Imaging atlas for eligibility and on-study safety of potential hip adverse events in anti-NGF studies (Part 2)

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

OBJECTIVE

Due to the risk of rapidly progressive osteoarthritis (RPOA), the phase III studies of subcutaneous (SC) tanezumab in patients with moderate to severe hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA) included comprehensive joint safety surveillance. This pooled analysis summarizes these findings.

METHOD

Joint safety events in the phase III studies of SC tanezumab (2 placebo- and 1- nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug [NSAID]-controlled) were adjudicated by a blinded external committee. Outcomes of RPOA1 and RPOA2, primary osteonecrosis, subchondral insufficiency fracture, and pathological fracture comprised the composite joint safety endpoint (CJSE). Potential patient- and joint-level risk factors for CJSE, RPOA, and total joint replacement (TJR) were explored.

RESULTS

Overall, 145/4541 patients (3.2%) had an adjudicated CJSE (0% placebo; 3.2% tanezumab 2.5 mg; 6.2% tanezumab 5 mg; 1.5% NSAID). There was a dose-dependent risk of adjudicated CJSE, RPOA1, and TJR with tanezumab vs NSAID. Patient-level cross-tabulation found associations between adjudicated RPOA with more severe radiographic/symptomatic (joint pain, swelling, and physical limitation) OA. Risk of adjudicated RPOA1 was highest in patients with Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grade 2 or 3 OA at baseline. Risk of adjudicated RPOA2 or TJR was highest in patients with KL grade 4 joints at baseline. A higher proportion of joints with adjudicated RPOA2 had a TJR (14/26) than those with adjudicated RPOA1 (16/106).

CONCLUSION

In placebo- and NSAID controlled studies of SC tanezumab for OA, adjudicated CJSE, RPOA, and TJR most commonly occurred in patients treated with tanezumab and with more severe radiographic or symptomatic OA. NCT02697773; NCT02709486; NCT02528188.

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

INTRODUCTION

Tanezumab is a monoclonal antibody against nerve growth factor that is under investigation for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) pain. We conducted subgroup analyses of two randomized phase 3 studies to summarize efficacy, general safety, and adjudicated joint safety of tanezumab in Japanese patients with moderate-to-severe OA.

METHODS

In Study 1 (NCT02528188), patients received subcutaneous tanezumab 2.5 mg or 5 mg every 8 weeks or daily oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) for 56 weeks. The co-primary efficacy endpoints were change from baseline in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain subscale score and WOMAC Physical Function subscale score at Week 16 (overall study and Japan-specific endpoints) as well as Patient Global Assessment (PGA)-OA score at Week 16 (overall study endpoint only). In Study 2 (NCT02709486), patients received subcutaneous tanezumab 2.5 mg, 5 mg, or placebo every 8 weeks for 24 weeks. Safety monitoring included adjudicated composite joint safety endpoint (CJSE) including rapidly progressive osteoarthritis type 1 (RPOA1), RPOA2, primary osteonecrosis, pathological fracture, or subchondral insufficiency fracture.

RESULTS

For Study 1, Japanese patients (n = 200) treated with tanezumab 2.5 mg and 5 mg showed numerically greater improvements in WOMAC Pain, WOMAC Physical Function, and PGA-OA scores versus NSAID at Week 16. Incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events were generally similar between tanezumab 2.5 mg, 5 mg, and NSAID groups. In the integrated safety analysis (Studies 1 + 2; n = 306), ten patients were adjudicated to have a component of CJSE: RPOA1 [tanezumab 2.5 mg (n = 2), tanezumab 5 mg (n = 5)], RPOA2 [tanezumab 2.5 mg (n = 1), tanezumab 5 mg (n = 1)], or primary osteonecrosis [tanezumab 2.5 mg (n = 1)]. Time-adjusted adjudicated rates of RPOA1 and RPOA2 were higher with tanezumab than NSAID or placebo and increased with dose of tanezumab.

CONCLUSION

Observations from the Japanese subgroup were generally consistent with the overall study populations.

W. Emerging technologies and their impact on regulatory science

There is an evolution and increasing need for the utilization of emerging cellular, molecular and in silico technologies and novel approaches for safety assessment of food, drugs, and personal care products. Convergence of these emerging technologies is also enabling rapid advances and approaches that may impact regulatory decisions and approvals. Although the development of emerging technologies may allow rapid advances in regulatory decision making, there is concern that these new technologies have not been thoroughly evaluated to determine if they are ready for regulatory application, singularly or in combinations. The magnitude of these combined technical advances may outpace the ability to assess fit for purpose and to allow routine application of these new methods for regulatory purposes. There is a need to develop strategies to evaluate the new technologies to determine which ones are ready for regulatory use. The opportunity to apply these potentially faster, more accurate, and cost-effective approaches remains an important goal to facilitate their incorporation into regulatory use. However, without a clear strategy to evaluate emerging technologies rapidly and appropriately, the value of these efforts may go unrecognized or may take longer. It is important for the regulatory science field to keep up with the research in these technically advanced areas and to understand the science behind these new approaches. The regulatory field must understand the critical quality attributes of these novel approaches and learn from each other's experience so that workforces can be trained to prepare for emerging global regulatory challenges. Moreover, it is essential that the regulatory community must work with the technology developers to harness collective capabilities towards developing a strategy for evaluation of these new and novel assessment tools.

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

OBJECTIVE

To assess the long-term safety and 16-week efficacy of subcutaneous tanezumab in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

This was a phase III randomized, double-blind, active treatment-controlled (using nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs [NSAIDs] as the active treatment control) safety trial of tanezumab (56-week treatment/24-week posttreatment follow-up) in adults who were receiving stable-dose NSAID therapy at the time of screening and who had Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain and physical function scores of ≥5; patient global assessment (PtGA) of OA of fair, poor, or very poor; history of inadequate pain relief with standard analgesics; and no history or radiographic evidence of prespecified bone/joint conditions beyond OA. Patients received oral naproxen, celecoxib, or diclofenac twice daily (NSAID group; n = 996) or tanezumab 2.5 mg (n = 1,002) or 5 mg (n = 998) subcutaneously every 8 weeks. Coprimary efficacy end points at week 16 were changes in WOMAC pain and physical function scores and changes in PtGA. The primary joint safety end point over 80 weeks comprised adjudicated rapidly progressive OA type 1 or 2, primary osteonecrosis, subchondral insufficiency fracture, or pathologic fracture. Mean values, least squares mean values, and least squares mean differences between groups (with 95% confidence intervals [95% CIs]) were calculated.

RESULTS

Of 3,021 randomized patients, 2,996 received ≥1 treatment dose. Adverse events (AEs) were similar between patients treated with tanezumab 2.5 mg and those treated with NSAIDs, and were more prevalent in those treated with tanezumab 5 mg. Composite joint safety events were significantly more prevalent with tanezumab 2.5 mg and tanezumab 5 mg than with NSAIDs (observation time-adjusted rate/1,000 patient-years 38.3 [95% CI 28.0, 52.5] and 71.5 [95% CI 56.7, 90.2], respectively, versus 14.8 [95% CI 8.9, 24.6]; P = 0.001 for tanezumab 2.5 mg versus NSAIDs; P < 0.001 for tanezumab 5 mg versus NSAIDs). Tanezumab 5 mg significantly improved pain and physical function but did not improve PtGA at week 16 when compared to NSAIDs; corresponding differences between the tanezumab 2.5 mg and NSAID groups were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

In patients previously receiving a stable dose of NSAIDs, tanezumab administered subcutaneously resulted in more joint safety events than continued NSAIDs, with differences being dose dependent. Pain and physical function improved with both doses of tanezumab compared to NSAIDs, reaching statistical significance with tanezumab 5 mg at 16 weeks.

Intra-articular Corticosteroid Injections for the Treatment of Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis-related Pain: Considerations and Controversies with a Focus on Imaging-Radiology Scientific Expert Panel

Current management of osteoarthritis (OA) is primarily focused on symptom control. Intra-articular corticosteroid (IACS) injections are often used for pain management of hip and knee OA in patients who have not responded to oral or topical analgesics. Recent case series suggested that negative structural outcomes including accelerated OA progression, subchondral insufficiency fracture, complications of pre-existing osteonecrosis, and rapid joint destruction (including bone loss) may be observed in patients who received IACS injections. This expert panel report reviews the current understanding of pain in OA, summarizes current international guidelines regarding indications for IACS injection, and considers preinterventional safety measures, including imaging. Potential profiles of those who would likely benefit from IACS injection and a suggestion for an updated patient consent form are presented. As of today, there is no established recommendation or consensus regarding imaging, clinical, or laboratory markers before an IACS injection to screen for OA-related imaging abnormalities. Repeating radiographs before each subsequent IACS injection remains controversial. The true cause and natural history of these complications are unclear and require further study. To determine the cause and natural history, large prospective studies evaluating the risk of accelerated OA or joint destruction after IACS injections are needed. However, given the relatively rare incidence of these adverse outcomes, any clinical trial would be challenging in design and a large number of patients would need to be included.

Risk factors and the natural history of accelerated knee osteoarthritis: a narrative review

BACKGROUND

Osteoarthritis is generally a slowly progressive disorder. However, at least 1 in 7 people with incident knee osteoarthritis develop an abrupt progression to advanced-stage radiographic disease, many within 12 months. We summarize what is known - primarily based on findings from the Osteoarthritis Initiative - about the risk factors and natural history of accelerated knee osteoarthritis (AKOA) - defined as a transition from no radiographic knee osteoarthritis to advanced-stage disease < 4 years - and put these findings in context with typical osteoarthritis (slowly progressing disease), aging, prior case reports/series, and relevant animal models. Risk factors in the 2 to 4 years before radiographic manifestation of AKOA (onset) include older age, higher body mass index, altered joint alignment, contralateral osteoarthritis, greater pre-radiographic disease burden (structural, symptoms, and function), or low fasting glucose. One to 2 years before AKOA onset people often exhibit rapid articular cartilage loss, larger bone marrow lesions and effusion-synovitis, more meniscal pathology, slower chair-stand or walking pace, and increased global impact of arthritis than adults with typical knee osteoarthritis. Increased joint symptoms predispose a person to new joint trauma, which for someone who develops AKOA is often characterized by a destabilizing meniscal tear (e.g., radial or root tear). One in 7 people with AKOA onset subsequently receive a knee replacement during a 9-year period. The median time from any increase in radiographic severity to knee replacement is only 2.3 years. Despite some similarities, AKOA is different than other rapidly progressive arthropathies and collapsing these phenomena together or extracting results from one type of osteoarthritis to another should be avoided until further research comparing these types of osteoarthritis is conducted. Animal models that induce meniscal damage in the presence of other risk factors or create an incongruent distribution of loading on joints create an accelerated form of osteoarthritis compared to other models and may offer insights into AKOA.

CONCLUSION

Accelerated knee osteoarthritis is unique from typical knee osteoarthritis. The incidence of AKOA in the Osteoarthritis Initiative and Chingford Study is substantial. AKOA needs to be taken into account and studied in epidemiologic studies and clinical trials.

Intra-articular Corticosteroid Injections in the Hip and Knee: Perhaps Not as Safe as We Thought?

Osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip and knee is among the most common joint disorders. Intra-articular corticosteroid (IACS) injections are frequently performed to treat OA and other joint-related pain syndromes; however, there is conflicting evidence on their potential benefit. There is a lack of prospective and large retrospective studies evaluating potential joint findings, including increased risk for accelerated OA progression or adverse joint events, after treatment with IACS injection. Four main adverse joint findings have been structurally observed in patients after IACS injections: accelerated OA progression, subchondral insufficiency fracture, complications of osteonecrosis, and rapid joint destruction, including bone loss. Physicians, including radiologists, should be familiar with imaging findings and patient characteristics that may help them identify potential joints at risk for such events. The purpose of this report is to review the existing literature, describe observed adverse joint events after IACS injections, and provide an outlook on how this may affect clinical practice. Additional research endeavors are urgently needed to better understand and identify risk factors prior to intervention and to detect adverse joint events after injection as early as possible to prevent or minimize complications.

Therapeutic effect of nerve growth factor on canine cerebral infarction evaluated by MRI

To explore therapeutic effect of nerve growth factor (NGF) on cerebral infarction by establishing canine middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO) infarct model. The magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology was used to study effects of NGF on cerebral infarction, and the results of MRI indexes (such as diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and perfusion-weighted imaging (PWI)) were compared with the results of pathology, cell biology and molecular biology. The clinical manifestations of the canine infarction model treated by NGF were significantly improved within 7 days compared with control group. The therapeutic evaluation of NGF effect could be determine by canine cerebral infarction treated by NGF within 6 hours according to DWI and PWI. From 6 hours to 7 days, therapeutic evaluation of NGF could be determine by T1WI, T2WI and FLAIR. DWI and PWI could find the change of cerebral ischemia at the early stage, provide advantages for qualitative diagnosis of early-stage cerebral infarction and observation of efficacy in early treatment, initially showing that their great potential for NGF role on cerebral ischemia and mechanism.

Development of an imaging mitigation strategy for patient enrolment in the tanezumab nerve growth factor inhibitor (NGF-ab) program with a focus on eligibility assessment

OBJECTIVE

Nerve growth factor antibodies (NGF-ab) have shown promising analgesic efficacy. Aim was to describe reader training efforts and present reliability data focusing on radiographic eligibility in the tanezumab program.

METHODS

A multi-step process was used for reader calibration and reliability testing. First, a reference standard set of cases was created and diagnostic performance was evaluated. A second exercise focused on agreement of ordinal assessment (Kellgren-Lawrence grading) of radiographic osteoarthritis. Subsequently, 11 readers were trained and read a test set of 100 cases focused on eligibility assessments. Additional reliability testing and calibration of five core readers assessing eligibility of 30 cases was performed 3 and 6 months after study start.

RESULTS

Sensitivity for the reference standard readings ranged from 0.50 to 0.90 and specificity from 0.40 to 0.83. Overall agreement for Kellgren-Lawrence grading ranged from 71.4% to 82.9%. For the 11 reader exercise, in 76% of cases at least 8 of 11 readers agreed on eligibility status. For the reliability testing 3 months after study start, in 80.0% of cases at least 4 of 5 readers agreed on eligibility with a κ = 0.43 (95% CI: 0.32-0.54). For the reliability testing after 6 months, in 83.3% of cases at least 4 of 5 readers agreed on eligibility with a κ = 0.52 (95% CI: 0.41-0.63).

CONCLUSIONS

After intense efforts spent in the development of an imaging program for an NGF-ab clinical program, the achieved reliability for eligibility assessment is substantial but not perfect. Ongoing efforts of calibration prior to including additional readers to the program and during study conduct between current readers will be needed to ensure agreement on potential adverse events and radiographic disease severity.