Trial Outcomes & Findings for Analgesic Efficacy And Safety of Tanezumab Added On To Diclofenac SR In Patients With Osteoarthritis Of The Knee Or Hip (NCT NCT00864097)

NCT ID: NCT00864097

Last Updated: 2021-02-26

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 or hip 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.

Recruitment status

TERMINATED

Study phase

PHASE3

Target enrollment

607 participants

Primary outcome timeframe

Baseline, Week 16

Results posted on

2021-02-26

Participant Flow

Participants with osteoarthritis of knee or hip who were receiving and tolerating stable dose of diclofenac 150 milligram (mg) per day but required additional pain relief were recruited in this study.

After screening, participants received study supplied diclofenac slow release (SR) 75 mg tablet twice daily for a minimum of 14 days prior to randomization.

Participant milestones

Participant milestones
Measure
Placebo + Diclofenac
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 milligram (mg) slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 2.5 mg + Diclofenac
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 5 mg + Diclofenac
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 10 mg + Diclofenac
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Overall Study
STARTED
154
157
151
145
Overall Study
Treated
152
157
150
145
Overall Study
COMPLETED
15
20
19
20
Overall Study
NOT COMPLETED
139
137
132
125

Reasons for withdrawal

Reasons for withdrawal
Measure
Placebo + Diclofenac
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 milligram (mg) slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 2.5 mg + Diclofenac
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 5 mg + Diclofenac
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 10 mg + Diclofenac
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Overall Study
Death
0
1
0
0
Overall Study
Adverse Event
6
8
11
9
Overall Study
Lack of Efficacy
9
3
7
2
Overall Study
Lost to Follow-up
0
1
0
1
Overall Study
Withdrawal by Subject
15
11
11
12
Overall Study
Protocol Violation
2
1
0
1
Overall Study
Terminated by sponsor
105
112
102
99
Overall Study
Randomized but not treated
2
0
1
0
Overall Study
Other
0
0
0
1

Baseline Characteristics

Analgesic Efficacy And Safety of Tanezumab Added On To Diclofenac SR In Patients With Osteoarthritis Of The Knee Or Hip

Baseline characteristics by cohort

Baseline characteristics by cohort
Measure
Placebo + Diclofenac
n=152 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 milligram (mg) slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 2.5 mg + Diclofenac
n=157 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 5 mg + Diclofenac
n=150 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 10 mg + Diclofenac
n=145 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Total
n=604 Participants
Total of all reporting groups
Age, Customized
18 to 44 years
4 Participants
n=99 Participants
6 Participants
n=107 Participants
4 Participants
n=206 Participants
1 Participants
n=157 Participants
15 Participants
n=390 Participants
Age, Customized
45 to 64 years
84 Participants
n=99 Participants
86 Participants
n=107 Participants
88 Participants
n=206 Participants
78 Participants
n=157 Participants
336 Participants
n=390 Participants
Age, Customized
Greater than or equal to (>=) 65 years
64 Participants
n=99 Participants
65 Participants
n=107 Participants
58 Participants
n=206 Participants
66 Participants
n=157 Participants
253 Participants
n=390 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
118 Participants
n=99 Participants
121 Participants
n=107 Participants
110 Participants
n=206 Participants
120 Participants
n=157 Participants
469 Participants
n=390 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
34 Participants
n=99 Participants
36 Participants
n=107 Participants
40 Participants
n=206 Participants
25 Participants
n=157 Participants
135 Participants
n=390 Participants

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline, Week 16

Population: 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). Here 'overall number of participants analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this measure. Last observation carried forward (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 osteoarthritis (OA). WOMAC pain subscale is a 5-item questionnaire used to assess the amount of pain experienced due to osteoarthritis in index knee or hip 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

Outcome measures
Measure
Placebo + Diclofenac
n=152 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 milligram (mg) slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 2.5 mg + Diclofenac
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 5 mg + Diclofenac
n=150 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 10 mg + Diclofenac
n=145 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score at Week 16
Change at Week 16
-1.91 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.90
-2.18 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.90
-2.28 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.99
-2.42 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.09
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score at Week 16
Baseline
6.06 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.23
5.78 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.36
5.76 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.32
5.87 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.30

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline, Week 16

Population: ITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo). Here 'overall number of participants analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this measure. 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 physical function is a 17-item questionnaire used to assess the degree of difficulty experienced due to osteoarthritis in index knee or hip 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

Outcome measures
Measure
Placebo + Diclofenac
n=152 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 milligram (mg) slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 2.5 mg + Diclofenac
n=157 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 5 mg + Diclofenac
n=150 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 10 mg + Diclofenac
n=145 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Physical Function Subscale Score at Week 16
Baseline
6.24 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.45
5.86 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.51
5.90 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.22
5.91 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.36
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Physical Function Subscale Score at Week 16
Change at Week 16
-1.76 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.78
-2.11 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.99
-2.23 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.99
-2.35 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.07

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline, Week 16

Population: ITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo). Here 'overall number of participants analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this measure. LOCF method was used to impute missing values.

Participants answered: "Considering all the ways your osteoarthritis in your index joint (knee/hip) affects you, how are you doing today?" Participants responded by using a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = very good (asymptomatic 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 which are intolerable and inability to carry out all normal activities). Higher score indicated worst condition.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Placebo + Diclofenac
n=152 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 milligram (mg) slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 2.5 mg + Diclofenac
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 5 mg + Diclofenac
n=150 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 10 mg + Diclofenac
n=145 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Change From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis Score at Week 16
Baseline
3.39 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.57
3.28 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.46
3.43 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.56
3.37 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.55
Change From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis Score at Week 16
Change at Week 16
-0.41 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.70
-0.49 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.74
-0.61 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.83
-0.63 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.87

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24

Population: ITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo). Here 'overall number of participants analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this measure. 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 or hip 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

Outcome measures
Measure
Placebo + Diclofenac
n=152 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 milligram (mg) slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 2.5 mg + Diclofenac
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 5 mg + Diclofenac
n=150 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 10 mg + Diclofenac
n=145 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Change From Baseline in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12 and 24
Change at Week 2
-1.30 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.43
-1.22 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.52
-1.21 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.67
-0.86 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.57
Change From Baseline in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12 and 24
Change at Week 4
-1.51 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.55
-1.76 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.65
-2.12 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.70
-1.93 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.71
Change From Baseline in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12 and 24
Change at Week 8
-1.63 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.54
-1.88 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.68
-2.22 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.92
-2.34 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.92
Change From Baseline in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12 and 24
Change at Week 12
-1.81 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.59
-2.23 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.82
-2.50 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.03
-2.42 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.00
Change From Baseline in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12 and 24
Change at Week 24
-1.81 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.91
-2.11 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.08
-2.24 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.23
-2.19 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.16

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24

Population: ITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo). Here 'overall number of participants analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this measure. 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 physical function is a 17-item questionnaire used to assess the degree of difficulty experienced due to osteoarthritis in index knee or hip 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

Outcome measures
Measure
Placebo + Diclofenac
n=152 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 milligram (mg) slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 2.5 mg + Diclofenac
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 5 mg + Diclofenac
n=150 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 10 mg + Diclofenac
n=145 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Change From Baseline in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Physical Function Subscale Score at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24
Change at Week 2
-1.31 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.42
-1.18 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.45
-1.30 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.57
-1.06 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.40
Change From Baseline in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Physical Function Subscale Score at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24
Change at Week 4
-1.46 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.49
-1.58 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.71
-2.09 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.84
-1.81 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.68
Change From Baseline in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Physical Function Subscale Score at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24
Change at Week 8
-1.59 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.52
-1.76 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.72
-2.22 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.88
-2.13 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.91
Change From Baseline in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Physical Function Subscale Score at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24
Change at Week 12
-1.75 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.60
-2.13 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.87
-2.43 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.01
-2.28 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.93
Change From Baseline in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Physical Function Subscale Score at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24
Change at Week 24
-1.70 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.86
-1.99 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.13
-2.17 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.19
-2.08 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.21

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24

Population: ITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo). Here 'overall number of participants analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this measure. LOCF method was used to impute missing values.

Participants answered: "Considering all the ways your osteoarthritis in your index joint (knee/hip) affects you, how are you doing today?" Participants responded by using a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = very good (asymptomatic 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 which are intolerable and inability to carry out all normal activities). Higher score indicated worst condition.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Placebo + Diclofenac
n=152 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 milligram (mg) slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 2.5 mg + Diclofenac
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 5 mg + Diclofenac
n=150 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 10 mg + Diclofenac
n=145 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Change From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis Score at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24
Change at Week 2
-0.36 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.79
-0.37 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.65
-0.40 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.68
-0.28 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.71
Change From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis Score at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24
Change at Week 4
-0.40 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.74
-0.45 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.63
-0.65 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.82
-0.54 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.75
Change From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis Score at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24
Change at Week 8
-0.37 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.72
-0.44 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.70
-0.71 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.85
-0.66 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.79
Change From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis Score at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24
Change at Week 12
-0.45 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.80
-0.52 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.71
-0.69 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.78
-0.61 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.76
Change From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis Score at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24
Change at Week 24
-0.45 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.77
-0.46 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.76
-0.57 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.86
-0.57 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.91

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24

Population: ITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo). Here 'overall number of participants analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this measure. LOCF method was used to impute missing values.

OMERACT-OARSI responder: participant has \>=50 percent (%) change and \>=2 absolute change from Baseline in either WOMAC pain or physical function subscale scores or at least 2 of the following being true: \>=20% change and \>=1 absolute change from Baseline in WOMAC pain subscale; \>=20% change and \>=1 absolute change from Baseline in the WOMAC physical function subscale; \>=20% change and \>=1 absolute change from Baseline in PGA of osteoarthritis. WOMAC pain and physical function score: 0 to 10 with higher score = worse response. PGA score: 1 = very good and 5 = very poor.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Placebo + Diclofenac
n=152 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 milligram (mg) slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 2.5 mg + Diclofenac
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 5 mg + Diclofenac
n=150 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 10 mg + Diclofenac
n=145 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Percentage of Participants With Outcome Measures in Rheumatology - Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) Response; LOCF
Week 2
44.7 percentage of participants
37.2 percentage of participants
43.3 percentage of participants
34.5 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Outcome Measures in Rheumatology - Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) Response; LOCF
Week 4
51.3 percentage of participants
57.1 percentage of participants
65.3 percentage of participants
59.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Outcome Measures in Rheumatology - Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) Response; LOCF
Week 8
57.2 percentage of participants
58.3 percentage of participants
68.0 percentage of participants
69.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Outcome Measures in Rheumatology - Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) Response; LOCF
Week 12
60.5 percentage of participants
67.3 percentage of participants
73.3 percentage of participants
73.1 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Outcome Measures in Rheumatology - Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) Response; LOCF
Week 16
57.9 percentage of participants
66.7 percentage of participants
66.7 percentage of participants
72.4 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Outcome Measures in Rheumatology - Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) Response; LOCF
Week 24
55.3 percentage of participants
65.4 percentage of participants
64.7 percentage of participants
67.6 percentage of participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline, Week 16 and 24

Population: ITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo). Here ' overall number of participants analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this measure. 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 osteoarthritis (OA). WOMAC pain subscale is a 5-item questionnaire used to assess the amount of pain experienced due to osteoarthritis in index knee or hip 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. Greater percentage reduction indicates greater improvement. Percentage of participants with cumulative reduction (as percent) (greater than 0%; \>= 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 and 90%; = 100 %) in WOMAC pain subscale from Baseline to Weeks 16 and 24 were reported.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Placebo + Diclofenac
n=152 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 milligram (mg) slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 2.5 mg + Diclofenac
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 5 mg + Diclofenac
n=150 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 10 mg + Diclofenac
n=145 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score at Week 16 and 24
Week 16: Greater than 0% reduction
84.2 percentage of participants
88.5 percentage of participants
88.7 percentage of participants
84.1 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score at Week 16 and 24
Week 16: >=10% reduction
73.7 percentage of participants
82.7 percentage of participants
76.7 percentage of participants
77.9 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score at Week 16 and 24
Week 16: >=20% reduction
61.8 percentage of participants
69.9 percentage of participants
68.7 percentage of participants
75.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score at Week 16 and 24
Week 16: >=30% reduction
50.0 percentage of participants
54.5 percentage of participants
61.3 percentage of participants
66.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score at Week 16 and 24
Week 16: >=40% reduction
38.8 percentage of participants
48.7 percentage of participants
50.7 percentage of participants
60.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score at Week 16 and 24
Week 16: >=50% reduction
30.9 percentage of participants
35.9 percentage of participants
40.0 percentage of participants
49.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score at Week 16 and 24
Week 16: >=60% reduction
21.7 percentage of participants
26.3 percentage of participants
28.7 percentage of participants
31.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score at Week 16 and 24
Week 16: >=70% reduction
13.2 percentage of participants
17.3 percentage of participants
20.0 percentage of participants
19.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score at Week 16 and 24
Week 16: >=80% reduction
5.9 percentage of participants
9.0 percentage of participants
10.7 percentage of participants
13.8 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score at Week 16 and 24
Week 16: >=90% reduction
2.0 percentage of participants
5.8 percentage of participants
6.7 percentage of participants
6.9 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score at Week 16 and 24
Week 16: 100% reduction
0.7 percentage of participants
2.6 percentage of participants
2.0 percentage of participants
2.8 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score at Week 16 and 24
Week 24: Greater than 0% reduction
81.6 percentage of participants
82.7 percentage of participants
82.0 percentage of participants
84.8 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score at Week 16 and 24
Week 24: >=10% reduction
72.4 percentage of participants
76.9 percentage of participants
74.7 percentage of participants
75.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score at Week 16 and 24
Week 24: >=20% reduction
60.5 percentage of participants
67.3 percentage of participants
65.3 percentage of participants
69.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score at Week 16 and 24
Week 24: >=30% reduction
48.0 percentage of participants
58.3 percentage of participants
59.3 percentage of participants
59.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score at Week 16 and 24
Week 24: >=40% reduction
35.5 percentage of participants
47.4 percentage of participants
47.3 percentage of participants
51.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score at Week 16 and 24
Week 24: >=50% reduction
28.3 percentage of participants
38.5 percentage of participants
40.0 percentage of participants
42.1 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score at Week 16 and 24
Week 24: >=60% reduction
20.4 percentage of participants
26.3 percentage of participants
34.0 percentage of participants
31.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score at Week 16 and 24
Week 24: >=70% reduction
12.5 percentage of participants
18.6 percentage of participants
22.7 percentage of participants
21.4 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score at Week 16 and 24
Week 24: >=80% reduction
6.6 percentage of participants
11.5 percentage of participants
14.7 percentage of participants
13.8 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score at Week 16 and 24
Week 24: >=90% reduction
3.9 percentage of participants
8.3 percentage of participants
8.0 percentage of participants
8.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score at Week 16 and 24
Week 24: 100% reduction
0.7 percentage of participants
3.8 percentage of participants
3.3 percentage of participants
2.8 percentage of participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24

Population: ITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo). Here 'overall number of participants analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this measure. 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 osteoarthritis (OA). WOMAC pain subscale is a 5-item questionnaire used to assess the amount of pain experienced due to osteoarthritis in index knee or hip 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. Greater percentage reduction indicates greater improvement. Percentage of participants with reduction in WOMAC pain intensity of at least (\>=) 30%, 50%, 70% and 90% at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24 and 32 compared to baseline were classified as responders to WOMAC pain subscale and are reported here.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Placebo + Diclofenac
n=152 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 milligram (mg) slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 2.5 mg + Diclofenac
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 5 mg + Diclofenac
n=150 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 10 mg + Diclofenac
n=145 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Percentage of Participants With At Least 30%, 50%, 70% and 90% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score; LOCF
Week 2: At least 30% reduction
30.3 percentage of participants
28.8 percentage of participants
32.0 percentage of participants
24.1 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With At Least 30%, 50%, 70% and 90% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score; LOCF
Week 2: At least 50% reduction
13.8 percentage of participants
16.0 percentage of participants
16.7 percentage of participants
9.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With At Least 30%, 50%, 70% and 90% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score; LOCF
Week 2: At least 70% reduction
4.6 percentage of participants
6.4 percentage of participants
7.3 percentage of participants
2.8 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With At Least 30%, 50%, 70% and 90% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score; LOCF
Week 2: At least 90% reduction
2.0 percentage of participants
1.3 percentage of participants
1.3 percentage of participants
0.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With At Least 30%, 50%, 70% and 90% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score; LOCF
Week 4: At least 30% reduction
42.1 percentage of participants
51.9 percentage of participants
57.3 percentage of participants
50.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With At Least 30%, 50%, 70% and 90% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score; LOCF
Week 4: At least 50% reduction
17.1 percentage of participants
26.9 percentage of participants
34.0 percentage of participants
30.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With At Least 30%, 50%, 70% and 90% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score; LOCF
Week 4: At least 70% reduction
5.9 percentage of participants
10.3 percentage of participants
12.7 percentage of participants
11.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With At Least 30%, 50%, 70% and 90% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score; LOCF
Week 4: At least 90% reduction
2.0 percentage of participants
1.9 percentage of participants
6.0 percentage of participants
2.1 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With At Least 30%, 50%, 70% and 90% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score; LOCF
Week 8: At least 30% reduction
43.4 percentage of participants
51.9 percentage of participants
57.3 percentage of participants
63.4 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With At Least 30%, 50%, 70% and 90% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score; LOCF
Week 8: At least 50% reduction
25.0 percentage of participants
27.6 percentage of participants
38.0 percentage of participants
38.6 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With At Least 30%, 50%, 70% and 90% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score; LOCF
Week 8: At least 70% reduction
3.9 percentage of participants
9.6 percentage of participants
17.3 percentage of participants
19.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With At Least 30%, 50%, 70% and 90% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score; LOCF
Week 8: At least 90% reduction
2.0 percentage of participants
5.1 percentage of participants
4.7 percentage of participants
6.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With At Least 30%, 50%, 70% and 90% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score; LOCF
Week 12: At least 30% reduction
48.7 percentage of participants
57.1 percentage of participants
64.0 percentage of participants
63.4 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With At Least 30%, 50%, 70% and 90% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score; LOCF
Week 12: At least 50% reduction
27.0 percentage of participants
36.5 percentage of participants
46.7 percentage of participants
42.8 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With At Least 30%, 50%, 70% and 90% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score; LOCF
Week 12: At least 70% reduction
7.2 percentage of participants
16.7 percentage of participants
24.0 percentage of participants
24.8 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With At Least 30%, 50%, 70% and 90% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score; LOCF
Week 12: At least 90% reduction
2.0 percentage of participants
6.4 percentage of participants
8.7 percentage of participants
4.8 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With At Least 30%, 50%, 70% and 90% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score; LOCF
Week 16: At least 30% reduction
50.0 percentage of participants
54.5 percentage of participants
61.3 percentage of participants
66.2 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With At Least 30%, 50%, 70% and 90% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score; LOCF
Week 16: At least 50% reduction
30.9 percentage of participants
35.9 percentage of participants
40.0 percentage of participants
49.0 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With At Least 30%, 50%, 70% and 90% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score; LOCF
Week 16: At least 70% reduction
13.2 percentage of participants
17.3 percentage of participants
20.0 percentage of participants
19.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With At Least 30%, 50%, 70% and 90% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score; LOCF
Week 16: At least 90% reduction
2.0 percentage of participants
5.8 percentage of participants
6.7 percentage of participants
6.9 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With At Least 30%, 50%, 70% and 90% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score; LOCF
Week 24: At least 30% reduction
48.0 percentage of participants
58.3 percentage of participants
59.3 percentage of participants
59.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With At Least 30%, 50%, 70% and 90% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score; LOCF
Week 24: At least 50% reduction
28.3 percentage of participants
38.5 percentage of participants
40.0 percentage of participants
42.1 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With At Least 30%, 50%, 70% and 90% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score; LOCF
Week 24: At least 70% reduction
12.5 percentage of participants
18.6 percentage of participants
22.7 percentage of participants
21.4 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With At Least 30%, 50%, 70% and 90% Reduction From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Score; LOCF
Week 24: At least 90% reduction
3.9 percentage of participants
8.3 percentage of participants
8.0 percentage of participants
8.3 percentage of participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24

Population: ITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo). Here 'overall number of participants analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this measure. LOCF method was used to impute missing values.

Participants answered: "Considering all the ways your osteoarthritis in your index joint (knee/hip) affects you, how are you doing today?" Participants responded by using a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = very good (asymptomatic 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 which are intolerable and inability to carry out all normal activities). Higher score indicated worst condition. A decrease of at least 2 points on the 5-point scale relative to baseline value indicated improvement.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Placebo + Diclofenac
n=152 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 milligram (mg) slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 2.5 mg + Diclofenac
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 5 mg + Diclofenac
n=150 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 10 mg + Diclofenac
n=145 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Percentage of Participants With Improvement of at Least 2 Points in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis; LOCF
Week 2
5.9 percentage of participants
5.8 percentage of participants
4.7 percentage of participants
5.5 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Improvement of at Least 2 Points in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis; LOCF
Week 4
6.6 percentage of participants
3.2 percentage of participants
14.7 percentage of participants
12.4 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Improvement of at Least 2 Points in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis; LOCF
Week 8
5.3 percentage of participants
6.4 percentage of participants
18.0 percentage of participants
14.5 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Improvement of at Least 2 Points in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis; LOCF
Week 12
6.6 percentage of participants
6.4 percentage of participants
14.0 percentage of participants
12.4 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Improvement of at Least 2 Points in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis; LOCF
Week 16
4.6 percentage of participants
5.8 percentage of participants
14.7 percentage of participants
16.6 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Improvement of at Least 2 Points in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis; LOCF
Week 24
5.9 percentage of participants
5.8 percentage of participants
12.7 percentage of participants
12.4 percentage of participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24

Population: ITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo). Here 'overall number of participants analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this measure. BOCF method was used to impute missing values.

Participants answered: "Considering all the ways your osteoarthritis in your index joint (knee/hip) affects you, how are you doing today?" Participants responded by using a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = very good (asymptomatic 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 which are intolerable and inability to carry out all normal activities). Higher score indicated worst condition. A decrease of at least 2 points on the 5-point scale relative to baseline value indicates improvement.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Placebo + Diclofenac
n=152 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 milligram (mg) slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 2.5 mg + Diclofenac
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 5 mg + Diclofenac
n=150 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 10 mg + Diclofenac
n=145 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Percentage of Participants With Improvement of at Least 2 Points in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis; Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Week 2
5.9 percentage of participants
5.8 percentage of participants
4.7 percentage of participants
5.5 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Improvement of at Least 2 Points in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis; Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Week 4
6.6 percentage of participants
3.2 percentage of participants
14.7 percentage of participants
11.7 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Improvement of at Least 2 Points in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis; Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Week 8
5.3 percentage of participants
6.4 percentage of participants
17.3 percentage of participants
13.8 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Improvement of at Least 2 Points in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis; Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Week 12
6.6 percentage of participants
6.4 percentage of participants
13.3 percentage of participants
10.3 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Improvement of at Least 2 Points in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis; Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Week 16
4.6 percentage of participants
5.8 percentage of participants
14.0 percentage of participants
14.5 percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Improvement of at Least 2 Points in Patient Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis; Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Week 24
5.3 percentage of participants
4.5 percentage of participants
10.0 percentage of participants
9.7 percentage of participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, and 24

Population: ITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo). Here 'overall number of participants analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this measure. LOCF method was used to impute missing values.

Participants were asked to assess index joint (knee/hip) pain during the past 24 hours on an 0-10 point integer scale ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain). Baseline score was calculated as the mean of the scores in the index joint over the 3 days days in the initial pain assessment period and a weekly mean was calculated using the daily pain scores in the index joint within each study week. The change from Baseline was calculated using the difference between each post-baseline weekly mean and the baseline mean score, where negative change indicated an improvement.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Placebo + Diclofenac
n=142 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 milligram (mg) slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 2.5 mg + Diclofenac
n=150 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 5 mg + Diclofenac
n=141 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 10 mg + Diclofenac
n=134 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Change From Baseline in Average Pain Score in the Index Knee or Hip at Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Baseline
6.31 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.39
6.29 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.30
6.38 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.48
6.34 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.31
Change From Baseline in Average Pain Score in the Index Knee or Hip at Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Change at Week 1
-0.55 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.12
-0.74 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.10
-1.22 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.49
-0.96 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.22
Change From Baseline in Average Pain Score in the Index Knee or Hip at Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Change at Week 2
-0.95 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.43
-0.91 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.40
-1.28 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.76
-1.03 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.46
Change From Baseline in Average Pain Score in the Index Knee or Hip at Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Change at Week 3
-1.19 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.65
-1.19 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.57
-1.40 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.73
-1.08 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.58
Change From Baseline in Average Pain Score in the Index Knee or Hip at Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Change at Week 4
-1.28 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.65
-1.45 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.70
-1.77 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.74
-1.44 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.73
Change From Baseline in Average Pain Score in the Index Knee or Hip at Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Change at Week 6
-1.38 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.58
-1.57 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.75
-1.88 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.96
-1.69 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.71
Change From Baseline in Average Pain Score in the Index Knee or Hip at Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Change at Week 8
-1.41 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.64
-1.62 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.75
-1.84 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.00
-1.80 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.83
Change From Baseline in Average Pain Score in the Index Knee or Hip at Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Change at Week 10
-1.41 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.77
-1.79 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.88
-2.09 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.13
-2.06 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.82
Change From Baseline in Average Pain Score in the Index Knee or Hip at Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Change at Week 12
-1.49 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.75
-1.91 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.82
-2.06 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.19
-2.06 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.86
Change From Baseline in Average Pain Score in the Index Knee or Hip at Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Change at Week 16
-1.53 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.82
-1.87 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.90
-2.07 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.25
-2.15 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.04
Change From Baseline in Average Pain Score in the Index Knee or Hip at Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Change at Week 20
-1.61 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.85
-1.95 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.94
-2.19 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.34
-2.15 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.07
Change From Baseline in Average Pain Score in the Index Knee or Hip at Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Change at Week 24
-1.65 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.89
-1.84 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.96
-2.07 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.31
-2.03 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.08

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24

Population: ITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo). Here 'overall number of participants analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this measure. 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 or hip 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/hip. Negative change indicated an improvement.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Placebo + Diclofenac
n=152 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 milligram (mg) slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 2.5 mg + Diclofenac
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 5 mg + Diclofenac
n=150 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 10 mg + Diclofenac
n=145 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Stiffness Subscale Score at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24
Baseline
5.84 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.78
5.61 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.85
5.51 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.52
5.60 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.78
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Stiffness Subscale Score at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24
Change at Week 2
-1.31 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.75
-1.29 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.82
-1.38 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.77
-1.27 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.91
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Stiffness Subscale Score at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24
Change at Week 4
-1.37 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.83
-1.71 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.14
-2.21 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.07
-2.01 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.16
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Stiffness Subscale Score at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24
Change at Week 8
-1.56 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.89
-1.86 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.07
-2.20 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.18
-2.34 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.22
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Stiffness Subscale Score at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24
Change at Week 12
-1.66 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.94
-2.36 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.16
-2.42 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.27
-2.55 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.22
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Stiffness Subscale Score at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24
Change at Week 16
-1.72 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.11
-2.27 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.33
-2.15 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.23
-2.53 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.26
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Stiffness Subscale Score at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24
Change at Week 24
-1.70 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.17
-2.06 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.35
-2.08 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.43
-2.22 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.34

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24

Population: ITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo). Here 'overall number of participants analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this measure. LOCF method was used to impute missing values.

WOMAC Index: 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 the hip and/or knee. WOMAC average score is the mean of the WOMAC pain, physical function and stiffness subscale scores and ranges from 0 to 10, with higher score indicating worse response. Greater reduction in WOMAC average score indicated greater improvement.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Placebo + Diclofenac
n=152 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 milligram (mg) slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 2.5 mg + Diclofenac
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 5 mg + Diclofenac
n=150 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 10 mg + Diclofenac
n=145 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Average Score at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24
Baseline
6.05 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.31
5.75 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.43
5.72 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.19
5.80 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.32
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Average Score at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24
Change at Week 2
-1.31 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.36
-1.23 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.44
-1.30 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.52
-1.06 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.45
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Average Score at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24
Change at Week 4
-1.45 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.47
-1.68 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.68
-2.14 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.74
-1.92 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.70
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Average Score at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24
Change at Week 8
-1.59 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.51
-1.83 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.67
-2.21 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.86
-2.27 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.84
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Average Score at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24
Change at Week 12
-1.74 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.56
-2.24 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.82
-2.45 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.97
-2.42 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.89
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Average Score at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24
Change at Week 16
-1.80 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.78
-2.19 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.93
-2.22 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.93
-2.43 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.00
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Average Score at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24
Change at Week 24
-1.74 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.83
-2.05 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.06
-2.16 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.16
-2.17 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.09

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24

Population: ITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo). Here 'overall number of participants analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this measure. LOCF method was used to impute missing values.

Participants answered the question: "How much pain have you had when walking on a flat surface?" Participants responded by using an 11-point scale where 0 = no pain and 10 = extreme pain. Where 0 is the best response and negative change indicated an improvement.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Placebo + Diclofenac
n=152 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 milligram (mg) slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 2.5 mg + Diclofenac
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 5 mg + Diclofenac
n=150 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 10 mg + Diclofenac
n=145 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Item: Pain When Walking on a Flat Surface at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24
Baseline
6.12 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.67
5.91 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.74
5.81 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.54
5.99 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.71
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Item: Pain When Walking on a Flat Surface at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24
Change at Week 2
-1.34 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.71
-1.23 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.76
-1.07 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.82
-0.89 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.86
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Item: Pain When Walking on a Flat Surface at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24
Change at Week 4
-1.47 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.74
-1.75 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.07
-2.01 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.99
-1.87 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.96
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Item: Pain When Walking on a Flat Surface at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24
Change at Week 8
-1.62 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.78
-1.81 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.84
-2.05 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.15
-2.25 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.31
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Item: Pain When Walking on a Flat Surface at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24
Change at Week 12
-1.83 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.92
-2.15 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.94
-2.35 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.41
-2.41 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.36
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Item: Pain When Walking on a Flat Surface at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24
Change at Week 16
-1.95 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.12
-2.14 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.99
-2.09 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.38
-2.34 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.52
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Item: Pain When Walking on a Flat Surface at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24
Change at Week 24
-1.84 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.13
-2.08 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.38
-2.09 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.54
-2.10 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.62

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24

Population: ITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo). Here 'overall number of participants analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this measure. LOCF method was used to impute missing values.

Participants answered the question: "How much pain have you had when going up or down the stairs?" Participants responded by using an 11-point scale, where 0 = no pain and 10 = extreme pain. Where 0 is the best response and negative change indicated an improvement.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Placebo + Diclofenac
n=152 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 milligram (mg) slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 2.5 mg + Diclofenac
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 5 mg + Diclofenac
n=150 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 10 mg + Diclofenac
n=145 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Item: Pain When Going Up or Downstairs at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24
Baseline
7.24 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.57
7.04 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.65
7.05 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.63
7.06 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.62
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Item: Pain When Going Up or Downstairs at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24
Change at Week 2
-1.38 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.83
-1.49 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.72
-1.55 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.94
-1.21 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.78
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Item: Pain When Going Up or Downstairs at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24
Change at Week 4
-1.58 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.89
-2.10 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.17
-2.39 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.13
-2.10 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.01
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Item: Pain When Going Up or Downstairs at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24
Change at Week 8
-1.78 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.81
-2.15 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.03
-2.51 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.40
-2.64 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.32
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Item: Pain When Going Up or Downstairs at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24
Change at Week 12
-2.03 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.98
-2.54 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.22
-2.86 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.51
-2.77 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.36
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Item: Pain When Going Up or Downstairs at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24
Change at Week 16
-2.00 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.13
-2.54 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.25
-2.53 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.40
-2.79 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.36
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Item: Pain When Going Up or Downstairs at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24
Change at Week 24
-1.95 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.24
-2.44 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.47
-2.53 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.51
-2.56 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.50

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline, Week 12, and 24

Population: ITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo). Here 'overall number of participants analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this measure. LOCF method was used to impute missing values.

SF-36v2 was a standardized survey evaluating 8 aspects of functional health and well-being: physical and social functioning, physical and role limitations due to emotional problems, bodily pain, general health, vitality, and mental health. The total score and the score for a section was an average of the individual question scores, which were scaled 0-100. Higher scores reflected better participant status and positive change indicated an improvement.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Placebo + Diclofenac
n=152 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 milligram (mg) slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 2.5 mg + Diclofenac
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 5 mg + Diclofenac
n=150 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 10 mg + Diclofenac
n=145 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12 and 24
Change at Week 24: Physical Function
6.21 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 19.01
8.78 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 22.64
10.50 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 22.86
8.50 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 23.87
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12 and 24
Change at Week 24: Role Emotional
-0.55 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 25.48
0.69 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 23.91
-1.33 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 28.95
-1.95 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 27.43
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12 and 24
Baseline: General Health
46.37 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 17.64
49.41 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 15.67
47.00 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 15.79
49.31 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 16.81
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12 and 24
Baseline: Physical Function
33.51 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 18.98
36.22 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 18.90
34.70 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 16.56
36.52 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 18.46
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12 and 24
Baseline: Role Physical
46.67 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 21.79
47.44 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 20.65
48.50 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 22.21
47.46 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 22.31
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12 and 24
Baseline: Bodily Pain
32.99 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 13.77
35.66 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 12.43
33.95 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 14.15
35.06 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 13.47
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12 and 24
Baseline: Vitality
49.08 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 17.73
52.22 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 16.82
53.00 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 17.89
51.29 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 18.21
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12 and 24
Baseline: Social Function
61.02 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 23.59
67.63 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 23.50
65.83 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 23.65
66.55 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 23.29
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12 and 24
Baseline: Role Emotional
68.15 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 26.16
68.96 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 24.22
68.44 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 25.86
69.77 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 24.82
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12 and 24
Baseline: Mental Health
62.80 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 20.39
66.57 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 17.12
64.63 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 18.13
65.48 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 17.86
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12 and 24
Change at Week 12: General Health
4.67 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 16.11
5.29 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 14.70
6.55 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 13.94
4.96 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 16.27
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12 and 24
Change at Week 12: Physical Function
7.36 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 18.33
10.96 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 20.84
12.83 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 22.71
9.90 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 22.60
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12 and 24
Change at Week 12: Role Physical
7.61 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 22.23
8.81 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 23.59
7.71 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 23.45
8.49 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 25.63
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12 and 24
Change at Week 12: Bodily Pain
8.76 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 16.79
12.51 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 20.98
15.18 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 21.49
12.76 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 22.62
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12 and 24
Change at Week 12: Vitality
3.80 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 14.82
4.23 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 16.17
3.79 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 18.57
5.34 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 18.47
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12 and 24
Change at Week 12: Social Function
5.02 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 22.39
6.25 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 20.55
4.17 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 22.37
4.22 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 22.59
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12 and 24
Change at Week 12: Role Emotional
1.92 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 24.98
2.24 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 24.40
2.17 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 29.05
-1.26 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 27.15
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12 and 24
Change at Week 12: Mental Health
3.13 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 15.58
1.55 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 16.05
2.20 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 16.18
1.66 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 16.15
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12 and 24
Change at Week 24: General Health
2.41 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 16.95
4.51 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 14.94
4.94 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 15.57
3.08 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 and 24
Change at Week 24: Role Physical
5.17 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 22.95
8.41 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 22.77
6.96 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 26.61
5.91 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 27.38
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12 and 24
Change at Week 24: Bodily Pain
9.14 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 19.41
12.54 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 21.40
13.27 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 24.78
11.52 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 and 24
Change at Week 24: Vitality
1.66 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 16.11
2.43 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 17.72
2.58 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 20.02
2.76 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 21.47
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12 and 24
Change at Week 24: Social Function
4.36 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 22.85
4.09 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 24.27
3.67 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 24.04
1.38 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 28.15
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Domain Scores at Week 12 and 24
Change at Week 24: Mental Health
1.27 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 16.66
2.06 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 16.93
1.63 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 16.10
0.45 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 18.70

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline, Week 12 and 24

Population: ITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo). Here 'overall number of participants analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this measure. LOCF method was used to impute missing values.

SF-36v2: standardized survey evaluating 8 aspects of functional health and wellbeing (physical and social functioning, role limitations due to physical and emotional problems, bodily pain, general health, vitality, mental health). Total score for each aspect were scaled 0-100. Higher scores reflect better participant status and positive change indicated an improvement. 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

Outcome measures
Measure
Placebo + Diclofenac
n=152 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 milligram (mg) slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 2.5 mg + Diclofenac
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 5 mg + Diclofenac
n=150 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 10 mg + Diclofenac
n=145 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Physical and Mental Component Scores at Week 12 and 24
Baseline: Physical Component Score
-1.84 z-score
Standard Deviation 0.67
-1.76 z-score
Standard Deviation 0.64
-1.80 z-score
Standard Deviation 0.61
-1.76 z-score
Standard Deviation 0.61
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Physical and Mental Component Scores at Week 12 and 24
Baseline: Mental Component Score
-0.30 z-score
Standard Deviation 1.16
-0.11 z-score
Standard Deviation 1.05
-0.17 z-score
Standard Deviation 1.09
-0.15 z-score
Standard Deviation 1.12
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Physical and Mental Component Scores at Week 12 and 24
Change at Week 12: Physical Component Score
0.35 z-score
Standard Deviation 0.66
0.50 z-score
Standard Deviation 0.76
0.56 z-score
Standard Deviation 0.73
0.51 z-score
Standard Deviation 0.86
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Physical and Mental Component Scores at Week 12 and 24
Change at Week 12: Mental Component Score
0.08 z-score
Standard Deviation 0.92
0.01 z-score
Standard Deviation 0.90
-0.03 z-score
Standard Deviation 0.96
-0.06 z-score
Standard Deviation 1.00
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Physical and Mental Component Scores at Week 12 and 24
Change at Week 24: Physical Component Score
0.32 z-score
Standard Deviation 0.76
0.45 z-score
Standard Deviation 0.76
0.50 z-score
Standard Deviation 0.83
0.43 z-score
Standard Deviation 0.91
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) Physical and Mental Component Scores at Week 12 and 24
Change at Week 24: Mental Component Score
-0.03 z-score
Standard Deviation 0.94
-0.03 z-score
Standard Deviation 0.98
-0.10 z-score
Standard Deviation 0.94
-0.14 z-score
Standard Deviation 1.10

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline, Week 24

Population: ITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo). Here 'overall number of participants analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this measure and 'number analyzed' signifies number of participants evaluable for each specified time point.

EQ-5D was a standardized, participant-administered measure of health outcome. It provides a descriptive profile for 5 dimensions (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression), using 3 levels (no, moderate, or extreme dysfunction) and a single index value characterizing current health status using a visual analog scale with score ranging from 0 (worst) to 100 (best). EQ-5D summary index was obtained with a formula that weights each level of the dimensions. The index-based score was interpreted along a continuum of 0 (death) to 1 (perfect health). Negative change from baseline represented worsening.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Placebo + Diclofenac
n=152 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 milligram (mg) slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 2.5 mg + Diclofenac
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 5 mg + Diclofenac
n=150 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 10 mg + Diclofenac
n=145 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life - 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) Index Score at Week 24
Baseline: Index Score
0.45 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.29
0.48 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.25
0.47 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.26
0.47 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.27
Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life - 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) Index Score at Week 24
Change at Week 24: Index Score
0.11 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.35
0.15 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.29
0.14 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.33
0.16 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.31

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline, Week 24

Population: ITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo). Here 'overall number of participants analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this measure. LOCF method was used to impute missing values.

EQ-5D was a standardized, participant-administered measure of health outcome. It provides a descriptive profile for 5 dimensions (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression), using 3 levels (no, moderate, or extreme dysfunction) and a single index value characterizing current health status using a visual analog scale with score ranging from 0 (worst) to 100 (best). Baseline EQ-5D individual health state profile was determined as number of participants "no dysfunction, moderate or some dysfunction and extreme dysfunction" and change from baseline in EQ-5D individual health state profile was determined as number of participants "improved, no change or worsened".

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Placebo + Diclofenac
n=152 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 milligram (mg) slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 2.5 mg + Diclofenac
n=156 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 5 mg + Diclofenac
n=150 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 10 mg + Diclofenac
n=145 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life - 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) Individual Health State Profile at Week 24
Baseline: Mobility-No Dysfunction
8 Participants
7 Participants
14 Participants
10 Participants
Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life - 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) Individual Health State Profile at Week 24
Baseline: Mobility-Moderate Dysfunction
143 Participants
148 Participants
136 Participants
135 Participants
Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life - 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) Individual Health State Profile at Week 24
Baseline: Mobility-Extreme Dysfunction
1 Participants
1 Participants
0 Participants
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life - 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) Individual Health State Profile at Week 24
Baseline: Self Care-No Dysfunction
65 Participants
61 Participants
53 Participants
52 Participants
Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life - 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) Individual Health State Profile at Week 24
Baseline: Self Care-Moderate Dysfunction
87 Participants
92 Participants
96 Participants
92 Participants
Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life - 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) Individual Health State Profile at Week 24
Baseline: Self Care-Extreme Dysfunction
0 Participants
3 Participants
1 Participants
1 Participants
Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life - 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) Individual Health State Profile at Week 24
Baseline: Usual Activities-No Dysfunction
25 Participants
13 Participants
20 Participants
18 Participants
Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life - 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) Individual Health State Profile at Week 24
Baseline: Usual Activities-Moderate Dysfunction
116 Participants
141 Participants
126 Participants
123 Participants
Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life - 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) Individual Health State Profile at Week 24
Baseline: Usual Activities-Extreme Dysfunction
11 Participants
2 Participants
4 Participants
4 Participants
Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life - 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) Individual Health State Profile at Week 24
Baseline: Pain/Discomfort-No Dysfunction
0 Participants
0 Participants
2 Participants
1 Participants
Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life - 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) Individual Health State Profile at Week 24
Baseline: Pain/Discomfort-Moderate Dysfunction
114 Participants
125 Participants
115 Participants
111 Participants
Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life - 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) Individual Health State Profile at Week 24
Baseline: Pain/Discomfort-Extreme Dysfunction
38 Participants
31 Participants
33 Participants
33 Participants
Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life - 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) Individual Health State Profile at Week 24
Baseline: Anxiety/Depression-No Dysfunction
74 Participants
82 Participants
70 Participants
73 Participants
Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life - 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) Individual Health State Profile at Week 24
Baseline: Anxiety/Depression-Moderate Dysfunction
72 Participants
72 Participants
75 Participants
66 Participants
Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life - 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) Individual Health State Profile at Week 24
Baseline: Anxiety/Depression-Extreme Dysfunction
6 Participants
2 Participants
5 Participants
6 Participants
Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life - 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) Individual Health State Profile at Week 24
Change at Week 24: Mobility-Improved
21 Participants
25 Participants
30 Participants
25 Participants
Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life - 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) Individual Health State Profile at Week 24
Change at Week 24: Mobility-No Change
127 Participants
129 Participants
114 Participants
120 Participants
Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life - 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) Individual Health State Profile at Week 24
Change at Week 24: Mobility-Worsened
4 Participants
2 Participants
6 Participants
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life - 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) Individual Health State Profile at Week 24
Change at Week 24: Self Care-Improved
19 Participants
33 Participants
32 Participants
30 Participants
Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life - 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) Individual Health State Profile at Week 24
Change at Week 24: Self Care-No Change
118 Participants
112 Participants
110 Participants
104 Participants
Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life - 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) Individual Health State Profile at Week 24
Change at Week 24: Self Care-Worsened
15 Participants
11 Participants
8 Participants
11 Participants
Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life - 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) Individual Health State Profile at Week 24
Change at Week 24: Usual Activities-Improved
16 Participants
27 Participants
31 Participants
27 Participants
Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life - 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) Individual Health State Profile at Week 24
Change at Week 24: Usual Activities-No Change
125 Participants
125 Participants
106 Participants
111 Participants
Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life - 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) Individual Health State Profile at Week 24
Change at Week 24: Usual Activities-Worsened
11 Participants
4 Participants
13 Participants
7 Participants
Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life - 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) Individual Health State Profile at Week 24
Change at Week 24: Pain/Discomfort-Improved
28 Participants
29 Participants
34 Participants
33 Participants
Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life - 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) Individual Health State Profile at Week 24
Change at Week 24: Pain/Discomfort-No Change
116 Participants
125 Participants
109 Participants
105 Participants
Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life - 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) Individual Health State Profile at Week 24
Change at Week 24: Pain/Discomfort-Worsened
8 Participants
2 Participants
7 Participants
7 Participants
Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life - 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) Individual Health State Profile at Week 24
Change at Week 24: Anxiety/Depression-Improved
27 Participants
26 Participants
28 Participants
19 Participants
Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life - 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) Individual Health State Profile at Week 24
Change at Week 24: Anxiety/Depression-No Change
106 Participants
111 Participants
109 Participants
107 Participants
Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life - 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) Individual Health State Profile at Week 24
Change at Week 24: Anxiety/Depression-Worsened
19 Participants
19 Participants
13 Participants
19 Participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline up to end of study (Week 32)

Population: The ITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo).

Number of participants who discontinued due to lack of efficacy were reported.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Placebo + Diclofenac
n=152 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 milligram (mg) slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 2.5 mg + Diclofenac
n=157 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 5 mg + Diclofenac
n=150 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 10 mg + Diclofenac
n=145 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Number of Participants Who Discontinued Due to Lack of Efficacy
9 Participants
3 Participants
7 Participants
2 Participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline up to Week 16 and 24

Population: The 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

Outcome measures
Measure
Placebo + Diclofenac
n=152 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 milligram (mg) slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 2.5 mg + Diclofenac
n=157 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 5 mg + Diclofenac
n=150 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 10 mg + Diclofenac
n=145 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Time to Discontinuation (TTD) Due to Lack of Efficacy
Week 16
NA days
Median and 95% confidence interval (CI) limits cannot be estimated due to the low number of participants who discontinued due to lack of efficacy.
NA days
Median and 95% CI limits cannot be estimated due to the low number of participants who discontinued due to lack of efficacy.
NA days
Median and 95% CI limits cannot be estimated due to the low number of participants who discontinued due to lack of efficacy.
NA days
Median and 95% CI limits cannot be estimated due to the low number of participants who discontinued due to lack of efficacy.
Time to Discontinuation (TTD) Due to Lack of Efficacy
Week 24
NA days
Median and 95% CI limits cannot be estimated due to the low number of participants who discontinued due to lack of efficacy.
NA days
Median and 95% CI limits cannot be estimated due to the low number of participants who discontinued due to lack of efficacy.
NA days
Median and 95% CI limits cannot be estimated due to the low number of participants who discontinued due to lack of efficacy.
NA days
Median and 95% CI limits cannot be estimated due to the low number of participants who discontinued due to lack of efficacy.

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline up to 112 days after last intravenous dose (up to Week 32)

Population: The ITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo).

An AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship. An SAE was an AE resulting in any of the following outcomes or deemed significant for any other reason: death; initial or prolonged inpatient hospitalization; life-threatening experience (immediate risk of dying); persistent or significant disability/incapacity; congenital anomaly. Treatment-emergent are events between first dose of study drug and up to 112 days after last dose that were absent before treatment or that worsened relative to pretreatment state. AEs included SAEs as well as non-serious AEs which occurred during the trial.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Placebo + Diclofenac
n=152 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 milligram (mg) slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 2.5 mg + Diclofenac
n=157 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 5 mg + Diclofenac
n=150 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 10 mg + Diclofenac
n=145 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Number of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs) and Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)
AEs
53 Participants
71 Participants
73 Participants
72 Participants
Number of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs) and Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)
SAEs
8 Participants
12 Participants
8 Participants
10 Participants

OTHER_PRE_SPECIFIED outcome

Timeframe: Day 1 up to Week 16

Population: The ITT analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of intravenous study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo).

Number of participants were reported based on the maximum number of intravenous (IV) doses of either tanezumab or placebo received.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Placebo + Diclofenac
n=152 Participants
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 milligram (mg) slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 2.5 mg + Diclofenac
n=157 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 5 mg + Diclofenac
n=150 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 10 mg + Diclofenac
n=145 Participants
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Number of Participants With Intravenous Doses of Study Medication
Number of IV Doses: 1
14 Participants
9 Participants
15 Participants
13 Participants
Number of Participants With Intravenous Doses of Study Medication
Number of IV Doses: 2
38 Participants
34 Participants
26 Participants
31 Participants
Number of Participants With Intravenous Doses of Study Medication
Number of IV Doses: 3
100 Participants
114 Participants
109 Participants
101 Participants

Adverse Events

Placebo + Diclofenac

Serious events: 8 serious events
Other events: 38 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths

Tanezumab 2.5 mg + Diclofenac

Serious events: 12 serious events
Other events: 36 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths

Tanezumab 5 mg + Diclofenac

Serious events: 8 serious events
Other events: 48 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths

Tanezumab 10 mg + Diclofenac

Serious events: 10 serious events
Other events: 46 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths

Serious adverse events

Serious adverse events
Measure
Placebo + Diclofenac
n=152 participants at risk
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 milligram (mg) slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 2.5 mg + Diclofenac
n=157 participants at risk
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 5 mg + Diclofenac
n=150 participants at risk
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 10 mg + Diclofenac
n=145 participants at risk
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Cardiac disorders
Atrial fibrillation
0.00%
0/152
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%
0/157
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.
0.67%
1/150
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%
0/145
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
Cardiac failure
0.00%
0/152
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%
0/157
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%
0/150
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.
0.69%
1/145
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
Myocardial infarction
0.66%
1/152
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%
0/157
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%
0/150
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%
0/145
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
Ventricular extrasystoles
0.00%
0/152
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%
0/157
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.
0.67%
1/150
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%
0/145
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.
Congenital, familial and genetic disorders
Benign familial pemphigus
0.66%
1/152
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%
0/157
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%
0/150
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%
0/145
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
Abdominal hernia
0.66%
1/152
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%
0/157
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%
0/150
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%
0/145
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
Abdominal rigidity
0.00%
0/152
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.
0.64%
1/157
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%
0/150
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%
0/145
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
Gastrointestinal haemorrhage
0.00%
0/152
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%
0/157
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%
0/150
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.
0.69%
1/145
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
Large intestine perforation
0.00%
0/152
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.
0.64%
1/157
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%
0/150
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%
0/145
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.
Hepatobiliary disorders
Cholecystitis
0.00%
0/152
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.
0.64%
1/157
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%
0/150
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%
0/145
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.
Hepatobiliary disorders
Cholelithiasis
0.00%
0/152
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.
0.64%
1/157
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%
0/150
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%
0/145
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
0.66%
1/152
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%
0/157
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%
0/150
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%
0/145
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
Osteomyelitis
0.00%
0/152
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.
0.64%
1/157
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%
0/150
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%
0/145
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
Ankle fracture
0.00%
0/152
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.
0.64%
1/157
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%
0/150
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.
0.69%
1/145
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%
0/152
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.
0.64%
1/157
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%
0/150
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%
0/145
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
Foot fracture
0.00%
0/152
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.
0.64%
1/157
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.
0.67%
1/150
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%
0/145
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 column injury
0.00%
0/152
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.
0.64%
1/157
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%
0/150
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%
0/145
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 fracture
0.00%
0/152
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%
0/157
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.
0.67%
1/150
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%
0/145
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.
Metabolism and nutrition disorders
Hyperkalaemia
0.66%
1/152
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%
0/157
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%
0/150
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%
0/145
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
0.66%
1/152
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.
0.64%
1/157
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.
2.0%
3/150
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.
0.69%
1/145
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%
0/152
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.
1.3%
2/157
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.
0.67%
1/150
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.
2.1%
3/145
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
Pathological fracture
0.00%
0/152
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.
0.64%
1/157
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%
0/150
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%
0/145
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
Synovial cyst
0.00%
0/152
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%
0/157
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%
0/150
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.
0.69%
1/145
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.
Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)
Brain neoplasm
0.66%
1/152
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%
0/157
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%
0/150
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%
0/145
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.
Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)
Cholesteatoma
0.00%
0/152
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.
0.64%
1/157
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%
0/150
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%
0/145
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.
Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)
Metastases to bone
0.00%
0/152
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.
0.64%
1/157
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%
0/150
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%
0/145
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
Demyelinating polyneuropathy
0.00%
0/152
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.
0.64%
1/157
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%
0/150
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%
0/145
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
Radiculopathy
0.00%
0/152
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%
0/157
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%
0/150
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.
0.69%
1/145
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
Dyspnoea
0.00%
0/152
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%
0/157
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.
0.67%
1/150
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%
0/145
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
Angioedema
0.00%
0/152
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.
0.64%
1/157
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%
0/150
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%
0/145
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
Hypertensive crisis
0.00%
0/152
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%
0/157
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%
0/150
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.
0.69%
1/145
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
Thrombophlebitis
0.66%
1/152
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%
0/157
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%
0/150
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%
0/145
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

Other adverse events
Measure
Placebo + Diclofenac
n=152 participants at risk
Placebo matched to tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 milligram (mg) slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 2.5 mg + Diclofenac
n=157 participants at risk
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 2.5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 5 mg + Diclofenac
n=150 participants at risk
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 5 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Tanezumab 10 mg + Diclofenac
n=145 participants at risk
Tanezumab (RN624 or PF-04383119) 10 mg intravenous infusion at Baseline, Week 8 and Week 16 along with diclofenac 75 mg slow release tablet orally twice daily up to Week 32.
Gastrointestinal disorders
Diarrhoea
1.3%
2/152
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.
1.9%
3/157
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.
1.3%
2/150
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.
2.1%
3/145
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
Toothache
5.9%
9/152
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.
1.9%
3/157
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%
6/150
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.
0.69%
1/145
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
1.3%
2/152
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.
1.3%
2/157
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.
2.7%
4/150
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.
4.8%
7/145
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
1.3%
2/152
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.
0.64%
1/157
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%
0/150
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.
2.1%
3/145
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
Influenza
0.66%
1/152
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.
1.3%
2/157
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.
2.7%
4/150
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.
1.4%
2/145
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
4.6%
7/152
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%
10/157
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.
8.0%
12/150
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.
6.9%
10/145
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
5.3%
8/152
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.
4.5%
7/157
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%
7/150
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.
8.3%
12/145
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
1.3%
2/152
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.
2.5%
4/157
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.
2.0%
3/150
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.
2.1%
3/145
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
2.0%
3/152
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.
1.3%
2/157
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.
0.67%
1/150
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.
2.1%
3/145
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
0.66%
1/152
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.
0.64%
1/157
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.
1.3%
2/150
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.
2.1%
3/145
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
Headache
7.2%
11/152
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.
5.7%
9/157
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%
7/150
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%
6/145
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
0.00%
0/152
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.
2.5%
4/157
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%
0/150
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.
1.4%
2/145
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
Sciatica
0.00%
0/152
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.
0.64%
1/157
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.
2.0%
3/150
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.
2.1%
3/145
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
Hypertension
5.9%
9/152
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.
0.64%
1/157
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.
2.0%
3/150
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%
6/145
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

Pfizer ClinicalTrials.gov Call Center

Pfizer, Inc.

Phone: 1-800-718-1021

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