ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Meeting Abstracts
    • All Meetings
    • PRSYM 2026
    • ACR Convergence 2025
    • Download Abstract Supplements
  • Keyword Index
  • My Favorites
    • View & print my favorites
  • Search

Home » Meeting Abstracts » ACR/ARP Annual Meeting 2019

Abstract Number: 1302

Subcutaneous Tanezumab vs NSAID for the Treatment of Osteoarthritis: Efficacy and General Safety Results from a Randomized, Double-Blind, Active-Controlled, 80-Week, Phase-3 Study

Marc C. Hochberg1, John Carrino 2, Thomas Schnitzer 3, Ali Guermazi 4, Eric Vignon 5, David Walsh 6, Alexander White 7, Satoru Nakajo 8, Robert Fountaine 9, Anne Hickman 9, Glenn Pixton 10, Lars Viktrup 11, Mark T. Brown 9, Christine R. West 9 and Kenneth M. Verburg 9, 1University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, 2Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, 3Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, 4Boston Medical Center, Boston, 5Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Lyon, France, 6Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Nottingham, United Kingdom, 7Progressive Medical Research, Port Orange, FL, 8Nakajo Orthopaedic Clinic, Miyagi, Japan, 9Pfizer Inc, Groton, CT, 10Pfizer Inc, Morrisville, NC, 11Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN

Share on X (Twitter) Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on Email
Print

Meeting: ACR/ARP Annual Meeting 2019

Keywords: Effective, Osteoarthritis, safety and growth factors, treatment

Session Information

Date: Monday, November 11, 2019

Title: Osteoarthritis – Clinical Poster I

Session Type: Poster Session (Monday)

Session Time: 9:00AM-11:00AM

Background/Purpose: Tanezumab is a monoclonal antibody that inhibits nerve growth factor and is under investigation for chronic pain treatment. Tanezumab administered intravenously was effective and generally well tolerated in prior osteoarthritis (OA) studies. In patients (pts) with OA and moderate-severe pain taking oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID), we assessed the efficacy and general safety/tolerability of switching to subcutaneous (SC) tanezumab vs further treatment with oral NSAID. (Adjudicated joint safety events are reported in a separate abstract.)

Methods: Eligible pts had hip or knee OA based on ACR criteria with x-ray confirmation; baseline (BL) WOMAC Pain and Physical Function subscale scores of ≥5 (11-pt numerical rating scale); BL Patient’s Global Assessment of OA (PGA-OA) of “fair,” “poor,” or “very poor”; history of inadequate pain relief with acetaminophen; inadequate pain relief with/intolerance to tramadol or an opioid; or unwillingness to take an opioid. Pts were on a stable dose of oral NSAID before study entry and during the 1-mo screening period. Pts were randomized to receive tanezumab (2.5 mg or 5 mg SC every 8 wk) or NSAID (naproxen 500 mg, celecoxib 100 mg, or diclofenac ER 75 mg orally bid) over the 56-wk treatment period. Co-primary efficacy endpoints were change from BL to wk 16 in WOMAC Pain, WOMAC Physical Function, and PGA-OA scores. The key secondary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of pts with ≥50% reduction in WOMAC Pain score at wk 16. Efficacy endpoints were also assessed at wk 56. Safety monitoring included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) during the 56-wk treatment period and 24-wk safety period.

Results: Of 3,021 randomized pts, 2,996 were included in both the efficacy and safety analyses. A total of 1,312 completed the treatment period (NSAID, n=446 [45%]; tanezumab 2.5 mg, n=447 [45%]; and tanezumab 5 mg, n=419 [42%]) and 2,227 completed the safety period (n=757 [76%]; n=741 [74%]; and n=729 [73%], respectively). At BL, mean age was 60.3-61.2 y; OA duration, 8.5-9.1 y; 64-66% were female; and for 85-86%, the knee was the OA index joint. At wk 16, pts receiving tanezumab 5 mg had statistically significant improvement in WOMAC Pain and WOMAC Physical Function compared with pts receiving NSAID, but not in PGA-OA (Table 1). Improvement in co-primary endpoints with tanezumab 2.5 mg was not significantly different than that with NSAID at wk 16. At wk 56, neither tanezumab dose was significantly different than NSAID. The incidence of TEAEs overall and serious TEAEs was greatest with tanezumab 5 mg and similar between tanezumab 2.5 mg and NSAID (Table 2). Eight deaths occurred in tanezumab-treated pts and none in NSAID-treated pts; the investigators did not consider any deaths to be treatment-related.

Conclusion: In pts with hip or knee OA and moderate-severe pain despite NSAID therapy, pts who switched from NSAID to tanezumab 5 mg SC had greater improvement in OA pain and physical function, but not PGA-OA, at wk 16 than pts who continued NSAID therapy. Differences in efficacy endpoints between tanezumab 2.5 mg SC and NSAID did not reach statistical significance. The general safety/tolerability profile of tanezumab was consistent with that seen in prior tanezumab OA studies.

Table 1. Summary of efficacy of tanezumab SC compared with NSAID in pts with OA at wk 16 -primary endpoint- and wk 56 -end of treatment period-.

Table 2. Summary of the general safety/tolerability of tanezumab SC compared with NSAID in pts with OA at wk 56 -end of treatment period- and wk 80 -end of study-.


Disclosure: M. Hochberg, Bioiberica SA, 5, Bone Therapeutics, 5, BriOri Biotech, 4, Bristol Myers Squibb, 5, Eli Lilly, 5, Elsevier, 7, EMD Serono, 5, EMD Serono Research and Development Institute, Inc., 5, Galapagos, 5, Galapagos, IQVIA and Hoffman LaRoche, 9, IBSA Biotechniq SA, 5, Novartis Pharma AG, 5, Pfizer, 5, Pfizer Inc, 5, Plexxikon, 5, Regenosine, Samumed LLC, Symic Bio Inc., Theralogix LLC, TissueGene Inc., TLC Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., and Zynerba, 5, Rheumcon, Inc, 3, Samumed LLC, 5, Theralogix LLC, 4, 5, TissueGene Inc, 5, UpToDateTM, 7; J. Carrino, Covera Health, 5, Image Analysis Group, 5, Image Biopsy Lab, 5, Pfizer, 5, Simplify Medical, 5; T. Schnitzer, AbbVie, 2, Aptinyx, Astellas, Calibr, Eli Lilly and Company, 2, 5, Flexion, 2, Galapagos, 2, GlaxoSmithKline, Grunenthal, 2, Kolon TissueGene, 2, Pfizer, 2, 5, Regeneron, 2, Sanofi, Vertex; A. Guermazi, AstraZeneca, 5, BICL, 1, Boston Imaging Core Lab (BICL), 1, Galapagos, 5, MerckSerono, 5, Pfizer, 5, Roche, 5, Shareholder BICL,LLC, 1, TissueGene, 5; E. Vignon, Pfizer, 5; D. Walsh, GlaxoSmithKline, 5, Pfizer Ltd, 5, 8, Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (non-personal pecuniary), 2; A. White, None; S. Nakajo, None; R. Fountaine, Pfizer, 1, 3, 4; A. Hickman, Pfizer, 1, 3, 4; G. Pixton, Pfizer, 1, 3, 4; L. Viktrup, Eli Lilly and Company, 1, 3, 4; M. Brown, Pfizer, 1, 3, 4; C. West, Pfizer, 1, 3, 4; K. Verburg, Pfizer, 1, 3, 4.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Hochberg M, Carrino J, Schnitzer T, Guermazi A, Vignon E, Walsh D, White A, Nakajo S, Fountaine R, Hickman A, Pixton G, Viktrup L, Brown M, West C, Verburg K. Subcutaneous Tanezumab vs NSAID for the Treatment of Osteoarthritis: Efficacy and General Safety Results from a Randomized, Double-Blind, Active-Controlled, 80-Week, Phase-3 Study [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019; 71 (suppl 10). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/subcutaneous-tanezumab-vs-nsaid-for-the-treatment-of-osteoarthritis-efficacy-and-general-safety-results-from-a-randomized-double-blind-active-controlled-80-week-phase-3-study/. Accessed .

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/subcutaneous-tanezumab-vs-nsaid-for-the-treatment-of-osteoarthritis-efficacy-and-general-safety-results-from-a-randomized-double-blind-active-controlled-80-week-phase-3-study/

My Favorites

Save and print abstracts during your browser session by clicking the “Favorite” button at the bottom of any abstract (must have cookies enabled in browser). See saved favorites.

Abstract Policies

  • ACR Convergence Abstract Embargo Policies
  • ACR Convergence Abstract Permissions & Reprints
  • PRSYM Abstract Policies

ACR Convergence. Where Rheumatology Meets

ACR Convergence 2026

Join us November 6-11 in Orlando, Florida.
See Registration Information

  • Contact ACR
  • Privacy Policy
  • ACR Policies
  • Cookie Preferences

© Copyright 2026 American College of Rheumatology