search
Back to results

Long Term Safety and Efficacy Study of Tanezumab in Japanese Adult Subjects With Chronic Low Back Pain (TANGO)

Primary Purpose

Low Back Pain

Status
Completed
Phase
Phase 3
Locations
Japan
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
Celecoxib
Tanezumab 5 mg
Tanezumab 10 mg
Placebo for celecoxib
Placebo for tanezumab
Sponsored by
Pfizer
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional treatment trial for Low Back Pain focused on measuring Chronic low back pain, Chronic pain

Eligibility Criteria

18 Years - undefined (Adult, Older Adult)All SexesDoes not accept healthy volunteers

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Duration of chronic low back pain for ≥3 months, and treatment with agents for low back pain for ≥3 months.
  • Primary location of low back pain must be between the 12th thoracic vertebra and the lower gluteal folds, with or without radiation into the posterior thigh, classified as Category 1 or 2 according to the classification of the Quebec Task Force in Spinal Disorders.
  • Subjects must be experiencing some benefits from their current stable dose regimen of oral NSAID (celecoxib, loxoprofen or meloxicam) treatment as described in the protocol, be tolerating their NSAID regimen, be taking this medication regularly during the 30 day period prior to the Screening visit and must have had some improvement in low back pain, but still require additional pain relief at Screening.
  • Subjects must maintain a stabilized, protocol specified NSAID dose regimen for at least the final 2 or 3 weeks of the Screening period.
  • Low Back Pain Intensity (LBPI) score of ≥5 at Screening.
  • Subjects must be willing to discontinue all pain medications for chronic low back pain except rescue medication and investigational product and not use prohibited pain medications throughout the duration of the study.
  • Female subjects of childbearing potential and at risk for pregnancy must agree to comply with protocol specified contraceptive requirements.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Subjects exceeding protocol defined BMI limits.
  • Diagnosis of osteoarthritis of the knee or hip as defined by the ACR combined clinical and radiographic criteria.

    • Subjects who have Kellgren Lawrence Grade > or =2 radiographic evidence of hip or Grade > or =3 radiographic evidence of knee osteoarthritis will be excluded.
    • Subjects who have Kellgren Lawrence Grade < or =2 radiographic evidence of knee osteoarthritis but who do not meet ACR criteria and do not have pain associated with their knee osteoarthritis will be allowed.
  • Subjects with symptoms and radiologic findings consistent with osteoarthritis in the shoulder.
  • History of lumbosacral radiculopathy within the past 2 years, history of spinal stenosis associated with neurological impairment, or history of neurogenic claudication.
  • Back pain due to recent major trauma within 6 months prior to Screening.
  • Surgical intervention during the past 6 months for the treatment of low back pain.
  • Planned surgical procedure during the duration of the study.
  • History or radiographic evidence of other diseases that could confound efficacy or safety assessments (eg, rheumatoid arthritis).
  • History or radiographic evidence of orthopedic conditions that may increase the risk of, or confound assessment of joint safety conditions during the study.
  • History of osteonecrosis or osteoporotic fracture.
  • History of significant trauma or surgery to a knee, hip, or shoulder within the previous year.
  • Signs or symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome in the one year prior to Screening.
  • Considered unfit for surgery based upon American Society of Anesthesiologists physical classification system for surgery grading, or subjects who would not be willing to undergo joint replacement surgery if required.
  • History of intolerance or hypersensitivity to celecoxib/acetaminophen or any of its excipients or existence of a medical condition or use of concomitant medication for which the use of celecoxib/acetaminophen is contraindicated.
  • Use of prohibited medications or prohibited non-pharmacological treatments without the appropriate washout period (if applicable) prior to Screening or IPAP.
  • History of known alcohol, analgesic or narcotic abuse within 2 years of Screening.
  • Presence of drugs of abuse or illegal drugs in the urine toxicology screen obtained at Screening.
  • History of allergic or anaphylactic reaction to a therapeutic or diagnostic monoclonal antibody or IgG-fusion protein.
  • Signs and symptoms of clinically significant cardiac disease.
  • Poorly controlled hypertension as defined in the protocol or taking an antihypertensive that has not been stable for at least 1 month prior to Screening.
  • Evidence of protocol defined orthostatic hypotension at Screening.
  • Disqualifying score on the Survey of Autonomic Symptoms questionnaire at Screening.
  • Diagnosis of a transient ischemic attack in the 6 months prior to Screening, diagnosis of stroke with residual deficits that would preclude completion of required study activities.
  • History of cancer within 5 years prior to Screening, except for cutaneous basal cell or squamous cell cancer resolved by excision.
  • Expected to undergo a therapeutic procedure or to use any analgesic other than those specified in the protocol throughout the pre-treatment and treatment periods that is likely to confound assessment of analgesic efficacy or safety.
  • Previous exposure to exogenous NGF or to an anti-NGF antibody.
  • Screening AST, ALT, serum creatinine or HbA1c values that exceed protocol defined limits.
  • Positive Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, or HIV tests at screening indicative of current infection.
  • History, diagnosis, or signs and symptoms of clinically significant neurological disease or clinically significant psychiatric disorder.
  • Pregnant, breastfeeding or female subjects of childbearing potential who are unwilling or unable to follow protocol required contraceptive requirements.
  • Participation in other investigational drug studies within protocol defined time limits.
  • Other severe acute or chronic medical or psychiatric condition or laboratory abnormality that in the judgment of the investigator, would make the subject inappropriate for entry into this study.

Sites / Locations

  • Meitoh Hospital
  • Asahi Rosai Hospital
  • Asahi General Hospital
  • Sato Orthopedic Clinic
  • Fukuoka Mirai Hospital
  • Shinkokura Hospital
  • Kyushu Rosai Hospital
  • Kurume University Hospital
  • Shin Komonji Hospital
  • Fujita general Hospital
  • Shirakawa Hospital
  • Toyooka Chuo Hospital
  • Hakodate Central General Hospital
  • Hakodate Ohmura Orthopedic Hospital
  • Okubo Hospital
  • Omuro Orthopedic Clinic
  • Medical corporate corporation hoshikai Onishi medical clinic
  • Kobe Red Cross Hospital
  • Nishinomiya Municipal Central Hospital
  • National Hospital Organization Kanazawa Medical Center
  • Morita Hospital
  • Sagamidai Hospital
  • Misugikai Medical Corporation Otokoyama Hospital
  • National Hospital Organization Matsumoto Medical Center
  • Yodakubo Hospital
  • National Hospital Organization Beppu Medical Center
  • National Hospital Organization Osaka Minami Medical Center
  • Kishiwada Tokushukai Hospital
  • Osaka Rosai Hospital
  • Nagayama Hospital
  • Saiseikai Kawaguchi General Hospital
  • Hanazono Orthopedics and Internal Medicine
  • Japanese Red Cross Hamamatsu Hospital
  • Iwata City Hospital
  • Tokyo Saiseikai Central Hospital
  • Kitasato University Kitasato Institute Hospital
  • National Hospital Organization Murayama Medical Center
  • Gate Town Hospital
  • Juntendo University Nerima Hospital
  • Nishikamata Orthopedic
  • AR-Ex Oyamadai Orthopedic
  • Kohno Clinical Medicine Research Institute Daisan Kitashinagawa Hospital
  • Ohimachi Orthopaedic Clinic
  • Ogikubo Hospital
  • Medical Corporation Keiyukai Masumoto Orthopedic Clinic
  • Daido Hospital
  • Tonami General Hospital
  • Wakayama Medical University Kihoku Hospital
  • Shimonoseki City Hospital
  • Akita University Hospital
  • Kuroda Orthopedic Hospital
  • Fukushima Medical University Hospital
  • Morimoto Clinic
  • Nagayoshi General Hospital
  • Saitama Municipal Hospital

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm 2

Arm 3

Arm Type

Active Comparator

Experimental

Experimental

Arm Label

Celecoxib

Tanezumab 5 mg

Tanezumab 10 mg

Arm Description

Subcutaneous injection of placebo for tanezumab every 8 weeks plus oral celecoxib 100 mg twice daily for 56 weeks

Subcutaneous injection of tanezumab 5 mg every 8 weeks plus oral placebo for celecoxib twice daily for 56 weeks

Subcutaneous injection of tanezumab 10 mg every 8 weeks plus oral placebo for celecoxib twice daily for 56 weeks

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

Number of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs) and Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)
An AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship. 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 were events between first dose of study drug and up to 24 weeks after last dose of study drug (up to Week 80) that were absent before treatment or that worsened relative to pretreatment state. AEs included both serious and non-serious AEs.
Number of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Treatment Related Adverse Events (AEs) and Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)
Treatment-related AE was any untoward medical occurrence attributed to study drug in participant who received study drug. 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 were events between first dose of study drug and up to 24 weeks after last dose of study drug (up to Week 80). Relatedness to study drug was assessed by the investigator. AEs included both serious and non-serious AEs.
Number of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Test Abnormalities
Abnormality criteria included: hemoglobin (HGB); hematocrit; erythrocytes < 0.8*lower limit of normal (LLN); erythrocyte mean corpuscular volume/HGB/ HGB concentration, erythrocytes distribution width <0.9*LLN, >1.1*upper limit of normal (ULN); platelets <0.5*LLN,>1.75* ULN; white blood cell count<0.6*LLN, >1.5*ULN; lymphocytes, leukocytes, neutrophils <0.8*LLN, >1.2*ULN; basophils, eosinophils, monocytes >1.2*ULN; total bilirubin>1.5*ULN; aspartate aminotransferase (AT), alanine AT, gamma glutamyl transferase, lactate dehydrogenase, alkaline phosphatase >3.0*ULN; total protein; albumin<0.8*LLN, >1.2*ULN; blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, cholesterol, triglycerides >1.3*ULN; urate >1.2*ULN; sodium <0.95*LLN,>1.05*ULN; potassium, chloride, calcium, magnesium, bicarbonate <0.9*LLN, >1.1*ULN; phosphate <0.8*LLN, >1.2*ULN; glucose <0.6*LLN, >1.5*ULN; HGB A1C >1.3*ULN; creatine kinase >2.0*ULN; nitrite >=1. Investigator judged clinical significance of laboratory test abnormalities.
Number of Participants With Clinically Significant Vital Signs Abnormalities
Vital signs included systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and pulse rate. Investigator judged clinical significance of vital signs' abnormalities.
Number of Participants With Confirmed Orthostatic Hypotension From Baseline up to Week 80
Orthostatic hypotension was defined as postural change (supine to standing) that met the following criteria: for systolic blood pressure (BP) less than or equal to (<=) 150 millimeter of mercury (mmHg) (mean supine): reduction in systolic BP >=20 mmHg or reduction in diastolic BP >=10 mmHg at the 1 and/or 3 minute standing BP measurements. For systolic BP greater than (>) 150 mmHg (mean supine): reduction in systolic BP >=30 mmHg or reduction in diastolic BP >=15 mmHg at the 1 and/or 3 minute standing BP measurements. If the 1 minute or 3 minute standing BP in a sequence met the orthostatic hypotension criteria, then that sequence was considered positive. If 2 of 2 or 2 of 3 sequences were positive, then orthostatic hypotension was considered confirmed.
Change From Screening in Mean Total Symptom Impact Score as Per Survey of Autonomic Symptoms (SAS) at Week 24
SAS is a participant rated 12 items questionnaire for males and 11 items questionnaire for females. SAS measures autonomic symptoms of neuropathy and their impact on participants' well-being, during the past 6 months. Each item was related to a symptom/health problem. At scheduled time points, participants were asked to answer "Yes" or "No" for each of symptoms/health problems experienced during past 6 months. If a participant answered "Yes" for a symptom, then impact of that symptom was rated on a 5 point scale, ranged from 1 (least sever impact) to 5 (most severe impact), where higher scores signified more severe impact of symptoms. The total symptom impact score was calculated as the sum of impact of all symptoms. Overall possible range for the total symptom impact score was 0 (no impact) to 60 (extreme impact) for males and 0 (no impact) to 55 (extreme impact) for females, higher scores indicated more severe impact of symptoms on participants' well-being.
Change From Screening in Mean Total Symptom Impact Score as Per Survey of Autonomic Symptoms (SAS) at Week 56
SAS is a participant rated 12 items questionnaire for males and 11 items questionnaire for females. SAS measures autonomic symptoms of neuropathy and their impact on participants' well-being, during the past 6 months. Each item was related to a symptom/health problem. At scheduled time points, participants were asked to answer "Yes" or "No" for each of symptoms/health problems experienced during past 6 months. If a participant answered "Yes" for a symptom, then impact of that symptom was rated on a 5 point scale, ranged from 1 (least sever impact) to 5 (most severe impact), where higher scores signified more severe impact of symptoms. The total symptom impact score was calculated as the sum of impact of all symptoms. Overall possible range for the total symptom impact score was 0 (no impact) to 60 (extreme impact) for males and 0 (no impact) to 55 (extreme impact) for females, higher scores indicated more severe impact of symptoms on participants' well-being.
Change From Screening in Mean Total Symptom Impact Scores as Per Survey of Autonomic Symptoms (SAS) at Week 80
SAS is a participant rated 12 items questionnaire for males and 11 items questionnaire for females. SAS measures autonomic symptoms of neuropathy and their impact on participants' well-being, during the past 6 months. Each item was related to a symptom/health problem. At scheduled time points, participants were asked to answer "Yes" or "No" for each of symptoms/health problems experienced during past 6 months. If a participant answered "Yes" for a symptom, then impact of that symptom was rated on a 5 point scale, ranged from 1 (least sever impact) to 5 (most severe impact), where higher scores signified more severe impact of symptoms. The total symptom impact score was calculated as the sum of impact of all symptoms. Overall possible range for the total symptom impact score was 0 (no impact) to 60 (extreme impact) for males and 0 (no impact) to 55 (extreme impact) for females, higher scores indicated more severe impact of symptoms on participants' well-being.
Change From Screening in Mean Total Symptom Impact Score as Per Survey of Autonomic Symptoms (SAS) at Early Termination Follow-up Visit 1
SAS: participant rated 12 items questionnaire for males; 11 items questionnaire for females. SAS measures autonomic symptoms of neuropathy and their impact on participants' well-being, during past 6 months. Each item was related to a symptom/health problem. At scheduled time points, participants answered "Yes" or "No" for each of symptoms/health problems experienced during past 6 months. If participant answered "Yes" for a symptom, then impact of that symptom was rated on 5 point scale (1 [least sever impact] to 5 [most severe impact]); higher scores = more severe impact of symptoms. Total impact score = sum of impact of all symptoms; range for males =0 (no impact) to 60 (extreme impact); females =0 (no impact) to 55 (extreme impact); higher scores = more severe impact of symptoms on participants' well-being. Participants discontinuing from study treatment before Week 56, had early termination follow-up visit 1 at 8 weeks after last dose of tanezumab or placebo matched to tanezumab.
Change From Screening in Mean Total Symptom Impact Scores as Per Survey of Autonomic Symptoms (SAS) at Early Termination Follow-up Visit 3
SAS: participant rated 12 items questionnaire for males; 11 items questionnaire for females. SAS measures autonomic symptoms of neuropathy and their impact on participants' well-being, during past 6 months. Each item was related to a symptom/health problem. At scheduled time points, participants answered "Yes" or "No" for each of symptoms/health problems experienced during past 6 months. If participant answered "Yes" for a symptom, then impact of that symptom was rated on 5 point scale (1 [least sever impact] to 5 [most severe impact]); higher scores = more severe impact of symptoms. Total impact score = sum of impact of all symptoms; range for males =0 (no impact) to 60 (extreme impact); females =0 (no impact) to 55 (extreme impact); higher scores = more severe impact of symptoms on participants' well-being. Participants discontinuing from study treatment before Week 56, had early termination follow-up visit 3 at 24 weeks after last dose of tanezumab or placebo matched to tanezumab.
Number of Participants With Clinically Significant Electrocardiogram (ECG) Assessments
Electrocardiogram assessment included PR, QRS, QT, QT interval corrected using Fridericia's formula (QTcF), QT interval corrected using Bazett's formula (QTcB), RR intervals, and heart rate. Investigator judged clinical significance of electrocardiogram assessment.
Percentage of Participants With Individual Adjudicated Joint Safety Outcome/Event
Percentage of participants with individual joint safety adjudication outcomes: rapidly progressive osteoarthritis (OA) type-1 only, rapidly progressive OA type-2 only, primary osteonecrosis, pathological fracture and subchondral insufficiency fracture is reported. Rapidly progressive (RP) OA type 1 events were those that the adjudication committee considered to have significant loss of joint space width >= 2 millimeter within approximately 1 year without gross structural failure. RP OA type 2 events were those considered to have destruction of bone including limited or total collapse of at least 1 subchondral surface that is not normally present in conventional end-stage osteoarthritis. Subchondral insufficiency fractures are a type of stress fractures which occur below the cartilage on the weight bearing surface of a bone.
Observation Time-Adjusted Event Rate for an Individual Adjudicated Joint Safety Outcome/Event
Individual adjudicated joint safety outcomes/event: rapidly progressive OA (type-1,type-2), primary osteonecrosis, pathological fracture and subchondral insufficiency fracture. Observation time was defined as the start day of first SC study medication until either the (i) date of completion of or withdrawal from study, if a participant did not have the event, or (ii) date of the event (earliest event within each participant in the case of multiple events). Event rate for any individual adjudicated joint safety outcome/event = the number of events per 1000 participant-years at risk.
Percentage of Participants With At Least 1 Total Joint Replacement
Percentage of participants with at least 1 total knee, total hip or total shoulder joint replacement were reported.
Observation Time-Adjusted Event Rate for Total Joint Replacement (TJR) Event
Observation time was defined as the start day of first SC study medication until either the (i) date of completion of or withdrawal from study, if a participant had no TJR, or (ii) date of TJR (earliest TJR within each participant in the case of multiple TJRs). Event rate = number of events per 1000 participant-years at risk.
Change From Baseline in Neuropathy Impairment Score (NIS) at Week 2
NIS is a standardized instrument used to evaluate signs of peripheral neuropathy in participants. NIS is the sum of scores of 37 items, from both the left and right side of following 4 domains: cranial nerves (5 items), muscle weakness (19 items), reflexes (5 items) and sensation (8 items). Each of 24 items related to cranial nerves and muscle weakness, scored from 0 (normal) to 4 (paralysis); higher scores indicated higher abnormality/impairment. Each of 13 items related to reflexes and sensation, scored as 0 (normal), 1 (decreased) and 2 (absent); higher scores indicated lesser reflexes and sensation. For NIS possible overall score (combined of both left and right sides of each domain), ranged from 0 (no impairment) to 244 (maximum impairment), higher scores indicated increased/more neuropathic deficits.
Change From Baseline in Neuropathy Impairment Score (NIS) at Week 4
NIS is a standardized instrument used to evaluate signs of peripheral neuropathy in participants. NIS is the sum of scores of 37 items, from both the left and right side of following 4 domains: cranial nerves (5 items), muscle weakness (19 items), reflexes (5 items) and sensation (8 items). Each of 24 items related to cranial nerves and muscle weakness, scored from 0 (normal) to 4 (paralysis); higher scores indicated higher abnormality/impairment. Each of 13 items related to reflexes and sensation, scored as 0 (normal), 1 (decreased) and 2 (absent); higher scores indicated lesser reflexes and sensation. For NIS possible overall score (combined of both left and right sides of each domain), ranged from 0 (no impairment) to 244 (maximum impairment), higher scores indicated increased/more neuropathic deficits.
Change From Baseline in Neuropathy Impairment Score (NIS) at Week 8
NIS is a standardized instrument used to evaluate signs of peripheral neuropathy in participants. NIS is the sum of scores of 37 items, from both the left and right side of following 4 domains: cranial nerves (5 items), muscle weakness (19 items), reflexes (5 items) and sensation (8 items). Each of 24 items related to cranial nerves and muscle weakness, scored from 0 (normal) to 4 (paralysis); higher scores indicated higher abnormality/impairment. Each of 13 items related to reflexes and sensation, scored as 0 (normal), 1 (decreased) and 2 (absent); higher scores indicated lesser reflexes and sensation. For NIS possible overall score (combined of both left and right sides of each domain), ranged from 0 (no impairment) to 244 (maximum impairment), higher scores indicated increased/more neuropathic deficits.
Change From Baseline in Neuropathy Impairment Score (NIS) at Week 16
NIS is a standardized instrument used to evaluate signs of peripheral neuropathy in participants. NIS is the sum of scores of 37 items, from both the left and right side of following 4 domains: cranial nerves (5 items), muscle weakness (19 items), reflexes (5 items) and sensation (8 items). Each of 24 items related to cranial nerves and muscle weakness, scored from 0 (normal) to 4 (paralysis); higher scores indicated higher abnormality/impairment. Each of 13 items related to reflexes and sensation, scored as 0 (normal), 1 (decreased) and 2 (absent); higher scores indicated lesser reflexes and sensation. For NIS possible overall score (combined of both left and right sides of each domain), ranged from 0 (no impairment) to 244 (maximum impairment), higher scores indicated increased/more neuropathic deficits.
Change From Baseline in Neuropathy Impairment Score (NIS) at Week 24
NIS is a standardized instrument used to evaluate signs of peripheral neuropathy in participants. NIS is the sum of scores of 37 items, from both the left and right side of following 4 domains: cranial nerves (5 items), muscle weakness (19 items), reflexes (5 items) and sensation (8 items). Each of 24 items related to cranial nerves and muscle weakness, scored from 0 (normal) to 4 (paralysis); higher scores indicated higher abnormality/impairment. Each of 13 items related to reflexes and sensation, scored as 0 (normal), 1 (decreased) and 2 (absent); higher scores indicated lesser reflexes and sensation. For NIS possible overall score (combined of both left and right sides of each domain), ranged from 0 (no impairment) to 244 (maximum impairment), higher scores indicated increased/more neuropathic deficits.
Change From Baseline in Neuropathy Impairment Score (NIS) at Week 32
NIS is a standardized instrument used to evaluate signs of peripheral neuropathy in participants. NIS is the sum of scores of 37 items, from both the left and right side of following 4 domains: cranial nerves (5 items), muscle weakness (19 items), reflexes (5 items) and sensation (8 items). Each of 24 items related to cranial nerves and muscle weakness, scored from 0 (normal) to 4 (paralysis); higher scores indicated higher abnormality/impairment. Each of 13 items related to reflexes and sensation, scored as 0 (normal), 1 (decreased) and 2 (absent); higher scores indicated lesser reflexes and sensation. For NIS possible overall score (combined of both left and right sides of each domain), ranged from 0 (no impairment) to 244 (maximum impairment), higher scores indicated increased/more neuropathic deficits.
Change From Baseline in Neuropathy Impairment Score (NIS) at Week 40
NIS is a standardized instrument used to evaluate signs of peripheral neuropathy in participants. NIS is the sum of scores of 37 items, from both the left and right side of following 4 domains: cranial nerves (5 items), muscle weakness (19 items), reflexes (5 items) and sensation (8 items). Each of 24 items related to cranial nerves and muscle weakness, scored from 0 (normal) to 4 (paralysis); higher scores indicated higher abnormality/impairment. Each of 13 items related to reflexes and sensation, scored as 0 (normal), 1 (decreased) and 2 (absent); higher scores indicated lesser reflexes and sensation. For NIS possible overall score (combined of both left and right sides of each domain), ranged from 0 (no impairment) to 244 (maximum impairment), higher scores indicated increased/more neuropathic deficits.
Change From Baseline in Neuropathy Impairment Score (NIS) at Week 48
NIS is a standardized instrument used to evaluate signs of peripheral neuropathy in participants. NIS is the sum of scores of 37 items, from both the left and right side of following 4 domains: cranial nerves (5 items), muscle weakness (19 items), reflexes (5 items) and sensation (8 items). Each of 24 items related to cranial nerves and muscle weakness, scored from 0 (normal) to 4 (paralysis); higher scores indicated higher abnormality/impairment. Each of 13 items related to reflexes and sensation, scored as 0 (normal), 1 (decreased) and 2 (absent); higher scores indicated lesser reflexes and sensation. For NIS possible overall score (combined of both left and right sides of each domain), ranged from 0 (no impairment) to 244 (maximum impairment), higher scores indicated increased/more neuropathic deficits.
Change From Baseline in Neuropathy Impairment Score (NIS) at Week 56
NIS is a standardized instrument used to evaluate signs of peripheral neuropathy in participants. NIS is the sum of scores of 37 items, from both the left and right side of following 4 domains: cranial nerves (5 items), muscle weakness (19 items), reflexes (5 items) and sensation (8 items). Each of 24 items related to cranial nerves and muscle weakness, scored from 0 (normal) to 4 (paralysis); higher scores indicated higher abnormality/impairment. Each of 13 items related to reflexes and sensation, scored as 0 (normal), 1 (decreased) and 2 (absent); higher scores indicated lesser reflexes and sensation. For NIS possible overall score (combined of both left and right sides of each domain), ranged from 0 (no impairment) to 244 (maximum impairment), higher scores indicated increased/more neuropathic deficits.
Change From Baseline in Neuropathy Impairment Score (NIS) at Week 64
NIS is a standardized instrument used to evaluate signs of peripheral neuropathy in participants. NIS is the sum of scores of 37 items, from both the left and right side of following 4 domains: cranial nerves (5 items), muscle weakness (19 items), reflexes (5 items) and sensation (8 items). Each of 24 items related to cranial nerves and muscle weakness, scored from 0 (normal) to 4 (paralysis); higher scores indicated higher abnormality/impairment. Each of 13 items related to reflexes and sensation, scored as 0 (normal), 1 (decreased) and 2 (absent); higher scores indicated lesser reflexes and sensation. For NIS possible overall score (combined of both left and right sides of each domain), ranged from 0 (no impairment) to 244 (maximum impairment), higher scores indicated increased/more neuropathic deficits.
Change From Baseline in Neuropathy Impairment Score (NIS) at Week 80
NIS is a standardized instrument used to evaluate signs of peripheral neuropathy in participants. NIS is the sum of scores of 37 items, from both the left and right side of following 4 domains: cranial nerves (5 items), muscle weakness (19 items), reflexes (5 items) and sensation (8 items). Each of 24 items related to cranial nerves and muscle weakness, scored from 0 (normal) to 4 (paralysis); higher scores indicated higher abnormality/impairment. Each of 13 items related to reflexes and sensation, scored as 0 (normal), 1 (decreased) and 2 (absent); higher scores indicated lesser reflexes and sensation. For NIS possible overall score (combined of both left and right sides of each domain), ranged from 0 (no impairment) to 244 (maximum impairment), higher scores indicated increased/more neuropathic deficits.
Largest Change From Baseline in Neuropathy Impairment Score (NIS) to Any Post-baseline Visit
NIS is a standardized instrument used to evaluate signs of peripheral neuropathy in participants. NIS is the sum of scores of 37 items, from both the left and right side of following 4 domains: cranial nerves (5 items), muscle weakness (19 items), reflexes (5 items) and sensation (8 items). Each of 24 items related to cranial nerves and muscle weakness, scored from 0 (normal) to 4 (paralysis); higher scores indicated higher abnormality/impairment. Each of 13 items related to reflexes and sensation, scored as 0 (normal), 1 (decreased) and 2 (absent); higher scores indicated lesser reflexes and sensation. For NIS possible overall score (combined of both left and right sides of each domain), ranged from 0 (no impairment) to 244 (maximum impairment), higher scores indicated increased/more neuropathic deficits. Largest change from baseline here means worst post- baseline change value (among all change from baseline values).
Number of Participants With Anti Tanezumab Antibodies From Baseline up to Week 80
Human serum samples were analyzed for the presence or absence of anti-tanezumab antibodies by using a validated analytical method. Number of participants with presence of anti-tanezumab antibodies are reported.
Number of Participants With Abnormal Physical Examination Findings
Physical examination included assessment of general appearance, skin, head, neck, eyes, ears, nose, throat, abdomen, lungs, heart, thyroid, and extremities. Investigator judged abnormality in physical examinations. Only those rows have been reported which had at least 1 participant with abnormality data in any of the reporting arms.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Change From Baseline in Average Low Back Pain Intensity (LBPI) at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, and 56: Multiple Imputation
Average LBPI was assessed on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS). Participants described their average LBPI during the past 24 hours (at each specified/scheduled time-point) on a scale ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain), where higher scores indicated worse pain.
Change From Baseline in Average Low Back Pain Intensity (LBPI) at Week 64: Observed Data
Average LBPI was assessed on an 11-point NRS. Participants described their average LBPI during the past 24 hours (at each specified/scheduled time-point) on a scale ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain), where higher scores indicated worse pain.
Change From Baseline in Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) Total Scores at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, and 56: Multiple Imputation
The RMDQ is a self-administered, widely used health status measure index of how well participants with low back pain (LBP) are able to function with regard to daily activities. It measures pain and function, using 24 items describing limitations to everyday life that can be caused by LBP. Participants were asked to check/select only those items out of 24 items, which described them at each specified time point. The total number of items checked in questionnaire was equal to RMDQ total score, overall possible score ranging from 0 (no disability) to 24 (maximum disability), where higher scores indicated greater/more disability.
Change From Baseline in Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) Total Score at Week 64: Observed Data
The RMDQ is a self-administered, widely used health status measure index of how well participants with low back pain (LBP) are able to function with regard to daily activities. It measures pain and function, using 24 items describing limitations to everyday life that can be caused by LBP. Participants were asked to check/select only those items out of 24 items, which described them at each specified time point. The total number of items checked in questionnaire was equal to RMDQ total score, overall possible score ranging from 0 (no disability) to 24 (maximum disability), where higher scores indicated greater/more disability.
Change From Baseline in the Patient's Global Assessment (PGA) of Low Back Pain at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, 56 and 64
PGA of low back pain was assessed by asking a question to participants: "Considering all the ways your low back pain affects you, how are you doing today?" Participants responded on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5, using interactive response technology (IRT), 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 scores indicated worsening of condition.
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Percent Change From Baseline in Average Low Back Pain Intensity (LBPI) Score at Weeks 16, 24 and 56
Average LBPI was assessed on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS). Participants described their average LBPI during the past 24 hours (at each specified/scheduled time point) on a scale ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain), where higher scores indicated worse pain. Percentage of participants with cumulative reduction (as percent change) (greater than [>] 0%; >= 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 and equals to [=] 100%) in average LBPI from baseline to weeks 16, 24 and 56 were reported. Participants (%) might have been counted more than once under various rows.
Percentage of Participants With >=30 Percent (%), >=50%, >=70% and >=90% Reduction From Baseline in Weekly Average Low Back Pain Intensity (LBPI) Score at Weeks 16, 24, 40 and 56
Average LBPI was assessed on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS). Participants described their average LBPI during the past 24 hours (at each specified/scheduled time point) on a scale ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain), where higher scores indicated worse pain. Percentage of participants with reduction in average LBPI of at least (>=) 30%, 50%, 70% and 90% at Weeks 16, 24, 40, and 56 compared to baseline are reported here. Participants (%) might have been counted more than once under various rows.
Change From Baseline in Brief Pain Inventory-short Form (BPI-sf) Scores for Worst Pain at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 40, 56, and 64
BPI-sf is a self-administered questionnaire to assess the severity of pain and pain interference on daily functions during 24 hours prior to evaluation at specified time points. BPI-sf scores for worst pain: participants were asked to rate their pain by circling any 1 number from 0 (no pain) to 10 (pain as bad as you can imagine) that best describes their pain at its worst in the last 24 hours; higher scores indicated worse pain.
Change From Baseline in Brief Pain Inventory-short Form (BPI-sf) Scores for Average Pain at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 40, 56, and 64
BPI-sf is a self-administered questionnaire to assess the severity of pain and pain interference on daily functions during 24 hours prior to evaluation at specified/scheduled time points. BPI-sf scores for average pain: participants were asked to rate their pain by circling any 1 number from 0 (no pain) to 10 (pain as bad as you can imagine) that best describes their pain on average in the last 24 hours; higher scores indicated worse pain.
Change From Baseline in Brief Pain Inventory-short Form (BPI-sf) Scores for Pain Interference Index at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 40, 56, and 64
BPI-sf is a self-administered questionnaire to assess the severity of pain and pain interference on daily functions during 24 hours prior to evaluation at specified/scheduled time points. Pain interference index was calculated as the mean of the 7 BPI-sf pain interference items: pain interference with general activity; mood; walking ability; normal work (outside home and housework); relations with other people; sleep and enjoyment of life. Each of the 7 items had score range from 0 (does not interfere) to 10 (completely interferes), higher scores indicated more interference in daily activities due to pain. Overall score range for pain interference index was 0 (no interference) to 10 (complete interference), higher score = higher interference.
Change From Baseline in Brief Pain Inventory-short Form (BPI-sf) Scores for Pain Interference With General Activity at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 40, 56, and 64
BPI-sf is a self-administered questionnaire to assess the severity of pain and pain interference on daily functions during 24 hours prior to evaluation at specified/scheduled time points. BPI-sf scores for pain interference with general activity: participants were asked to circle from any 1 number from 0 (no interference) to 10 (complete interference) that described how, during the past 24 hours, pain has interfered with their general activity; higher scores indicated higher interference.
Change From Baseline in Brief Pain Inventory-short Form (BPI-sf) Scores for Pain Interference With Walking Ability at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 40, 56, and 64
BPI-sf is a self-administered questionnaire to assess the severity of pain and pain interference on daily functions during 24 hours prior to evaluation at specified/scheduled time points. BPI-sf scores for pain interference with walking ability: participants were asked to circle from any 1 number from 0 (does not interfere) to 10 (completely interferes) that described how, during the past 24 hours, pain has interfered with their walking ability; higher scores indicated higher interference.
Change From Baseline in Brief Pain Inventory-short Form (BPI-sf) Scores for Pain Interference With Sleep at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 40, 56, and 64
BPI-sf is a self-administered questionnaire to assess the severity of pain and pain interference on daily functions during 24 hours prior to evaluation at specified/scheduled time points. BPI-sf scores for pain interference with sleep: participants were asked to circle from any 1 number from 0 (does not interfere) to 10 (completely interferes) that described how, during the past 24 hours, pain has interfered with their sleep; higher scores indicated higher interference.
Change From Baseline in Brief Pain Inventory-short Form (BPI-sf) Scores for Pain Interference With Normal Work at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 40, 56 and 64
BPI-sf is a self-administered questionnaire to assess the severity of pain and pain interference on daily functions during 24 hours prior to evaluation at specified/scheduled time points. BPI-sf scores for pain interference with normal work: participants were asked to circle from any 1 number from 0 (does not interfere) to 10 (completely interferes) that described how, during the past 24 hours, pain has interfered with their normal work; higher scores indicated higher interference.
Percentage of Participants With Chronic Low Back Pain Responders Index at Weeks 16, 24, 40 and 56
Chronic low back pain responder index analysis is a composite endpoint of average low back pain intensity (aLBPI) score, PGA of low back pain, and RMDQ total score. aLBPI: evaluate average pain during the past 24 hours, range 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain), higher scores = higher worse pain. PGA of low back pain: evaluated participants' well-being due to low back pain on day of assessment, range 1 (very good) to 5 (very poor), higher scores = worse condition. RMDQ total score: assessed ability to perform daily activities, range 0 (no disability) to 24 (maximum disability), higher scores = more disability. Participants were successful responders if they had: >=30 percent reduction in aLBPI from baseline to particular week; decrease of >=30 percent in PGA of low back pain from baseline to particular week and no worsening (increase) in RMDQ total score from baseline to particular week.
Percentage of Participants Achieving Change of >=2 Points From Baseline in Patient's Global Assessment (PGA) of Low Back Pain at Weeks 16, 24, 40 and 56
PGA of low back pain assessed by asking question to participants: "Considering all ways your low back pain affects you, how are you doing today?" They responded on 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5, using IRT, 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); 5= very poor (very severe symptoms which are intolerable and inability to carry out all normal activities). Higher scores indicated worsening of condition. Percentage of participants with positive change of at least 2 points from baseline in PGA of low back pain were reported.
European Quality of Life-5 Dimension-5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L): Dimensions Scores at Baseline, Weeks 16 and 56
EQ-5D-5L is a standardized participant completed questionnaire that measures health-related quality of life and translates that score into an index value or utility score. EQ-5D-5L consists of two components: a health state profile and an optional visual analogue scale (VAS). EQ-5D health state profile is comprised of 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression. Each dimension has 5 levels: 1= no problems, 2= slight problems, 3= moderate problems, 4= severe problems, and 5= extreme problems. Higher scores indicated greater levels of problems across each of the five dimensions.
European Quality of Life-5 Dimension-5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L): Overall Health Utility Score/ Index Value
EQ-5D health state profile has 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression. Each dimension has 5 levels: 1= no problems, 2= slight problems, 3= moderate problems, 4= severe problems, and 5= extreme problems. Responses from each of the 5 domains were used to calculate overall health state/a single utility index value. Example: if a participant responded "no problems" for each 5 dimensions, then health state was coded as "11111" with a predefined single index value to it. Every health state (coded as combination of responses on each of 5 dimensions) had a unique predefined utility index value assigned to it, by EuroQol. Japan value sets (with all possible health states) was used in the study, overall health utility score ranged from -0.111 (minimum score) to 1 (maximum score). Higher (positive) scores = better health state.
Change From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: Low Back Pain (WPAI:LBP)- Percent Work Time Missed Due to Chronic Low Back Pain at Weeks 16, 56 and 64
WPAI:LBP is a participant rated questionnaire that measures the effect of participant's chronic low back pain (CLBP) on general health and symptom severity on work productivity and regular activities. Percentage of work time missed by participants due to CLBP was recorded on a score range of 0 (no impact on work time) to 100 (extreme impact on work time), higher scores indicated greater work time missed and lesser productivity.
Change From Baseline in in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: Low Back Pain (WPAI:LBP)- Percent Impairment While Working Due to Chronic Low Back Pain at Weeks 16, 56 and 64
WPAI: LBP is a participant rated questionnaire that measures the effect of participant's chronic low back pain (CLBP) on general health and symptom severity on work productivity and regular activities. Percentage of impairment while working due to CLBP was recorded on a score range of 0 (no impairment) to 100 (extreme impairment), higher scores indicated greater impairment while working and lesser productivity.
Change From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: Low Back Pain (WPAI:LBP)- Percent Overall Work Impairment Due to Chronic Low Back Pain at Weeks 16, 56 and 64
WPAI: LBP is a participant rated questionnaire that measures the effect of participant's chronic low back pain (CLBP) on general health and symptom severity on work productivity and regular activities. Percentage of overall work impairment due to CLBP was recorded on a score range of 0 (no impairment) to 100 (extreme impairment), higher scores indicated greater overall work impairment and lesser productivity.
Change From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: Low Back Pain (WPAI:LBP)- Percent Activity Impairment Due to Chronic Low Back Pain at Weeks 16, 56 and 64
WPAI: LBP is a participant rated questionnaire that measures the effect of participant's chronic low back pain (CLBP) on general health and symptom severity on work productivity and regular activities. Percentage of daily activity impairment due to CLBP was recorded on a score range of 0 (no impairment) to 100 (extreme impairment), higher scores indicated greater daily activity impairment and lesser productivity.
Number of Participants Who Discontinued Due to Lack of Efficacy
Number of participants who discontinued from study treatment due to lack of efficacy have been reported here.
Time to Discontinuation Due to Lack of Efficacy
Time to discontinuation (in days) due to lack of efficacy was defined as the time interval from the date of first study drug administration up to the date of discontinuation of participant from treatment due to lack of efficacy. Results reported below are contributed only by participants who discontinued due to lack of efficacy.
Number of Participants Who Took Rescue Medication During Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, 56 and 64: Observed Data
In case of inadequate pain relief, acetaminophen/paracetamol tablets up to 3000 mg per day up to 3 days in a week could be taken as rescue medication between Day 1 to Week 64. Number of participants with any use of rescue medication during each specified/scheduled study week were summarized.
Number of Participants Who Took Rescue Medication During Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
In case of inadequate pain relief, acetaminophen/paracetamol caplets, tablets, or capsules up to 3000 mg per day up to 3 days in a week could be taken as rescue medication between Day 1 to Week 64. Number of participants with any use of rescue medication during each specified/scheduled study week were summarized.
Number of Days of Rescue Medication Use During Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, 56 and 64: Observed Data
In case of inadequate pain relief, acetaminophen/paracetamol tablets up to 3000 mg per day up to 3 days in a week could be taken as rescue medication between Day 1 to Week 64. Number of days the participants used the rescue medication during each specified/scheduled study week were summarized.
Number of Days of Rescue Medication Use During Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56: LOCF
In case of inadequate pain relief, acetaminophen/paracetamol caplets, tablets, or capsules up to 3000 mg per day up to 3 days in a week could be taken as rescue medication between Day 1 to Week 64. Number of days the participants used the rescue medication during each specified/scheduled study week were summarized.
Amount of Rescue Medication Used in Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, and 16: Observed Data
In case of inadequate pain relief, acetaminophen/paracetamol tablets up to 3000 mg per day up to 3 days in a week could be taken as rescue medication between Day 1 to Week 64. Amount of rescue medication used during each specified/scheduled study week were summarized.
Amount of Rescue Medication Used in Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, and 16: LOCF
In case of inadequate pain relief, acetaminophen/paracetamol caplets, tablets, or capsules up to 3000 mg per day up to 3 days in a week could be taken as rescue medication between Day 1 to Week 64. Amount of rescue medication used during each specified/scheduled study week were summarized.
Health Care Resource Utilization (HCRU): Number of Visits of Services Received Directly Related to Low Back Pain
Low back pain HCRU assessed utilization of healthcare resources usage during last 3 months (last 3 months before Baseline [Day 1] visit, weeks 64 and 80 visit, via IRT). Visits of services directly related to low back pain evaluated were: visits to primary care physician, neurologist, physician assistant or nurse practitioner, pain specialist, orthopedist, physical therapist, chiropractor, alternative medicine or therapy, nutritionist/dietician, radiologist and other practitioner. Participants might have been counted more than once under various rows. Only those rows have been reported which had at least 1 participant evaluable for any reporting arm.
Health Care Resource Utilization (HCRU): Number of Participants Visited to the Emergency Room Due to Low Back Pain
Low back pain HCRU assessed utilization of healthcare resources during the last 3 months (last 3 months before Baseline [Day 1] visit, weeks 64 and 80 visit, via IRT). Number of participants who visited the emergency room due to low back pain were evaluated.
Health Care Resource Utilization (HCRU): Number of Participants Hospitalized Due to Low Back Pain
Low back pain HCRU assessed utilization of healthcare resources during the last 3 months for baseline, weeks 64 and 80, via IRT. Domain evaluated was number of participants who were hospitalized due to low back pain.
Health Care Resource Utilization (HCRU): Number of Nights Stayed in the Hospital Due to Low Back Pain
Low back pain HCRU assessed utilization of healthcare resources during the last 3 months (last 3 months before Baseline [Day 1] visit, weeks 64 and 80 visit, via IRT). Number of nights stayed in the hospital due to low back pain were evaluated.
Health Care Resource Utilization (HCRU): Number of Participants Who Used Any Aids/Devices for Doing Things
Low back pain HCRU assessed utilization of healthcare resources during the last 3 months (last 3 months before Baseline [Day 1] visit, weeks 64 and 80 visit, via IRT). Number of participants who used any aids/devices for doing things were evaluated. Aids included walking aid, wheelchair, device or utensil for dress/bathe/eat and any other aids/devices.
Health Care Resource Utilization (HCRU): Number of Participants Who Quit Job Due to Low Back Pain
Low back pain HCRU assessed utilization of healthcare resources during the last 3 months (last 3 months before Baseline [Day 1] visit, weeks 64 and 80 visit, via IRT). Number of participants who answered as "Yes" for quitting job due to low back pain, were evaluated.
Health Care Resource Utilization (HCRU): Duration Since Quitting Job Due to Low Back Pain
Low back pain HCRU assessed utilization of healthcare resources during the last 3 months (last 3 months before Baseline [Day 1] visit, weeks 64 and 80 visit, via IRT). Domain evaluated was duration (in years) at each specified time point since quitting job due to low back pain.
Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication Version II (TSQM v II) Scores at Weeks 16 and 56
TSQM v.II: participant rated 11 items questionnaire. Items 1, 2, 7 to 11 were scored as: 1= extremely dissatisfied, 2= very dissatisfied, 3= dissatisfied, 4= somewhat satisfied, 5= satisfied, 6= very satisfied, 7= extremely satisfied. Items 4 to 6 were scored as: 1= extremely dissatisfied, 2= very dissatisfied, 3= somewhat dissatisfied, 4= slightly dissatisfied, 5= not at all dissatisfied. Item 3 was scored as: 0= No, 1= Yes. Four parameters with respect to study medication were evaluated: Effectiveness = ([Item 1+Item 2] - 2 )/12 *100; Side effects = ([Item 4 + Item 5 + Item 6] - 3)/12 *100, if one item is missing then: ([Sum of two completed items]-2]/8 *100; Convenience = ([Item 7 + Item 8 + Item 9] - 3)/18 *100, if one item is missing then: ([Sum of two completed items]-2)/12 *100; Global satisfaction = ([Item 10+Item 11] - 2 ]/12 *100. Each of the 4 parameters had a scale of 0 (no satisfaction) to 100 (best level of satisfaction), higher score = greater satisfaction.
Number of Participants Responding to Patient Reported Treatment Impact Assessment-Modified (mPRTI) at Weeks 16 and 56 for Willingness to Use Study Drug Again
The mPRTI was a self-administered questionnaire containing 4 items to assess participant satisfaction, previous treatment, preference and willingness to continue using the study medication. To assess participants willingness to use study drug again, participants responded using IRT on 5 point Likert scale ranged from 1-5, where, 1= yes, I would definitely want to use the same drug again, 2= I might want to use the same drug again, 3= I am not sure, 4= I might not want to use the same drug again, 5= no, I definitely would not want to use the same drug again. Higher scores indicated lesser willingness to use the study drug.
Number of Participants Responding to Patient Reported Treatment Impact Assessment-Modified (mPRTI) at Weeks 16 and 56 for Preference of Study Drug Versus Prior Treatment
The mPRTI was a self-administered questionnaire containing 4 items to assess participant satisfaction, previous treatment, preference and willingness to continue using the study medication. To assess preference to continue using study drug versus previous treatment, participants responded using IRT on 5 point Likert scale from 1-5, where, 1= yes, I definitely prefer drug that I am receiving now, 2= I have a slight preference for drug that I am receiving now, 3= I have no preference either way, 4= I have a slight preference for my previous treatment, 5= No, I definitely prefer my previous treatment. Higher scores indicate lesser preference to use study drug.

Full Information

First Posted
January 20, 2016
Last Updated
July 24, 2020
Sponsor
Pfizer
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT02725411
Brief Title
Long Term Safety and Efficacy Study of Tanezumab in Japanese Adult Subjects With Chronic Low Back Pain
Acronym
TANGO
Official Title
A PHASE 3 RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND, ACTIVE-CONTROLLED, MULTICENTER STUDY OF THE LONG-TERM SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF SUBCUTANEOUS ADMINISTRATION OF TANEZUMAB IN JAPANESE ADULT SUBJECTS WITH CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
July 2020
Overall Recruitment Status
Completed
Study Start Date
May 26, 2016 (Actual)
Primary Completion Date
June 11, 2019 (Actual)
Study Completion Date
June 11, 2019 (Actual)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Responsible Party, by Official Title
Sponsor
Name of the Sponsor
Pfizer

4. Oversight

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product
No
Data Monitoring Committee
Yes

5. Study Description

Brief Summary
This study will investigate the long-term safety and efficacy of a fixed dose of tanezumab 5 mg and 10 mg administered subcutaneously (SC) seven times at 8 week intervals. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the long term safety of tanezumab 5 mg and 10 mg administrated SC every 8 weeks (7 administrations). In addition, the study will evaluate the long term analgesic efficacy of tanezumab 5 mg and 10 mg SC administered every 8 weeks (7 administrations).
Detailed Description
This is a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, multicenter, parallel-group Phase 3 study of the safety and efficacy of tanezumab when administered by SC injection for up to 56 weeks in subjects with chronic low back pain. Subjects will be randomized to 1 of 3 treatment groups in a 1:1:1 ratio. Treatment groups will include: 1) Placebo SC matching tanezumab administered at an 8-week interval (total of 7 times) plus celecoxib 100 mg twice a day (BID) to be administered orally for 56 weeks; 2) Tanezumab 5 mg SC administered at an 8-week interval (total of 7 times) plus placebo matching celecoxib to be administered orally BID for 56 weeks; 3) Tanezumab 10 mg SC administered at an 8-week interval (total of 7 times) plus placebo matching celecoxib to be administered orally BID for 56 weeks. The study is designed with a total duration (post-randomization) of up to 80 weeks and will consist of three periods: Screening (up to 37 days; includes a Washout Period and an Initial Pain Assessment Period [IPAP]), a Double-blind Treatment Period (56 weeks) and a Follow-up Period (24 weeks). The Screening Period (beginning up to 37 days prior to Randomization) includes a Washout Period (lasting 2 to 32 days), if required, and an IPAP (the 5 days prior to Randomization/Baseline). Prior to entering the study, subjects must be experiencing some benefit (eg, analgesic effect) from their current stable dose regimen of oral NSAID (celecoxib, loxoprofen or meloxicam) treatment, be tolerating their NSAID regimen, be taking this medication regularly (defined as an average of at least 5 days per week) during the 30 day period prior to the Screening Visit.

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Low Back Pain
Keywords
Chronic low back pain, Chronic pain

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Treatment
Study Phase
Phase 3
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Masking
ParticipantInvestigator
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
277 (Actual)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
Celecoxib
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
Subcutaneous injection of placebo for tanezumab every 8 weeks plus oral celecoxib 100 mg twice daily for 56 weeks
Arm Title
Tanezumab 5 mg
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
Subcutaneous injection of tanezumab 5 mg every 8 weeks plus oral placebo for celecoxib twice daily for 56 weeks
Arm Title
Tanezumab 10 mg
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
Subcutaneous injection of tanezumab 10 mg every 8 weeks plus oral placebo for celecoxib twice daily for 56 weeks
Intervention Type
Drug
Intervention Name(s)
Celecoxib
Intervention Description
Orally administered Celecoxib 100 mg twice daily for 56 weeks
Intervention Type
Biological
Intervention Name(s)
Tanezumab 5 mg
Intervention Description
Subcutaneous injection of tanezumab 5 mg every 8 weeks for 56 weeks
Intervention Type
Biological
Intervention Name(s)
Tanezumab 10 mg
Intervention Description
Subcutaneous injection of tanezumab 10 mg every 8 weeks for 56 weeks
Intervention Type
Drug
Intervention Name(s)
Placebo for celecoxib
Intervention Description
Orally administered the placebo twice daily for 56 weeks
Intervention Type
Biological
Intervention Name(s)
Placebo for tanezumab
Intervention Description
Subcutaneous injection of the placebo every 8 weeks for 56 weeks
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Number of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs) and Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)
Description
An AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship. 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 were events between first dose of study drug and up to 24 weeks after last dose of study drug (up to Week 80) that were absent before treatment or that worsened relative to pretreatment state. AEs included both serious and non-serious AEs.
Time Frame
Baseline (Day 1) up to 24 weeks after last dose of study drug (up to Week 80)
Title
Number of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Treatment Related Adverse Events (AEs) and Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)
Description
Treatment-related AE was any untoward medical occurrence attributed to study drug in participant who received study drug. 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 were events between first dose of study drug and up to 24 weeks after last dose of study drug (up to Week 80). Relatedness to study drug was assessed by the investigator. AEs included both serious and non-serious AEs.
Time Frame
Baseline up to 24 weeks after last dose of study drug (up to Week 80)
Title
Number of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Test Abnormalities
Description
Abnormality criteria included: hemoglobin (HGB); hematocrit; erythrocytes < 0.8*lower limit of normal (LLN); erythrocyte mean corpuscular volume/HGB/ HGB concentration, erythrocytes distribution width <0.9*LLN, >1.1*upper limit of normal (ULN); platelets <0.5*LLN,>1.75* ULN; white blood cell count<0.6*LLN, >1.5*ULN; lymphocytes, leukocytes, neutrophils <0.8*LLN, >1.2*ULN; basophils, eosinophils, monocytes >1.2*ULN; total bilirubin>1.5*ULN; aspartate aminotransferase (AT), alanine AT, gamma glutamyl transferase, lactate dehydrogenase, alkaline phosphatase >3.0*ULN; total protein; albumin<0.8*LLN, >1.2*ULN; blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, cholesterol, triglycerides >1.3*ULN; urate >1.2*ULN; sodium <0.95*LLN,>1.05*ULN; potassium, chloride, calcium, magnesium, bicarbonate <0.9*LLN, >1.1*ULN; phosphate <0.8*LLN, >1.2*ULN; glucose <0.6*LLN, >1.5*ULN; HGB A1C >1.3*ULN; creatine kinase >2.0*ULN; nitrite >=1. Investigator judged clinical significance of laboratory test abnormalities.
Time Frame
Baseline up to Week 80
Title
Number of Participants With Clinically Significant Vital Signs Abnormalities
Description
Vital signs included systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and pulse rate. Investigator judged clinical significance of vital signs' abnormalities.
Time Frame
Baseline up to Week 80
Title
Number of Participants With Confirmed Orthostatic Hypotension From Baseline up to Week 80
Description
Orthostatic hypotension was defined as postural change (supine to standing) that met the following criteria: for systolic blood pressure (BP) less than or equal to (<=) 150 millimeter of mercury (mmHg) (mean supine): reduction in systolic BP >=20 mmHg or reduction in diastolic BP >=10 mmHg at the 1 and/or 3 minute standing BP measurements. For systolic BP greater than (>) 150 mmHg (mean supine): reduction in systolic BP >=30 mmHg or reduction in diastolic BP >=15 mmHg at the 1 and/or 3 minute standing BP measurements. If the 1 minute or 3 minute standing BP in a sequence met the orthostatic hypotension criteria, then that sequence was considered positive. If 2 of 2 or 2 of 3 sequences were positive, then orthostatic hypotension was considered confirmed.
Time Frame
Baseline up to Week 80
Title
Change From Screening in Mean Total Symptom Impact Score as Per Survey of Autonomic Symptoms (SAS) at Week 24
Description
SAS is a participant rated 12 items questionnaire for males and 11 items questionnaire for females. SAS measures autonomic symptoms of neuropathy and their impact on participants' well-being, during the past 6 months. Each item was related to a symptom/health problem. At scheduled time points, participants were asked to answer "Yes" or "No" for each of symptoms/health problems experienced during past 6 months. If a participant answered "Yes" for a symptom, then impact of that symptom was rated on a 5 point scale, ranged from 1 (least sever impact) to 5 (most severe impact), where higher scores signified more severe impact of symptoms. The total symptom impact score was calculated as the sum of impact of all symptoms. Overall possible range for the total symptom impact score was 0 (no impact) to 60 (extreme impact) for males and 0 (no impact) to 55 (extreme impact) for females, higher scores indicated more severe impact of symptoms on participants' well-being.
Time Frame
Screening (up to 37 days before Day 1), Week 24
Title
Change From Screening in Mean Total Symptom Impact Score as Per Survey of Autonomic Symptoms (SAS) at Week 56
Description
SAS is a participant rated 12 items questionnaire for males and 11 items questionnaire for females. SAS measures autonomic symptoms of neuropathy and their impact on participants' well-being, during the past 6 months. Each item was related to a symptom/health problem. At scheduled time points, participants were asked to answer "Yes" or "No" for each of symptoms/health problems experienced during past 6 months. If a participant answered "Yes" for a symptom, then impact of that symptom was rated on a 5 point scale, ranged from 1 (least sever impact) to 5 (most severe impact), where higher scores signified more severe impact of symptoms. The total symptom impact score was calculated as the sum of impact of all symptoms. Overall possible range for the total symptom impact score was 0 (no impact) to 60 (extreme impact) for males and 0 (no impact) to 55 (extreme impact) for females, higher scores indicated more severe impact of symptoms on participants' well-being.
Time Frame
Screening, Week 56
Title
Change From Screening in Mean Total Symptom Impact Scores as Per Survey of Autonomic Symptoms (SAS) at Week 80
Description
SAS is a participant rated 12 items questionnaire for males and 11 items questionnaire for females. SAS measures autonomic symptoms of neuropathy and their impact on participants' well-being, during the past 6 months. Each item was related to a symptom/health problem. At scheduled time points, participants were asked to answer "Yes" or "No" for each of symptoms/health problems experienced during past 6 months. If a participant answered "Yes" for a symptom, then impact of that symptom was rated on a 5 point scale, ranged from 1 (least sever impact) to 5 (most severe impact), where higher scores signified more severe impact of symptoms. The total symptom impact score was calculated as the sum of impact of all symptoms. Overall possible range for the total symptom impact score was 0 (no impact) to 60 (extreme impact) for males and 0 (no impact) to 55 (extreme impact) for females, higher scores indicated more severe impact of symptoms on participants' well-being.
Time Frame
Screening, Week 80
Title
Change From Screening in Mean Total Symptom Impact Score as Per Survey of Autonomic Symptoms (SAS) at Early Termination Follow-up Visit 1
Description
SAS: participant rated 12 items questionnaire for males; 11 items questionnaire for females. SAS measures autonomic symptoms of neuropathy and their impact on participants' well-being, during past 6 months. Each item was related to a symptom/health problem. At scheduled time points, participants answered "Yes" or "No" for each of symptoms/health problems experienced during past 6 months. If participant answered "Yes" for a symptom, then impact of that symptom was rated on 5 point scale (1 [least sever impact] to 5 [most severe impact]); higher scores = more severe impact of symptoms. Total impact score = sum of impact of all symptoms; range for males =0 (no impact) to 60 (extreme impact); females =0 (no impact) to 55 (extreme impact); higher scores = more severe impact of symptoms on participants' well-being. Participants discontinuing from study treatment before Week 56, had early termination follow-up visit 1 at 8 weeks after last dose of tanezumab or placebo matched to tanezumab.
Time Frame
Screening, Early Termination Follow-up Visit 1 (at 8 weeks after last dose of tanezumab or placebo matched to tanezumab)
Title
Change From Screening in Mean Total Symptom Impact Scores as Per Survey of Autonomic Symptoms (SAS) at Early Termination Follow-up Visit 3
Description
SAS: participant rated 12 items questionnaire for males; 11 items questionnaire for females. SAS measures autonomic symptoms of neuropathy and their impact on participants' well-being, during past 6 months. Each item was related to a symptom/health problem. At scheduled time points, participants answered "Yes" or "No" for each of symptoms/health problems experienced during past 6 months. If participant answered "Yes" for a symptom, then impact of that symptom was rated on 5 point scale (1 [least sever impact] to 5 [most severe impact]); higher scores = more severe impact of symptoms. Total impact score = sum of impact of all symptoms; range for males =0 (no impact) to 60 (extreme impact); females =0 (no impact) to 55 (extreme impact); higher scores = more severe impact of symptoms on participants' well-being. Participants discontinuing from study treatment before Week 56, had early termination follow-up visit 3 at 24 weeks after last dose of tanezumab or placebo matched to tanezumab.
Time Frame
Screening, Early Termination Follow-up Visit 3 (at 24 weeks after last dose of tanezumab or placebo matched to tanezumab)
Title
Number of Participants With Clinically Significant Electrocardiogram (ECG) Assessments
Description
Electrocardiogram assessment included PR, QRS, QT, QT interval corrected using Fridericia's formula (QTcF), QT interval corrected using Bazett's formula (QTcB), RR intervals, and heart rate. Investigator judged clinical significance of electrocardiogram assessment.
Time Frame
Baseline up to Week 16
Title
Percentage of Participants With Individual Adjudicated Joint Safety Outcome/Event
Description
Percentage of participants with individual joint safety adjudication outcomes: rapidly progressive osteoarthritis (OA) type-1 only, rapidly progressive OA type-2 only, primary osteonecrosis, pathological fracture and subchondral insufficiency fracture is reported. Rapidly progressive (RP) OA type 1 events were those that the adjudication committee considered to have significant loss of joint space width >= 2 millimeter within approximately 1 year without gross structural failure. RP OA type 2 events were those considered to have destruction of bone including limited or total collapse of at least 1 subchondral surface that is not normally present in conventional end-stage osteoarthritis. Subchondral insufficiency fractures are a type of stress fractures which occur below the cartilage on the weight bearing surface of a bone.
Time Frame
Baseline up to Week 80
Title
Observation Time-Adjusted Event Rate for an Individual Adjudicated Joint Safety Outcome/Event
Description
Individual adjudicated joint safety outcomes/event: rapidly progressive OA (type-1,type-2), primary osteonecrosis, pathological fracture and subchondral insufficiency fracture. Observation time was defined as the start day of first SC study medication until either the (i) date of completion of or withdrawal from study, if a participant did not have the event, or (ii) date of the event (earliest event within each participant in the case of multiple events). Event rate for any individual adjudicated joint safety outcome/event = the number of events per 1000 participant-years at risk.
Time Frame
Baseline (Day 1) up to Week 80
Title
Percentage of Participants With At Least 1 Total Joint Replacement
Description
Percentage of participants with at least 1 total knee, total hip or total shoulder joint replacement were reported.
Time Frame
Baseline (Day 1) up to Week 80
Title
Observation Time-Adjusted Event Rate for Total Joint Replacement (TJR) Event
Description
Observation time was defined as the start day of first SC study medication until either the (i) date of completion of or withdrawal from study, if a participant had no TJR, or (ii) date of TJR (earliest TJR within each participant in the case of multiple TJRs). Event rate = number of events per 1000 participant-years at risk.
Time Frame
Baseline (Day 1) up to Week 80
Title
Change From Baseline in Neuropathy Impairment Score (NIS) at Week 2
Description
NIS is a standardized instrument used to evaluate signs of peripheral neuropathy in participants. NIS is the sum of scores of 37 items, from both the left and right side of following 4 domains: cranial nerves (5 items), muscle weakness (19 items), reflexes (5 items) and sensation (8 items). Each of 24 items related to cranial nerves and muscle weakness, scored from 0 (normal) to 4 (paralysis); higher scores indicated higher abnormality/impairment. Each of 13 items related to reflexes and sensation, scored as 0 (normal), 1 (decreased) and 2 (absent); higher scores indicated lesser reflexes and sensation. For NIS possible overall score (combined of both left and right sides of each domain), ranged from 0 (no impairment) to 244 (maximum impairment), higher scores indicated increased/more neuropathic deficits.
Time Frame
Baseline, Week 2
Title
Change From Baseline in Neuropathy Impairment Score (NIS) at Week 4
Description
NIS is a standardized instrument used to evaluate signs of peripheral neuropathy in participants. NIS is the sum of scores of 37 items, from both the left and right side of following 4 domains: cranial nerves (5 items), muscle weakness (19 items), reflexes (5 items) and sensation (8 items). Each of 24 items related to cranial nerves and muscle weakness, scored from 0 (normal) to 4 (paralysis); higher scores indicated higher abnormality/impairment. Each of 13 items related to reflexes and sensation, scored as 0 (normal), 1 (decreased) and 2 (absent); higher scores indicated lesser reflexes and sensation. For NIS possible overall score (combined of both left and right sides of each domain), ranged from 0 (no impairment) to 244 (maximum impairment), higher scores indicated increased/more neuropathic deficits.
Time Frame
Baseline, Week 4
Title
Change From Baseline in Neuropathy Impairment Score (NIS) at Week 8
Description
NIS is a standardized instrument used to evaluate signs of peripheral neuropathy in participants. NIS is the sum of scores of 37 items, from both the left and right side of following 4 domains: cranial nerves (5 items), muscle weakness (19 items), reflexes (5 items) and sensation (8 items). Each of 24 items related to cranial nerves and muscle weakness, scored from 0 (normal) to 4 (paralysis); higher scores indicated higher abnormality/impairment. Each of 13 items related to reflexes and sensation, scored as 0 (normal), 1 (decreased) and 2 (absent); higher scores indicated lesser reflexes and sensation. For NIS possible overall score (combined of both left and right sides of each domain), ranged from 0 (no impairment) to 244 (maximum impairment), higher scores indicated increased/more neuropathic deficits.
Time Frame
Baseline, Week 8
Title
Change From Baseline in Neuropathy Impairment Score (NIS) at Week 16
Description
NIS is a standardized instrument used to evaluate signs of peripheral neuropathy in participants. NIS is the sum of scores of 37 items, from both the left and right side of following 4 domains: cranial nerves (5 items), muscle weakness (19 items), reflexes (5 items) and sensation (8 items). Each of 24 items related to cranial nerves and muscle weakness, scored from 0 (normal) to 4 (paralysis); higher scores indicated higher abnormality/impairment. Each of 13 items related to reflexes and sensation, scored as 0 (normal), 1 (decreased) and 2 (absent); higher scores indicated lesser reflexes and sensation. For NIS possible overall score (combined of both left and right sides of each domain), ranged from 0 (no impairment) to 244 (maximum impairment), higher scores indicated increased/more neuropathic deficits.
Time Frame
Baseline, Week 16
Title
Change From Baseline in Neuropathy Impairment Score (NIS) at Week 24
Description
NIS is a standardized instrument used to evaluate signs of peripheral neuropathy in participants. NIS is the sum of scores of 37 items, from both the left and right side of following 4 domains: cranial nerves (5 items), muscle weakness (19 items), reflexes (5 items) and sensation (8 items). Each of 24 items related to cranial nerves and muscle weakness, scored from 0 (normal) to 4 (paralysis); higher scores indicated higher abnormality/impairment. Each of 13 items related to reflexes and sensation, scored as 0 (normal), 1 (decreased) and 2 (absent); higher scores indicated lesser reflexes and sensation. For NIS possible overall score (combined of both left and right sides of each domain), ranged from 0 (no impairment) to 244 (maximum impairment), higher scores indicated increased/more neuropathic deficits.
Time Frame
Baseline, Week 24
Title
Change From Baseline in Neuropathy Impairment Score (NIS) at Week 32
Description
NIS is a standardized instrument used to evaluate signs of peripheral neuropathy in participants. NIS is the sum of scores of 37 items, from both the left and right side of following 4 domains: cranial nerves (5 items), muscle weakness (19 items), reflexes (5 items) and sensation (8 items). Each of 24 items related to cranial nerves and muscle weakness, scored from 0 (normal) to 4 (paralysis); higher scores indicated higher abnormality/impairment. Each of 13 items related to reflexes and sensation, scored as 0 (normal), 1 (decreased) and 2 (absent); higher scores indicated lesser reflexes and sensation. For NIS possible overall score (combined of both left and right sides of each domain), ranged from 0 (no impairment) to 244 (maximum impairment), higher scores indicated increased/more neuropathic deficits.
Time Frame
Baseline, Week 32
Title
Change From Baseline in Neuropathy Impairment Score (NIS) at Week 40
Description
NIS is a standardized instrument used to evaluate signs of peripheral neuropathy in participants. NIS is the sum of scores of 37 items, from both the left and right side of following 4 domains: cranial nerves (5 items), muscle weakness (19 items), reflexes (5 items) and sensation (8 items). Each of 24 items related to cranial nerves and muscle weakness, scored from 0 (normal) to 4 (paralysis); higher scores indicated higher abnormality/impairment. Each of 13 items related to reflexes and sensation, scored as 0 (normal), 1 (decreased) and 2 (absent); higher scores indicated lesser reflexes and sensation. For NIS possible overall score (combined of both left and right sides of each domain), ranged from 0 (no impairment) to 244 (maximum impairment), higher scores indicated increased/more neuropathic deficits.
Time Frame
Baseline, Week 40
Title
Change From Baseline in Neuropathy Impairment Score (NIS) at Week 48
Description
NIS is a standardized instrument used to evaluate signs of peripheral neuropathy in participants. NIS is the sum of scores of 37 items, from both the left and right side of following 4 domains: cranial nerves (5 items), muscle weakness (19 items), reflexes (5 items) and sensation (8 items). Each of 24 items related to cranial nerves and muscle weakness, scored from 0 (normal) to 4 (paralysis); higher scores indicated higher abnormality/impairment. Each of 13 items related to reflexes and sensation, scored as 0 (normal), 1 (decreased) and 2 (absent); higher scores indicated lesser reflexes and sensation. For NIS possible overall score (combined of both left and right sides of each domain), ranged from 0 (no impairment) to 244 (maximum impairment), higher scores indicated increased/more neuropathic deficits.
Time Frame
Baseline, Week 48
Title
Change From Baseline in Neuropathy Impairment Score (NIS) at Week 56
Description
NIS is a standardized instrument used to evaluate signs of peripheral neuropathy in participants. NIS is the sum of scores of 37 items, from both the left and right side of following 4 domains: cranial nerves (5 items), muscle weakness (19 items), reflexes (5 items) and sensation (8 items). Each of 24 items related to cranial nerves and muscle weakness, scored from 0 (normal) to 4 (paralysis); higher scores indicated higher abnormality/impairment. Each of 13 items related to reflexes and sensation, scored as 0 (normal), 1 (decreased) and 2 (absent); higher scores indicated lesser reflexes and sensation. For NIS possible overall score (combined of both left and right sides of each domain), ranged from 0 (no impairment) to 244 (maximum impairment), higher scores indicated increased/more neuropathic deficits.
Time Frame
Baseline, Week 56
Title
Change From Baseline in Neuropathy Impairment Score (NIS) at Week 64
Description
NIS is a standardized instrument used to evaluate signs of peripheral neuropathy in participants. NIS is the sum of scores of 37 items, from both the left and right side of following 4 domains: cranial nerves (5 items), muscle weakness (19 items), reflexes (5 items) and sensation (8 items). Each of 24 items related to cranial nerves and muscle weakness, scored from 0 (normal) to 4 (paralysis); higher scores indicated higher abnormality/impairment. Each of 13 items related to reflexes and sensation, scored as 0 (normal), 1 (decreased) and 2 (absent); higher scores indicated lesser reflexes and sensation. For NIS possible overall score (combined of both left and right sides of each domain), ranged from 0 (no impairment) to 244 (maximum impairment), higher scores indicated increased/more neuropathic deficits.
Time Frame
Baseline, Week 64
Title
Change From Baseline in Neuropathy Impairment Score (NIS) at Week 80
Description
NIS is a standardized instrument used to evaluate signs of peripheral neuropathy in participants. NIS is the sum of scores of 37 items, from both the left and right side of following 4 domains: cranial nerves (5 items), muscle weakness (19 items), reflexes (5 items) and sensation (8 items). Each of 24 items related to cranial nerves and muscle weakness, scored from 0 (normal) to 4 (paralysis); higher scores indicated higher abnormality/impairment. Each of 13 items related to reflexes and sensation, scored as 0 (normal), 1 (decreased) and 2 (absent); higher scores indicated lesser reflexes and sensation. For NIS possible overall score (combined of both left and right sides of each domain), ranged from 0 (no impairment) to 244 (maximum impairment), higher scores indicated increased/more neuropathic deficits.
Time Frame
Baseline, Week 80
Title
Largest Change From Baseline in Neuropathy Impairment Score (NIS) to Any Post-baseline Visit
Description
NIS is a standardized instrument used to evaluate signs of peripheral neuropathy in participants. NIS is the sum of scores of 37 items, from both the left and right side of following 4 domains: cranial nerves (5 items), muscle weakness (19 items), reflexes (5 items) and sensation (8 items). Each of 24 items related to cranial nerves and muscle weakness, scored from 0 (normal) to 4 (paralysis); higher scores indicated higher abnormality/impairment. Each of 13 items related to reflexes and sensation, scored as 0 (normal), 1 (decreased) and 2 (absent); higher scores indicated lesser reflexes and sensation. For NIS possible overall score (combined of both left and right sides of each domain), ranged from 0 (no impairment) to 244 (maximum impairment), higher scores indicated increased/more neuropathic deficits. Largest change from baseline here means worst post- baseline change value (among all change from baseline values).
Time Frame
Baseline to any post-baseline visit (until Week 80)
Title
Number of Participants With Anti Tanezumab Antibodies From Baseline up to Week 80
Description
Human serum samples were analyzed for the presence or absence of anti-tanezumab antibodies by using a validated analytical method. Number of participants with presence of anti-tanezumab antibodies are reported.
Time Frame
Baseline up to Week 80
Title
Number of Participants With Abnormal Physical Examination Findings
Description
Physical examination included assessment of general appearance, skin, head, neck, eyes, ears, nose, throat, abdomen, lungs, heart, thyroid, and extremities. Investigator judged abnormality in physical examinations. Only those rows have been reported which had at least 1 participant with abnormality data in any of the reporting arms.
Time Frame
At Screening
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Change From Baseline in Average Low Back Pain Intensity (LBPI) at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, and 56: Multiple Imputation
Description
Average LBPI was assessed on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS). Participants described their average LBPI during the past 24 hours (at each specified/scheduled time-point) on a scale ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain), where higher scores indicated worse pain.
Time Frame
Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56
Title
Change From Baseline in Average Low Back Pain Intensity (LBPI) at Week 64: Observed Data
Description
Average LBPI was assessed on an 11-point NRS. Participants described their average LBPI during the past 24 hours (at each specified/scheduled time-point) on a scale ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain), where higher scores indicated worse pain.
Time Frame
Baseline, Week 64
Title
Change From Baseline in Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) Total Scores at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, and 56: Multiple Imputation
Description
The RMDQ is a self-administered, widely used health status measure index of how well participants with low back pain (LBP) are able to function with regard to daily activities. It measures pain and function, using 24 items describing limitations to everyday life that can be caused by LBP. Participants were asked to check/select only those items out of 24 items, which described them at each specified time point. The total number of items checked in questionnaire was equal to RMDQ total score, overall possible score ranging from 0 (no disability) to 24 (maximum disability), where higher scores indicated greater/more disability.
Time Frame
Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56
Title
Change From Baseline in Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) Total Score at Week 64: Observed Data
Description
The RMDQ is a self-administered, widely used health status measure index of how well participants with low back pain (LBP) are able to function with regard to daily activities. It measures pain and function, using 24 items describing limitations to everyday life that can be caused by LBP. Participants were asked to check/select only those items out of 24 items, which described them at each specified time point. The total number of items checked in questionnaire was equal to RMDQ total score, overall possible score ranging from 0 (no disability) to 24 (maximum disability), where higher scores indicated greater/more disability.
Time Frame
Baseline, Week 64
Title
Change From Baseline in the Patient's Global Assessment (PGA) of Low Back Pain at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, 56 and 64
Description
PGA of low back pain was assessed by asking a question to participants: "Considering all the ways your low back pain affects you, how are you doing today?" Participants responded on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5, using interactive response technology (IRT), 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 scores indicated worsening of condition.
Time Frame
Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, 56 and 64
Title
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Percent Change From Baseline in Average Low Back Pain Intensity (LBPI) Score at Weeks 16, 24 and 56
Description
Average LBPI was assessed on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS). Participants described their average LBPI during the past 24 hours (at each specified/scheduled time point) on a scale ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain), where higher scores indicated worse pain. Percentage of participants with cumulative reduction (as percent change) (greater than [>] 0%; >= 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 and equals to [=] 100%) in average LBPI from baseline to weeks 16, 24 and 56 were reported. Participants (%) might have been counted more than once under various rows.
Time Frame
Baseline, Weeks 16, 24 and 56
Title
Percentage of Participants With >=30 Percent (%), >=50%, >=70% and >=90% Reduction From Baseline in Weekly Average Low Back Pain Intensity (LBPI) Score at Weeks 16, 24, 40 and 56
Description
Average LBPI was assessed on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS). Participants described their average LBPI during the past 24 hours (at each specified/scheduled time point) on a scale ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain), where higher scores indicated worse pain. Percentage of participants with reduction in average LBPI of at least (>=) 30%, 50%, 70% and 90% at Weeks 16, 24, 40, and 56 compared to baseline are reported here. Participants (%) might have been counted more than once under various rows.
Time Frame
Baseline, Weeks 16, 24, 40 and 56
Title
Change From Baseline in Brief Pain Inventory-short Form (BPI-sf) Scores for Worst Pain at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 40, 56, and 64
Description
BPI-sf is a self-administered questionnaire to assess the severity of pain and pain interference on daily functions during 24 hours prior to evaluation at specified time points. BPI-sf scores for worst pain: participants were asked to rate their pain by circling any 1 number from 0 (no pain) to 10 (pain as bad as you can imagine) that best describes their pain at its worst in the last 24 hours; higher scores indicated worse pain.
Time Frame
Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 40, 56 and 64
Title
Change From Baseline in Brief Pain Inventory-short Form (BPI-sf) Scores for Average Pain at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 40, 56, and 64
Description
BPI-sf is a self-administered questionnaire to assess the severity of pain and pain interference on daily functions during 24 hours prior to evaluation at specified/scheduled time points. BPI-sf scores for average pain: participants were asked to rate their pain by circling any 1 number from 0 (no pain) to 10 (pain as bad as you can imagine) that best describes their pain on average in the last 24 hours; higher scores indicated worse pain.
Time Frame
Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 40, 56 and 64
Title
Change From Baseline in Brief Pain Inventory-short Form (BPI-sf) Scores for Pain Interference Index at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 40, 56, and 64
Description
BPI-sf is a self-administered questionnaire to assess the severity of pain and pain interference on daily functions during 24 hours prior to evaluation at specified/scheduled time points. Pain interference index was calculated as the mean of the 7 BPI-sf pain interference items: pain interference with general activity; mood; walking ability; normal work (outside home and housework); relations with other people; sleep and enjoyment of life. Each of the 7 items had score range from 0 (does not interfere) to 10 (completely interferes), higher scores indicated more interference in daily activities due to pain. Overall score range for pain interference index was 0 (no interference) to 10 (complete interference), higher score = higher interference.
Time Frame
Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 40, 56 and 64
Title
Change From Baseline in Brief Pain Inventory-short Form (BPI-sf) Scores for Pain Interference With General Activity at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 40, 56, and 64
Description
BPI-sf is a self-administered questionnaire to assess the severity of pain and pain interference on daily functions during 24 hours prior to evaluation at specified/scheduled time points. BPI-sf scores for pain interference with general activity: participants were asked to circle from any 1 number from 0 (no interference) to 10 (complete interference) that described how, during the past 24 hours, pain has interfered with their general activity; higher scores indicated higher interference.
Time Frame
Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 40, 56 and 64
Title
Change From Baseline in Brief Pain Inventory-short Form (BPI-sf) Scores for Pain Interference With Walking Ability at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 40, 56, and 64
Description
BPI-sf is a self-administered questionnaire to assess the severity of pain and pain interference on daily functions during 24 hours prior to evaluation at specified/scheduled time points. BPI-sf scores for pain interference with walking ability: participants were asked to circle from any 1 number from 0 (does not interfere) to 10 (completely interferes) that described how, during the past 24 hours, pain has interfered with their walking ability; higher scores indicated higher interference.
Time Frame
Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 40, 56 and 64
Title
Change From Baseline in Brief Pain Inventory-short Form (BPI-sf) Scores for Pain Interference With Sleep at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 40, 56, and 64
Description
BPI-sf is a self-administered questionnaire to assess the severity of pain and pain interference on daily functions during 24 hours prior to evaluation at specified/scheduled time points. BPI-sf scores for pain interference with sleep: participants were asked to circle from any 1 number from 0 (does not interfere) to 10 (completely interferes) that described how, during the past 24 hours, pain has interfered with their sleep; higher scores indicated higher interference.
Time Frame
Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 40, 56 and 64
Title
Change From Baseline in Brief Pain Inventory-short Form (BPI-sf) Scores for Pain Interference With Normal Work at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 40, 56 and 64
Description
BPI-sf is a self-administered questionnaire to assess the severity of pain and pain interference on daily functions during 24 hours prior to evaluation at specified/scheduled time points. BPI-sf scores for pain interference with normal work: participants were asked to circle from any 1 number from 0 (does not interfere) to 10 (completely interferes) that described how, during the past 24 hours, pain has interfered with their normal work; higher scores indicated higher interference.
Time Frame
Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 40, 56 and 64
Title
Percentage of Participants With Chronic Low Back Pain Responders Index at Weeks 16, 24, 40 and 56
Description
Chronic low back pain responder index analysis is a composite endpoint of average low back pain intensity (aLBPI) score, PGA of low back pain, and RMDQ total score. aLBPI: evaluate average pain during the past 24 hours, range 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain), higher scores = higher worse pain. PGA of low back pain: evaluated participants' well-being due to low back pain on day of assessment, range 1 (very good) to 5 (very poor), higher scores = worse condition. RMDQ total score: assessed ability to perform daily activities, range 0 (no disability) to 24 (maximum disability), higher scores = more disability. Participants were successful responders if they had: >=30 percent reduction in aLBPI from baseline to particular week; decrease of >=30 percent in PGA of low back pain from baseline to particular week and no worsening (increase) in RMDQ total score from baseline to particular week.
Time Frame
Weeks 16, 24, 40 and 56
Title
Percentage of Participants Achieving Change of >=2 Points From Baseline in Patient's Global Assessment (PGA) of Low Back Pain at Weeks 16, 24, 40 and 56
Description
PGA of low back pain assessed by asking question to participants: "Considering all ways your low back pain affects you, how are you doing today?" They responded on 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5, using IRT, 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); 5= very poor (very severe symptoms which are intolerable and inability to carry out all normal activities). Higher scores indicated worsening of condition. Percentage of participants with positive change of at least 2 points from baseline in PGA of low back pain were reported.
Time Frame
Baseline, Weeks 16, 24, 40 and 56
Title
European Quality of Life-5 Dimension-5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L): Dimensions Scores at Baseline, Weeks 16 and 56
Description
EQ-5D-5L is a standardized participant completed questionnaire that measures health-related quality of life and translates that score into an index value or utility score. EQ-5D-5L consists of two components: a health state profile and an optional visual analogue scale (VAS). EQ-5D health state profile is comprised of 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression. Each dimension has 5 levels: 1= no problems, 2= slight problems, 3= moderate problems, 4= severe problems, and 5= extreme problems. Higher scores indicated greater levels of problems across each of the five dimensions.
Time Frame
Baseline, Weeks 16 and 56
Title
European Quality of Life-5 Dimension-5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L): Overall Health Utility Score/ Index Value
Description
EQ-5D health state profile has 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression. Each dimension has 5 levels: 1= no problems, 2= slight problems, 3= moderate problems, 4= severe problems, and 5= extreme problems. Responses from each of the 5 domains were used to calculate overall health state/a single utility index value. Example: if a participant responded "no problems" for each 5 dimensions, then health state was coded as "11111" with a predefined single index value to it. Every health state (coded as combination of responses on each of 5 dimensions) had a unique predefined utility index value assigned to it, by EuroQol. Japan value sets (with all possible health states) was used in the study, overall health utility score ranged from -0.111 (minimum score) to 1 (maximum score). Higher (positive) scores = better health state.
Time Frame
Baseline, Weeks 16 and 56
Title
Change From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: Low Back Pain (WPAI:LBP)- Percent Work Time Missed Due to Chronic Low Back Pain at Weeks 16, 56 and 64
Description
WPAI:LBP is a participant rated questionnaire that measures the effect of participant's chronic low back pain (CLBP) on general health and symptom severity on work productivity and regular activities. Percentage of work time missed by participants due to CLBP was recorded on a score range of 0 (no impact on work time) to 100 (extreme impact on work time), higher scores indicated greater work time missed and lesser productivity.
Time Frame
Baseline, Weeks 16, 56 and 64
Title
Change From Baseline in in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: Low Back Pain (WPAI:LBP)- Percent Impairment While Working Due to Chronic Low Back Pain at Weeks 16, 56 and 64
Description
WPAI: LBP is a participant rated questionnaire that measures the effect of participant's chronic low back pain (CLBP) on general health and symptom severity on work productivity and regular activities. Percentage of impairment while working due to CLBP was recorded on a score range of 0 (no impairment) to 100 (extreme impairment), higher scores indicated greater impairment while working and lesser productivity.
Time Frame
Baseline, Weeks 16, 56 and 64
Title
Change From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: Low Back Pain (WPAI:LBP)- Percent Overall Work Impairment Due to Chronic Low Back Pain at Weeks 16, 56 and 64
Description
WPAI: LBP is a participant rated questionnaire that measures the effect of participant's chronic low back pain (CLBP) on general health and symptom severity on work productivity and regular activities. Percentage of overall work impairment due to CLBP was recorded on a score range of 0 (no impairment) to 100 (extreme impairment), higher scores indicated greater overall work impairment and lesser productivity.
Time Frame
Baseline, Weeks 16, 56 and 64
Title
Change From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: Low Back Pain (WPAI:LBP)- Percent Activity Impairment Due to Chronic Low Back Pain at Weeks 16, 56 and 64
Description
WPAI: LBP is a participant rated questionnaire that measures the effect of participant's chronic low back pain (CLBP) on general health and symptom severity on work productivity and regular activities. Percentage of daily activity impairment due to CLBP was recorded on a score range of 0 (no impairment) to 100 (extreme impairment), higher scores indicated greater daily activity impairment and lesser productivity.
Time Frame
Baseline, Weeks 16, 56 and 64
Title
Number of Participants Who Discontinued Due to Lack of Efficacy
Description
Number of participants who discontinued from study treatment due to lack of efficacy have been reported here.
Time Frame
Baseline up to Week 56
Title
Time to Discontinuation Due to Lack of Efficacy
Description
Time to discontinuation (in days) due to lack of efficacy was defined as the time interval from the date of first study drug administration up to the date of discontinuation of participant from treatment due to lack of efficacy. Results reported below are contributed only by participants who discontinued due to lack of efficacy.
Time Frame
Baseline up to Week 56
Title
Number of Participants Who Took Rescue Medication During Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, 56 and 64: Observed Data
Description
In case of inadequate pain relief, acetaminophen/paracetamol tablets up to 3000 mg per day up to 3 days in a week could be taken as rescue medication between Day 1 to Week 64. Number of participants with any use of rescue medication during each specified/scheduled study week were summarized.
Time Frame
Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, 56 and 64
Title
Number of Participants Who Took Rescue Medication During Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Description
In case of inadequate pain relief, acetaminophen/paracetamol caplets, tablets, or capsules up to 3000 mg per day up to 3 days in a week could be taken as rescue medication between Day 1 to Week 64. Number of participants with any use of rescue medication during each specified/scheduled study week were summarized.
Time Frame
Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56
Title
Number of Days of Rescue Medication Use During Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, 56 and 64: Observed Data
Description
In case of inadequate pain relief, acetaminophen/paracetamol tablets up to 3000 mg per day up to 3 days in a week could be taken as rescue medication between Day 1 to Week 64. Number of days the participants used the rescue medication during each specified/scheduled study week were summarized.
Time Frame
Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, 56 and 64
Title
Number of Days of Rescue Medication Use During Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56: LOCF
Description
In case of inadequate pain relief, acetaminophen/paracetamol caplets, tablets, or capsules up to 3000 mg per day up to 3 days in a week could be taken as rescue medication between Day 1 to Week 64. Number of days the participants used the rescue medication during each specified/scheduled study week were summarized.
Time Frame
Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56
Title
Amount of Rescue Medication Used in Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, and 16: Observed Data
Description
In case of inadequate pain relief, acetaminophen/paracetamol tablets up to 3000 mg per day up to 3 days in a week could be taken as rescue medication between Day 1 to Week 64. Amount of rescue medication used during each specified/scheduled study week were summarized.
Time Frame
Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12 and 16
Title
Amount of Rescue Medication Used in Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, and 16: LOCF
Description
In case of inadequate pain relief, acetaminophen/paracetamol caplets, tablets, or capsules up to 3000 mg per day up to 3 days in a week could be taken as rescue medication between Day 1 to Week 64. Amount of rescue medication used during each specified/scheduled study week were summarized.
Time Frame
Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12 and 16
Title
Health Care Resource Utilization (HCRU): Number of Visits of Services Received Directly Related to Low Back Pain
Description
Low back pain HCRU assessed utilization of healthcare resources usage during last 3 months (last 3 months before Baseline [Day 1] visit, weeks 64 and 80 visit, via IRT). Visits of services directly related to low back pain evaluated were: visits to primary care physician, neurologist, physician assistant or nurse practitioner, pain specialist, orthopedist, physical therapist, chiropractor, alternative medicine or therapy, nutritionist/dietician, radiologist and other practitioner. Participants might have been counted more than once under various rows. Only those rows have been reported which had at least 1 participant evaluable for any reporting arm.
Time Frame
Baseline, Weeks 64 and 80
Title
Health Care Resource Utilization (HCRU): Number of Participants Visited to the Emergency Room Due to Low Back Pain
Description
Low back pain HCRU assessed utilization of healthcare resources during the last 3 months (last 3 months before Baseline [Day 1] visit, weeks 64 and 80 visit, via IRT). Number of participants who visited the emergency room due to low back pain were evaluated.
Time Frame
Baseline, Weeks 64 and 80
Title
Health Care Resource Utilization (HCRU): Number of Participants Hospitalized Due to Low Back Pain
Description
Low back pain HCRU assessed utilization of healthcare resources during the last 3 months for baseline, weeks 64 and 80, via IRT. Domain evaluated was number of participants who were hospitalized due to low back pain.
Time Frame
Baseline, Weeks 64 and 80
Title
Health Care Resource Utilization (HCRU): Number of Nights Stayed in the Hospital Due to Low Back Pain
Description
Low back pain HCRU assessed utilization of healthcare resources during the last 3 months (last 3 months before Baseline [Day 1] visit, weeks 64 and 80 visit, via IRT). Number of nights stayed in the hospital due to low back pain were evaluated.
Time Frame
Baseline, Weeks 64 and 80
Title
Health Care Resource Utilization (HCRU): Number of Participants Who Used Any Aids/Devices for Doing Things
Description
Low back pain HCRU assessed utilization of healthcare resources during the last 3 months (last 3 months before Baseline [Day 1] visit, weeks 64 and 80 visit, via IRT). Number of participants who used any aids/devices for doing things were evaluated. Aids included walking aid, wheelchair, device or utensil for dress/bathe/eat and any other aids/devices.
Time Frame
Baseline, Weeks 64 and 80
Title
Health Care Resource Utilization (HCRU): Number of Participants Who Quit Job Due to Low Back Pain
Description
Low back pain HCRU assessed utilization of healthcare resources during the last 3 months (last 3 months before Baseline [Day 1] visit, weeks 64 and 80 visit, via IRT). Number of participants who answered as "Yes" for quitting job due to low back pain, were evaluated.
Time Frame
Baseline, Weeks 64 and 80
Title
Health Care Resource Utilization (HCRU): Duration Since Quitting Job Due to Low Back Pain
Description
Low back pain HCRU assessed utilization of healthcare resources during the last 3 months (last 3 months before Baseline [Day 1] visit, weeks 64 and 80 visit, via IRT). Domain evaluated was duration (in years) at each specified time point since quitting job due to low back pain.
Time Frame
Baseline, Weeks 64 and 80
Title
Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication Version II (TSQM v II) Scores at Weeks 16 and 56
Description
TSQM v.II: participant rated 11 items questionnaire. Items 1, 2, 7 to 11 were scored as: 1= extremely dissatisfied, 2= very dissatisfied, 3= dissatisfied, 4= somewhat satisfied, 5= satisfied, 6= very satisfied, 7= extremely satisfied. Items 4 to 6 were scored as: 1= extremely dissatisfied, 2= very dissatisfied, 3= somewhat dissatisfied, 4= slightly dissatisfied, 5= not at all dissatisfied. Item 3 was scored as: 0= No, 1= Yes. Four parameters with respect to study medication were evaluated: Effectiveness = ([Item 1+Item 2] - 2 )/12 *100; Side effects = ([Item 4 + Item 5 + Item 6] - 3)/12 *100, if one item is missing then: ([Sum of two completed items]-2]/8 *100; Convenience = ([Item 7 + Item 8 + Item 9] - 3)/18 *100, if one item is missing then: ([Sum of two completed items]-2)/12 *100; Global satisfaction = ([Item 10+Item 11] - 2 ]/12 *100. Each of the 4 parameters had a scale of 0 (no satisfaction) to 100 (best level of satisfaction), higher score = greater satisfaction.
Time Frame
Weeks 16 and 56
Title
Number of Participants Responding to Patient Reported Treatment Impact Assessment-Modified (mPRTI) at Weeks 16 and 56 for Willingness to Use Study Drug Again
Description
The mPRTI was a self-administered questionnaire containing 4 items to assess participant satisfaction, previous treatment, preference and willingness to continue using the study medication. To assess participants willingness to use study drug again, participants responded using IRT on 5 point Likert scale ranged from 1-5, where, 1= yes, I would definitely want to use the same drug again, 2= I might want to use the same drug again, 3= I am not sure, 4= I might not want to use the same drug again, 5= no, I definitely would not want to use the same drug again. Higher scores indicated lesser willingness to use the study drug.
Time Frame
Weeks 16 and 56
Title
Number of Participants Responding to Patient Reported Treatment Impact Assessment-Modified (mPRTI) at Weeks 16 and 56 for Preference of Study Drug Versus Prior Treatment
Description
The mPRTI was a self-administered questionnaire containing 4 items to assess participant satisfaction, previous treatment, preference and willingness to continue using the study medication. To assess preference to continue using study drug versus previous treatment, participants responded using IRT on 5 point Likert scale from 1-5, where, 1= yes, I definitely prefer drug that I am receiving now, 2= I have a slight preference for drug that I am receiving now, 3= I have no preference either way, 4= I have a slight preference for my previous treatment, 5= No, I definitely prefer my previous treatment. Higher scores indicate lesser preference to use study drug.
Time Frame
Weeks 16 and 56

10. Eligibility

Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
18 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria: Duration of chronic low back pain for ≥3 months, and treatment with agents for low back pain for ≥3 months. Primary location of low back pain must be between the 12th thoracic vertebra and the lower gluteal folds, with or without radiation into the posterior thigh, classified as Category 1 or 2 according to the classification of the Quebec Task Force in Spinal Disorders. Subjects must be experiencing some benefits from their current stable dose regimen of oral NSAID (celecoxib, loxoprofen or meloxicam) treatment as described in the protocol, be tolerating their NSAID regimen, be taking this medication regularly during the 30 day period prior to the Screening visit and must have had some improvement in low back pain, but still require additional pain relief at Screening. Subjects must maintain a stabilized, protocol specified NSAID dose regimen for at least the final 2 or 3 weeks of the Screening period. Low Back Pain Intensity (LBPI) score of ≥5 at Screening. Subjects must be willing to discontinue all pain medications for chronic low back pain except rescue medication and investigational product and not use prohibited pain medications throughout the duration of the study. Female subjects of childbearing potential and at risk for pregnancy must agree to comply with protocol specified contraceptive requirements. Exclusion Criteria: Subjects exceeding protocol defined BMI limits. Diagnosis of osteoarthritis of the knee or hip as defined by the ACR combined clinical and radiographic criteria. Subjects who have Kellgren Lawrence Grade > or =2 radiographic evidence of hip or Grade > or =3 radiographic evidence of knee osteoarthritis will be excluded. Subjects who have Kellgren Lawrence Grade < or =2 radiographic evidence of knee osteoarthritis but who do not meet ACR criteria and do not have pain associated with their knee osteoarthritis will be allowed. Subjects with symptoms and radiologic findings consistent with osteoarthritis in the shoulder. History of lumbosacral radiculopathy within the past 2 years, history of spinal stenosis associated with neurological impairment, or history of neurogenic claudication. Back pain due to recent major trauma within 6 months prior to Screening. Surgical intervention during the past 6 months for the treatment of low back pain. Planned surgical procedure during the duration of the study. History or radiographic evidence of other diseases that could confound efficacy or safety assessments (eg, rheumatoid arthritis). History or radiographic evidence of orthopedic conditions that may increase the risk of, or confound assessment of joint safety conditions during the study. History of osteonecrosis or osteoporotic fracture. History of significant trauma or surgery to a knee, hip, or shoulder within the previous year. Signs or symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome in the one year prior to Screening. Considered unfit for surgery based upon American Society of Anesthesiologists physical classification system for surgery grading, or subjects who would not be willing to undergo joint replacement surgery if required. History of intolerance or hypersensitivity to celecoxib/acetaminophen or any of its excipients or existence of a medical condition or use of concomitant medication for which the use of celecoxib/acetaminophen is contraindicated. Use of prohibited medications or prohibited non-pharmacological treatments without the appropriate washout period (if applicable) prior to Screening or IPAP. History of known alcohol, analgesic or narcotic abuse within 2 years of Screening. Presence of drugs of abuse or illegal drugs in the urine toxicology screen obtained at Screening. History of allergic or anaphylactic reaction to a therapeutic or diagnostic monoclonal antibody or IgG-fusion protein. Signs and symptoms of clinically significant cardiac disease. Poorly controlled hypertension as defined in the protocol or taking an antihypertensive that has not been stable for at least 1 month prior to Screening. Evidence of protocol defined orthostatic hypotension at Screening. Disqualifying score on the Survey of Autonomic Symptoms questionnaire at Screening. Diagnosis of a transient ischemic attack in the 6 months prior to Screening, diagnosis of stroke with residual deficits that would preclude completion of required study activities. History of cancer within 5 years prior to Screening, except for cutaneous basal cell or squamous cell cancer resolved by excision. Expected to undergo a therapeutic procedure or to use any analgesic other than those specified in the protocol throughout the pre-treatment and treatment periods that is likely to confound assessment of analgesic efficacy or safety. Previous exposure to exogenous NGF or to an anti-NGF antibody. Screening AST, ALT, serum creatinine or HbA1c values that exceed protocol defined limits. Positive Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, or HIV tests at screening indicative of current infection. History, diagnosis, or signs and symptoms of clinically significant neurological disease or clinically significant psychiatric disorder. Pregnant, breastfeeding or female subjects of childbearing potential who are unwilling or unable to follow protocol required contraceptive requirements. Participation in other investigational drug studies within protocol defined time limits. Other severe acute or chronic medical or psychiatric condition or laboratory abnormality that in the judgment of the investigator, would make the subject inappropriate for entry into this study.
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Pfizer CT.gov Call Center
Organizational Affiliation
Pfizer
Official's Role
Study Director
Facility Information:
Facility Name
Meitoh Hospital
City
Nagoya
State/Province
Aichi
ZIP/Postal Code
465-0025
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Asahi Rosai Hospital
City
Owariasahi
State/Province
Aichi
ZIP/Postal Code
488-8585
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Asahi General Hospital
City
Asahi
State/Province
Chiba
ZIP/Postal Code
289-2511
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Sato Orthopedic Clinic
City
Ichikawa
State/Province
Chiba
ZIP/Postal Code
272-0021
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Fukuoka Mirai Hospital
City
Higashi-ku,Fukuoka
State/Province
Fukuoka
ZIP/Postal Code
813-0017
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Shinkokura Hospital
City
Kitakyushu
State/Province
Fukuoka
ZIP/Postal Code
803-8505
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Kyushu Rosai Hospital
City
Kokuraminami-ku,Kitakyushu
State/Province
Fukuoka
ZIP/Postal Code
800-0296
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Kurume University Hospital
City
Kurume
State/Province
Fukuoka
ZIP/Postal Code
830-0011
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Shin Komonji Hospital
City
Moji-ku, Kitakyusyu
State/Province
Fukuoka
ZIP/Postal Code
800-0057
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Fujita general Hospital
City
Date-gun
State/Province
Fukushima
ZIP/Postal Code
969-1793
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Shirakawa Hospital
City
Shirakawa
State/Province
Fukushima
ZIP/Postal Code
961-0092
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Toyooka Chuo Hospital
City
Asahikawa
State/Province
Hokkaido
ZIP/Postal Code
078-8237
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Hakodate Central General Hospital
City
Hakodate
State/Province
Hokkaido
ZIP/Postal Code
040-8585
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Hakodate Ohmura Orthopedic Hospital
City
Hakodate
State/Province
Hokkaido
ZIP/Postal Code
041-0802
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Okubo Hospital
City
Akashi
State/Province
Hyogo
ZIP/Postal Code
674-0051
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Omuro Orthopedic Clinic
City
Himeji
State/Province
Hyogo
ZIP/Postal Code
670-0976
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Medical corporate corporation hoshikai Onishi medical clinic
City
Kako-gun
State/Province
Hyogo
ZIP/Postal Code
675-1115
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Kobe Red Cross Hospital
City
Kobe
State/Province
Hyogo
ZIP/Postal Code
651-0073
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Nishinomiya Municipal Central Hospital
City
Nishinomiya
State/Province
Hyogo
ZIP/Postal Code
663-8014
Country
Japan
Facility Name
National Hospital Organization Kanazawa Medical Center
City
Kanazawa
State/Province
Ishikawa
ZIP/Postal Code
920-8650
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Morita Hospital
City
Komatsu
State/Province
Ishikawa
ZIP/Postal Code
923-8507
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Sagamidai Hospital
City
Zama
State/Province
Kanagawa
ZIP/Postal Code
252-0001
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Misugikai Medical Corporation Otokoyama Hospital
City
Yawata
State/Province
Kyoto
ZIP/Postal Code
614-8366
Country
Japan
Facility Name
National Hospital Organization Matsumoto Medical Center
City
Matsumoto
State/Province
Nagano
ZIP/Postal Code
399-8701
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Yodakubo Hospital
City
Nagawa-machi, Chisagata-gun
State/Province
Nagano
ZIP/Postal Code
386-0603
Country
Japan
Facility Name
National Hospital Organization Beppu Medical Center
City
Beppu
State/Province
Oita
ZIP/Postal Code
874-0011
Country
Japan
Facility Name
National Hospital Organization Osaka Minami Medical Center
City
Kawachinagano
State/Province
Osaka
ZIP/Postal Code
586-8521
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Kishiwada Tokushukai Hospital
City
Kishiwada
State/Province
Osaka
ZIP/Postal Code
596-8522
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Osaka Rosai Hospital
City
Sakai
State/Province
Osaka
ZIP/Postal Code
591-8025
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Nagayama Hospital
City
Sennan-gun
State/Province
Osaka
ZIP/Postal Code
590-0406
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Saiseikai Kawaguchi General Hospital
City
Kawaguchi
State/Province
Saitama
ZIP/Postal Code
332-8558
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Hanazono Orthopedics and Internal Medicine
City
Tokorozawa
State/Province
Saitama
ZIP/Postal Code
359-0047
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Japanese Red Cross Hamamatsu Hospital
City
Hamamatsu
State/Province
Shizuoka
ZIP/Postal Code
434-8533
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Iwata City Hospital
City
Iwata
State/Province
Shizuoka
ZIP/Postal Code
438-8550
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Tokyo Saiseikai Central Hospital
City
Minato-ku
State/Province
Tokyo
ZIP/Postal Code
108-0073
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Kitasato University Kitasato Institute Hospital
City
Minato-ku
State/Province
Tokyo
ZIP/Postal Code
108-8642
Country
Japan
Facility Name
National Hospital Organization Murayama Medical Center
City
Musashimurayama
State/Province
Tokyo
ZIP/Postal Code
208-0011
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Gate Town Hospital
City
Nerima-ku
State/Province
Tokyo
ZIP/Postal Code
177-0051
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Juntendo University Nerima Hospital
City
Nerima-ku
State/Province
Tokyo
ZIP/Postal Code
177-8521
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Nishikamata Orthopedic
City
Ota-ku
State/Province
Tokyo
ZIP/Postal Code
146-0094
Country
Japan
Facility Name
AR-Ex Oyamadai Orthopedic
City
Setagaya-ku
State/Province
Tokyo
ZIP/Postal Code
158-0082
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Kohno Clinical Medicine Research Institute Daisan Kitashinagawa Hospital
City
Shinagawa-ku
State/Province
Tokyo
ZIP/Postal Code
140-0001
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Ohimachi Orthopaedic Clinic
City
Shinagawa-ku
State/Province
Tokyo
ZIP/Postal Code
140-0014
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Ogikubo Hospital
City
Suginami-ku
State/Province
Tokyo
ZIP/Postal Code
167-0035
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Medical Corporation Keiyukai Masumoto Orthopedic Clinic
City
Suginami-ku
State/Province
Tokyo
ZIP/Postal Code
167-0051
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Daido Hospital
City
Toshima-ku
State/Province
Tokyo
ZIP/Postal Code
171-0033
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Tonami General Hospital
City
Tonami
State/Province
Toyama
ZIP/Postal Code
939-1395
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Wakayama Medical University Kihoku Hospital
City
Ito-gun
State/Province
Wakayama
ZIP/Postal Code
649-7113
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Shimonoseki City Hospital
City
Shimonoseki-shi
State/Province
Yamaguchi
ZIP/Postal Code
750-8520
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Akita University Hospital
City
Akita
ZIP/Postal Code
010-8543
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Kuroda Orthopedic Hospital
City
Fukuoka
ZIP/Postal Code
814-0165
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Fukushima Medical University Hospital
City
Fukushima
ZIP/Postal Code
960-1295
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Morimoto Clinic
City
Osaka
ZIP/Postal Code
530-0041
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Nagayoshi General Hospital
City
Osaka
ZIP/Postal Code
547-0016
Country
Japan
Facility Name
Saitama Municipal Hospital
City
Saitama
ZIP/Postal Code
336-8522
Country
Japan

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Plan to Share IPD
Yes
IPD Sharing Plan Description
Pfizer will provide access to individual de-identified participant data and related study documents (e.g. protocol, Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP), Clinical Study Report (CSR)) upon request from qualified researchers, and subject to certain criteria, conditions, and exceptions. Further details on Pfizer's data sharing criteria and process for requesting access can be found at: https://www.pfizer.com/science/clinical_trials/trial_data_and_results/data_requests.
IPD Sharing URL
https://www.pfizer.com/science/clinical_trials/trial_data_and_results/data_requests
Citations:
PubMed Identifier
34786956
Citation
Konno SI, Nikaido T, Markman JD, Ohta M, Machida T, Isogawa N, Yoshimatsu H, Viktrup L, Brown MT, West CR, Verburg KM. Tanezumab for chronic low back pain: a long-term, randomized, celecoxib-controlled Japanese Phase III safety study. Pain Manag. 2022 Apr;12(3):323-335. doi: 10.2217/pmt-2021-0040. Epub 2021 Nov 17.
Results Reference
derived
Links:
URL
https://pmiform.com/clinical-trial-info-request?StudyID=A4091063
Description
To obtain contact information for a study center near you, click here.

Learn more about this trial

Long Term Safety and Efficacy Study of Tanezumab in Japanese Adult Subjects With Chronic Low Back Pain

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs