Dataset Information

Relative Efficacy and Safety of Tanezumab for Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tanezumab for the treatment of patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA).

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science were searched from inception to July 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tanezumab with placebo or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in patients with OA. Two investigators identified studies and independently extracted data, and conventional meta-analyses were conducted with Review Manager 5.3. The outcomes were pain relief, functional improvement and risk of adverse events (AEs).

Results

A total of 8 articles, comprising 9 RCTs, were included. Overall, tanezumab was superior to placebo for relieving pain and improving function, as well as in the patient's global assessment (PGA). Tanezumab also had significant advantages over NSAIDs for relieving pain and improving function, as well as in the PGA. Significantly more patients discontinued treatment due to AEs after treatment with tanezumab. However, the differences in serious AEs and total joint replacement (TJR) were not significant. Moreover, tanezumab-treated patients suffer from significantly more rapid progression of osteoarthritis (RPOA).

Discussion

Tanezumab can alleviate pain and improve function for patients with OA of the hip or knee. Although tanezumab does not cause serious AEs, RPOA occurred in a small number of participants, so more clinical trials are needed to explore its safety.

SUBMITTER: Zhang B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8579990 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is some evidence that corticosteroids may have a beneficial effect in hand osteoarthritis. We examined the efficacy of corticosteroids on symptoms and structural outcomes in hand osteoarthritis.MethodsOvid MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to October 2021 for randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy of corticosteroids in hand osteoarthritis. Two authors independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the RoB 2 tool. Standardized mean difference (SMD) or mean difference (MD) was calculated, and random-effects meta-analyses were performed.ResultsOf 13 included trials, 3 examined oral corticosteroids and clinical outcomes in any hand joints, 9 examined intra-articular injection of corticosteroids and clinical outcomes at the first carpometacarpal joint and one in the interphalangeal joints. In meta-analysis, oral corticosteroids reduced pain (SMD -0.53, 95% CI -0.79 to -0.28) and improved stiffness (MD -5.03, 95% CI -9.91 to -0.15; Australian Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index stiffness subscale) and function (SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.12) at 4-6 weeks. However, there was no significant persistent effect on pain and function at 3 months which was 6-8 weeks after study medication was stopped. There was no significant effect of intra-articular corticosteroids on pain or function at 4-6 weeks or over 3-12 months in first carpometacarpal osteoarthritis. Two trials evaluated joint structure at 4-6 weeks: one study showed oral corticosteroids reduced synovial thickening, neither showed an effect on synovitis.ConclusionsThere was low-certainty evidence for a medium effect of oral corticosteroids on pain relief and stiffness improvement and small-to-medium effect on functional improvement at 4-6 weeks, with no significant effect for intra-articular corticosteroids. Corticosteroids had no significant effect on any outcomes over longer term (3-12 months) off treatment. No trials examined the effect of corticosteroids on disease progression. The role of corticosteroids in hand osteoarthritis is limited.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the efficacy and safety of paracetamol (acetaminophen) in the management of spinal pain and osteoarthritis of the hip or knee.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, LILACS, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to December 2014.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of paracetamol with placebo for spinal pain (neck or low back pain) and osteoarthritis of the hip or knee.Data extractionTwo independent reviewers extracted data on pain, disability, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes were adverse effects, patient adherence, and use of rescue medication. Pain and disability scores were converted to a scale of 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst possible pain or disability). We calculated weighted mean differences or risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals using a random effects model. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool was used for assessing risk of bias, and the GRADE approach was used to evaluate the quality of evidence and summarise conclusions.Results12 reports (13 randomised trials) were included. There was "high quality" evidence that paracetamol is ineffective for reducing pain intensity (weighted mean difference -0.5, 95% confidence interval -2.9 to 1.9) and disability (0.4, -1.7 to 2.5) or improving quality of life (0.4, -0.9 to 1.7) in the short term in people with low back pain. For hip or knee osteoarthritis there was "high quality" evidence that paracetamol provides a significant, although not clinically important, effect on pain (-3.7, -5.5 to -1.9) and disability (-2.9, -4.9 to -0.9) in the short term. The number of patients reporting any adverse event (risk ratio 1.0, 95% confidence interval 0.9 to 1.1), any serious adverse event (1.2, 0.7 to 2.1), or withdrawn from the study because of adverse events (1.2, 0.9 to 1.5) was similar in the paracetamol and placebo groups. Patient adherence to treatment (1.0, 0.9 to 1.1) and use of rescue medication (0.7, 0.4 to 1.3) was also similar between groups. "High quality" evidence showed that patients taking paracetamol are nearly four times more likely to have abnormal results on liver function tests (3.8, 1.9 to 7.4), but the clinical importance of this effect is uncertain.ConclusionsParacetamol is ineffective in the treatment of low back pain and provides minimal short term benefit for people with osteoarthritis. These results support the reconsideration of recommendations to use paracetamol for patients with low back pain and osteoarthritis of the hip or knee in clinical practice guidelines.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO registration number CRD42013006367.

Project description:Background/objective:The objective of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) tanezumab administration in osteoarthritis (OA) patients. Materials and methods:Study 1027 (NCT01089725), a placebo-controlled trial, evaluated the efficacy of SC tanezumab (ie, 2.5, 5, and 10 mg) and the therapeutic equivalence of 10 mg tanezumab given subcutaneously versus intravenously every 8 weeks in the symptomatic treatment of OA. Coprimary endpoints were: change from baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) Pain and Physical Function indices, and Patient's Global Assessment (PGA) of OA. Study 1043 (NCT00994890) was a long-term, noncontrolled safety study of tanezumab (ie, 2.5, 5, and 10 mg) subcutaneously administered every 8 weeks. Both studies were discontinued prematurely due to a US Food and Drug Administration partial clinical hold. Results:Due to the clinical hold, Study 1027 was underpowered, and no statistical analyses were performed. Mean (standard error [SE]) change from baseline to week 8 in WOMAC Pain in tanezumab groups ranged from -3.59 (0.26) to -3.89 (0.32), versus -2.74 (0.25) with placebo. Mean (SE) change from baseline to week 8 in WOMAC Physical Function ranged from -3.13 (0.25) to -3.51 (0.28) with tanezumab and was -2.26 (0.24) with placebo. PGA mean (SE) change from baseline to week 8 ranged from -0.90 (0.11) to -1.08 (0.12) with tanezumab and was -0.78 (0.10) with placebo. Similar effectiveness was associated with tanezumab in Study 1043. Few patients in either study (1.4%-5.2%) discontinued due to adverse events. Five patients required total joint replacements in Study 1027 (placebo, n=2 [2.8%]; tanezumab 2.5 mg, n=3 [4.1%]) and 34 patients in Study 1043 (tanezumab 2.5 mg, n=11 [4.8%]; tanezumab 5 mg, n=8 [3.6%]; tanezumab 10 mg, n=15 [6.6%]). Conclusion:Preliminary results show similar efficacy and safety for both SC and IV administration of tanezumab based on the direct comparisons reported here and indirect comparisons with published results, confirming pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling predictions.

Project description:IntroductionTanezumab 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.MethodsIn 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.ResultsFor 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.ConclusionObservations from the Japanese subgroup were generally consistent with the overall study populations.

Project description:ObjectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to investigate the efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA).MethodsAn electronic search was conducted in eight databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Chinese VIP Database, and Wanfang Database) from inception until December 2019. The risk of bias assessment of the included RCTs was evaluated by Cochrane collaboration's tool. The inclusion criteria were RCTs that investigated the efficacy and safety of CHM in the treatment of KOA, with no restrictions on publication status or language. The exclusion criteria included nonrandomized or quasi-RCTs, no clear KOA diagnostic approach, combined Chinese medicinal herbs with other traditional Chinese medicine treatment modalities, and published using repeated data and missing data. We computed the relative risk (RR) and the standard mean difference (SMD) for dichotomous outcomes and continuous outcomes, respectively. When heterogeneity was detected or there was significant statistical heterogeneity (P < 0.05 or I 2 > 50%), a random-effects model was employed, followed by further subgroup analysis and metaregression estimations to ascertain the origins of heterogeneity. Otherwise, we used a fixed-effects model (P ≥ 0.05 or I 2 ≤ 50%). The primary outcome measures were visual analog score (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Lysholm score, and Lequesne index. Secondary outcome measures were the total clinical effective rate and adverse events. The meta-analysis was performed using the Stata 14.0 software.ResultsA total of 56 RCTs comprising 5350 patients met the inclusion criteria. This meta-analysis showed that application of CHM as adjuvant therapy or monotherapy for KOA can significantly decrease VAS, WOMAC, and the Lequesne index and improve the Lysholm score as well as the total effective rate. In addition, this treatment has fewer adverse effects, suggesting that CHM is generally safe and well tolerated among patients with KOA.ConclusionOur study offers supportive evidence that CHM, either adjuvant therapy or monotherapy, reduces the VAS, WOMAC, and Lequesne index and improves the Lysholm score and overall effective rate in patients with KOA. Additionally, CHM was well tolerated and safe in KOA patients. We found frequently used CHMs that might contribute to the formulation of a herbal formula that could be considered for further clinical use. However, given the heterogeneity and limited sample size in this study, larger multicenter and high-quality RCTs are needed to validate the benefits of CHM in the treatment of KOA.

Project description:BackgroundAdalimumab is used as a first-line biologic agent in the management of moderate-to-severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS). The objective of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adalimumab in patients with moderate-to-severe HS.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Pooled estimates, namely standardized mean difference (SMD) and relative risk (RR), were calculated using random-effect model with trial sequential analysis. Small study effects were examined using the Doi plot. Certainty of evidence (CoE) was assessed using "The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation" approach, and number-needed-to-treat (NNT) was calculated.ResultsFive randomized controlled trials, involving 1014 patients, were included. We performed subgroup analysis of adalimumab administered subcutaneously both weekly and every other week. Adalimumab administered weekly was associated with better clinical response achievement (RR 1.76, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.35-2.29; trial sequential analysis TSA-adjusted CI 1.01-3.08; CoE: low; NNT = 5) and a significant improvement in modified Sartorius score (SMD = -0.45, 95% CI = -0.76 to -0.13; CoE: very low; NNT = 10) and dermatology life quality index (DLQI) (SMD -0.47, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.32; CoE: low; NNT = 10). Nevertheless, adalimumab administered every other week showed an improvement only in modified Sartorius score. The pooled RRs of adverse events in both groups revealed no statistical significance when compared with the placebo.ConclusionsAdalimumab administered weekly resulted in not only better clinical responses than placebo but also significantly improved disease severity and quality of life of patients with moderate-to-severe HS. Our study provides supporting evidence to the current guidelines and aids decision-making in the application of adalimumab in HS management.