Characterization of adverse joint outcomes in patients with osteoarthritis treated with subcutaneous tanezumab.

OBJECTIVE: Due to the risk of rapidly progressive osteoarthritis (RPOA), the phase III studies of subcutaneous (SC) tanezumab in patients with moderate to severe hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA) included comprehensive joint safety surveillance. This pooled analysis summarizes these findings. METHOD: Joint safety events in the phase III studies of SC tanezumab (2 placebo- and 1- nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug [NSAID]-controlled) were adjudicated by a blinded external committee. Outcomes of RPOA1 and RPOA2, primary osteonecrosis, subchondral insufficiency fracture, and pathological fracture comprised the composite joint safety endpoint (CJSE). Potential patient- and joint-level risk factors for CJSE, RPOA, and total joint replacement (TJR) were explored. RESULTS: Overall, 145/4541 patients (3.2%) had an adjudicated CJSE (0% placebo; 3.2% tanezumab 2.5 mg; 6.2% tanezumab 5 mg; 1.5% NSAID). There was a dose-dependent risk of adjudicated CJSE, RPOA1, and TJR with tanezumab vs NSAID. Patient-level cross-tabulation found associations between adjudicated RPOA with more severe radiographic/symptomatic (joint pain, swelling, and physical limitation) OA. Risk of adjudicated RPOA1 was highest in patients with Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grade 2 or 3 OA at baseline. Risk of adjudicated RPOA2 or TJR was highest in patients with KL grade 4 joints at baseline. A higher proportion of joints with adjudicated RPOA2 had a TJR (14/26) than those with adjudicated RPOA1 (16/106). CONCLUSION: In placebo- and NSAID controlled studies of SC tanezumab for OA, adjudicated CJSE, RPOA, and TJR most commonly occurred in patients treated with tanezumab and with more severe radiographic or symptomatic OA. NCT02697773; NCT02709486; NCT02528188.

Effect of Tanezumab on Joint Pain, Physical Function, and Patient Global Assessment of Osteoarthritis Among Patients With Osteoarthritis of the Hip or Knee: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Patients with osteoarthritis (OA) may remain symptomatic with traditional OA treatments. Objective: To assess 2 subcutaneous tanezumab dosing regimens for OA. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial from January 2016 to May 14, 2018 (last patient visit). Patients enrolled were 18 years or older with hip or knee OA, inadequate response to OA analgesics, and no radiographic evidence of prespecified joint safety conditions. Interventions: Patients received by subcutaneous administration either tanezumab, 2.5 mg, at day 1 and week 8 (n = 231); tanezumab, 2.5 mg at day 1 and 5 mg at week 8 (ie, tanezumab, 2.5/5 mg; n = 233); or placebo at day 1 and week 8 (n = 232). Main Outcomes and Measures: Co-primary end points were change from baseline to week 16 in Western Ontario and McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain (0-10, no to extreme pain), WOMAC Physical Function (0-10, no to extreme difficulty), and patient global assessment of osteoarthritis (PGA-OA) (1-5, very good to very poor) scores. Results: Among 698 patients randomized, 696 received 1 or more treatment doses (mean [SD] age, 60.8 [9.6] years; 65.1% women), and 582 (83.6%) completed the trial. From baseline to 16 weeks, mean WOMAC Pain scores decreased from 7.1 to 3.6 in the tanezumab, 2.5 mg, group; 7.3 to 3.6 in the tanezumab, 2.5/5 mg, group; and 7.3 to 4.4 in the placebo group (least squares mean differences [95% CI] vs placebo were -0.60 [-1.07 to -0.13; P = .01] for tanezumab, 2.5 mg, and -0.73 [-1.20 to -0.26; P = .002] for tanezumab, 2.5/5 mg). Mean WOMAC Physical Function scores decreased from 7.2 to 3.7 in the 2.5-mg group, 7.4 to 3.6 in the 2.5/5-mg group, and 7.4 to 4.5 with placebo (differences vs placebo, -0.66 [-1.14 to -0.19; P = .007] for tanezumab, 2.5 mg, and -0.89 [-1.37 to -0.42; P < .001] for tanezumab, 2.5/5 mg). Mean PGA-OA scores decreased from 3.4 to 2.4 in the 2.5-mg group, 3.5 to 2.4 in the 2.5/5-mg group, and 3.5 to 2.7 with placebo (differences vs placebo, -0.22 [-0.39 to -0.05; P = .01] for tanezumab, 2.5 mg, and -0.25 [-0.41 to -0.08; P = .004] for tanezumab, 2.5/5 mg). Rapidly progressive OA occurred only in tanezumab-treated patients (2.5 mg: n = 5, 2.2%; 2.5/5 mg: n = 1, 0.4%). The incidence of total joint replacements was 8 (3.5%), 16 (6.9%), and 4 (1.7%) in the tanezumab, 2.5 mg; tanezumab, 2.5/5 mg; and placebo groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with moderate to severe OA of the knee or hip and inadequate response to standard analgesics, tanezumab, compared with placebo, resulted in statistically significant improvements in scores assessing pain and physical function, and in PGA-OA, although the improvements were modest and tanezumab-treated patients had more joint safety events and total joint replacements. Further research is needed to determine the clinical importance of these efficacy and adverse event findings. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02697773.

Patient-reported health-related quality of life, work productivity, and activity impairment during treatment with ALO-02 (extended-release oxycodone and sequestered naltrexone) for moderate-to-severe chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of ALO-02, an abuse-deterrent formulation containing extended-release oxycodone and sequestered naltrexone, in the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP) was studied in a 12-week randomized controlled trial. Primary efficacy endpoint results have been published previously (Rauck et al., 2015). The current paper focuses on patient-reported outcomes for health-related quality of life (HRQL), work productivity, and activity impairment that were assessed during this study. METHODS: This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized withdrawal study in patients with moderate-to-severe CLBP. After a screening period (≤2 weeks), patients entered an open-label titration period (4-6 weeks). Treatment responders were then randomized to a double-blind placebo-controlled treatment period (12 weeks). HRQL was assessed using changes in the Short Form-36 v2 Health Survey (SF-36v2) and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions Health Questionnaire 3-Level version (EQ-5D-3L). Work productivity and regular activities were evaluated using the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: Specific Health Problem (WPAI:SHP). RESULTS: A total of 410 patients received ALO-02 during the open-label titration period, of which 280 (intent-to-treat (ITT) population) were treated during the double-blind placebo-controlled treatment period (placebo, n = 134; ALO-02, n = 146). Significant improvement was observed for all SF-36v2 subscales and component scores (p < 0.005) and the EQ-5D-3L summary index and visual analog scale (p < 0.0001) during the titration period. Improvement was also significant (p < 0.0001) for all WPAI:SHP outcomes except 'work time missed due to CLBP' for the titration period. Significant differences favoring ALO-02 compared with placebo were only observed for the SF-36v2 Bodily Pain subscale (p ≤ 0.0232; ITT population) during the double-blind treatment period and the overall study period (screening to the end of the double-blind treatment period). The percentage change in activity impairment due to low back pain subscale of the WPAI:SHP significantly favored ALO-02 compared with placebo for the ITT population when considering the overall study period (p = 0.0040). CONCLUSIONS: HRQL, work productivity, and activity impairment may be improved with ALO-02 treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01571362 , registered April 3, 2012.

Safety and effectiveness of long-term treatment with diazepam auto-injector administered by caregivers in an outpatient setting for the treatment of acute repetitive seizures.

OBJECTIVE: Part 1 of this phase III study was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of caregiver administered diazepam auto-injector (AI) in subjects with acute repetitive seizures (ARS) and demonstrated that diazepam AI was well-tolerated and significantly more effective than placebo AI in delaying the time to next seizure or rescue. Part 2 of this study, presented herein, was an open-label continuation to assess the long-term safety and effectiveness of diazepam AI for the treatment of ARS. METHODS: Of the 234 subjects randomized in part 1, 161 continued into part 2 and were provided open-label diazepam AI. Effectiveness measures were time to next seizure or rescue, number of subsequent rescues by type (rescue medication, emergency room visit, or other medical care), and number of subsequent seizures during the 12-h follow-up period. Safety data (adverse events and respirations <8/min) were also collected. RESULTS: During the open-label part 2 study, 129 subjects were administered a total of 1,380 diazepam AI treatments (median 4.5; range 1-118), of which 1,071 (77.6%) were effective with no subsequent seizure or rescue during the 12-h follow-up period. Median number of subsequent seizures experienced by subjects was one (range 0-20). Of the 1,380 administrations, 79 (5.7%) required use of rescue medication, 18 (1.3%) required a visit to an emergency room, and 6 (0.4%) required other rescue medical care. In most (75%) of subjects with treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), TEAEs were mild or moderate in severity. Commonly reported treatment-related TEAEs were injection-site pain (10.9%), injection-site hemorrhage (7%), and injection-site bruising (6.3%). Although three subjects met the predefined respiratory rate threshold, none were considered clinically significant or reported as AEs. SIGNIFICANCE: Long-term treatment with diazepam AI administered by trained caregivers in an outpatient setting to treat ARS is a safe and effective option. A PowerPoint slide summarizing this article is available for download in the Supporting Information section here.

Long-Term Use of Rimegepant 75 mg for the Acute Treatment of Migraine is Associated with a Reduction in the Utilization of Select Analgesics and Antiemetics.

Purpose: To examine use of concomitant analgesics and antiemetics during treatment with rimegepant in adults with migraine. Patients and Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of a long-term, open-label, safety study in adults with a history of 2-14 moderate or severe migraine attacks per month. Participants self-administered rimegepant 75 mg (1) up to once daily as needed (PRN) for 52 weeks or (2) every other day plus PRN (EOD+PRN) for 12 weeks. The PRN cohort was further divided based on baseline attack frequency, with PRN (2-8) and PRN (9-14) cohorts having a history of 2-8 or 9-14 attacks per month, respectively. Use of select analgesics and antiemetics was analyzed during a 30-day pre-treatment observation period (OP) and during rimegepant treatment. Results: Overall, 1800 rimegepant-treated participants (PRN n = 1514, EOD+PRN n = 286) were included in the analysis. Select analgesics or antiemetics were used by 80.1% of participants during the OP. Among 1441 participants using analgesics or antiemetics during the OP, the proportion who did not use any analgesics or antiemetics following initiation of rimegepant treatment increased during weeks 1-4 (36.9%), 5-8 (52.6%), and 9-12 (56.5%). The mean number of days per month using analgesics or antiemetics was also significantly reduced over time in all cohorts beginning at weeks 1-4 (P < 0.001 vs OP). This pattern of reduced analgesic or antiemetic use was consistent for all rimegepant cohorts, but was most pronounced in the EOD+PRN cohort in which 74.8% of participants reported ≥50% reduction in analgesic/antiemetic days at weeks 9-12. Reduction in use was maintained over time, with 61.3% of participants not using any analgesics or antiemetics during weeks 49-52 of PRN treatment. Conclusion: Long-term treatment with oral rimegepant was associated with reduced analgesic and antiemetic use. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03266588.

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of a diazepam auto-injector administered by caregivers to patients with epilepsy who require intermittent intervention for acute repetitive seizures.

PURPOSE: A diazepam auto­injector (AI) has been developed for intramuscular administration to treat acute repetitive seizures (ARS). The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the diazepam AI when administered by caregivers to control an episode of ARS (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00319501). METHODS: In this phase III, randomized, double­blind, parallel­group, placebo­controlled, multicenter study, subjects with epilepsy on a stable antiepileptic drug regimen who required intermittent medical intervention to control ARS were randomized 1:1 to the placebo AI or the diazepam AI group. Subjects were stratified according to age (2­5, 6­11, ≥12 years). Dose (5, 10, 15, or 20 mg) was based on age and weight. A single dose of study medication was dispensed to be administered by caregivers in an outpatient setting when required. The primary end point was time to next seizure or rescue from 15 min to 12 h postdose. Secondary end points included rescue medication use, number of seizures postdose, caregiver and physician treatment assessments, and safety measures. KEY FINDINGS: Of 234 subjects randomized, 81/110 in the placebo AI group and 82/124 in the diazepam AI group were included in the intent­to­treat analysis. Baseline characteristics were similar for both groups. Time to next seizure or rescue was significantly longer in the diazepam AI group compared with the placebo AI group, with a hazard ratio of 0.55 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.34­0.88; p = 0.012) for diazepam AI versus placebo AI, adjusted for age group. The 25th percentile for time to the next seizure or rescue was 1.18 h (95% CI 0.38­2.03) for placebo AI and 2.70 h (95% CI 0.48­11.42) for diazepam AI; the median was 5.9 h for placebo AI and was inestimable for diazepam AI due to the low number of events experienced by subjects in that group. The proportion of subjects using rescue medication postdose was 30% (24/81) placebo AI versus 17% (14/82) diazepam AI (p = 0.066). An event (seizure or rescue) occurred in 55.6% of subjects in the placebo AI group and 35.4% in the diazepam AI group. The number of seizures experienced during the 12­h postdose period was significantly lower for diazepam AI (median 0.0) compared with placebo AI (median 1.0; p = 0.010). Treatment­emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 44% (35/79) of subjects in the placebo AI group and 42% (34/81) in the diazepam AI group. The most common TEAEs reported were injection site pain (15% placebo AI, 17% diazepam AI) and injection site hemorrhage (6% placebo AI, 5% diazepam AI). SIGNIFICANCE: The diazepam AI was significantly more effective than placebo AI at delaying the next seizure or rescue. Secondary efficacy end points were generally supportive of the primary outcome. Diazepam AI administered by trained caregivers was effective for the treatment of ARS and was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to placebo.

Peripheral Nerve Safety of Nerve Growth Factor Inhibition by Tanezumab: Pooled Analyses of Phase III Clinical Studies in Over 5000 Patients with Osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Tanezumab, a humanized anti-nerve growth factor antibody, was developed for the treatment of pain associated with osteoarthritis. Due to its mechanism of action, peripheral nerve safety was assessed in all clinical studies. OBJECTIVES: To summarize the neurological safety of intravenous (IV) and subcutaneous (SC) tanezumab versus placebo in patients with osteoarthritis. METHODS: Data were pooled from 3389 patients across seven studies that investigated IV administration, and from 1840 patients across three studies that investigated SC administration. The treatment period of each study ranged from 16 to 24 weeks, and follow-up periods ranged from 8 to 24 weeks. Neurological safety evaluations focused on adverse events (AEs) of abnormal peripheral sensation (APS), neurologic examinations, and consultations. RESULTS: Across datasets, the incidence of AEs of APS was higher in tanezumab groups versus placebo. Paresthesia and hypoesthesia were the most frequently reported AEs in tanezumab-treated patients, compared with placebo. In both datasets, most AEs were of mild severity, resolved, and rarely resulted in discontinuation. In all treatment groups in both IV and SC studies, over 90% of patients had no new or worsened neurological examination abnormalities at the last study visit. Across datasets, mononeuropathy was diagnosed more frequently in tanezumab groups compared with placebo. Polyneuropathy was diagnosed in ≤ 0.9% of patients in tanezumab and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: Tanezumab IV or SC had an increased incidence of AEs of APS, such as paresthesia and hypoesthesia, and diagnoses of mononeuropathy compared with placebo. However, tanezumab was not associated with generalized peripheral neuropathy. GOV IDENTIFIERS: NCT00733902, NCT00744471, NCT00830063, NCT00863304, NCT00863772, NCT01089725, NCT00985621, NCT02697773, and NCT02709486.

Efficacy, General Safety, and Joint Safety of Tanezumab in Japanese Patients with Osteoarthritis: Subgroup Analyses from Two Randomized, Phase 3 Studies.

INTRODUCTION: Tanezumab is a monoclonal antibody against nerve growth factor that is under investigation for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) pain. We conducted subgroup analyses of two randomized phase 3 studies to summarize efficacy, general safety, and adjudicated joint safety of tanezumab in Japanese patients with moderate-to-severe OA. METHODS: In Study 1 (NCT02528188), patients received subcutaneous tanezumab 2.5 mg or 5 mg every 8 weeks or daily oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) for 56 weeks. The co-primary efficacy endpoints were change from baseline in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain subscale score and WOMAC Physical Function subscale score at Week 16 (overall study and Japan-specific endpoints) as well as Patient Global Assessment (PGA)-OA score at Week 16 (overall study endpoint only). In Study 2 (NCT02709486), patients received subcutaneous tanezumab 2.5 mg, 5 mg, or placebo every 8 weeks for 24 weeks. Safety monitoring included adjudicated composite joint safety endpoint (CJSE) including rapidly progressive osteoarthritis type 1 (RPOA1), RPOA2, primary osteonecrosis, pathological fracture, or subchondral insufficiency fracture. RESULTS: For Study 1, Japanese patients (n = 200) treated with tanezumab 2.5 mg and 5 mg showed numerically greater improvements in WOMAC Pain, WOMAC Physical Function, and PGA-OA scores versus NSAID at Week 16. Incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events were generally similar between tanezumab 2.5 mg, 5 mg, and NSAID groups. In the integrated safety analysis (Studies 1 + 2; n = 306), ten patients were adjudicated to have a component of CJSE: RPOA1 [tanezumab 2.5 mg (n = 2), tanezumab 5 mg (n = 5)], RPOA2 [tanezumab 2.5 mg (n = 1), tanezumab 5 mg (n = 1)], or primary osteonecrosis [tanezumab 2.5 mg (n = 1)]. Time-adjusted adjudicated rates of RPOA1 and RPOA2 were higher with tanezumab than NSAID or placebo and increased with dose of tanezumab. CONCLUSION: Observations from the Japanese subgroup were generally consistent with the overall study populations.

General Safety and Tolerability of Subcutaneous Tanezumab for Osteoarthritis: A Pooled Analysis of Three Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVE: This pooled analysis of 3 randomized, placebo-controlled trials (16-24 week treatment and 8-24 week follow-up) assessed safety of subcutaneous tanezumab (2.5-10 mg every 8 weeks) in 1,840 patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: Overall treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and TEAEs of abnormal peripheral sensation (APS) were prospectively assessed in 3 trials. Joint safety events (primary osteonecrosis, rapidly progressive osteoarthritis [RPOA], subchondral insufficiency fracture, and pathologic fracture; adjudicated by an independent expert committee) and TEAEs potentially associated with sympathetic neuropathy were prospectively assessed in 2 trials. RESULTS: During the treatment period, overall TEAE rates were 51.7% for placebo and 39.5-54.8% for tanezumab 2.5-10 mg; treatment discontinuation rates were 2.0% for placebo and 0-1.3% for tanezumab. Rates of composite joint safety events (predominantly RPOA type 1) over the treatment plus follow-up period were 0% for placebo and 0.5-3.2% for tanezumab 2.5-5 mg (5 mg was statistically greater than placebo); total joint replacement rates with tanezumab (5.9-7.0%) were not significantly different from placebo (4.5%). Rates of TEAEs of APS (predominantly paresthesia and hypoesthesia) were 2.2% for placebo and 3.2-12.8% for tanezumab 2.5-10 mg. Rates of TEAEs potentially associated with sympathetic neuropathy (predominantly bradycardia and orthostatic hypotension) were 0.8% for placebo and 0.5-2.8% for tanezumab 2.5-5 mg (exposure-adjusted rates were not significantly different from placebo). CONCLUSION: Tanezumab was generally well tolerated. TEAEs of APS (mostly mild and transient) and joint safety events were infrequent but more common with tanezumab than placebo. A tanezumab dose of 2.5 mg demonstrated a more favorable safety profile than higher doses.

Neurological safety of subcutaneous tanezumab versus NSAID in patients with osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the long-term neurological safety of tanezumab, a monoclonal antibody against nerve growth factor. METHODS: Patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee received stable doses of oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) before study entry and during a ≤ 37-day screening period. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to double-dummy tanezumab (2.5 mg or 5 mg, subcutaneous every 8 weeks) or oral NSAIDs (twice-daily) for 56 weeks, with a 24-week follow-up. Neurological safety evaluation focused on peripheral and sympathetic adverse events (AEs), neurologic examinations, and consultations with blinded, external diagnostic reviews. RESULTS: During the treatment period, 6.2%, 9.0%, and 4.6% of patients experienced AEs of abnormal peripheral sensation (APS) in the tanezumab 2.5 mg, 5 mg, and NSAID groups, respectively. Hypoesthesia, paresthesia, and carpal tunnel syndrome were the most common AEs of APS. Clinically significant worsening on examination occurred in <1% in any treatment group at the last study assessment. Diagnoses following external neurological consultation included mononeuropathy (1.3%, 2.1%, and 1.0%), radiculopathy (0.9%, 0.4%, and 0.5%), and polyneuropathy (0.3%, 0.5%, and 0%) in tanezumab 2.5 mg, 5 mg, and NSAID groups, respectively. AEs potentially associated with sympathetic neuropathy were reported for 1.8%, 2.3%, and 2.9% of patients in the tanezumab 2.5 mg, 5 mg, and NSAID groups, respectively. No patient was diagnosed with sympathetic neuropathy. CONCLUSION: Tanezumab had an increased incidence of AEs of APS versus NSAID; these were typically mild/moderate in severity, resolved during the study, and rarely resulted in discontinuation. Tanezumab was not associated with peripheral neuropathy and did not adversely affect the sympathetic nervous system. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02528188 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02528188).

Observed efficacy and clinically important improvements in participants with osteoarthritis treated with subcutaneous tanezumab: results from a 56-week randomized NSAID-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: A recent phase 3 study demonstrated that treatment with tanezumab, a nerve growth factor inhibitor, or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) improves pain and physical function in participants with moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip or knee. Here, we evaluated the time course and clinical importance of these initial efficacy findings using a mixture of primary, secondary, and post hoc endpoints. METHODS: Participants on stable NSAID therapy and with a history of inadequate response to other standard OA analgesics were enrolled in an 80-week (56-week treatment/24-week safety follow-up), randomized, NSAID-controlled, phase 3 study primarily designed to assess the safety of tanezumab for moderate-to-severe OA of the knee or hip. Participants received oral NSAID (twice daily naproxen, celecoxib, or diclofenac) or subcutaneous tanezumab (2.5mg or 5mg every 8 weeks). Non-responders were discontinued at week 16. Changes from baseline in WOMAC Pain and Physical Function, Patient's Global Assessment of Osteoarthritis (PGA-OA), and average pain in the index joint were compared between tanezumab and NSAID groups over the 56-week treatment period. Clinically meaningful response (e.g., ≥30% and ≥50% improvement in WOMAC Pain and Physical Function), rescue medication use, and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: All groups improved WOMAC Pain, WOMAC Physical Function, PGA-OA, and average pain in the index joint over the 56-week treatment period relative to baseline. Across all groups, improvements generally occurred from the time of first assessment (week 1 or 2) to week 16 and then slightly decreased from week 16 to 24 before stabilizing from weeks 24 to 56. The magnitude of improvement and the proportion of participants achieving ≥30% and ≥50% improvement in these measures was greater (unadjusted p≤0.05) with tanezumab than with NSAID at some timepoints on or before week 16. Adverse events of abnormal peripheral sensation, prespecified joint safety events, and total joint replacement surgery occurred more frequently with tanezumab than with NSAID. CONCLUSIONS: Tanezumab and NSAID both provided early and sustained (up to 56 weeks) efficacy relative to baseline. Improvements in pain and function were clinically meaningful in a substantial proportion of participants. Adverse events of abnormal peripheral sensation and joint safety events occurred more frequently with tanezumab than with NSAID. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02528188 . Registered on 19 July 2015.

Inter-Reader Consistency and Exclusionary Findings During Radiographic Screening for Phase 3 Trials of Tanezumab in Patients With Osteoarthritis.

Objective: Describe the radiograph-based screening program and frequencies of ineligibility in 3 large, international, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 studies of subcutaneous tanezumab in patients with osteoarthritis (OA). Design: Standardized bilateral shoulder, hip, and knee screening radiographs were obtained by trained imaging technologists and centrally read by 1 of 5 musculoskeletal radiology experts trained using a program-specific imaging atlas. Inter-reader consistency was tracked with test cases blindly inserted into the reader queue. Readers attended quarterly calibration meetings. Protocol-specified radiographic exclusion criteria included rapidly progressive OA (RPOA) or risk factors for RPOA (including severe malalignment of the knee, subchondral insufficiency fracture, atrophic OA, and osteonecrosis). Patients reporting disproportionate pain to radiographic evidence of OA in the hip or knee (without other pathology) were ineligible under a nonradiographic exclusion criterion. Results: At >480 international sites, 23,079 patients entered screening and 13,797 were radiographically assessed. Across 6 sets of quarterly testing, pairwise central reader agreement on radiographic eligibility was 72-87% (kappa: 0.41-0.71) and on radiographic OA grading 77-84% (kappa: 0.68-0.75). Among the 5,773/13,797 (41.8%) patients who met exclusionary criteria, 27% had disproportionate pain to radiographic findings (~10% of knee/hip radiographs). RPOA or risk factors for RPOA were each identified in <5% of patients (usually 1 joint) and <3% of knee/hip/shoulders. Conclusions: The phase 3 tanezumab screening program demonstrated the utility of radiographs to screen patients entering NGF inhibitor trials. A high degree of reader concordance was achieved. RPOA and risk factors for RPOA were not commonly observed. NCT02697773, NCT02709486, NCT02528188.

Effectiveness and safety of diclofenac epolamine topical patch 1.3% for the treatment of acute pain due to back strain: an open-label, uncontrolled study.

BACKGROUND: The diclofenac epolamine topical patch 1.3% (DETP) is indicated for topical treatment of acute pain due to minor strains, sprains, and contusions. This exploratory, multicenter, open-label study evaluated effectiveness and safety of DETP in patients with acute pain due to back strain. METHODS: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with acute pain due to nonradicular back strain with an average pain intensity of ≥ 4 (0 = no pain, 10 = pain as bad as you can imagine) entered a 3-day observation/washout period and completed daily diary modified Brief Pain Inventory assessments. At baseline, patients with an average pain intensity of ≥ 4 started DETP treatment (q12h). Patients were treated for 7 or 14 days, depending on investigator and patient assessment of pain resolution. Primary endpoint was mean change from baseline to end of treatment in average pain intensity. Key secondary endpoints included changes from baseline in least, worst, and current pain scores and Beck Depression Inventory(®) II scores. Patients and investigators assessed patch satisfaction and global pain relief. RESULTS: In 123 enrolled patients, baseline mean ± standard deviation average pain score was 6.5 ± 1.3, which decreased to 2.5 ± 2.4 (P < 0.0001) at end of treatment. Similarly, least, worst, and current pain scores were also reduced (P < 0.0001). Sixty-three percent of patients achieved ≥ 50% pain reduction from baseline. At the end of treatment, most patients (88%) were satisfied or very satisfied with DETP. For 85% of patients, investigators also reported being satisfied or very satisfied with DETP. Most patients (87%) and investigators (88%, rating the patient's response) rated global pain relief as moderate to complete. Fifteen patients experienced a total of 19 adverse events (AEs), 17 of which were mild to moderate, and 2 of which were severe. Three AEs were treatment related (application site rash, nausea, and tachycardia); 1 patient had a serious AE (noncardiac chest pain) considered unrelated to DETP. CONCLUSION: In this exploratory study, patients experienced well-tolerated relief for acute pain due to back strain, with ≥ 85% of patients and their investigators expressing satisfaction with DETP treatment.

Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Subcutaneous Tanezumab Versus Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs for Hip or Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the long-term safety and 16-week efficacy of subcutaneous tanezumab in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: This was a phase III randomized, double-blind, active treatment-controlled (using nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs [NSAIDs] as the active treatment control) safety trial of tanezumab (56-week treatment/24-week posttreatment follow-up) in adults who were receiving stable-dose NSAID therapy at the time of screening and who had Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain and physical function scores of ≥5; patient global assessment (PtGA) of OA of fair, poor, or very poor; history of inadequate pain relief with standard analgesics; and no history or radiographic evidence of prespecified bone/joint conditions beyond OA. Patients received oral naproxen, celecoxib, or diclofenac twice daily (NSAID group; n = 996) or tanezumab 2.5 mg (n = 1,002) or 5 mg (n = 998) subcutaneously every 8 weeks. Coprimary efficacy end points at week 16 were changes in WOMAC pain and physical function scores and changes in PtGA. The primary joint safety end point over 80 weeks comprised adjudicated rapidly progressive OA type 1 or 2, primary osteonecrosis, subchondral insufficiency fracture, or pathologic fracture. Mean values, least squares mean values, and least squares mean differences between groups (with 95% confidence intervals [95% CIs]) were calculated. RESULTS: Of 3,021 randomized patients, 2,996 received ≥1 treatment dose. Adverse events (AEs) were similar between patients treated with tanezumab 2.5 mg and those treated with NSAIDs, and were more prevalent in those treated with tanezumab 5 mg. Composite joint safety events were significantly more prevalent with tanezumab 2.5 mg and tanezumab 5 mg than with NSAIDs (observation time-adjusted rate/1,000 patient-years 38.3 [95% CI 28.0, 52.5] and 71.5 [95% CI 56.7, 90.2], respectively, versus 14.8 [95% CI 8.9, 24.6]; P = 0.001 for tanezumab 2.5 mg versus NSAIDs; P < 0.001 for tanezumab 5 mg versus NSAIDs). Tanezumab 5 mg significantly improved pain and physical function but did not improve PtGA at week 16 when compared to NSAIDs; corresponding differences between the tanezumab 2.5 mg and NSAID groups were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: In patients previously receiving a stable dose of NSAIDs, tanezumab administered subcutaneously resulted in more joint safety events than continued NSAIDs, with differences being dose dependent. Pain and physical function improved with both doses of tanezumab compared to NSAIDs, reaching statistical significance with tanezumab 5 mg at 16 weeks.

Safety and tolerability of ALO-02 (oxycodone hydrochloride and sequestered naltrexone hydrochloride) extended-release capsules in older patients: a pooled analysis of two clinical trials.

Objective: To assess the impact of age on the safety and tolerability of ALO-02, an abuse-deterrent opioid formulation consisting of oxycodone hydrochloride and sequestered naltrexone hydrochloride, in patients with chronic pain.Methods: Data from two clinical studies in patients with chronic low back pain or chronic non-cancer pain were analyzed. Patients aged ≥18 years who required continuous around-the-clock opioid analgesia for an extended period were grouped into ≥65 years and <65 years age groups. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), use of concomitant medications, clinical laboratory measurements, and occurrences of opioid withdrawal using reported adverse events (AEs) and Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) scores assessed safety. Data pooling was employed for the titration and maintenance phases of both studies.Results: Respectively 805 and 436 patients received ≥1 dose of ALO-02 in the titration and maintenance phases; 121 (15.0%) and 83 (14.6%) patients, respectively, were aged ≥65 years in the titration and maintenance phases. Average doses of ALO-02 were lower in the older patients in both phases. Incidences of TEAEs were comparable between age groups in both phases and generally lower in the maintenance phase. Concomitant medications were taken more often by patients aged ≥65 years. Incidences of potentially clinically significant laboratory results were low in both phases with no clinically important differences between age groups. There were few reports of opioid withdrawal events as assessed by reported AEs and COWS scores. One patient aged ≥65 years experienced an AE of opioid withdrawal.Conclusions: The safety and tolerability of ALO-02 is similar in those aged ≥65 years and those aged <65 years with chronic pain.ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01571362, NCT01428583.

Onset and maintenance of efficacy of subcutaneous tanezumab in patients with moderate to severe osteoarthritis of the knee or hip: A 16-week dose-titration study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the onset and maintenance of efficacy of subcutaneous tanezumab for pain relief and functional improvement in difficult-to-treat patients with moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis (OA) in a 16-week dose-titration study (NCT02697773). METHODS: Patients were randomized to placebo (placebo group) or tanezumab 2.5 mg at baseline and week 8 (tanezumab 2.5 mg group), or tanezumab 2.5 mg at baseline and tanezumab 5 mg at week 8 (tanezumab 2.5/5 mg group). Analyses included change from baseline in average daily index joint pain and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain and Physical Function, and treatment responses (WOMAC Pain improvement criteria and Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthritis Research Society International [OMERACT-OARSI] criteria). RESULTS: The 696 patients received placebo (n = 232), tanezumab 2.5 mg (n = 231), or tanezumab 2.5/5 mg (n = 233). Average daily index joint pain was statistically significantly improved within the first week (day 3-5) with tanezumab 2.5 mg compared with placebo. On first post-randomization WOMAC measurement (week 2), both tanezumab groups had statistically significant improvements compared with placebo in WOMAC Pain and Physical Function, and more tanezumab-treated patients achieved treatment response criteria (≥30%, ≥50%, or ≥70% reduction in WOMAC Pain or OMERACT-OARSI response). Efficacy was generally maintained throughout the 16-week treatment period. CONCLUSION: Subcutaneous tanezumab provided statistically significant improvements compared with placebo in average daily index joint pain within the first week and WOMAC Pain and Physical Function (week 2) that were generally maintained throughout the 16-week treatment period. Tanezumab 5 mg provided only modest additional efficacy over tanezumab 2.5 mg.

Modified visual analog scale symptom-intensity and overall-bother measures for the assessment of symptoms in studies of pharmacologic stress agents.

BACKGROUND: Drugs used to induce stress for cardiac imaging studies often cause discomfort. Patient-reported intensity of discomfort should be considered when comparing such agents. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the psychometric properties of a modified visual analog scale (VAS) symptom-intensity measure and an overall-bother measure adapted to assess patient-reported intensity of the adverse events (AEs) associated with pharmacologic stress testing with adenosine, a pharmacologic stress myocardial perfusion imaging (PS-MPI) agent. METHODS: Data were based on 2 complementary, open-label, multicenter, naturalistic, observational studies among patients completing a PS-MPI procedure. Content, concurrent, and discriminant validity was examined by correlating modified VAS symptom-intensity scores obtained from patients with investigator-rated intensity at time of event, overall bother, and patient-reported measures obtained during a structured interview. Test-retest reliability of the overall-bother measure was examined using 1- and 2-hour assessments, and concurrent validity was assessed by correlating counts of symptoms and other patient-reported measures. Responsiveness was examined by calculating change scores of the VAS symptom-intensity measures from baseline to 1 hour among patients who reported symptoms during the 1-hour monitoring period after PS infusion. Low to moderate correlation was defined as a coefficient between 0.3 and 0.5. RESULTS: A total of 324 patients enrolled in the 2 studies. Content validity of the VAS symptom-intensity and overall-bother measures was established, with nearly all patients reporting that they were a useful way to rate symptom intensity and overall bother. VAS ratings were moderately to highly correlated with physician-rated AE intensity, and patient-reported assessments of symptom intensity, discomfort, and concern (r(s) = 0.21 r(s) = 0.84). Findings to support discriminant validity were inconclusive because of small sample size. Responsiveness was demonstrated with VAS symptom-intensity change scores ranging from 2.8 for headache to 4.9 for chest pain; effect sizes for these differences were large, ranging from 1.6 to 7.3, respectively. CONCLUSION: Findings support the validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the modified VAS symptom-intensity measure, and the reliability and validity of the overall-bother measure for use in patients completing PS procedures.

Extended-release morphine sulfate and naltrexone hydrochloride (EMBEDA): naltrexone-associated withdrawal and abuse-related effects in patients with chronic pain and recreational opioid users.

OBJECTIVE: To review the effects of naltrexone on withdrawal-related adverse events (AEs) and euphoria-related effects, and the relationship between plasma naltrexone concentrations and withdrawal across EMBEDA (MSN; extended-release morphine sulfate with sequestered naltrexone) studies. METHODS: Five studies in pain patients and a safety review summarizing AE reports during the first year following approval of MSN were assessed for withdrawal reports. Three of these studies also assessed Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) scores. Plasma naltrexone concentrations of MSN-treated individuals were summarized. Abuse potential was assessed in four studies in non-dependent recreational opioid users. RESULTS: Withdrawal AEs occurred in 13/1781 patients across five MSN studies, and 25/182 cases involving withdrawal were reported in the safety review. In three of these studies, 11/964 patients experienced moderate withdrawal (COWS score = 13-24) and 1/964 patients experienced moderately severe withdrawal (score = 28); all were either non-compliant with study drug, had undetectable plasma naltrexone concentrations, or were tapering to placebo. In ≥89% of plasma naltrexone concentration samples from patients who took MSN (n = 166), naltrexone was below the limit of quantification (4.0 pg/mL). In four studies with non-dependent recreational opioid users (n = 118), crushed MSN was associated with significantly lower scores of drug liking, high, and take drug again than crushed morphine sulfate (p ≤ 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: When taken intact as directed, naltrexone in MSN does not precipitate withdrawal. However, when MSN is crushed, naltrexone mitigates, but does not eliminate, the euphorigenic effects of crushed morphine sulfate.

Effects of naltrexone exposure observed in two phase three studies with ALO-02, an extended-release oxycodone surrounding sequestered naltrexone.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical effects of naltrexone following ALO-02 administration. DESIGN: Two phase three studies: an open-label, single-arm safety study, and a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized withdrawal, efficacy study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01428583, NCT01571362). SETTING: Seventy US research centers. PATIENTS: Eight hundred and five patients with moderate-to-severe chronic noncancer pain (n = 395) or moderate-to-severe chronic low back pain (n = 410). INTERVENTIONS: Oral ALO-02 capsules (daily dose 20-160 mg oxycodone): openlabel titration followed by double-blind fixed dose ALO-02 or placebo (12 weeks) for the efficacy study; and open-label administration (≤12 months) for the safety study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-sf), withdrawal-related adverse events, Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS), and naltrexone plasma concentrations. RESULTS: ALO-02 was received for = 30 days by 592 patients (73.5 percent), = 90 days by 348 patients (43.2 percent), and ≤361 days by 105 patients (13.0 percent). Maximum COWS scores were below the cutoff for mild withdrawal for the majority of patients: 86.6 percent of patients in the safety study, and for the efficacy study, 96.8 percent during titration and 95.0 percent during double-blind treatment. The frequency of quantifiable naltrexone plasma concentrations was similar between studies (18-23 percent of samples), and the levels were low, generally not exceeding 200 pg/mL. There was no apparent relationship between naltrexone plasma concentrations and COWS scores (total or change from baseline), or change from baseline in BPI-sf scores in the efficacy (R2 = 0.0184, 0.0224, and 0.0173, respectively) or safety studies (R2 = 0.0010, 0.0000, and 0.0122, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Naltrexone plasma concentrations were low, not correlated with COWS or BPI-sf scores, and considered clinically insignificant.

Measurement of Drug Liking in Abuse Potential Studies: A Comparison of Unipolar and Bipolar Visual Analog Scales.

Abuse liability studies usually measure drug liking using 100-mm visual analog scales (VAS), presented as unipolar (liking measured on entire scale) or bipolar (liking and disliking measured with a neutral midpoint). These 2 types of VAS were compared using drug liking ratings from a randomized double-blind crossover study of immediate-release and controlled-release oxycodone in 2 cohorts of nondependent recreational opioid users. Cohort 1 (n = 19) received intact oxycodone 40 mg, intact OxyContin® 40 and 80 mg, crushed OxyContin® 40 mg, and placebo, while cohort 2 (n = 16) received intact oxycodone 20, 40, and 80 mg and placebo. In general, bipolar and unipolar ratings were positively correlated (r = 0.72) for all values (n = 2,477). Emax for both scales generally had higher correlation than individual responses for active drug or placebo. The correlation for individual scores after placebo treatment for the 2 scales was poor in both cohorts (r = -0.11, cohort 1 and r = 0.17, cohort 2). Both scales performed similarly within the context of the study, but bipolar scales can also assess disliking, which may be a consideration depending on anticipated drug effects. Appropriate participant training on the use of these scales is also necessary to reduce variability.