Population: mITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo), except for those who were potentially unblinded and from site 1006. LOCF method was used to impute missing values.
WOMAC: Self-administered, disease-specific questionnaire which assesses clinically important, participant-relevant symptoms for pain, stiffness and physical function in participants with OA. WOMAC stiffness subscale is a 2-item questionnaire used to assess the amount of stiffness experienced due to osteoarthritis in index knee during past 48 hours. It is calculated as mean of the scores from 2 individual questions scored on NRS of (no stiffness) to 10 (extreme stiffness), with higher scores indicate higher stiffness. Total score range for WOMAC stiffness subscale score is (no stiffness) to 10 (extreme stiffness), where higher scores indicate higher stiffness. Stiffness is defined as a sensation of decreased ease in movement of knee.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=154 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 2.5 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 milligram (mg) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 5 mg
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 10 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Stiffness Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Change at Week 12
|
-2.42 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.57
|
-3.59 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.82
|
-3.62 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.72
|
-4.04 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.79
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Stiffness Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Change at Week 24
|
-2.45 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.55
|
-3.07 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.77
|
-3.07 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.71
|
-3.94 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.88
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Stiffness Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Baseline
|
6.94 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.80
|
6.98 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.90
|
7.05 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.69
|
6.89 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.04
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Stiffness Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Change at Week 2
|
-2.09 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.53
|
-2.91 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.79
|
-2.50 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.60
|
-2.70 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.82
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Stiffness Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Change at Week 4
|
-2.31 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.52
|
-3.44 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.71
|
-3.32 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.61
|
-3.66 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.79
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Stiffness Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Change at Week 8
|
-2.11 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.47
|
-2.96 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.80
|
-3.22 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.47
|
-3.83 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.72
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Stiffness Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Change at Week 16
|
-2.40 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.45
|
-3.07 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.86
|
-3.36 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.67
|
-3.99 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.75
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 24Population: mITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo), except for those who were potentially unblinded and from site 1006. BOCF method was used to impute missing values.
Participants answered: "Considering all the ways your osteoarthritis in your knee affects you, how are you doing today". Participants responded on a scale ranging from 1-5, where 1= very good (no symptom and no limitation of normal activities), 2= good (mild symptoms and no limitation of normal activities), 3= fair (moderate symptoms and limitation of some normal activities), 4= poor (severe symptoms and inability to carry out most normal activities), and 5= very poor (very severe symptoms and inability to carry out all normal activities). Higher scores indicated worsening of condition.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=154 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 2.5 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 milligram (mg) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 5 mg
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 10 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 2
|
-0.55 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.87
|
-0.91 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.90
|
-0.63 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.88
|
-0.82 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.99
|
|
Change From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 4
|
-0.55 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.78
|
-1.04 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.92
|
-1.04 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.91
|
-1.16 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.99
|
|
Change From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 8
|
-0.46 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.73
|
-0.84 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.90
|
-0.84 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.91
|
-1.16 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.99
|
|
Change From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 12
|
-0.53 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.82
|
-1.01 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.98
|
-0.94 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.89
|
-1.17 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.03
|
|
Change From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 24
|
-0.53 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.83
|
-0.77 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.90
|
-0.70 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.94
|
-0.93 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.11
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24Population: mITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo), except for those who were potentially unblinded and from site 1006. LOCF method was used to impute missing values.
Participants answered: "Considering all the ways your osteoarthritis in your knee affects you, how are you doing today". Participants responded on a scale ranging from 1-5, where 1= very good (no symptom and no limitation of normal activities), 2= good (mild symptoms and no limitation of normal activities), 3= fair (moderate symptoms and limitation of some normal activities), 4= poor (severe symptoms and inability to carry out most normal activities), and 5= very poor (very severe symptoms and inability to carry out all normal activities). Higher scores indicated worsening of condition.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=154 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 2.5 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 milligram (mg) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 5 mg
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 10 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Baseline
|
3.40 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.58
|
3.47 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.63
|
3.45 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.63
|
3.45 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.59
|
|
Change From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Change at Week 2
|
-0.55 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.87
|
-0.91 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.90
|
-0.63 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.88
|
-0.82 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.99
|
|
Change From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Change at Week 4
|
-0.57 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.83
|
-1.08 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.91
|
-1.05 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.91
|
-1.18 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.00
|
|
Change From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Change at Week 8
|
-0.47 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.79
|
-0.86 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.90
|
-0.90 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.92
|
-1.21 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.98
|
|
Change From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Change at Week 12
|
-0.60 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.88
|
-1.05 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.97
|
-0.99 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.90
|
-1.28 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.03
|
|
Change From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Change at Week 16
|
-0.58 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.91
|
-0.90 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.93
|
-0.97 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.96
|
-1.19 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.05
|
|
Change From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Change at Week 24
|
-0.60 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.92
|
-0.82 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.90
|
-0.82 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.00
|
-1.13 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.12
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24Population: mITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo), except for those who were potentially unblinded and from site 1006. BOCF method was used to impute missing values.
OMERACT-OARSI response: greater than or equal to (\>=) 50 percent (%) improvement from baseline and absolute change from baseline of \>=2 units at Week of interest in WOMAC pain or physical function subscale, or at least 2 of the following 3 being true: \>=20% improvement from baseline and absolute change from baseline of \>=1 unit at Week of interest in 1) WOMAC pain subscale, 2) WOMAC physical function subscale, 3) PGA of osteoarthritis (score: 1-5, higher score=more affected). WOMAC pain, physical function subscales assess amount of pain/difficulty experienced (score: 0-10, higher score=higher pain/difficulty).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=154 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 2.5 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 milligram (mg) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 5 mg
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 10 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants With Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) Response: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Week 2
|
62.3 percentage of participants
|
68.2 percentage of participants
|
60.9 percentage of participants
|
68.2 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) Response: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Week 4
|
57.1 percentage of participants
|
70.8 percentage of participants
|
75.0 percentage of participants
|
77.3 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) Response: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Week 8
|
52.6 percentage of participants
|
72.1 percentage of participants
|
73.7 percentage of participants
|
78.6 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) Response: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Week 12
|
53.2 percentage of participants
|
74.7 percentage of participants
|
74.4 percentage of participants
|
77.9 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) Response: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Week 16
|
53.9 percentage of participants
|
68.2 percentage of participants
|
69.9 percentage of participants
|
70.8 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) Response: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Week 24
|
51.3 percentage of participants
|
62.3 percentage of participants
|
64.1 percentage of participants
|
69.5 percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24Population: mITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo), except for those who were potentially unblinded and from site 1006. LOCF method was used to impute missing values.
OMERACT-OARSI response: \>= 50% improvement from baseline and absolute change from baseline of \>=2 units at Week of interest in WOMAC pain or physical function subscale, or at least 2 of the following 3 being true: \>=20% improvement from baseline and absolute change from baseline of \>=1 unit at Week of interest in 1) WOMAC pain subscale, 2) WOMAC physical function subscale, 3) PGA of osteoarthritis (score: 1-5, higher score=more affected). WOMAC pain, physical function subscales assess amount of pain/difficulty experienced (score: 0-10, higher score=higher pain/difficulty).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=154 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 2.5 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 milligram (mg) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 5 mg
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 10 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants With Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) Response: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Week 24
|
65.6 percentage of participants
|
70.8 percentage of participants
|
75.0 percentage of participants
|
82.5 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) Response: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Week 4
|
61.7 percentage of participants
|
74.0 percentage of participants
|
76.3 percentage of participants
|
80.5 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) Response: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Week 8
|
57.1 percentage of participants
|
73.4 percentage of participants
|
77.6 percentage of participants
|
83.1 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) Response: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Week 2
|
62.3 percentage of participants
|
68.2 percentage of participants
|
60.9 percentage of participants
|
68.2 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) Response: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Week 12
|
64.9 percentage of participants
|
80.5 percentage of participants
|
81.4 percentage of participants
|
85.7 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) Response: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Week 16
|
65.6 percentage of participants
|
72.7 percentage of participants
|
75.6 percentage of participants
|
82.5 percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24Population: mITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo), except for those who were potentially unblinded and from site 1006. BOCF method was used to impute missing values.
WOMAC: Self-administered, disease-specific questionnaire which assesses clinically important, participant-relevant symptoms for pain, stiffness and physical function in participants with OA. WOMAC pain subscale is a 5-item questionnaire used to assess the amount of pain experienced due to osteoarthritis in index knee during past 48 hours. It is calculated as mean of the scores from 5 individual questions, each scored on a numerical rating scale (NRS) of 0 (no pain) to 10 (extreme pain), where higher scores indicate higher pain. Total score range for WOMAC pain subscale score is 0 (no pain) to 10 (extreme pain), where higher scores indicate higher pain.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=154 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 2.5 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 milligram (mg) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 5 mg
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 10 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants With at Least 30% and 50% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Week 2: >=30% reduction
|
57.8 percentage of participants
|
60.4 percentage of participants
|
50.6 percentage of participants
|
55.2 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With at Least 30% and 50% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Week 2: >=50% reduction
|
40.9 percentage of participants
|
44.8 percentage of participants
|
32.1 percentage of participants
|
41.6 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With at Least 30% and 50% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Week 4: >=30% reduction
|
57.1 percentage of participants
|
66.2 percentage of participants
|
66.7 percentage of participants
|
72.1 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With at Least 30% and 50% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Week 4: >=50% reduction
|
40.3 percentage of participants
|
56.5 percentage of participants
|
50.6 percentage of participants
|
57.8 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With at Least 30% and 50% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Week 8: >=30% reduction
|
50.0 percentage of participants
|
65.6 percentage of participants
|
67.9 percentage of participants
|
74.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With at Least 30% and 50% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Week 8: >=50% reduction
|
38.3 percentage of participants
|
48.7 percentage of participants
|
50.0 percentage of participants
|
63.6 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With at Least 30% and 50% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Week 12: >=30% reduction
|
52.6 percentage of participants
|
67.5 percentage of participants
|
66.0 percentage of participants
|
73.4 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With at Least 30% and 50% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Week 12: >=50% reduction
|
39.0 percentage of participants
|
57.1 percentage of participants
|
56.4 percentage of participants
|
57.8 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With at Least 30% and 50% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Week 16: >=30% reduction
|
51.3 percentage of participants
|
64.3 percentage of participants
|
65.4 percentage of participants
|
68.2 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With at Least 30% and 50% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Week 16: >=50% reduction
|
39.0 percentage of participants
|
50.6 percentage of participants
|
50.0 percentage of participants
|
61.7 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With at Least 30% and 50% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Week 24: >=30% reduction
|
48.7 percentage of participants
|
59.7 percentage of participants
|
59.6 percentage of participants
|
66.9 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With at Least 30% and 50% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Week 24: >=50% reduction
|
40.3 percentage of participants
|
47.4 percentage of participants
|
44.9 percentage of participants
|
57.1 percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24Population: mITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo), except for those who were potentially unblinded and from site 1006. LOCF method was used to impute missing values.
WOMAC: Self-administered, disease-specific questionnaire which assesses clinically important, participant-relevant symptoms for pain, stiffness and physical function in participants with OA. WOMAC pain subscale is a 5-item questionnaire used to assess the amount of pain experienced due to osteoarthritis in index knee during past 48 hours. It is calculated as mean of the scores from 5 individual questions, each scored on a numerical rating scale (NRS) of 0 (no pain) to 10 (extreme pain), where higher scores indicate higher pain. Total score range for WOMAC pain subscale score is 0 (no pain) to 10 (extreme pain), where higher scores indicate higher pain.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=154 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 2.5 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 milligram (mg) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 5 mg
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 10 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants With at Least 30 Percent (%) and 50% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Week 4: >=50% reduction
|
42.2 percentage of participants
|
57.8 percentage of participants
|
50.6 percentage of participants
|
59.1 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With at Least 30 Percent (%) and 50% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Week 8: >=30% reduction
|
53.9 percentage of participants
|
66.9 percentage of participants
|
71.2 percentage of participants
|
77.9 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With at Least 30 Percent (%) and 50% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Week 24: >=30% reduction
|
61.0 percentage of participants
|
66.2 percentage of participants
|
68.6 percentage of participants
|
78.6 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With at Least 30 Percent (%) and 50% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Week 24: >=50% reduction
|
44.8 percentage of participants
|
51.9 percentage of participants
|
49.4 percentage of participants
|
64.9 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With at Least 30 Percent (%) and 50% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Week 2: >=30% reduction
|
57.8 percentage of participants
|
60.4 percentage of participants
|
50.6 percentage of participants
|
55.2 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With at Least 30 Percent (%) and 50% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Week 2: >=50% reduction
|
40.9 percentage of participants
|
44.8 percentage of participants
|
32.1 percentage of participants
|
41.6 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With at Least 30 Percent (%) and 50% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Week 4: >=30% reduction
|
60.4 percentage of participants
|
69.5 percentage of participants
|
67.3 percentage of participants
|
74.7 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With at Least 30 Percent (%) and 50% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Week 8: >=50% reduction
|
39.0 percentage of participants
|
49.4 percentage of participants
|
51.3 percentage of participants
|
65.6 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With at Least 30 Percent (%) and 50% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Week 12: >=30% reduction
|
63.0 percentage of participants
|
73.4 percentage of participants
|
72.4 percentage of participants
|
79.9 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With at Least 30 Percent (%) and 50% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Week 12: >=50% reduction
|
42.9 percentage of participants
|
60.4 percentage of participants
|
58.3 percentage of participants
|
61.7 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With at Least 30 Percent (%) and 50% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Week 16: >=30% reduction
|
61.7 percentage of participants
|
68.8 percentage of participants
|
70.5 percentage of participants
|
78.6 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With at Least 30 Percent (%) and 50% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Week 16: >=50% reduction
|
42.2 percentage of participants
|
53.2 percentage of participants
|
51.3 percentage of participants
|
68.2 percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24Population: mITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo), except for those who were potentially unblinded and from site 1006. BOCF method was used to impute missing values.
Participants answered: "Considering all the ways your osteoarthritis in your knee affects you, how are you doing today". Participants responded on a scale ranging from 1-5, where 1= very good (no symptom and no limitation of normal activities), 2= good (mild symptoms and no limitation of normal activities), 3= fair (moderate symptoms and limitation of some normal activities), 4= poor (severe symptoms and inability to carry out most normal activities), and 5= very poor (very severe symptoms and inability to carry out all normal activities). Higher scores indicated worsening of condition.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=154 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 2.5 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 milligram (mg) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 5 mg
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 10 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants With at Least 2 Points Improvement From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Week 12
|
15.6 percentage of participants
|
32.5 percentage of participants
|
24.4 percentage of participants
|
39.6 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With at Least 2 Points Improvement From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Week 2
|
11.7 percentage of participants
|
24.0 percentage of participants
|
14.7 percentage of participants
|
21.4 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With at Least 2 Points Improvement From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Week 4
|
10.4 percentage of participants
|
31.8 percentage of participants
|
24.4 percentage of participants
|
37.7 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With at Least 2 Points Improvement From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Week 8
|
9.1 percentage of participants
|
23.4 percentage of participants
|
19.9 percentage of participants
|
33.8 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With at Least 2 Points Improvement From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Week 16
|
13.6 percentage of participants
|
24.7 percentage of participants
|
23.7 percentage of participants
|
30.5 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With at Least 2 Points Improvement From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Week 24
|
16.2 percentage of participants
|
20.8 percentage of participants
|
18.6 percentage of participants
|
32.5 percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24Population: mITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo), except for those who were potentially unblinded and from site 1006. LOCF method was used to impute missing values.
Participants answered: "Considering all the ways your osteoarthritis in your knee affects you, how are you doing today". Participants responded on a scale ranging from 1-5, where 1= very good (no symptom and no limitation of normal activities), 2= good (mild symptoms and no limitation of normal activities), 3= fair (moderate symptoms and limitation of some normal activities), 4= poor (severe symptoms and inability to carry out most normal activities), and 5= very poor (very severe symptoms and inability to carry out all normal activities). Higher scores indicated worsening of condition.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=154 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 2.5 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 milligram (mg) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 5 mg
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 10 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants With at Least 2 Points Improvement From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Week 24
|
18.8 percentage of participants
|
21.4 percentage of participants
|
21.8 percentage of participants
|
39.6 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With at Least 2 Points Improvement From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Week 2
|
11.7 percentage of participants
|
24.0 percentage of participants
|
14.7 percentage of participants
|
21.4 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With at Least 2 Points Improvement From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Week 4
|
11.7 percentage of participants
|
32.5 percentage of participants
|
24.4 percentage of participants
|
38.3 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With at Least 2 Points Improvement From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Week 8
|
10.4 percentage of participants
|
23.4 percentage of participants
|
21.2 percentage of participants
|
35.7 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With at Least 2 Points Improvement From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Week 12
|
17.5 percentage of participants
|
33.1 percentage of participants
|
25.0 percentage of participants
|
42.9 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With at Least 2 Points Improvement From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Week 16
|
15.6 percentage of participants
|
25.3 percentage of participants
|
25.0 percentage of participants
|
35.7 percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline up to Week 16Population: mITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo), except for those who were potentially unblinded and from site 1006. BOCF method was used to impute missing values.
WOMAC: Self-administered, disease-specific questionnaire which assesses clinically important, participant-relevant symptoms for pain, stiffness and physical function in participants with OA. WOMAC pain subscale is a 5-item questionnaire used to assess the amount of pain experienced due to osteoarthritis in index knee during past 48 hours. It is calculated as mean of the scores from 5 individual questions, each scored on a numerical rating scale (NRS) of 0 (no pain) to 10 (extreme pain), where higher scores indicate higher pain. Total score range for WOMAC pain subscale score is 0 (no pain) to 10 (extreme pain), where higher scores indicate higher pain. Participants with specified reduction (as percent) from baseline up to Week 16 are reported.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=154 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 2.5 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 milligram (mg) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 5 mg
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 10 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline to Week 16 in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
>=60%
|
31.8 percentage of participants
|
39.0 percentage of participants
|
45.5 percentage of participants
|
55.8 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline to Week 16 in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Greater than (>) 0%
|
61.0 percentage of participants
|
79.2 percentage of participants
|
79.5 percentage of participants
|
76.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline to Week 16 in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
>=10%
|
59.7 percentage of participants
|
75.3 percentage of participants
|
78.2 percentage of participants
|
74.7 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline to Week 16 in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
>=20%
|
54.5 percentage of participants
|
70.8 percentage of participants
|
69.9 percentage of participants
|
70.1 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline to Week 16 in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
>=30%
|
51.3 percentage of participants
|
64.3 percentage of participants
|
65.4 percentage of participants
|
68.2 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline to Week 16 in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
>=40%
|
48.7 percentage of participants
|
58.4 percentage of participants
|
57.7 percentage of participants
|
67.5 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline to Week 16 in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
>=50%
|
67.5 percentage of participants
|
50.6 percentage of participants
|
50.0 percentage of participants
|
61.7 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline to Week 16 in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
>=70%
|
23.4 percentage of participants
|
33.1 percentage of participants
|
39.1 percentage of participants
|
44.2 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline to Week 16 in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
>=80%
|
13.6 percentage of participants
|
27.3 percentage of participants
|
27.6 percentage of participants
|
31.8 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline to Week 16 in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
>=90%
|
5.2 percentage of participants
|
14.9 percentage of participants
|
12.8 percentage of participants
|
24.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline to Week 16 in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
=100%
|
0.1 percentage of participants
|
4.5 percentage of participants
|
5.8 percentage of participants
|
7.1 percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline up to Week 16Population: mITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo), except for those who were potentially unblinded and from site 1006. LOCF method was used to impute missing values.
WOMAC: Self-administered, disease-specific questionnaire which assesses clinically important, participant-relevant symptoms for pain, stiffness and physical function in participants with OA. WOMAC pain subscale is a 5-item questionnaire used to assess the amount of pain experienced due to osteoarthritis in index knee during past 48 hours. It is calculated as mean of the scores from 5 individual questions, each scored on a numerical rating scale (NRS) of 0 (no pain) to 10 (extreme pain), where higher scores indicate higher pain. Total score range for WOMAC pain subscale score is 0 (no pain) to 10 (extreme pain), where higher scores indicate higher pain. Total score range for WOMAC pain subscale score is 0 to 10, where higher scores indicate higher pain. Participants with specified reduction (as percent) from baseline up to Week 16 are reported.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=154 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 2.5 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 milligram (mg) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 5 mg
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 10 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline to Week 16 in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
>0%
|
84.4 percentage of participants
|
87.7 percentage of participants
|
92.9 percentage of participants
|
92.9 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline to Week 16 in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
>=10%
|
77.9 percentage of participants
|
83.1 percentage of participants
|
87.2 percentage of participants
|
90.9 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline to Week 16 in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
>=20%
|
66.2 percentage of participants
|
76.6 percentage of participants
|
75.6 percentage of participants
|
83.1 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline to Week 16 in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
>=30%
|
61.7 percentage of participants
|
68.8 percentage of participants
|
70.5 percentage of participants
|
78.6 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline to Week 16 in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
>=40%
|
55.2 percentage of participants
|
62.3 percentage of participants
|
60.3 percentage of participants
|
75.3 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline to Week 16 in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
>=50%
|
42.2 percentage of participants
|
53.2 percentage of participants
|
51.3 percentage of participants
|
68.2 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline to Week 16 in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
>=60%
|
33.8 percentage of participants
|
40.9 percentage of participants
|
46.2 percentage of participants
|
62.3 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline to Week 16 in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
>=70%
|
24.7 percentage of participants
|
33.8 percentage of participants
|
39.7 percentage of participants
|
47.4 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline to Week 16 in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
>=80%
|
14.3 percentage of participants
|
27.3 percentage of participants
|
28.2 percentage of participants
|
34.4 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline to Week 16 in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
>=90%
|
5.8 percentage of participants
|
14.9 percentage of participants
|
13.5 percentage of participants
|
25.3 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline to Week 16 in Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
=100%
|
0.1 percentage of participants
|
4.5 percentage of participants
|
5.8 percentage of participants
|
8.4 percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24Population: mITT analysis set. BOCF method was used to impute missing values. Here, "Overall number of participants analyzed" signifies those participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.
Participants assessed daily average knee pain during the past 24 hours on an 11-point NRS ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain). Baseline score was calculated as the mean of the scores over the 3 days and a weekly mean was calculated using the daily pain scores within each study week. The change from Baseline was calculated using difference between each post-baseline weekly mean and the Baseline mean score.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=153 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 2.5 mg
n=152 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 milligram (mg) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 5 mg
n=151 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 10 mg
n=153 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Average Pain Score in the Index Knee at Week 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 20
|
-1.80 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.30
|
-2.80 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.88
|
-2.81 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.54
|
-3.27 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.83
|
|
Change From Baseline in Average Pain Score in the Index Knee at Week 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 12
|
-1.82 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.37
|
-2.91 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.76
|
-2.78 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.52
|
-3.27 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.72
|
|
Change From Baseline in Average Pain Score in the Index Knee at Week 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 16
|
-1.73 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.34
|
-2.28 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.69
|
-2.58 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.47
|
-3.15 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.76
|
|
Change From Baseline in Average Pain Score in the Index Knee at Week 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Baseline
|
6.38 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.93
|
6.70 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.83
|
6.74 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.63
|
6.55 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.91
|
|
Change From Baseline in Average Pain Score in the Index Knee at Week 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 1
|
-1.21 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.97
|
-1.87 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.04
|
-1.83 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.84
|
-2.09 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.03
|
|
Change From Baseline in Average Pain Score in the Index Knee at Week 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 2
|
-1.68 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.21
|
-2.12 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.42
|
-1.83 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.02
|
-2.15 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.31
|
|
Change From Baseline in Average Pain Score in the Index Knee at Week 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 3
|
-1.73 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.22
|
-2.38 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.52
|
-1.90 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.06
|
-2.17 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.47
|
|
Change From Baseline in Average Pain Score in the Index Knee at Week 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 4
|
-1.81 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.32
|
-2.73 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.49
|
-2.47 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.14
|
-2.99 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.52
|
|
Change From Baseline in Average Pain Score in the Index Knee at Week 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 6
|
-1.83 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.37
|
-2.78 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.66
|
-2.50 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.20
|
-3.07 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.59
|
|
Change From Baseline in Average Pain Score in the Index Knee at Week 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 8
|
-1.67 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.28
|
-2.45 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.61
|
-2.47 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.18
|
-3.10 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.63
|
|
Change From Baseline in Average Pain Score in the Index Knee at Week 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 10
|
-1.84 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.41
|
-2.80 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.76
|
-2.65 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.40
|
-3.33 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.82
|
|
Change From Baseline in Average Pain Score in the Index Knee at Week 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 24
|
-1.63 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.21
|
-2.44 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.78
|
-2.29 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.48
|
-2.98 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.93
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24Population: mITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo), except for those who were potentially unblinded and from site 1006. BOCF method was used to impute missing values.
WOMAC: self-administered, disease-specific 24-item questionnaire which assesses clinically important, participant-relevant symptoms for pain (5 items), stiffness (2 items) and physical function (17 items) in participants with osteoarthritis of knee. WOMAC average score is the mean of WOMAC pain, physical function and stiffness subscale scores and ranges from 0 to 10, where higher score indicates worse response.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=154 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 2.5 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 milligram (mg) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 5 mg
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 10 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Average Score at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 4
|
-2.32 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.28
|
-3.42 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.58
|
-3.29 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.35
|
-3.55 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.50
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Average Score at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Baseline
|
6.88 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.43
|
7.00 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.46
|
7.05 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.38
|
6.86 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.52
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Average Score at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 2
|
-2.34 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.31
|
-2.95 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.53
|
-2.46 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.29
|
-2.67 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.49
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Average Score at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 8
|
-2.17 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.28
|
-3.09 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.53
|
-3.13 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.31
|
-3.68 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.52
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Average Score at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 12
|
-2.26 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.46
|
-3.51 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.65
|
-3.38 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.62
|
-3.70 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.64
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Average Score at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 16
|
-2.21 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.41
|
-3.05 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.67
|
-3.25 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.56
|
-3.51 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.71
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Average Score at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 24
|
-2.14 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.40
|
-2.91 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.70
|
-2.81 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.56
|
-3.43 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.82
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24Population: mITT analysis set. BOCF method was used to impute missing values. Here, 'Number Analyzed' signifies participants evaluated at specific time points for each arm group, respectively.
Participants answered, Question (Q)1: "How much pain have you had when walking on a flat surface?" and Q2: "How much pain have you had when going up or down the stairs?". Participants responded by using a NRS of 0 to 10, where 0 = no pain and 10 = extreme pain.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=154 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 2.5 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 milligram (mg) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 5 mg
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 10 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Item at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 16: Q1
|
-2.44 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.73
|
-3.26 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.00
|
-3.42 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.84
|
-3.64 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.99
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Item at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 16: Q2
|
-2.28 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.55
|
-3.23 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.00
|
-3.37 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.86
|
-3.79 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.02
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Item at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 24: Q1
|
-2.27 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.66
|
-3.10 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.08
|
-3.03 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.80
|
-3.56 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.13
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Item at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 24: Q2
|
-2.13 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.68
|
-3.10 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.09
|
-2.97 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.89
|
-3.75 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.07
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Item at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Baseline: Q1
|
6.90 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.67
|
7.18 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.72
|
7.28 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.59
|
6.96 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.71
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Item at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Baseline: Q2
|
8.10 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.45
|
8.21 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.55
|
8.21 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.45
|
8.18 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.44
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Item at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 2: Q1
|
-2.44 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.58
|
-3.23 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.87
|
-2.58 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.56
|
-2.95 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.73
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Item at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 2: Q2
|
-2.49 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.57
|
-3.08 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.84
|
-2.59 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.48
|
-2.99 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.66
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Item at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 4: Q1
|
-2.55 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.50
|
-3.78 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.90
|
-3.49 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.49
|
-3.89 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.66
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Item at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 4: Q2
|
-2.54 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.53
|
-3.67 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.96
|
-3.43 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.60
|
-3.94 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.80
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Item at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 8: Q1
|
-2.41 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.64
|
-3.40 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.95
|
-3.30 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.45
|
-3.86 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.73
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Item at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 8: Q2
|
-2.34 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.50
|
-3.28 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.91
|
-3.26 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.52
|
-3.95 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.87
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Item at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 12: Q1
|
-2.38 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.65
|
-3.73 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.98
|
-3.51 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.82
|
-3.75 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.80
|
|
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Item at Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 12: Q2
|
-2.42 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.67
|
-3.77 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.08
|
-3.48 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.00
|
-3.95 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.04
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 12, 24Population: mITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo), except for those who were potentially unblinded and from site 1006. BOCF method was used to impute missing values.
SF-36v2: standardized survey evaluating 8 domains of functional health and wellbeing (physical and social functioning, physical and emotional role limitations, bodily pain, general health, vitality, mental health). Total score for each domain were scaled 0 (poor health) to 100 (best health), higher scores indicating good health condition.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=154 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 2.5 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 milligram (mg) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 5 mg
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 10 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 24: Bodily Pain
|
11.68 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 21.15
|
15.34 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 24.39
|
14.23 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 22.96
|
19.02 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 24.36
|
|
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 24: Mental Health
|
2.21 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 12.30
|
1.23 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 14.39
|
2.31 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 13.24
|
2.11 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 13.88
|
|
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Baseline: General health
|
67.16 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 18.72
|
65.39 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 17.74
|
65.99 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 17.82
|
69.38 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 17.47
|
|
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Baseline: Physical Function
|
32.64 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 19.16
|
30.52 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 20.07
|
30.46 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 19.11
|
33.42 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 20.90
|
|
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Baseline: Role Physical
|
45.74 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 25.76
|
42.25 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 24.41
|
43.51 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 24.39
|
45.33 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 27.98
|
|
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Baseline: Bodily Pain
|
34.48 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 15.60
|
33.84 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 17.50
|
33.50 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 16.28
|
34.20 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 16.06
|
|
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Baseline: Vitality
|
51.42 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 19.22
|
54.26 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 18.62
|
55.25 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 18.27
|
53.45 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 21.43
|
|
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Baseline: Social Function
|
69.48 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 25.53
|
68.91 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 27.28
|
70.03 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 25.59
|
72.65 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 24.58
|
|
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Baseline: Role Emotional
|
73.43 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 27.13
|
67.48 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 29.88
|
71.85 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 28.29
|
71.37 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 30.19
|
|
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Baseline: Mental Health
|
74.35 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 16.18
|
75.49 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 18.23
|
76.44 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 16.86
|
76.36 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 17.42
|
|
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 12: General health
|
3.28 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 12.12
|
3.62 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 11.81
|
5.81 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 14.17
|
5.11 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 13.44
|
|
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 12: Physical Function
|
8.26 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 18.75
|
19.99 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 22.43
|
18.12 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 22.72
|
19.34 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 22.36
|
|
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 12: Role Physical
|
8.97 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 24.21
|
19.85 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 27.50
|
19.51 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 25.54
|
18.06 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 25.56
|
|
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 12: Bodily Pain
|
11.83 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 19.60
|
22.46 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 25.53
|
21.19 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 23.77
|
24.36 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 24.62
|
|
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 12: Vitality
|
4.34 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 14.62
|
6.94 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 16.16
|
6.69 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 18.58
|
9.28 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 17.04
|
|
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 12: Social Function
|
6.25 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 22.20
|
10.96 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 25.70
|
11.46 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 21.15
|
7.47 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 22.44
|
|
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 12: Role Emotional
|
5.30 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 21.28
|
10.71 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 26.47
|
8.81 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 23.95
|
10.50 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 28.26
|
|
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 12: Mental Health
|
3.80 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 13.59
|
3.41 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 14.08
|
4.17 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 15.91
|
3.77 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 14.02
|
|
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 24: General health
|
3.38 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 11.81
|
4.27 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 11.87
|
3.31 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 13.10
|
2.94 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 10.20
|
|
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 24: Physical Function
|
8.75 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 19.53
|
15.25 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 20.98
|
13.54 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 23.00
|
17.97 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 23.32
|
|
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 24: Role Physical
|
7.75 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 22.97
|
14.12 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 26.73
|
12.82 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 23.51
|
17.21 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 25.35
|
|
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 24: Vitality
|
3.21 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 14.40
|
4.79 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 15.75
|
3.17 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 14.80
|
5.68 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 14.56
|
|
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 24: Social Function
|
4.95 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 22.62
|
6.98 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 25.53
|
7.69 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 21.65
|
7.87 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 18.02
|
|
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 24: Role Emotional
|
4.44 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 20.08
|
7.58 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 23.56
|
6.41 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 22.18
|
10.44 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 25.25
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 12, 24Population: mITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo), except for those who were potentially unblinded and from site 1006. BOCF method was used to impute missing values.
SF-36v2: standardized survey evaluating 8 domains of functional health and wellbeing (physical and social functioning, physical and emotional role limitations, bodily pain, general health, vitality, mental health). Total score for each domain were scaled 0 (poor health) to 100 (best health), higher scores indicating good health condition. For obtaining physical and mental component scores, z-score for each scale = (observed score - mean score for general 1990 United States \[US\] population)/corresponding standard deviation. The 2 component scores were obtained by multiplying each aspect z-score by physical or mental factor score coefficient (1990 general US population) and summing the eight products. Component scores indicated how many standard deviations higher (in case of positive z-score \[better functioning\])/lower (in case of negative z-score \[worse functioning\]) participant's value was relative to the mean of the reference population.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=154 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 2.5 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 milligram (mg) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 5 mg
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 10 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Physical and Mental Component Scores at Week 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Baseline: Mental Component Aggregate
|
0.23 z-score
Standard Deviation 1.08
|
0.21 z-score
Standard Deviation 1.17
|
0.34 z-score
Standard Deviation 1.11
|
0.30 z-score
Standard Deviation 1.11
|
|
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Physical and Mental Component Scores at Week 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Baseline: Physical Component Aggregate
|
-1.79 z-score
Standard Deviation 0.77
|
-1.86 z-score
Standard Deviation 0.73
|
-1.89 z-score
Standard Deviation 0.72
|
-1.76 z-score
Standard Deviation 0.76
|
|
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Physical and Mental Component Scores at Week 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 12: Mental Component Aggregate
|
0.16 z-score
Standard Deviation 0.83
|
0.13 z-score
Standard Deviation 0.98
|
0.14 z-score
Standard Deviation 0.94
|
0.11 z-score
Standard Deviation 0.90
|
|
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Physical and Mental Component Scores at Week 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 12: Physical Component Aggregate
|
0.37 z-score
Standard Deviation 0.78
|
0.82 z-score
Standard Deviation 0.95
|
0.80 z-score
Standard Deviation 0.88
|
0.83 z-score
Standard Deviation 0.85
|
|
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Physical and Mental Component Scores at Week 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 24: Mental Component Aggregate
|
0.07 z-score
Standard Deviation 0.73
|
0.04 z-score
Standard Deviation 0.94
|
0.06 z-score
Standard Deviation 0.80
|
0.09 z-score
Standard Deviation 0.83
|
|
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Physical and Mental Component Scores at Week 12, 24: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Change at Week 24: Physical Component Aggregate
|
0.38 z-score
Standard Deviation 0.80
|
0.63 z-score
Standard Deviation 0.89
|
0.55 z-score
Standard Deviation 0.87
|
0.72 z-score
Standard Deviation 0.90
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline up to Week 16Population: Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo).
Median time to discontinuation due to lack of efficacy was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=172 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 2.5 mg
n=172 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 milligram (mg) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 5 mg
n=172 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 10 mg
n=174 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Time to Discontinuation Due to Lack of Efficacy
|
NA days
Median and full range cannot be estimated due to less number of participants with events.
|
NA days
Median and full range cannot be estimated due to less number of participants with events.
|
NA days
Median and full range cannot be estimated due to less number of participants with events.
|
NA days
Median and full range cannot be estimated due to less number of participants with events.
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24Population: mITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo), except for those who were potentially unblinded and from site 1006. LOCF method was used to impute missing values.
In case of inadequate pain relief for osteoarthritis, acetaminophen up to 4000 mg per day up to 3 days per week could be taken as rescue medication.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=154 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 2.5 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 milligram (mg) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 5 mg
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 10 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Used Rescue Medications
Week 4
|
55.2 percentage of participants
|
40.3 percentage of participants
|
36.5 percentage of participants
|
40.5 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Used Rescue Medications
Week 12
|
40.3 percentage of participants
|
30.5 percentage of participants
|
34.0 percentage of participants
|
32.7 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Used Rescue Medications
Week 16
|
38.3 percentage of participants
|
40.9 percentage of participants
|
32.7 percentage of participants
|
31.4 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Used Rescue Medications
Week 24
|
27.9 percentage of participants
|
35.7 percentage of participants
|
28.8 percentage of participants
|
26.8 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Used Rescue Medications
Week 2
|
68.2 percentage of participants
|
63.0 percentage of participants
|
65.4 percentage of participants
|
66.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Who Used Rescue Medications
Week 8
|
46.8 percentage of participants
|
42.9 percentage of participants
|
39.1 percentage of participants
|
39.9 percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24Population: mITT analysis set. LOCF method was used to impute missing values. Here, "Overall number of participants analyzed" signifies those participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.
In case of inadequate pain relief for osteoarthritis, acetaminophen up to 4000 mg per day up to 3 days per week could be taken as rescue medication.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=154 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 2.5 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 milligram (mg) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 5 mg
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 10 mg
n=153 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Duration of Rescue Medication Use
Week 2
|
1.5 days
Interval 0.0 to 7.0
|
1.0 days
Interval 0.0 to 7.0
|
2.0 days
Interval 0.0 to 7.0
|
1.0 days
Interval 0.0 to 7.0
|
|
Duration of Rescue Medication Use
Week 4
|
1.0 days
Interval 0.0 to 7.0
|
0.0 days
Interval 0.0 to 7.0
|
0.0 days
Interval 0.0 to 7.0
|
0.0 days
Interval 0.0 to 7.0
|
|
Duration of Rescue Medication Use
Week 8
|
0.0 days
Interval 0.0 to 7.0
|
0.0 days
Interval 0.0 to 7.0
|
0.0 days
Interval 0.0 to 7.0
|
0.0 days
Interval 0.0 to 7.0
|
|
Duration of Rescue Medication Use
Week 12
|
0.0 days
Interval 0.0 to 7.0
|
0.0 days
Interval 0.0 to 7.0
|
0.0 days
Interval 0.0 to 7.0
|
0.0 days
Interval 0.0 to 7.0
|
|
Duration of Rescue Medication Use
Week 16
|
0.0 days
Interval 0.0 to 7.0
|
0.0 days
Interval 0.0 to 7.0
|
0.0 days
Interval 0.0 to 7.0
|
0.0 days
Interval 0.0 to 7.0
|
|
Duration of Rescue Medication Use
Week 24
|
0.0 days
Interval 0.0 to 7.0
|
0.0 days
Interval 0.0 to 7.0
|
0.0 days
Interval 0.0 to 7.0
|
0.0 days
Interval 0.0 to 7.0
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24Population: mITT analysis set. LOCF method was used to impute missing values. Here, "Overall number of participants analyzed" signifies those participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.
In case of inadequate pain relief for osteoarthritis, acetaminophen up to 4000 mg per day up to 3 days per week could be taken as rescue medication.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Placebo
n=154 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 2.5 mg
n=154 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 milligram (mg) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 5 mg
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 10 mg
n=153 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Amount of Rescue Medication Taken
Week 24
|
1704.55 mg/week
Standard Deviation 4183.54
|
1879.87 mg/week
Standard Deviation 4351.79
|
1836.54 mg/week
Standard Deviation 4768.57
|
1588.24 mg/week
Standard Deviation 4443.03
|
|
Amount of Rescue Medication Taken
Week 2
|
3493.51 mg/week
Standard Deviation 4969.51
|
2818.18 mg/week
Standard Deviation 4063.15
|
3419.87 mg/week
Standard Deviation 4759.20
|
2993.46 mg/week
Standard Deviation 4226.71
|
|
Amount of Rescue Medication Taken
Week 4
|
2691.56 mg/week
Standard Deviation 4484.61
|
1925.32 mg/week
Standard Deviation 3943.13
|
1891.03 mg/week
Standard Deviation 4038.24
|
2065.36 mg/week
Standard Deviation 4510.11
|
|
Amount of Rescue Medication Taken
Week 8
|
2383.12 mg/week
Standard Deviation 4292.72
|
2133.12 mg/week
Standard Deviation 4199.69
|
1753.21 mg/week
Standard Deviation 4109.59
|
1934.64 mg/week
Standard Deviation 4568.45
|
|
Amount of Rescue Medication Taken
Week 12
|
1941.56 mg/week
Standard Deviation 4184.45
|
1788.96 mg/week
Standard Deviation 4455.58
|
1567.31 mg/week
Standard Deviation 4359.67
|
1977.12 mg/week
Standard Deviation 6122.20
|
|
Amount of Rescue Medication Taken
Week 16
|
2058.44 mg/week
Standard Deviation 4440.22
|
2207.79 mg/week
Standard Deviation 4696.58
|
1820.51 mg/week
Standard Deviation 4615.52
|
1663.40 mg/week
Standard Deviation 4367.50
|
Adverse Events
Placebo
Tanezumab 2.5 mg
Tanezumab 5 mg
Tanezumab 10 mg
Serious adverse events
| Measure |
Placebo
n=172 participants at risk
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 2.5 mg
n=172 participants at risk
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 milligram (mg) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 5 mg
n=172 participants at risk
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 10 mg
n=174 participants at risk
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Cardiac disorders
Angina pectoris
|
0.58%
1/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Cardiac disorders
Arteriosclerosis coronary artery
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.57%
1/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Eye disorders
Conjunctival oedema
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.58%
1/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Concussion
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.58%
1/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Fall
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.58%
1/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Hip fracture
|
0.58%
1/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Radius fracture
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.58%
1/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Rib fracture
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.58%
1/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Spinal compression fracture
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.57%
1/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Traumatic brain injury
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.58%
1/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Arthralgia
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.58%
1/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Osteoarthritis
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.58%
1/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Osteonecrosis
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.57%
1/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Nervous system disorders
Cervicobrachial syndrome
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.58%
1/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Nervous system disorders
Subarachnoid haemorrhage
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.58%
1/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Anxiety
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.58%
1/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.57%
1/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders
Pneumothorax
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.58%
1/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Vascular disorders
Femoral arterial stenosis
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.58%
1/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Vascular disorders
Thrombosis
|
0.58%
1/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
Other adverse events
| Measure |
Placebo
n=172 participants at risk
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 2.5 mg
n=172 participants at risk
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 milligram (mg) intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 5 mg
n=172 participants at risk
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
Tanezumab 10 mg
n=174 participants at risk
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion over 5 minutes at Day 1, Week 8 and Week 16.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Nervous system disorders
Headache
|
7.6%
13/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
3.5%
6/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
5.2%
9/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
5.2%
9/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Diarrhoea
|
4.7%
8/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
2.9%
5/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
1.2%
2/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
2.3%
4/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Nausea
|
1.7%
3/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.58%
1/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
2.3%
4/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
3.4%
6/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
General disorders
Fatigue
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
2.3%
4/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
2.3%
4/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
1.7%
3/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
General disorders
Infusion related reaction
|
0.58%
1/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.58%
1/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
2.3%
4/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
General disorders
Oedema peripheral
|
0.58%
1/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
1.7%
3/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
3.5%
6/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
6.3%
11/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Bronchitis
|
0.58%
1/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
1.2%
2/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
2.9%
5/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
2.3%
4/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Nasopharyngitis
|
1.2%
2/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
1.7%
3/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
2.3%
4/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
2.9%
5/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Sinusitis
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
2.3%
4/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
2.3%
4/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
1.1%
2/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Upper respiratory tract infection
|
4.1%
7/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
5.8%
10/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
6.4%
11/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
4.0%
7/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Urinary tract infection
|
1.7%
3/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.58%
1/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
2.3%
4/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
4.6%
8/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Contusion
|
0.58%
1/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
2.9%
5/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
1.7%
3/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
2.9%
5/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Fall
|
1.7%
3/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
3.5%
6/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
2.9%
5/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
4.0%
7/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Joint injury
|
1.2%
2/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
2.3%
4/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
2.3%
4/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
4.0%
7/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Investigations
Blood creatine phosphokinase increased
|
1.7%
3/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
2.3%
4/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.58%
1/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
1.7%
3/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Arthralgia
|
4.1%
7/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
4.7%
8/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
2.3%
4/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
7.5%
13/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Back pain
|
1.7%
3/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
2.3%
4/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
2.9%
5/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
1.1%
2/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Bursitis
|
0.58%
1/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.58%
1/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
2.3%
4/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Joint effusion
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.58%
1/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
2.3%
4/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Joint swelling
|
0.58%
1/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
1.7%
3/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
1.2%
2/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
2.3%
4/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Muscle spasms
|
1.2%
2/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
1.7%
3/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
1.2%
2/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
2.3%
4/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Musculoskeletal pain
|
1.2%
2/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
2.9%
5/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
1.2%
2/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
1.1%
2/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Myalgia
|
0.58%
1/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
1.2%
2/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.58%
1/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
3.4%
6/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Pain in extremity
|
2.9%
5/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
1.7%
3/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.58%
1/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
5.2%
9/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Nervous system disorders
Burning sensation
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.00%
0/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
2.3%
4/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Nervous system disorders
Carpal tunnel syndrome
|
0.58%
1/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
2.3%
4/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
1.2%
2/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
2.9%
5/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Nervous system disorders
Dizziness
|
1.7%
3/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
1.7%
3/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
2.3%
4/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
4.0%
7/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Nervous system disorders
Hypoaesthesia
|
1.2%
2/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
4.1%
7/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
2.9%
5/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
3.4%
6/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Nervous system disorders
Paraesthesia
|
1.7%
3/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
2.9%
5/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
3.5%
6/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
5.2%
9/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders
Cough
|
1.7%
3/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
1.7%
3/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
1.2%
2/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
2.3%
4/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Pruritus
|
0.58%
1/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.58%
1/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
0.58%
1/172
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
2.3%
4/174
Cases of osteonecrosis (ON) reported in this and other studies of this program, conducted up to 2010 were adjudicated post-hoc by an expert committee (2010-2012). Few of these events (2 of 87 reported ON cases), were confirmed as ON by the committee. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39492.
|
Additional Information
Results disclosure agreements
- Principal investigator is a sponsor employee Pfizer has the right to review disclosures, requesting a delay of less than 60 days. Investigator will postpone single center publications until after disclosure of pooled data (all sites), less than 12 months from study completion/termination at all participating sites. Investigator may not disclose previously undisclosed confidential information other than study results.
- Publication restrictions are in place
Restriction type: OTHER