Tanezumab is a humanized monoclonal antinerve growth factor antibody in development for treatment of chronic pain. In a phase III, placebo- and active-controlled study, we investigated the efficacy and safety of tanezumab for osteoarthritis (OA) hip or knee pain. Patients (N=610) received up to 2 doses of intravenous tanezumab (5 or 10mg in 8-week intervals), controlled-release oral oxycodone (10 to 40 mg every 12 hours), or placebo. The primary endpoint was mean change from baseline to week 8 in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain score for tanezumab versus placebo and oxycodone. Secondary endpoints included change from baseline in WOMAC Physical Function and Stiffness scores, Patient's Global Assessment (PGA) of OA, and patient response, defined as ≥ 30%, ≥ 50%, ≥ 70%, and ≥ 90% improvement from baseline in WOMAC Pain score. Tolerability and safety also were assessed. Both tanezumab groups demonstrated significant improvements in WOMAC Pain score versus placebo (P<.001) and oxycodone (P ≤.018). Tanezumab also provided significant improvements versus placebo and oxycodone for WOMAC Physical Function and Stiffness scores and PGA of OA (P ≤.002 for all) at week 8. For all analyses, oxycodone did not differ from placebo. Adverse event frequency was higher with oxycodone (63.3%) than tanezumab (40.7% to 44.7%) or placebo (35.5%); serious adverse event frequency was similar among treatments. The adverse event profile for tanezumab was similar to previous tanezumab studies. Results indicate that tanezumab is efficacious in the treatment of OA pain; no new safety signals were identified.

NCT00864097.

Patients with metastatic bone cancer report life-altering pain. Nerve growth factor is involved in pain signaling. Tanezumab, a nerve growth factor monoclonal antibody, has demonstrated efficacy in chronic pain. Placebo-controlled parent (NCT00545129; study 1003) and noncontrolled open-label extension (NCT00830180; study 1029) studies evaluated efficacy and safety of tanezumab in patients with painful bone metastases taking daily opioids. Patients in study 1003 received a single intravenous injection of 10 mg tanezumab or placebo and were followed up to 16 weeks. Efficacy analyses included change from baseline in daily average and worst pain at week 6 on an 11-point numeric rating scale. At week 8, patients could enroll in study 1029 and receive 4 infusions of 10 mg tanezumab at 8-week intervals with follow-up to 40 weeks. Safety assessments included adverse events and physical and neurologic examinations. Overall, 59 patients were randomized and treated (placebo, n 5 30; tanezumab, n 5 29). At the primary endpoint of study 1003, least squares mean (SE) difference in change from baseline in daily average pain vs placebo was 20.26 (0.45; P 5 0.569). Post hoc analyses suggested that tanezumab had greater efficacy in patients with lower baseline opioid use and/or higher baseline pain. Mean (SE) pain scores in study 1029 were reduced through week 40 compared with study 1029 or 1003 baselines (20.21 [0.76] and 21.27 [0.68], respectively). Adverse event incidence of study 1003 was similar between groups. Although the primary endpoint was not achieved, tanezumab may provide additional sustained analgesia in patients with metastatic bone pain taking daily opioids. Additional larger studies are warranted.

Strong opioids are recommended for treating severe cancer pain in the advanced stages of the disease. Few data are available concerning the efficacy of buprenorphine in cancer pain. We compared transdermal buprenorphine 70 microg/h (BUP TDS) to placebo in an enriched design study. Opioid-tolerant patients with cancer pain requiring strong opioids in the dose range of 90-150 mg/d oral morphine equivalents entered a two-week run-in phase, during which they were converted to BUP TDS. Patients who could be stabilized on BUP TDS were randomized to BUP TDS or placebo patch for a two-week maintenance phase. Rescue medication (buprenorphine sublingual tablets 0.2mg) was allowed as required. Response was defined as a mean pain intensity of <5 (0-10 scale) and a mean daily buprenorphine sublingual tablet intake of < or =2 tablets during the maintenance phase. Of 289 patients who entered the run-in phase, 100 discontinued treatment due to lack of efficacy or adverse events; 189 patients continued treatment in the maintenance phase (94 BUP TDS, 95 placebo), of whom 31 discontinued treatment (7 BUP TDS, 24 placebo). A significant difference in the number of treatment responders was observed: 70 BUP TDS (74.5%, 65.7-83.3) vs. 47 placebo (50%, 39.9-60.1) (P=0.0003). This result was supported by a lower daily pain intensity, lower intake of buprenorphine sublingual tablets and fewer dropouts in the BUP TDS group. The incidence of adverse events was slightly higher for BUP TDS. In conclusion, BUP TDS 70 microg/h is an efficacious and safe treatment for patients with severe cancer pain.

The objective of this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized withdrawal study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ALO-02, an abuse-deterrent formulation containing pellets of extended-release oxycodone hydrochloride (HCl) surrounding sequestered naltrexone HCl, compared with placebo in the treatment of moderate-to-severe chronic low back pain. An open-label titration period in which all patients received ALO-02 was followed by a double-blind treatment period where patients meeting treatment response criteria were randomized to either a fixed dose of ALO-02 or placebo. Daily average low back pain was assessed using an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS)-Pain. Of the 663 patients screened, 410 received ALO-02 during the open-label conversion and titration period and 281 patients were randomized to the double-blind treatment period (n = 134, placebo; n = 147, ALO-02). Change in the mean NRS-Pain score from randomization baseline to the final 2 weeks of the treatment period was significantly different favoring ALO-02 compared with placebo (P = 0.0114). Forty-four percent of patients treated with placebo and 57.5% of patients treated with ALO-02 reported ≥30% improvement in weekly average NRS-Pain scores from screening to the final 2 weeks of the treatment period (P = 0.0248). In the double-blind treatment period, 56.8% of patients in the ALO-02 group and 56.0% of patients in the placebo group experienced a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). The most common treatment-related TEAEs for ALO-02 during the treatment period were nausea, vomiting, and constipation, consistent with opioid therapy. ALO-02 has been demonstrated to provide significant reduction of pain in patients with chronic low back pain and has a safety profile similar to other opioids.